Seminal and truly original albums?

[klr]

I would say that Tes Hombres is the seminal ZZ Top album. Eliminator is what resulted from refining and taming their original sound, and putting it through the reducing influence of slick studio production.

I'm not sure I understand the disdain for well-executed studio production.

J and I were just discussing possible roots of the attitude-- a Ruskinian romanticization of the imperfections of human craftsmanship-- which doesn't entirely make sense when what's being discussed is a record made for mass consumption. And then there's the cult of vinyl-- that the hisses and crackles that were constant aggravations to the producers of albums in vinyl's heyday now have the cachet of nostalgia-- nothing can compare to the warm sounds of crackling vinyl.

Not that there's anything wrong with that view. It's a question of taste, I suppose.

"I saw my task... was to capture them in their delapidated glory before some more professional producer fucked them up,"
- Elvis Costello on producing The Pogues' Rum Sodomy & the Lash

On the other hand, there are plenty of great albums that would be nothing to write home about if it were not for polished production.

I guess you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

[hadespussercats]

I would say that Tes Hombres is the seminal ZZ Top album. Eliminator is what resulted from refining and taming their original sound, and putting it through the reducing influence of slick studio production.

I'm not sure I understand the disdain for well-executed studio production.

J and I were just discussing possible roots of the attitude-- a Ruskinian romanticization of the imperfections of human craftsmanship-- which doesn't entirely make sense when what's being discussed is a record made for mass consumption. And then there's the cult of vinyl-- that the hisses and crackles that were constant aggravations to the producers of albums in vinyl's heyday now have the cachet of nostalgia-- nothing can compare to the warm sounds of crackling vinyl.

Not that there's anything wrong with that view. It's a question of taste, I suppose.

"I saw my task... was to capture them in their delapidated glory before some more professional producer fucked them up,"
- Elvis Costello on producing The Pogues' Rum Sodomy & the Lash

On the other hand, there are plenty of great albums that would be nothing to write home about if it were not for polished production.

I guess you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

There are some "artists" who would not have a career if modern studio techniques weren't around to make them sound like they were musicians. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm thinking of the work Brian Eno has done, especially with U2 back in the day, to really help create their signature sound. Or the sort of work artists like Bjork or Ani DiFranco have done, to make production an intimate part of the musical experience (Ani is an unusual but important example, since she's in a genre that's generally about idealizing under-produced music, and because she's been a crusader for independent music production since ever.)

And then there's electronic/ambient music, that's frequently been incredibly innovative and is all about sophisticated production.

[tattuchu]

I would say that Tes Hombres is the seminal ZZ Top album. Eliminator is what resulted from refining and taming their original sound, and putting it through the reducing influence of slick studio production.

I'm not sure I understand the disdain for well-executed studio production.

J and I were just discussing possible roots of the attitude-- a Ruskinian romanticization of the imperfections of human craftsmanship-- which doesn't entirely make sense when what's being discussed is a record made for mass consumption. And then there's the cult of vinyl-- that the hisses and crackles that were constant aggravations to the producers of albums in vinyl's heyday now have the cachet of nostalgia-- nothing can compare to the warm sounds of crackling vinyl.

Not that there's anything wrong with that view. It's a question of taste, I suppose.

Hmm I've always disliked the Rolling Stone magazine sort of view that Rock & Rock must be raucous and raw. If a band sounds like they're playing out of their garage, loud sloppy and...loud, Rolling Stone loves them. Whereas I tend to think that the more refined they are, the better the quality of their playing and singing, the more I like them. Which is why I love progressive rock so much. It took rock up to the next level. That being said, there's such a thing as being too slick, and slick in the sense that the original charm of the band is hidden under an overly polished veneer. And then there's slick for the sake of slick, in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator, or for mass consumption as you say. I'm reminded of Van Halen's song "Jump" for instance. Van Halen was a band I never cared for but could tolerate for the most part. That particular song however annoys me so much that I change the radio station if ever it should come on. I despise it. Too slick, too polished, and absolutely soulless. And yet inexplicably it's their biggest hit.
Anyway, you've given me something to think about, the bit about the imperfections being an important part of the appeal. When I look at a drawing or painting, for instance, it's it's too perfect, too flawless, I find it kind of boring. Or it may be technically impressive but leaves me a bit cold, or I don't know how to respond to it. If I see some slight imperfections, though, some rough edges, I can get a lot more excited about it. It seems more human, almost attainable perhaps, it maybe gives me a crevasse to enter and work my way into it.
Then there's the balance when creating any type of art between craft and refinement, and energy and spontaneity.

[Audley Strange]

You make a great point Hades and one which we can point towards clear evidence that in many ways production can be as much an art as the music. I'd suggest something that falls into this category is Frankie goes To Hollywood's "Welcome to the Pleasure Dome." Certainly McLaren claimed he did the same thing with the Sex Pistols, but in the case of FGTH it was the whole package around an average group that made them famous. Of course without Trevor Horn's astonishing production on their mediocre songs there would have been no phenomenon.

Superstar producers can make or break an album. John Leckie does the Psychedelic thing, Eno and Lillywhite do that corporate art rock thing excellently, then there's people like Rick Rubin and Dre. Bands know this, but those guys cost a lot of money and tools to do it yourself don't.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The thing about production is that, like direction in films, and make-up on women, when it is done well, you should never really notice it! Production can add hugely to a track or album but you should still hear the music and not the production. If you are consciously aware of the production, it intrudes on the music. Let's face it, it is the tune that you hum, not the orchestral stabs or ambient drum sound!

Where production fails the most is when it is simply reproduction - ie. it is just copying the production values of the latest big hit smash without having any clue as to why that record was produced in that way!

FGTH was produced fantastically well and still sounds great now because Trevor Horn used his skills to bring out the very best from the song. By contrast, most hits from the same era sound incredibly dated these days because they simply used formulaic settings on the mixing desks and DX7 synths to copy what everyone else was doing.

[hadespussercats]

The thing about production is that, like direction in films, and make-up on women, when it is done well, you should never really notice it! Production can add hugely to a track or album but you should still hear the music and not the production. If you are consciously aware of the production, it intrudes on the music. Let's face it, it is the tune that you hum, not the orchestral stabs or ambient drum sound!

Where production fails the most is when it is simply reproduction - ie. it is just copying the production values of the latest big hit smash without having any clue as to why that record was produced in that way!

FGTH was produced fantastically well and still sounds great now because Trevor Horn used his skills to bring out the very best from the song. By contrast, most hits from the same era sound incredibly dated these days because they simply used formulaic settings on the mixing desks and DX7 synths to copy what everyone else was doing.

How does this change when you're considering music from Aphex Twin? Or even Radiohead?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The thing about production is that, like direction in films, and make-up on women, when it is done well, you should never really notice it! Production can add hugely to a track or album but you should still hear the music and not the production. If you are consciously aware of the production, it intrudes on the music. Let's face it, it is the tune that you hum, not the orchestral stabs or ambient drum sound!

Where production fails the most is when it is simply reproduction - ie. it is just copying the production values of the latest big hit smash without having any clue as to why that record was produced in that way!

FGTH was produced fantastically well and still sounds great now because Trevor Horn used his skills to bring out the very best from the song. By contrast, most hits from the same era sound incredibly dated these days because they simply used formulaic settings on the mixing desks and DX7 synths to copy what everyone else was doing.

How does this change when you're considering music from Aphex Twin? Or even Radiohead?

Err... it doesn't! Both acts have been pretty meticulous in matching their production to their music - concentrating equally on both (apart from the first Radiohead album, obviously!)

[Audley Strange]

The thing about production is that, like direction in films, and make-up on women, when it is done well, you should never really notice it! Production can add hugely to a track or album but you should still hear the music and not the production. If you are consciously aware of the production, it intrudes on the music. Let's face it, it is the tune that you hum, not the orchestral stabs or ambient drum sound!

True, but upon noticing it one should recognise just how impressive a feat it is that such people can often pull it off often without you be consciously aware of why it sounds amazing. From time to time I still listen to albums I've had for years and suddenly appreciate the tone changes in the mix. Babies can make up hummable tunes but only producers can turn "yeah that's not bad into "THAT'S AWESOME." Don't believe me? The Beatles would have remained a boy-band without George Martin, mostly anything interesting about them was essentially his idea or invention.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The thing about production is that, like direction in films, and make-up on women, when it is done well, you should never really notice it! Production can add hugely to a track or album but you should still hear the music and not the production. If you are consciously aware of the production, it intrudes on the music. Let's face it, it is the tune that you hum, not the orchestral stabs or ambient drum sound!

True, but upon noticing it one should recognise just how impressive a feat it is that such people can often pull it off often without you be consciously aware of why it sounds amazing. From time to time I still listen to albums I've had for years and suddenly appreciate the tone changes in the mix. Babies can make up hummable tunes but only producers can turn "yeah that's not bad into "THAT'S AWESOME." Don't believe me? The Beatles would have remained a boy-band without George Martin, mostly anything interesting about them was essentially his idea or invention.

...which is pretty much what i went on to say. Production is essential - it just shouldn't be what you immediately notice - unless you are looking for it.

[hadespussercats]

The thing about production is that, like direction in films, and make-up on women, when it is done well, you should never really notice it! Production can add hugely to a track or album but you should still hear the music and not the production. If you are consciously aware of the production, it intrudes on the music. Let's face it, it is the tune that you hum, not the orchestral stabs or ambient drum sound!

True, but upon noticing it one should recognise just how impressive a feat it is that such people can often pull it off often without you be consciously aware of why it sounds amazing. From time to time I still listen to albums I've had for years and suddenly appreciate the tone changes in the mix. Babies can make up hummable tunes but only producers can turn "yeah that's not bad into "THAT'S AWESOME." Don't believe me? The Beatles would have remained a boy-band without George Martin, mostly anything interesting about them was essentially his idea or invention.

...which is pretty much what i went on to say. Production is essential - it just shouldn't be what you immediately notice - unless you are looking for it.

My point a while back was that with Aphex Twin and the like, the production is the music. You can't help but notice it.

To use your makeup analogy, some music is like a stunning young Geisha in full regalia.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The thing about production is that, like direction in films, and make-up on women, when it is done well, you should never really notice it! Production can add hugely to a track or album but you should still hear the music and not the production. If you are consciously aware of the production, it intrudes on the music. Let's face it, it is the tune that you hum, not the orchestral stabs or ambient drum sound!

True, but upon noticing it one should recognise just how impressive a feat it is that such people can often pull it off often without you be consciously aware of why it sounds amazing. From time to time I still listen to albums I've had for years and suddenly appreciate the tone changes in the mix. Babies can make up hummable tunes but only producers can turn "yeah that's not bad into "THAT'S AWESOME." Don't believe me? The Beatles would have remained a boy-band without George Martin, mostly anything interesting about them was essentially his idea or invention.

...which is pretty much what i went on to say. Production is essential - it just shouldn't be what you immediately notice - unless you are looking for it.

My point a while back was that with Aphex Twin and the like, the production is the music. You can't help but notice it.

I would separate the two slightly - in much the same way that I would separate composition and arrangement in classical music - but, yes, I accept your point in those cases.

To use your makeup analogy, some music is like a stunning young Geisha in full regalia.

Actually, some women revel in make-up - our own, sweet Eva being a case in point. And, again, I take your point but... even with your geisha, the woman underneath needs to be worth looking at for all that makeup to be worth the effort. Would you look twice at Anne Widdecombe however she was made up - actually, most probably would look twice at Widders in full geisha slap - but only in the "did I really just see that?" way!

[hadespussercats]

The thing about production is that, like direction in films, and make-up on women, when it is done well, you should never really notice it! Production can add hugely to a track or album but you should still hear the music and not the production. If you are consciously aware of the production, it intrudes on the music. Let's face it, it is the tune that you hum, not the orchestral stabs or ambient drum sound!

True, but upon noticing it one should recognise just how impressive a feat it is that such people can often pull it off often without you be consciously aware of why it sounds amazing. From time to time I still listen to albums I've had for years and suddenly appreciate the tone changes in the mix. Babies can make up hummable tunes but only producers can turn "yeah that's not bad into "THAT'S AWESOME." Don't believe me? The Beatles would have remained a boy-band without George Martin, mostly anything interesting about them was essentially his idea or invention.

...which is pretty much what i went on to say. Production is essential - it just shouldn't be what you immediately notice - unless you are looking for it.

My point a while back was that with Aphex Twin and the like, the production is the music. You can't help but notice it.

I would separate the two slightly - in much the same way that I would separate composition and arrangement in classical music - but, yes, I accept your point in those cases.

To use your makeup analogy, some music is like a stunning young Geisha in full regalia.

Actually, some women revel in make-up - our own, sweet Eva being a case in point. And, again, I take your point but... even with your geisha, the woman underneath needs to be worth looking at for all that makeup to be worth the effort. Would you look twice at Anne Widdecombe however she was made up - actually, most probably would look twice at Widders in full geisha slap - but only in the "did I really just see that?" way!

Yeah, I see what you're saying there. I still think sometimes more is more.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would say that Tes Hombres is the seminal ZZ Top album. Eliminator is what resulted from refining and taming their original sound, and putting it through the reducing influence of slick studio production.

I'm not sure I understand the disdain for well-executed studio production.

When I have disdain for it, it's that a band's real sound has been, in some way, watered down and made worse.

However, there are many times when it improves things. Metallica's black album is an example. They lost nothing of their raw power and uniqueness, but with the added studio production values, they were made even better.

J and I were just discussing possible roots of the attitude-- a Ruskinian romanticization of the imperfections of human craftsmanship-- which doesn't entirely make sense when what's being discussed is a record made for mass consumption. And then there's the cult of vinyl-- that the hisses and crackles that were constant aggravations to the producers of albums in vinyl's heyday now have the cachet of nostalgia-- nothing can compare to the warm sounds of crackling vinyl.

Not that there's anything wrong with that view. It's a question of taste, I suppose.

I don't think it's the crackling of vinyl that is said to be the better sound. It's the analog quality of the recording. Original sound is analog, and digital captures frames of that sound in certain intervals, so by definition it is not capturing the full sound. If music changes too quickly for the sample rate, it's possible for the digital to skew the music. Of course, as you noted, vinyl will collect dust and any imperfections can be heard there too, and records degrade.

I think the imperfection of human craftmanship may be what some people gravitate towards. However, there is also something to be said for the human vs. the mechanical dichotomy. Digital being the latter, and sloppy Jimmy Page "playing with feeling" type stuff is on the former. Something like that.

[apophenia]

Not sure about the vinyl question. At the time, I had a professional turntable with a $200 cartridge and one of the best consumer amps of the time. I recall that sound as having a lot more presence than CDs do now, but that could either be nostalgia, distortion of memory, or mistaking an unnaturally distorted sound for a high quality one. In a similar vein as the production question, why do we idolize a flat frequency response? It's well known that emphasizing certain aspects of the spectrum creates a more appealing sound to naive/ignorant listeners, and a slight increase in volume improves the subjective experience versus a slightly lower volume level. And when it comes to car acoustics — admittedly a hellishly bad environment — a flat spectrum will sound terrible. And I know many people who would chop off their own finger before using a loudness switch. Yes, flat spectrums are desirable, but not worthy of worship and animal sacrifice. (I note in headphones that there is a trend for popular headphones with grossly distorted spectrums, usually on the low end — yet for that market, that sound is desirable.)

I don't offhand have an answer about the production question. I'll have to think about it. Do note, however, that I included Boston's debut among seminal albums and that album has a reputation for being one of the most over-produced in history. There are apocryphal stories about Boston having trouble performing those songs live because they couldn't emulate the sound of the studio recording (I recently had a similar experience looking for a live youtube video of a song and only finding performances that sounded nothing like the original studio recording. I've also experienced bands who sound great live, but terrible in the studio, and vice versa.) I see two potential leads. First, an analogy between over-producing and over-thinking; not that good production itself is bad, but that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. The second is that — admittedly naive and simplistically — slick production is a taking away of things, whereas artistry is putting them in (producers such as Jimmy Iovine can be an example where production itself is artistic creation). I guess I have three, as there are some bands whose sound is better unfiltered and raw than tamed and bottled, ZZ Top being prime examples. Who would give a hoot about the Sex Pistols if their records sounded like Henri Mancini?

[hadespussercats]

Not sure about the vinyl question. At the time, I had a professional turntable with a $200 cartridge and one of the best consumer amps of the time. I recall that sound as having a lot more presence than CDs do now, but that could either be nostalgia, distortion of memory, or mistaking an unnaturally distorted sound for a high quality one. In a similar vein as the production question, why do we idolize a flat frequency response? It's well known that emphasizing certain aspects of the spectrum creates a more appealing sound to naive/ignorant listeners, and a slight increase in volume improves the subjective experience versus a slightly lower volume level. And when it comes to car acoustics — admittedly a hellishly bad environment — a flat spectrum will sound terrible. And I know many people who would chop off their own finger before using a loudness switch. Yes, flat spectrums are desirable, but not worthy of worship and animal sacrifice. (I note in headphones that there is a trend for popular headphones with grossly distorted spectrums, usually on the low end — yet for that market, that sound is desirable.)

I don't offhand have an answer about the production question. I'll have to think about it. Do note, however, that I included Boston's debut among seminal albums and that album has a reputation for being one of the most over-produced in history. There are apocryphal stories about Boston having trouble performing those songs live because they couldn't emulate the sound of the studio recording (I recently had a similar experience looking for a live youtube video of a song and only finding performances that sounded nothing like the original studio recording. I've also experienced bands who sound great live, but terrible in the studio, and vice versa.) I see two potential leads. First, an analogy between over-producing and over-thinking; not that good production itself is bad, but that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. The second is that — admittedly naive and simplistically — slick production is a taking away of things, whereas artistry is putting them in (producers such as Jimmy Iovine can be an example where production itself is artistic creation). I guess I have three, as there are some bands whose sound is better unfiltered and raw than tamed and bottled, ZZ Top being prime examples. Who would give a hoot about the Sex Pistols if their records sounded like Henri Mancini?

Hey, I like Henry Mancini! But I see your point.

If producing ends up being about lopping off all the ungainly but interesting bits in favor of an impersonal smoothness, then it's a problem.

I used to listen to that Boston album all the time with my girlfriends in high school, on drives to the beach.