I'm not an album guy, but before you put up your dukes, let me tell you why. Of course, if I like more than a few songs by a specific artist, I try to listen to their entire discography, but what I usually find is that the singles are often the best or only decent songs. It's not an exaggeration for me to say that most albums, and I listen to almost every genre, have a lot of "filler". Most times, there are 1 or 2 non-singles that are even better than the singles, so of course, I won't stop listening to albums to make sure I'm not missing anything good. But after I've listened to an album once, I only listen to the songs I like from that album afterward. To me, it's a total waste of time listening to long, boring songs you hate, waiting for the ones you like.
I know some people feel this compulsion to listen to only full albums, because if they don't they somehow feel like a mainstream listener or something. But in the end, there are very few artists that consistently put out only great material. Yes, some artists create their albums with a grand vision, whether it be a concept, or just a "perfect ordering", but that goes by the wayside with a "song" person like me.
There are albums people, artist people, and song people. In my opinion, the ones who truly appreciate music, appreciate specific pieces of music. People who are devoted to certain bands; they're groupies, they appreciate personalities/characters. People who love albums usually appreciate the concept and the flow of the album and see it as "one work" instead of a group of many works. But in the end, songs are created separately before they're grouped together. They're almost always separate musical inspirations. So, that's my two cents on that.
You asked us about albums we thought were produced/recorded/mixed well. This is a really complicated question that I could write a book on probably. In the end though, I don't really think recording quality matters to most people. If it did, people would hate the Beatles and classic rock now. Composition is the most important thing to me, followed by the actual performance of the music. Next would be the timbres and the soundscape of the song, because that should be really evocative. Quality is probably next, and underneath the umbrella of quality I'd order it: arrangement, mix, and effects. For me, lyrics come last, because most lyrics are terrible. If I want poetry, I'd read a poem from someone who can actually write, and isn't just rhyming genericisms and clichees.
Obviously, if you're talking about recording quality only, and not about composition, the worst of the worst will be true "indie" music, not what's called indie today. The unprofessional, garageband-like, lo-fi sound is often what these artists are after anyway. For some, the quality does take away from the song, while for others it adds a warmth and a realness. Obviously a lot of distortion, spectral artifacts, and other unintended mistakes should always be avoided.
What a lot of lovers of great music can never seem to admit to themselves is how well recorded pop music usually is. It's made to meet a standard of perfection. In simplest terms, it's calculated take up a certain "space" for the listener; to be a certain loudness and to highlight certain frequencies. The people who mix and master these tracks are often industry professionals and audio geniuses. Now, when I speak about "pop" I don't mean what's called pop today, I mean all popular music, including studio rock, dance, R'n'B, etc.
Today's pop is actually an EXCEPTION to what I've been saying. This is because, since the mid-2000's, the trend has been toward hiring famous urban producers like Will.I.Am and Timbaland, who are not nearly as talented as the ones nobody knows the names of who worked in the nineties and early 2000's and who can't seem to find much work today. Most of today's pop, like it was in the late eighties and early 1990's, is terribly produced and TERRIBLY composed. Pop, as a specific genre, had its heyday in the mid-late nineties. Think of what Max Martin, Guy Sigsworth, William Orbit, etc. were producing then. Even better than that was the "adult alternative" music from that period. It was expertly produced and composed. Anything by Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Jewel, Shania Twain, Alanis Morissette, Amanda Marshall, Sheryl Crow, etc. from then was often really well mixed and composed.
To give you one example of an expertly composed, produced, and pain-stakingly recorded and mixed album, I'd suggest Ellipse by Imogen Heap. The attention to detail here allows for new discoveries in each song at every listen. Nothing important is ever drowned out, and everthing meant to be focused on is in the forefront. For really cleanly produced rock, think Goo Goo Dolls or Our Lady Peace. For expertly recorded and produced electronic/ambient/IDM music, think Boards of Canada. You'll never find more evocative songs.
Quality album recordings.
← View full post
TOME ALERT :/
I'm not an album guy, but before you put up your dukes, let me tell you why. Of course, if I like more than a few songs by a specific artist, I try to listen to their entire discography, but what I usually find is that the singles are often the best or only decent songs. It's not an exaggeration for me to say that most albums, and I listen to almost every genre, have a lot of "filler". Most times, there are 1 or 2 non-singles that are even better than the singles, so of course, I won't stop listening to albums to make sure I'm not missing anything good. But after I've listened to an album once, I only listen to the songs I like from that album afterward. To me, it's a total waste of time listening to long, boring songs you hate, waiting for the ones you like.
I know some people feel this compulsion to listen to only full albums, because if they don't they somehow feel like a mainstream listener or something. But in the end, there are very few artists that consistently put out only great material. Yes, some artists create their albums with a grand vision, whether it be a concept, or just a "perfect ordering", but that goes by the wayside with a "song" person like me.
There are albums people, artist people, and song people. In my opinion, the ones who truly appreciate music, appreciate specific pieces of music. People who are devoted to certain bands; they're groupies, they appreciate personalities/characters. People who love albums usually appreciate the concept and the flow of the album and see it as "one work" instead of a group of many works. But in the end, songs are created separately before they're grouped together. They're almost always separate musical inspirations. So, that's my two cents on that.
You asked us about albums we thought were produced/recorded/mixed well. This is a really complicated question that I could write a book on probably. In the end though, I don't really think recording quality matters to most people. If it did, people would hate the Beatles and classic rock now. Composition is the most important thing to me, followed by the actual performance of the music. Next would be the timbres and the soundscape of the song, because that should be really evocative. Quality is probably next, and underneath the umbrella of quality I'd order it: arrangement, mix, and effects. For me, lyrics come last, because most lyrics are terrible. If I want poetry, I'd read a poem from someone who can actually write, and isn't just rhyming genericisms and clichees.
Obviously, if you're talking about recording quality only, and not about composition, the worst of the worst will be true "indie" music, not what's called indie today. The unprofessional, garageband-like, lo-fi sound is often what these artists are after anyway. For some, the quality does take away from the song, while for others it adds a warmth and a realness. Obviously a lot of distortion, spectral artifacts, and other unintended mistakes should always be avoided.
What a lot of lovers of great music can never seem to admit to themselves is how well recorded pop music usually is. It's made to meet a standard of perfection. In simplest terms, it's calculated take up a certain "space" for the listener; to be a certain loudness and to highlight certain frequencies. The people who mix and master these tracks are often industry professionals and audio geniuses. Now, when I speak about "pop" I don't mean what's called pop today, I mean all popular music, including studio rock, dance, R'n'B, etc.
Today's pop is actually an EXCEPTION to what I've been saying. This is because, since the mid-2000's, the trend has been toward hiring famous urban producers like Will.I.Am and Timbaland, who are not nearly as talented as the ones nobody knows the names of who worked in the nineties and early 2000's and who can't seem to find much work today. Most of today's pop, like it was in the late eighties and early 1990's, is terribly produced and TERRIBLY composed. Pop, as a specific genre, had its heyday in the mid-late nineties. Think of what Max Martin, Guy Sigsworth, William Orbit, etc. were producing then. Even better than that was the "adult alternative" music from that period. It was expertly produced and composed. Anything by Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Jewel, Shania Twain, Alanis Morissette, Amanda Marshall, Sheryl Crow, etc. from then was often really well mixed and composed.
To give you one example of an expertly composed, produced, and pain-stakingly recorded and mixed album, I'd suggest Ellipse by Imogen Heap. The attention to detail here allows for new discoveries in each song at every listen. Nothing important is ever drowned out, and everthing meant to be focused on is in the forefront. For really cleanly produced rock, think Goo Goo Dolls or Our Lady Peace. For expertly recorded and produced electronic/ambient/IDM music, think Boards of Canada. You'll never find more evocative songs.