[atlantaprog] Re: atlantaprog Digest V1 #77

I have had to become a digest lurker due to inbox congestion....

I have the following questions:
- Can we confirm the date on that Paine's Promise show?!?!?
- What is the reffered-to "PE" and how can I go read about the new Lord Only 
disc?

And the following comments:
- To John T.: Feel free to disagree with me at any time about production 
style, my good man.  As you mention, it's all so very subjective....  While 
I just can't believe anyone could dislike the sheer bombast and largeness of 
the Led Zep sound, to each their own :?)

- Let me just admit openly that I love Rush.  But the overall quality level 
of production and writing, IMHO, declined rapidly starting after Signals.  I 
have bought and subsequently sold or given away every release of theirs 
after Grace Under Pressure.  No wait -- I think I held onto Power Windows.  
Can't dis on "Big Money"....








>From: FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: atlantaprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: atlantaprog digest users <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: atlantaprog Digest V1 #77
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:05:07 -0500 (EST)
>
>atlantaprog Digest     Mon, 18 Aug 2003        Volume: 01  Issue: 077
>
>In This Issue:
>               [atlantaprog] Re: Hey Lord Onlyans....
>               [atlantaprog] Re: Hey Lord Onlyans....
>               [atlantaprog] different standards
>               [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>               [atlantaprog] Paine's Promise @ the Masquerade
>               [atlantaprog] Re: Paine's Promise @ the Masquerade
>               [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>               [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>               [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>               [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>               [atlantaprog] Re: shallow analysis
>               [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: "john" <7strbass@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Hey Lord Onlyans....
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:38:03 -0400
>
>cool.  thank you.  i hope :-)
>___________________
>john turner
>
>http://lordonly.net
>
>"What is a poet? An unhappy person who
>conceals profound anguish in his heart but
>whose lips are so formed that as sighs and
>cries pass over them they sound like
>beautiful music." - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <UncleEggsy@xxxxxxx>
>To: <atlantaprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 10:53 PM
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Hey Lord Onlyans....
>
>
> > I posted a review of your record on PE.
> > CH
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "john" <7strbass@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Hey Lord Onlyans....
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:40:56 -0400
>
>just read the review - thank you very much, chris :-)
>glad you dug it and found something good to say about
>it, thanks :-)
>___________________
>john turner
>
>http://lordonly.net
>
>"What is a poet? An unhappy person who
>conceals profound anguish in his heart but
>whose lips are so formed that as sighs and
>cries pass over them they sound like
>beautiful music." - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <UncleEggsy@xxxxxxx>
>To: <atlantaprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 10:53 PM
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Hey Lord Onlyans....
>
>
> > I posted a review of your record on PE.
> > CH
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:58:46
>From: Veronica Hughes <upkat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] different standards
>
>Isn't it all (Rush's Vaport Trails, etc.) subject to the listener's
>discretion? Why should Vapor Trails "suck" or be "unlistenable" when it's
>the exact opposite for many if not all the people who bought it and liked
>it?  We've been discussing how different eras of recording used different
>equipment and all have different standards of what is "commercially"
>acceptable.  Talking about level peaks, it's interesting that listening
>fatigue happens differently for different people.  Males hear low end much
>more efficiently than females, while females hear high end much more
>efficiently.  This is a biological factoid I've read at least a couple of
>times.  High frequencies will hurt my ears way before they hurt Daniel's,
>and he hears cars with subwoofers way over in the next neighborhood while I
>hear nothing.  Take those variables, and then add in the natural variables
>between different people's physical ears/brains, and you have standards for
>sound that is highly subjective to individual interpretation.  The 80s era
>Rush albums were mostly way too shrill for me to enjoy for long, especially
>through headphones.  Plus, the song ideas were not near as good, I thought.
>  The warmer recordings I like much, much better, which is why I prefer
>Vapor Trails over Hold Your Fire or some such.  Plus the songs are superior
>too. I can listen to something, for a while, that doesn't "sound good" to
>me if the songs ideas are strong, but I will get fatigued by it.  I can
>listen to something that isn't "written well" for a while if it sounds
>good, because I just like to hear certain sounds, but I'll get fatigued by
>that too.  So, IMHO, there are very few "perfect" recordings. :-)
>
>At 02:16 PM 08/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >From: "Jeff Blanks" <jblanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Brian King pointed out:
> >>
> >>
> >>http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E
> >005D
> >> >AF1C
> >>
> >> I've seen it, thanks, and really, I know what he's talking about.  But 
>I
> >> can't help but think this is another instance of confusing technical 
>flaws
> >> with esthetics.  Maybe some people just don't like the production--I 
>don't
> >> know.
> >
> >Perhaps.  It would only be an esthetic decision if the band and/or 
>engineers
> >_intended_ to squash the dynamics down to almost nothing and introduce 
> >100
> >sheared-off transients into the mix, but maybe they did.  It was only a 
>few
> >decades ago that distorted guitar was considered desirable, after all.  
>When
> >we were having our cd mastered the engineer (Jay Frigoletto, ex-Atlantan 
>now
> >in LA, who I'd HIGHLY recommend to anyone) made different versions for us 
>to
> >consider, one through old analog equipment (Tektronics, Drawmer, Urei, 
>etc),
> >and a couple of Sonic Solutions versions with different degrees of peak
> >limiting.  The more extreme one was very fatiguing-- louder but with less
> >punch-- and even it was nowhere close to what they did with Vapor Trails.
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: UncleEggsy@xxxxxxx
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:38:31 EDT
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>
>In a message dated 8/18/2003 7:32:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>upkat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > Isn't it all (Rush's Vaport Trails, etc.) subject to the listener's
> > discretion? Why should Vapor Trails "suck" or be "unlistenable" when 
>it's
> > the exact opposite for many if not all the people who bought it and 
>liked
> > it?
>
>I like the album very much and think it's Rush's best set of songs in a 
>long
>time.  Musically, I think it's just ducky.  However, the maximization 
>applied
>to the album during mastering makes it extremely fatiguing to the ears.  I
>have to hear it in bits, rather than from start to finish.  There are very
>obvious digital crackling noises on the album that do not belong there.  I 
>honestly
>think the ball was dropped somewhere.
>
>CH
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:18:12
>From: Veronica Hughes <upkat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Paine's Promise @ the Masquerade
>
>Hey all,
>
>Paine's Promise has a show coming up at the Masquerade, Thursday, August 18
>at 11 p.m.  We'll be selling tickets, at the fabulously discounted price of
>only $5.00! It's upstairs, all ages, let us know if ya'd like to go.
>Thanks! - V.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: UncleEggsy@xxxxxxx
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:01:58 EDT
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Paine's Promise @ the Masquerade
>
>In a message dated 8/18/2003 8:57:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>upkat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > Paine's Promise has a show coming up at the Masquerade, Thursday, August 
>18
> > at 11 p.m.  We'll be selling tickets, at the fabulously discounted price 
>of
> > only $5.00! It's upstairs, all ages, let us know if ya'd like to go.
> >
>
>Confusion....Today is August 18th and it's Monday...
>
>Do you mean this coming Thursday?
>
>CH
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "john" <7strbass@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:20:53 -0400
>
>well, there's two elements at work here, imo.  one is pretty
>objective -  digital distorition sounds like crap.  there's no denying
>it.  if it's not obvious with a cursory listen - which it probably should
>be on all but the most low-end stereos- a cursory examination of the
>waveforms on the cd reveals that this cd is _loaded_ with digital
>overs.  these aren't being used as an element of artistic expression,
>they are just plain mistakes in the recording process, or the mixing
>process, or the mastering process, or any combination of the three -
>probably every step of the way, imo.
>
>then there's the subjective element - the song quality, the performances,
>etc.  i agree that vapor trails is an awesome effort on this point, but the
>objective examination of the recording quality and the evidence of my
>own ears leaves me not able to really enjoy the recording on anything but
>a car system, and even there i cringe sometimes when i'm listening to it.
>
>it's a shame, ultimately, that a band that utilized dynamics to such great
>effect throughout its career would settle, or allow, for such a terrible
>representation of their art to become available.  i can't help but blame
>the band itself for it - they are at a stage in their career when they 
>should
>not be trying to "outgun" the young guns, but rather render their art with
>the same integrity and sincerity that has been their hallmark since the
>beginning of their career.   there's no reason to make this cd this loud
>except for some misplaced attempt to compete with what's currently
>popular and trendy.  i'm disappointed in them as a band for probably
>the first time since i started liking them, when permanent waves came
>out.
>
>
>___________________
>john turner
>
>http://lordonly.net
>
>"What is a poet? An unhappy person who
>conceals profound anguish in his heart but
>whose lips are so formed that as sighs and
>cries pass over them they sound like
>beautiful music." - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Veronica Hughes" <upkat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <atlantaprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:58 AM
>Subject: [atlantaprog] different standards
>
>
> > Isn't it all (Rush's Vaport Trails, etc.) subject to the listener's
> > discretion? Why should Vapor Trails "suck" or be "unlistenable" when 
>it's
> > the exact opposite for many if not all the people who bought it and 
>liked
> > it?  We've been discussing how different eras of recording used 
>different
> > equipment and all have different standards of what is "commercially"
> > acceptable.  Talking about level peaks, it's interesting that listening
> > fatigue happens differently for different people.  Males hear low end 
>much
> > more efficiently than females, while females hear high end much more
> > efficiently.  This is a biological factoid I've read at least a couple 
>of
> > times.  High frequencies will hurt my ears way before they hurt 
>Daniel's,
> > and he hears cars with subwoofers way over in the next neighborhood 
>while I
> > hear nothing.  Take those variables, and then add in the natural 
>variables
> > between different people's physical ears/brains, and you have standards 
>for
> > sound that is highly subjective to individual interpretation.  The 80s 
>era
> > Rush albums were mostly way too shrill for me to enjoy for long, 
>especially
> > through headphones.  Plus, the song ideas were not near as good, I 
>thought.
> >  The warmer recordings I like much, much better, which is why I prefer
> > Vapor Trails over Hold Your Fire or some such.  Plus the songs are 
>superior
> > too. I can listen to something, for a while, that doesn't "sound good" 
>to
> > me if the songs ideas are strong, but I will get fatigued by it.  I can
> > listen to something that isn't "written well" for a while if it sounds
> > good, because I just like to hear certain sounds, but I'll get fatigued 
>by
> > that too.  So, IMHO, there are very few "perfect" recordings. :-)
> >
> > At 02:16 PM 08/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > >From: "Jeff Blanks" <jblanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Brian King pointed out:
> > >>
> > >>
> > 
> >>http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E
> > >005D
> > >> >AF1C
> > >>
> > >> I've seen it, thanks, and really, I know what he's talking about.  
>But I
> > >> can't help but think this is another instance of confusing technical 
>flaws
> > >> with esthetics.  Maybe some people just don't like the production--I 
>don't
> > >> know.
> > >
> > >Perhaps.  It would only be an esthetic decision if the band and/or 
>engineers
> > >_intended_ to squash the dynamics down to almost nothing and introduce 
> >100
> > >sheared-off transients into the mix, but maybe they did.  It was only a 
>few
> > >decades ago that distorted guitar was considered desirable, after all.  
>When
> > >we were having our cd mastered the engineer (Jay Frigoletto, 
>ex-Atlantan now
> > >in LA, who I'd HIGHLY recommend to anyone) made different versions for 
>us to
> > >consider, one through old analog equipment (Tektronics, Drawmer, Urei, 
>etc),
> > >and a couple of Sonic Solutions versions with different degrees of peak
> > >limiting.  The more extreme one was very fatiguing-- louder but with 
>less
> > >punch-- and even it was nowhere close to what they did with Vapor 
>Trails.
> > >
> > >Brian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Bill Kargel <wkargel@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>
>OK, so you thought that 80's Rush albums such as 'Hold
>Your Fire' had crappy production....fair enough.
>
>I think that the "acid test" here is this:  how do the
>songs from that era sound LIVE and In Person?  Let us
>use songs from 'Hold Your Fire' for specific
>reference...how do tunes like "Time Stand Still" and
>"Mission" sound live and in the flesh?
>
>My guess would be that they sound(ed) AWESOME...and to
>me, no Rush album comes close to Rush LIVE...!
>
>So, screw production!   At least live you can track
>down and beat the crap out of the sound guy if the
>sound is bad...I doubt you could do that now to Peter
>Collins, etc.   ;-)
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill
>
>
>--- Veronica Hughes <upkat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Isn't it all (Rush's Vaport Trails, etc.) subject to
> > the listener's
> > discretion? Why should Vapor Trails "suck" or be
> > "unlistenable" when it's
> > the exact opposite for many if not all the people
> > who bought it and liked
> > it?  We've been discussing how different eras of
> > recording used different
> > equipment and all have different standards of what
> > is "commercially"
> > acceptable.  Talking about level peaks, it's
> > interesting that listening
> > fatigue happens differently for different people.
> > Males hear low end much
> > more efficiently than females, while females hear
> > high end much more
> > efficiently.  This is a biological factoid I've read
> > at least a couple of
> > times.  High frequencies will hurt my ears way
> > before they hurt Daniel's,
> > and he hears cars with subwoofers way over in the
> > next neighborhood while I
> > hear nothing.  Take those variables, and then add in
> > the natural variables
> > between different people's physical ears/brains, and
> > you have standards for
> > sound that is highly subjective to individual
> > interpretation.  The 80s era
> > Rush albums were mostly way too shrill for me to
> > enjoy for long, especially
> > through headphones.  Plus, the song ideas were not
> > near as good, I thought.
> >  The warmer recordings I like much, much better,
> > which is why I prefer
> > Vapor Trails over Hold Your Fire or some such.  Plus
> > the songs are superior
> > too. I can listen to something, for a while, that
> > doesn't "sound good" to
> > me if the songs ideas are strong, but I will get
> > fatigued by it.  I can
> > listen to something that isn't "written well" for a
> > while if it sounds
> > good, because I just like to hear certain sounds,
> > but I'll get fatigued by
> > that too.  So, IMHO, there are very few "perfect"
> > recordings. :-)
> >
> > At 02:16 PM 08/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > >From: "Jeff Blanks" <jblanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Brian King pointed out:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >>http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E
> > >005D
> > >> >AF1C
> > >>
> > >> I've seen it, thanks, and really, I know what
> > he's talking about.  But I
> > >> can't help but think this is another instance of
> > confusing technical flaws
> > >> with esthetics.  Maybe some people just don't
> > like the production--I don't
> > >> know.
> > >
> > >Perhaps.  It would only be an esthetic decision if
> > the band and/or engineers
> > >_intended_ to squash the dynamics down to almost
> > nothing and introduce >100
> > >sheared-off transients into the mix, but maybe they
> > did.  It was only a few
> > >decades ago that distorted guitar was considered
> > desirable, after all.  When
> > >we were having our cd mastered the engineer (Jay
> > Frigoletto, ex-Atlantan now
> > >in LA, who I'd HIGHLY recommend to anyone) made
> > different versions for us to
> > >consider, one through old analog equipment
> > (Tektronics, Drawmer, Urei, etc),
> > >and a couple of Sonic Solutions versions with
> > different degrees of peak
> > >limiting.  The more extreme one was very
> > fatiguing-- louder but with less
> > >punch-- and even it was nowhere close to what they
> > did with Vapor Trails.
> > >
> > >Brian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>=====
>William C. Kargel
>
>wkargel@xxxxxxxxx
>
>Visit my homepage at http://www.geocities.com/wkargel
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:52:37 -0400
>From: Jeff Blanks <jblanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>
>Bill Kargel wrote:
>
> >...how do tunes like "Time Stand Still" and
> >"Mission" sound live and in the flesh?
>
>If the music's good, I can more than live with quibbles with the
>production, unless it's a matter of something just *really* annoying.
>Besides, Rush tries to a great extent to duplicate their studio sound live,
>anyway.
>
> >At least live you can track
> >down and beat the crap out of the sound guy if the
> >sound is bad...I doubt you could do that now to Peter
> >Collins, etc.   ;-)
>
>Couldn't you?  :-P
>
>TECH NOTE:  *Vapor Trails* was produced with (not "by", IIRC) Paul
>Northfield, who engineered *Moving Pictures* itself.  (BTW, he also
>engineered *Signals* (IIRC) and *A Show Of Hands*.)
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: UncleEggsy@xxxxxxx
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:53:14 EDT
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>
>In a message dated 8/18/2003 10:41:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>wkargel@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> > I think that the "acid test" here is this:  how do the
> > songs from that era sound LIVE and In Person?  Let us
> > use songs from 'Hold Your Fire' for specific
> > reference...how do tunes like "Time Stand Still" CHand
>"Mission" sound live and in the flesh?
>
>Well, part of the problem with the production of those albums is that Rush
>couldn't really play those songs live and in the flesh without lots and 
>lots of
>technological assistance from seqencers to store keyboard parts and canned
>backing vocals.
>
>CH
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:16:18 -0400
>From: Jeff Blanks <jblanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: shallow analysis
>
> >I agree with this 100%.  Too bad (at least on top 40 and rock radio),
> >there is very little that is good beyond category and teaches people how
> >to listen.  Too much of it is bubble gum, like what you'd expect to hear
> >from a group like the Dixie Cups in the 60's.
>
>One thing I've noticed about the pop culture situation in general is that
>it's so obviously a throwback to the early '60s (between The Day The Music
>Died and the British Invasion), even on the front end (the way things
>actually sound, look, and feel).  Must be all that Fox 97 sort of stuff
>today's teenagers grew up listening to...  :-P
>
>(And I don't really see any budding Brian Wilsons out there set to surprise
>us in a few years, either.)
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Brian King" <lordonly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: different standards
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:30:39 -0500
>
>From: "john" <7strbass@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > well, there's two elements at work here, imo.  one is pretty
> > objective -  digital distorition sounds like crap.  there's no denying
> > it.  if it's not obvious with a cursory listen - which it probably 
>should
> > be on all but the most low-end stereos- a cursory examination of the
> > waveforms on the cd reveals that this cd is _loaded_ with digital
> > overs.  these aren't being used as an element of artistic expression,
> > they are just plain mistakes in the recording process, or the mixing
> > process, or the mastering process, or any combination of the three -
> > probably every step of the way, imo.
> >
> > then there's the subjective element - the song quality, the 
>performances,
> > etc.  i agree that vapor trails is an awesome effort on this point, but
>the
> > objective examination of the recording quality and the evidence of my
> > own ears leaves me not able to really enjoy the recording on anything 
>but
> > a car system, and even there i cringe sometimes when i'm listening to 
>it.
>
>The mix is partially objective but also partially subjective-- do you like
>how loud the bass is compared to the bass drum, do you like the panning, 
>eq,
>reverb choices, etc.  I'd agree with Veronica in preferring the grittier,
>warmer sound of albums like Counterparts or even Vapor Trails, rather than
>Hold Your Fire or Presto.  But that darn over-compressed saturated element
>overcomes what could otherwise be a pleasant mix for me.  If they'd
>engineered this album just like Counterparts I'd love it.
>
> >
> > it's a shame, ultimately, that a band that utilized dynamics to such 
>great
> > effect throughout its career would settle, or allow, for such a terrible
> > representation of their art to become available.  i can't help but blame
> > the band itself for it - they are at a stage in their career when they
>should
> > not be trying to "outgun" the young guns, but rather render their art 
>with
> > the same integrity and sincerity that has been their hallmark since the
> > beginning of their career.   there's no reason to make this cd this loud
> > except for some misplaced attempt to compete with what's currently
> > popular and trendy.  i'm disappointed in them as a band for probably
> > the first time since i started liking them, when permanent waves came
> > out.
>
>I'd add that their 80's haircuts (Geddy's schnoz-accentuating mullet and
>Neil's ludicrous rat-tail) were pretty disappointing as well!  And those
>satin bathrobes they're sporting on 2112-- well, let's not go there...
>
>Brian
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of atlantaprog Digest V1 #77
>********************************
>

_________________________________________________________________
<b>MSN 8:</b> Get 6 months for $9.95/month. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

Other related posts: