[atlantaprog] Re: atlantaprog Digest V1 #77

August 28th is the show.
Progressiveears.com is where the LordOnly review can be found.
Hal

Andrew Tegethoff wrote:

>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: