idk if telling a dumb story while noodling around on some random instrument is the worst possible type of music, but it is definitely the least sublime.
These posts are from the What are you listening to thread
Nevermind aged well because of the exact reasons the band disliked it: it was super polished and overproduced. As Iāve grown older In Utero has gone from a favorite to kind of a bummer, itās very obvious Cobain was too deep into his heroin addiction to bother writing songs anymore. Five of the twelve tracks were written in 1990 or 1991 and ātouretteāsā is pure filler, so weāre down to 6 new songs written for the album. The majority of the songs either end with or have a chorus of just a simple repetition (āServe the servants, oh noā āGo away!ā āYour adviiiiiiiiiiceā āRape me!ā āI miss the comfort in being sadā āI think Iām dumbā āOut of the sky into the dirtā Milk Itās chorus is ādoll steak, test meatā āSit and drink Pennyroyal Teaā) and of course the piĆØce de rĆ©sistance:
Those "all in all is all we are"s take up 1:30 of a 4 minute song, Kurt was out of ideas.
Anybody who doesnāt appreciate The Cure is dead inside.
1 Like
Long Music Producing Post Incoming:
As an occasional music producer, Iām going to have to fight you on Nevermind being āover producedā. That album was slickly produced, not overproduced, in my opinion. Thatās why it holds up so well. Iāll give you a different example. The Clash was a punk group that werenāt particularly good players of their instruments. Their first album sounds raw to a certain extent but is still good quality. When you go in and look at the credits, you quickly realize that it was a slickly produced record.
Iāll give you my producing philosophy, which many people who are producers might not agree with. I believe that your goal as a producer should be to capture the essence of the group while making them sound as relatable as you can. I believe that your goal should be to bring the essence of that band up to its full potential without changing who the band is. If you fundamentally change the essence of the band, they can never live up to it live, and it becomes a totally different sounding group. Even if that group would be better as this new ātypeā of group, itās not the group and thatās bad producing, in my opinion.
In music history, Nirvana is an interesting case. They were basically a crummy garage band from Seattle whose first album was just hot garbage on a production scale. That was Kurt Cobainās sensibility. He had no interest in being famous when he was writing music based on his sensibilities. The story about Smells Like Teen Spirit exactly encapsulates that. He was doing a parody of another song, but the producer heard how to make that song really cool for what it was and did that. Thatās why itās so impactful.
So, to me, the worst thing a Producer can do is stamp him/herself onto the record over the band. The best producers bring out the best in what the band is, while being a crucial part of the process to getting the group āthereā. A good producer is going to find the bandās essence, have discussions about what the bandās music means to the Producer, how the Producer wants to tackle that, and then hopefully get the band on board with the Producerās vision. In almost all music groups, there is at least one person who can convey the technical of what the band wants and will be able to tell the Producer no to bad decisions that compromise the integrity of the band.
Someone Iāve worked with many times in the past just seems to be allergic to success with his music. Neither of us take a Producer credit on his work, because weāre basically complementary parts and he doesnāt ever listen to me about major production things I want to do that would get him to that āpeople will want to buy thisā level (he has a tendency to overcomplicate songs). The problem with todayās easy access to technology for anyone is that songwriters get very very very attached to their demos. And the demo should generally be thrown in the garbage. The songwriter should also be able to divorce themselves from the material to a large extent, while fighting for the core of the song/style to be conveyed. Unless you as a songwriter are an A+ mixer (very rare for songwriters), you should not be mixing your own stuff. So, there are lots of considerations that go into why a record is produced in a certain way, at least on stuff I do (when Iām given that chance).
Back to Nirvana, think about the difference between Nevermind and In Utero. Cobain was well known, as you stated, to hate Nevermind. He wanted to have the great drummer but the production techniques/feel of that first crappy sounding garage album. So, the band went and got Steve Albini to do In Utero (one of my least favorite alternative music producers of all time, sorry fans). My problem with Steve Albini is that every single Albini record sounds like an Albini record. He presses his production so hard on to the bands that they all just might as well be playing in his band. Thatās bad producing, in my opinion. As I said above, itās not the Producerās job to stamp themselves on to the record, itās the Producerās job to bring the band to its best life in the bandās essence. The Producer very easily can have a stamp on the production that doesnāt feel like itās the Producerās stamp, and thatās what I think most Producers should aim for.
I remember seeing the Smells Like Teen Spirit SNL performance, and it was a disaster. The problem with the production on the album was that it was produced like a 4 piece band, but they were a three piece band. This happens all the time in the studio, and you just tour with 4 pieces to recreate it if you are doing certain things that quite obviously canāt be recreated live with 3 pieces (as long as you can put aside your ego enough to do that, which most bands apparently canāt). Doubling a guitar shouldnāt change that feel, but having rhythm and leads at the same time for a single guitar player definitely does. I think more than anything it was probably Cobain kicking against the grain and refusing to do get another guitarist that led them down that path. Iām quite sure the three piece version of Nevermind would not have been up to his standards either. He was a walking paradox.
Iām a fan of both those Nirvana albums. I love the production on Nevermind, and hate the production on In Utero.
Iāll close giving you three demo to producing examples so you can hear whether you think the Producer helped or harmed the records from their demo stage, and Iāll also give my personal thoughts:
Blur (Come Together Demo):
Blur (Come Together Produced):
I think this song is decently produced, but think it falls into the over produced category. The demo is strong, and the essence of it just needs to be captured properly. I can hear exactly how I would produce it (Blur was also a 3 piece with singer who didnāt play), and itās not this. My main issue with the song is that the Producer didnāt fix what I consider to be playing issues that harm the enjoyment of the song. Iām specifically talking about the bass. I think if the Producer would have turned Alex Jamesās bass line into a slow walk vs. the fast strumming between beats that it would have been way more effective. They also could have left the guitars as just a counterpoint as opposed to all of the doubling. Have the main guitar on the right or left, and have the ātrickā guitar on the other side. With effects pedals the guitarist could probably have carried this off live and given the song the same effect (when I saw Blur in 1991, they were not good live). That turns the song into slickly produced instead of over produced. The essence of the song is still in the produced version, but itās not the best representation of the song, in my opinion.
The Primitives (Crash Demo):
The Primitives (Crash Produced):
This is a great example of a super over produced record. If you listen to the demo, youāll hear that their version of this song is basically a punk song with a pop edge to the bass. The Producer clearly keyed in on that bass sound and heard a hit in the song. In this case, the Producer completely ignored what the band was trying to be (essentially a punk band with a female singer) and decided to turn the band into something that could be marketed. This is a great song, and Iām glad the Producer did what he did, but this is a textbook example of over production that nearly completely removed the essence of the band. The dirty guitar retains a little bit of their style, but the jangly guitar is definitely not them (a sound that ultimately came to define the band on future work). This was also a three piece band, and there is no way they could have played this properly live back then. The delay effects on the vocals are also hilarious. The song is so try hard in production but totally gets there. Kurt Cobain probably would have murdered the Producer of this song if he did something similar on Nevermind.
Hereās the full album that first appeared on if anyone wants to see how different the rest of it is:
Blur (Parklife Demo):
Blur (Parklife Produced):
This is an example of hitting all of my producing points. It completely captures the essence of the song, and elevates it. Itās not over produced at all. If Blur were good at playing live (theyāre not in my experience) they could easily have recreated this song even as just the three piece plus singer. The mix has some choices I donāt particularly like, but the song gets there for sure from the demo. I would have liked to have heard the horns on both sides as thatās the true elevation of the song besides the bass production and maybe āswingā of the song.
Bonus:
Blur (Popscene Demo):
Blur (Popscene Produced):
I have no idea how they got from point A to point B on this one, but the song that is produced is hiding there in the demo. This was my favorite song of 1992, and I first heard it after that concert I went to in 1991. One of the people I went with had a video recording of a live performance probably on the BBC. It sounded like crap, but I was stoked waiting months to hear what it would sound like probably 3 or 4 months later. The band thought it was going to be a hit. I thought it was going to be a hit. It bombed. It was scrubbed from the British release of the album, and only ended up on the American release. The video is psychotic.
I hope this long post appealed to someone.
1 Like
I love Disintegration and a lot of their library, but I can see if your first exposure is to a rapidly aging Robert Smith still putting on a make up you might not get the Cure. And the kids also growing up on dubstep or whatever mightāve not developed an ear for it.
Reposting this from the other thread because I still find it hilarious
Is it cheating to pick Neapolitan?
Iām glad Cobain is dead so I donāt have to listen to any new Nirvana music.
1 Like
I get the sense he offended you with his awful take on the Beatles lol.
1 Like
^^^ I didnāt think we needed a Dislike button but now I do. Now I know how 6ix felt after my vanilla take.
No one was forcing you. Youāre free to hear anything you want including boy band skiffle or atonal street buskers.
Darts and pool should be Olympic sports too come to think of it
1 Like
It amazes how something as boring as darts attracts crazy crowds.
I do find farting after throwing your darts so the other person has to fight it off while throwing hilarious.
1 Like
Blowing smoke just below the board as you collect your darts was always a Fav because the old pubs that have dart boards are too fusty to smell a newly laid Fart.
You mean Butch Vig or the Andy Wallace mix tweaks, or both? The meme about Nevermind came from Cobain first going with the Wallace mixes but then later preferring the Vig mixes, saying the former sounded like 80s metal. They both sound good imo, just with subjective differences.
That video kinda sucks but itās the only A/B I saw.
Also,
donāt get me started.
this is a properly chilled and correct take
1 Like
This is a conversation maybe only we will be interested in, and this will be long, but Iām interested in having it. Iād be interested in your thoughts on these two mixes in a similar manner.
-
For the loudness war thing, I couldnāt even tell what they were trying to say. They compressed the shit out of an already compressed song, so I donāt know what point theyāre making. When mixing for TV, movies, or whatever Iām just going to make the average level of a music track sit between -20 and -24. That might now mean that a song is going to peak at -14 or -18, so if people want to lose those extra volts whatever. Loud does not equal good is the only mantra any professional mixer should say. But itās a competition clients often want, so you have to deal with that outside of a system that actually has standards (music has zero standards no matter what anyone says).
-
I havenāt done a lot of history searching about the Nirvana record, so I wasnāt even aware there were two different versions of that song. I can kind of break them down below, as thereās no way to do a good comparison of what the versions were accomplishing, since they clearly had different goals from the mixerās perspective. I will say I wanted to punch the guy in the face who made that video. He was tabbing back and forth stupidly, and only giving 5 second snippets of each one. Thatās not how to do a dam A/B, but whatever.
a) If I were to do a blind comparison of the two, I would prefer the Wallace version, but not really for reasons you would probably expect.
b) I think the ābestā mix of this song is sort of a combination of the two styles. I would love to have access to the original tracks to see what I would do with it. Itās pretty clear what was recorded and what was forced mainly due to hearing Vigās version.
c) If youāre looking for which one is the band, itās clearly the Vig version. His mix is not commercial, and that song likely would not have been anywhere near the hit it was if they had gone with his mix.
d) A major positive to the Vig version is that it hits two of my producing milestones. The first is that it captures the bandās essence. The second is that it can be played live the way he mixed it. The audience wouldnāt wonder why the live band is so weak. It doesnāt hit the third milestone in that it doesnāt elevate the song to its best version, but after hearing the two versions in a rough comparison, I donāt think the Wallace one does that either.
e) I think the Wallace version accidentally captures the bandās essence while not being the essence of the band. His style is very forced on to this record, as whatās there is not readily apparent in the tracks based on Vigās mix.
f) Vigās mix of the vocals is objectively superior to Wallaceās which is very overproduced in the way theyāre mixed (theyāre the most overproduced thing in the Wallace mix, in my opinion). Cobainās voice sounds great in the Vig mix, but itās just buried in effects in the Wallace mix. It still sounds good, but Vigās is way better.
g) I think Wallaceās drum mix is better, but oh man is there too much reverb on what he did. The reverb is also pulling the snare to the left (same issue in Vigās mix). Thereās a bit too much reverb on the kick too, but it sits well, in my opinion. I donāt like the delay on the snare of Vigās mix, and think his snare mix is very weak based on the element he was probably working with. This delay sound that you only really hear occasionally is very similar to what was used on the Smashing Pumpkins Siamese Dream album, but I donāt think itās necessary when youāre essentially only using one guitar in the mix (or giving the idea of it being one guitar). The kick is also not good in Vigās mix when it hits the chorus (and is only okay in the verse). But Iām pretty sure this mix was very appealing to Cobain, and that the record label is probably who nixed it. In both cases, I think if the drums were mixed with much less reverb they would be more effective. But this was 1991, and people hadnāt started divorcing themselves from giant amounts of reverb especially on snares even remotely by this time.
h) For the guitars, Vigās dirty guitar is super muddy to the point of almost being offensive to me. It also sounds like heās doing some kind of M/S effect that isnāt working for me as it makes the guitars sound more out of phase than stereo to me. I think a glassy reverb on the clean guitar (the one at the front) and a quick double of the dirty guitar would have met all the needs on this record (at least for Vigās version). For the plucked guitar in the verse, I think thereās a missed opportunity in both versions. They could have had him play the first note on one side and the second on the other (live this would be a delay effect that might not move). The way it sounds right now in both is like they had no idea where to put it, and are trying very hard not to put anything in the center. It might be too distracting to do the left/right effect, but I would at least try it because when I hear the pluck my brain wants it to travel.
i) For the bass, Vigās sounds super wimpy to me, and I would never mix a bass like that. Iām not sure Wallaceās is similar to what I would do either, but it at least sounds much more full (itās still not working quite right with the kick in the verse as I would have the bass āsoundā driving the mix more than the kick āsoundā).
Cliffās on the notes:
If I had to objectively choose, I would say the Wallace version is better. As a mixer, I prefer it, because there are a lot of things in Vigās mix that really aggravate me (muddiness, wimpiness, drum reverb/mix). Hearing them as they are makes me want to mix my own version to see what I would do, but I doubt the raw tracks live on the internet anywhere. If they do, link me to them.
The Wallace version was definitely mixed in a way to sell records, and the Vig version would have diminished that. When you mentioned that Cobain thought it sounded like 80s metal, I thought that was funny. It doesnāt at all, and the style is actually very forward thinking for that time. But he is right that itās the wrong mix for the genre. Itās almost like how I would expect Steven Slate to mix a Nirvana record (pop/rock/metal hybrid).
I liked doing the comparison for this, but it left me disappointed that I no longer like the songās mix as much as I remember I did before I did deep analysis of it. Both sound pretty dated to me, and thatās a conclusion Iāve probably only come to in the last 7 years or so.
If you want an example of a genre defining mix that no one else ever lived up to, check this out:
I think this song is close to perfect, and it still holds up nearly 30 years later. It sounded nothing like their first EPs, and Moulder made the mistake of trying to make everything else on the album live up to the sound of this single. He couldnāt do it, and it often sounds odd how hard he tried.
These are the only two that come close (one isnāt even the album mix).
Chrome Waves (vinyl b-side of the single, version is not great quality but this is a very rare version of this song as the album version is āacousticā):
Stampede (b-side of the second single from the album):
One of the really interesting things to me about Leave Them All Behind is that the snare has a relatively light reverb on it for the era (hard to believe). Nothing in this mix is out of bounds for how it would be done today, which is part of why it was so special.
The guy who produced/mixed the song is the guy who came in and mixed the Smashing Pumpkins album I mentioned above after Vig couldnāt deal with mixing it after producing/recording it. Both this and that are among Moulderās best work by wide margin, in my opinion. I think he would have nailed Nirvanaās album too, because he has a good sense of genre when delivered good tracks. I donāt like lots of his work, but he never tried to stamp himself onto a record, in my opinion.
I enjoy when the dart league bros and sisses show up at my local pub because I feel slim and attractive next to them
1 Like
I also love the uniforms which are just bowling shirts with extra flair but still thatās some level of effort demonstrated