QUEENSRYCHE

Temple Of Blood wrote:

I don't see this as being much more metal than something they could've done with Tate.  Todd has one awesome scream on the album.  Aside from that it's hard to believe that Tate was holding them back from playing this style.  Some of it blatantly sounds like radio "rock".

Yeah, there were several moments when I thought "Tate could have sung this...even with his loss of range".

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple Of Blood wrote:

I don't see this as being much more metal than something they could've done with Tate.  Todd has one awesome scream on the album.  Aside from that it's hard to believe that Tate was holding them back from playing this style.  Some of it blatantly sounds like radio "rock".

Yeah, there were several moments when I thought "Tate could have sung this...even with his loss of range".

Some parts he could have sang..... I don't see anything wrong with radio "rock" as long as it is good.

It's pretty obvious after listening to S/T and comparing it to FU, K&T, DTC, American Soldier, OM:II that Tate wants nothing to do with guitar harmonies, good melodies or anything that sounds like (or influenced by) the classic Queensryche sound. Tate has shown he is into modern alt rock (and he does it rather poorly - he makes Nickleback sound great.) Queensryche could have made this type of album years ago but didn't because Tate wouldn't work on these type of songs and instead kept working with Jason Slater and Kelly Gray.

In my mind, listening to Rockenfield, Jackson and Wilton's work pretty much validate the court docs and long held rumors that they didn't play on the vast majority of tracks from O:MC II onwards.

Eyesore wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

After all of the hullabaloo I kind of had to give this record a listen even though it's not really my cup of tea, and in general i'd say that it's pretty solid for what they are trying to do and a fair bit better that most of what I've heard of F.U.  However, Vindication sucks!! It sucks harder than  Dare!! Whoever wrote that should be banned from writing songs ever again, in fact they should be banned from ever having any writing tools ever, just in case they get tempted to write ever again!

"Vindication" worse than "Dare?" You're out of your mind!

I honestly think that it's one of the worst songs that I have ever heard. A horrible, horrible disjointed mess!

thejokeriv wrote:

Got to listen to it on the way home and to me it is easily the best thing they have done since Promised Land. First impressions - sounds like Queensryche to me \m/ I think it sounds like Rage For Order meets Empire with hints of Promised Land but in the now (2013) and not the past. Todd sounds great and doesn't sounds like a Tate clone on all of the songs - he sounds like someone who was heavily influenced by Tate, Dickinson and Ray Adler (I swear he sounded A LOT like Adler on one of the tracks!)

The album is a bit short by 2013 standards.... but not 1980's standards.

I am with you - I hear lots of Empire in this one. I am pretty happy with this after one listen.

Just got mine today.  I got the deluxe bundle with the shirt, poster and box with a deluxe CD, some buttons, a patch, a guitar pick and a sticker.  This is one hell of a deluxe bundle I'd have to say.

It's hard to say about the quality of the CD.  I'm listening on my headphones now and it sounds pretty good.  It sounded terrible on my laptop speakers.  The guitars don't have as much meat on them as i'd like, they seem pretty digital.  I think the production is worse than FU, it's just brickwalled to hell while FU was not.

Song writing-wise though, this seems to be the best since Promised Land or even Empire.  The songs that weren't released as a single, seem to be better than the ones that were for the most part.  

For some reason the vocal melody in one of the parts in In This Light really reminds me of In The Air Tonight by Phil Collins haha.  

I'll give a more detailed review after i've lived with it for a few days.

Very cool! I was hoping my would arrive today.... but no luck (ordered from CM distro)

I wonder how brickwalled it is... and if there is a big difference in the vinyl version..... SD can probably find out!!!

Heres a comparison of a few tracks on QR and FU.

Spore


Fallout


Cold


Weight Of The World

Chairman_Smith wrote:

It sounded terrible on my laptop speakers.  The guitars don't have as much meat on them as i'd like, they seem pretty digital.  I think the production is worse than FU, it's just brickwalled to hell while FU was not.

Everything sounds terrible on laptop speakers.

And I don't need to hear the CD version to know that the production is in no way worse than Frequency Unknown, brickwalled or not.

It did sound great in my car.  After I played with my laptop's EQ I did get it sounding more acceptable. I still think the brickwall is a very negative production aspect.

Eyesore wrote:

Chairman_Smith wrote:

It sounded terrible on my laptop speakers.  The guitars don't have as much meat on them as i'd like, they seem pretty digital.  I think the production is worse than FU, it's just brickwalled to hell while FU was not.

Everything sounds terrible on laptop speakers.

And I don't need to hear the CD version to know that the production is in no way worse than Frequency Unknown, brickwalled or not.

Agree 100% - FU's production is terrible! I was able to hear the 320 MP3's of the album and it sounds great! The best production on a Queensryche album since Promised Land. FU may not be brickwalled, but it still sounds like crap.

I don't think FU sounds all that bad after hearing it a few times.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I don't think FU sounds all that bad after hearing it a few times.

It's not unlistenable, and I've heard far worse, but I think it's still pretty bad. The remix isn't much better. Rather it's probably just as bad for different reasons.

My main issue with Frequency Unknown is that I think a number of the songs could have come across much better with a stronger "sonic" presentation. It's not a terrible album all the way through, but the moments where it shines are dulled by the shoddy mix.

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

No, but it can surely hold it back. "Weight of the World," for instance, could have been one of those great QR album closers; and while I still think it's a very good song the mix just interferes with that sort of sonic, emotional element that this kind of song deserves.

To me, these come off like pre-production demos.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

Unless it's completely omitting the bass guitar from whole album (yeah James & Lars, I'm looking at you! )

Boris2008 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

Unless it's completely omitting the bass guitar from whole album (yeah James & Lars, I'm looking at you! )

I still love that album! I also love the mix on it, for some reason. A lot of people hate it, but I think it's sounds awesome. Never even noticed the lack of bass until it came out that it was so low in the mix.

Eyesore wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

No, but it can surely hold it back. "Weight of the World," for instance, could have been one of those great QR album closers; and while I still think it's a very good song the mix just interferes with that sort of sonic, emotional element that this kind of song deserves.

To me, these come off like pre-production demos.

Still...I don't see how the mix really affects a song like that. If it's a good song, it's a good song. The mix or master or guitar tone or whatever else doesn't really affect that either way, IMO. The song would still be good recorded live on a cassette tape.

If the song is in key, the instruments are tuned and legible, and feedback or some other noise isn't overriding the character of the instruments, I can enjoy the song as long as it's good. All this talk of "sonics" and mix quality, etc IMO is highly relative to the listener, IMO.

Some of Paul McCartney's first solo albums would be torn to shreds in today's world over the "sonics"...but that just misses the point, IMO, of the songs and the character of an individual recording.

But that's just me, I guess.

I think I'm gonna buy the CD. I'm just not hearing the guitars much, even on my good headphones. I agree with Shawn, but when the compression is so dense that certain instruments start to drop off the songwriting is adversely affected.

Eyesore wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

No, but it can surely hold it back. "Weight of the World," for instance, could have been one of those great QR album closers; and while I still think it's a very good song the mix just interferes with that sort of sonic, emotional element that this kind of song deserves.

To me, these come off like pre-production demos.

It sounds like it was recorded in Jason's Slater's garage on his computer.... and he did a worse job than an unsigned band buying Pro Tools, having no experience or training other than reading the PDF file on the install disc then recording an album in their basement.

Eyesore wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

Unless it's completely omitting the bass guitar from whole album (yeah James & Lars, I'm looking at you! )

I still love that album! I also love the mix on it, for some reason. A lot of people hate it, but I think it's sounds awesome. Never even noticed the lack of bass until it came out that it was so low in the mix.

I have no complaints about that album nor the mix - I love it. It really fits the time and what was going on with the band at the time.

Watching Some Kind of Monster made more sense of St. Anger but I'm still not fond of it. The mix is one thing, but for me it's James. His voice is guh and his lyrics are unbelievable.

thejokeriv wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

No, but it can surely hold it back. "Weight of the World," for instance, could have been one of those great QR album closers; and while I still think it's a very good song the mix just interferes with that sort of sonic, emotional element that this kind of song deserves.

To me, these come off like pre-production demos.

It sounds like it was recorded in Jason's Slater's garage on his computer.... and he did a worse job than an unsigned band buying Pro Tools, having no experience or training other than reading the PDF file on the install disc then recording an album in their basement.

Hyperbole much??

I've actually HEARD guys who buy a fresh copy of Pro-Tools and puke out a song with no prior experience...it's nowhere NEAR as good as FU.

thejokeriv wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

No, but it can surely hold it back. "Weight of the World," for instance, could have been one of those great QR album closers; and while I still think it's a very good song the mix just interferes with that sort of sonic, emotional element that this kind of song deserves.

To me, these come off like pre-production demos.

It sounds like it was recorded in Jason's Slater's garage on his computer.... and he did a worse job than an unsigned band buying Pro Tools, having no experience or training other than reading the PDF file on the install disc then recording an album in their basement.

Eyesore wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

Unless it's completely omitting the bass guitar from whole album (yeah James & Lars, I'm looking at you! )

I still love that album! I also love the mix on it, for some reason. A lot of people hate it, but I think it's sounds awesome. Never even noticed the lack of bass until it came out that it was so low in the mix.

I have no complaints about that album nor the mix - I love it. It really fits the time and what was going on with the band at the time.

I realise that this is not an issue that too many people struggle with to the extent that I did, but at the time I was a huge, huge (obsessed) fan and I have never, ever been as disappointed with a record as I was with that one. It took me years to realise the quality of the songs, I thought that it sounded horrible, still do.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

No, but it can surely hold it back. "Weight of the World," for instance, could have been one of those great QR album closers; and while I still think it's a very good song the mix just interferes with that sort of sonic, emotional element that this kind of song deserves.

To me, these come off like pre-production demos.

Still...I don't see how the mix really affects a song like that. If it's a good song, it's a good song. The mix or master or guitar tone or whatever else doesn't really affect that either way, IMO. The song would still be good recorded live on a cassette tape.

If the song is in key, the instruments are tuned and legible, and feedback or some other noise isn't overriding the character of the instruments, I can enjoy the song as long as it's good. All this talk of "sonics" and mix quality, etc IMO is highly relative to the listener, IMO.

Some of Paul McCartney's first solo albums would be torn to shreds in today's world over the "sonics"...but that just misses the point, IMO, of the songs and the character of an individual recording.

But that's just me, I guess.

There's a lot of truth in what you say, I spent a lot of my teens listening to 4th generation copied cassette tapes of demos that were barely 'produced' in the first place, and a killer song is a killer song. I do like a nice sounding album that suits my tastes and has bass on it though

Chairman_Smith wrote:

Just got mine today.  I got the deluxe bundle with the shirt, poster and box with a deluxe CD, some buttons, a patch, a guitar pick and a sticker.  This is one hell of a deluxe bundle I'd have to say.

.

Working from home today and mine just arrived.... just the deluxe CD - cool extras in the set!

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Hyperbole much??

I've actually HEARD guys who buy a fresh copy of Pro-Tools and puke out a song with no prior experience...it's nowhere NEAR as good as FU.[/quote]

LOL - that's the point.... I thought it sounded like crap to my ears.

Boris2008 wrote:

I realise that this is not an issue that too many people struggle with to the extent that I did, but at the time I was a huge, huge (obsessed) fan and I have never, ever been as disappointed with a record as I was with that one. It took me years to realise the quality of the songs, I thought that it sounded horrible, still do.

Some of it is in the ears of the listener - I think the album sounds fine....

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bad production can't kill a good song any more than great production can fix a shitty song.

No, but it can surely hold it back. "Weight of the World," for instance, could have been one of those great QR album closers; and while I still think it's a very good song the mix just interferes with that sort of sonic, emotional element that this kind of song deserves.

To me, these come off like pre-production demos.

Still...I don't see how the mix really affects a song like that. If it's a good song, it's a good song. The mix or master or guitar tone or whatever else doesn't really affect that either way, IMO. The song would still be good recorded live on a cassette tape.

If the song is in key, the instruments are tuned and legible, and feedback or some other noise isn't overriding the character of the instruments, I can enjoy the song as long as it's good. All this talk of "sonics" and mix quality, etc IMO is highly relative to the listener, IMO.

Some of Paul McCartney's first solo albums would be torn to shreds in today's world over the "sonics"...but that just misses the point, IMO, of the songs and the character of an individual recording.

But that's just me, I guess.

You don't think songs with bigger, stronger production values can sound better? I'm not saying the production makes them bad songs; I'm saying a better mix would make them more powerful, if that makes sense.