PRODUCTION VS. MATERIAL

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about production on albums...how it can make bands sound totally different from their previous albums for good or bad. Maybe some of you are familiar with the atrocious Mayhem release from last year "Order Ad Chao"(ad or ab, I don't remember). Many people raved about how it was a "true", Necro production.....ya know, I've heard many, many, MANY true Necro productions; most of them were the result of a tiny budget, rather than pre-meditated (notice that after bands get more reknown, their necro-productions just disappear). It is OBVIOUS that Mayhem made that sound on purpose, and spent a good deal of time and money and effort to do so. Hmmmmmm, kind've reminds me of when metallicrap make all their super-OVER-produced albums and then went "stripped-down" for the st. anger specimen of dung. NOT "in the moment" or "true".....contrived and obvious! Which leads to my point......what IF these once-great bands put that much effort into WRITING GOOD MATERIAL???? That new Mayhem material is nothing but formless jazz noodlings, for the most part (and I've been a Mayhem fan for a loooooooooong time, so I know whereof I speak!) I've recently found this band called Forgjord, from Finland, who put out one album on Hammer of Hate records called.......well, something in Finnish ..... that has utterly FANTASTIC songwriting on it. The band's playing could be better, but they play their own songs with conviction and heart; they will improve. BUT THE PRODUCTION would be a big turn-off for some people; it was done on a 4-track, and is pretty raw and primitive(but still thick and heavy for the most part). But the songs, themselves, raise it high above many, many other bands' releases, so that I can put up with the production (it is actually much more listenable than the afore-mentioned Mayhem and metallicrap albums). So what are some of YOUR production thoughts and gripes? I'm sure you all know examples of bands other than the ones mentioned who put way too much effort into the productions than writing good material..........

Production can make or break an album. It's doesn't even have to be about good and bad quality recording. Take Raven's "Rock Til You Drop" for example. It's a horrid recording, but the band managed to capture their attitude and it worked for them.

As for songwriting, that is all just a matter of opinion. What you may call mindless noodling, someone else might think is outstanding. Some may like the simplistic, anthemic AC/DC inspired sound, while someone else might prefer something much more complex like Psychotic Waltz or Watchtower.

ultmetal wrote:

Production can make or break an album. It's doesn't even have to be about good and bad quality recording. Take Raven's "Rock Til You Drop" for example. It's a horrid recording, but the band managed to capture their attitude and it worked for them.

As for songwriting, that is all just a matter of opinion. What you may call mindless noodling, someone else might think is outstanding. Some may like the simplistic, anthemic AC/DC inspired sound, while someone else might prefer something much more complex like Psychotic Waltz or Watchtower.

very true.. if the material is there it is clear, no matter the production. in some cases, a bad production was probably intentional, adding to the album. take Bathorys first 3 albums or any Darkthrone.

Depends on the style. I rather listen to a scratched up Bikini Kill 7" than hear them with full digital perfection. Just the opposite for Pink Floyd or Rush.

Rock Til You Drop is SUPPOSE to sound like that. Adds to the flavor. Has engrained that sound in your existence. Where as, for me, the first couple of MSG albums I had on tape in the 80's always sounded muddled. The cd versions played on better equipment was like a whole new, and better, band for me!

So, production for me. You can have the best lyrics, riffs, whatever - but if it sounds like crap, I won't get past the first couple of songs to find out. Too much music - Too little life!

Saxon, you reflect my brother's opinion. I have always said, even about bar bands, that I'd rather hear bands play good songs badly than hear bad songs played well; and I guess that translates to this debate as well...MC666, perhaps Bathory's 1st 5 demonstrate the production timeline best; I think the first, Quorthon had only limited funds with which to record, as well as being a relative novice. Then, "The Return..." he was reportedly loaded the whole time, then we can hear signs of advancement in "Under the Sign...", then a clear attempt at more "epic" production on "BFD" and then after that it seems he had it down to a science. As for Darkthrone, I think that most of their recent productions are very deliberate, but the earlier ones were a combination of lack of funding and experience, which they just happened to become known for. I think their most peculiar recording job was on "Total Death"....how come it is so quiet (while the actual sound is rather beefy). SAXON, I had/have the first coupla MSGs on vinyl, and while the first sounds pretty good, the second sounds REALLY great. And the cd I have, with both of them on it, sounds pretty "dull"; just goes to show ya it depends on which pressing you have........another great example, running with the bands we've discussed here is Bathory's "Blood Fire Death"; the vinyl sounds fantastic, while the cd (by Kraze.....not sure if another has been released yet) sounds like utter crap! PS.....MC666, definitely check out that Forgjord, especially if you are willing to endure primitive production as long as there's great songs!

ghastlylugosi wrote:

PS.....MC666, definitely check out that Forgjord, especially if you are willing to endure primitive production as long as there's great songs!

thanks for the recommendation. i'll add it to my want list.

I love good production, but sparse or even bad production does not bother me in the slightest as long as the music is good.

On the other hand, great production cannot save a poor song, IMO. You
can polish a turd as much as you like, but you won't make it shine.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

I love good production, but sparse or even bad production does not bother me in the slightest as long as the music is good.

On the other hand, great production cannot save a poor song, IMO. You
can polish a turd as much as you like, but you won't make it shine.

now you tell me... i've been polishing turds all week.

Quote :

i've been polishing turds all week

You COULD probably apply that to your livelihood, MC! haha

Gotta give a brother props for trying.

in order of importance:

1. songwriting
2. vocal performance
3. band performance
4. production

etc.

I agree with that "rather hear good songs played badly then bad songs played well" theology. I think good songwriting and creating catchy hooks is more important then worrying about getting the best sound, bands do that way to much IMO. I would take some totally sketchy mixed album over an overproduced one if the songs were more thought out anyday.

Temple of Blood wrote:

in order of importance:

1. songwriting
2. vocal performance
3. band performance
4. production

etc.

I pretty much agree with this. Take the newly reissued Scarlet Rayne album. Terrible production, absolutly terrible, and this was recorded during the 90's!!! Still, the muisc is so good, and the vocals absolutly killer, thus this album still gives me a joyful listen.

You could have Max Norman produce your record,but if you can't write and play-the result will most likely be excrement.

I can understand if a band is relatively new and can't get money for good production. Alot of early classic metal albums had atrocious production, but the music still shined through.

However, I can't STAND it when bands INTENTIONALLY make badly produced albums (*cough* St. Anger *cough*).

In my opinion, one of the best albums ever was Hysteria by Def Leppard. Great materail, and superb production. I think it works best when both go hand in hand.

Good tunes are good tunes and bad tunes are bad tunes, but production can enhance music, certainly. Generally, I'd say the more complex the music the more elaborate the production should be. For instance, riff-driven hard blues-rock sounds so much better with raw production (e.g. Rolling Stones' Sticky Fingers, Zeppelin's second album, Deep Purple's Machine Head, Foghat's Fool For The City), while music with complex compositions, intellectually stimulating lyrics, and technical musicianship sounds so much better with detailed, crisper production (e.g. Metallica's Master of Puppets, Symphony X' The Odessey, Iron Maiden's SSOASS).

Of course, there are exceptions: Iced Earth's Night Of The Stormrider is a very complex album, and it has fairly simple production; AC/DC's Back in Black and For Those About To Rock are two of the simplest rock albums ever made and they have pretty good production.

I guess, when it comes to production, one can make generalities, but not rules.

ghastlylugosi i must complain about your metallica comments. ok everything after justice had more production but it is not overproduced. the guitars are raw the vocals sharp and the drums are pounding IMO

Gooch, do you HONESTLY think that anything after "Master of Puppets" sounds as METAL? Sure, some of the stuff sounds "loud and pounding", but the guitars "raw" and the vocals "sharp"? Look, I bought "Kill 'Em All" when it first came out (not the day of, but back in the days when you had to order it and WAIT and wait and wait for it to come in, because, believe it or not, Metallica was ONCE an underground band!) and followed them through "Load"...which, upon hearing, my brother (also PREVIOUSLY a fan) and I looked at each other, removed the cassette(after listening to it), snapped it in half, and threw it out the car window into a rocky crag. And it wasn't an issue of production, either! We felt BETRAYED by METALlica; and thought they should change their name to ROCKica, or metallicrap, which is the NICE term we use for them. I remember when the "black album" came out, they had all these reports from the studio and talked about how much time they spent in there with Bob Rock; hmmmmm, how come they managed to put out some great-sounding albums BEFORE they ever heard of Bob Rock? And how many other MeTal bands go "blah blah blah" about how much time they spend with their producer?.....that is the kind of thing you expect from some (c)rap maggot that doesn't even HAVE any material to produce! Bragging about what great effort went into the production is nothing but narcissism, ESPECIALLY in that case! That's like a chef talking about how many lackeys and dishwashers he had while he made your cheeseburger...you don't care, you just want the cheeseburger! Anyway, the album I cited specifically for this debate, "st. anger", was a calculated effort to return to their "heavy" sound, the same as the new Mayhem being calculated to return to their "necro" sound. Both are failures, and you know why? because the productions both bands were stiving for are products of inexperience and budgetary constraints........it is nothing but an insult to the fans of these bands when they do junk like that! Look at Darkthrone......though they sound very raw and sloppy, still, they do not have the hollow, primitive "necro" productions they once did. And it is because they realize how pretentious it would be to try! So, if you still like metallicrap, enjoy them all you want. But DON'T try to defend them to someone who grew up listening to METALLICA! Don't mean to sound vitriolic, but I honestly have felt betrayed by them for a LOOOONG time(and I ain't the only one)!