IED0DXM@UCLAMVS.BITNET (10/14/86)
>>IED may be a minority of one in the HoL/Dreaming debate, >>but surely he is not alone in deploring "Wank"'s brand of >>gutter-brained slop? > Actually, he's not alone on either subject. I'll take "Hounds of Love" >over "The Dreaming" any day. Why? Because "The Dreaming" (along with >"Lionheart" and to a lesser extent "Never For Ever") suffers from two >major flaws: a.) over-production and b.) over-embellishment. ("Lion- >heart" also suffers from having no interesting songs and the Dumb Lyric >Syndrome, but that's another debate.) "Hounds of Love", on the other >hand, shows a bit of restraint and a greater maturity on Bush's part, >as far as knowing when a song is done and doesn't need to be fiddled >with anymore. > But then, what do I know, I'm from Pueblo. >Steve "Blore" Howard, giving Godot just five more minutes to show up Thanks for your support, Blore, but IED has no choice but to reject your reasons entirely. First of all, IED shares Kate's own opinion (which she has expressed in very explicit terms) that her music is not "over-produced" at all. In fact, the term "over-produced" is foolish and meaningless. Beyond that, Hounds of Love is OBVIOUSLY MORE painstakingly produced than The Dreaming, NOT LESS SO! IED is once again baffled by the inexplicable laxity in Love-Hounds' listening habits. IED is relatively confident that The Ninth Wave is the most elaborately processed popular recording ever made. The pedestrian notion that complexity is mere "over-embellishment" stems solely from the listener's intellectual, emotional and -- above all -- aesthetic impoverishment, as evidenced by Blore's spectacularly mindless likening of the production on Lionheart and Never For Ever to that on The Dreaming.
showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) (10/15/86)
>First of all, IED shares Kate's own opinion (which she has expressed >in very explicit terms) that her music is not "over-produced" at >all. In fact, the term "over-produced" is foolish and >meaningless. The term "over-produced," to me, indicates a piece of music which has had too much production done to it. In other words, a piece that has would have sounded better with less production. Non-Bush examples include Yes's 90125, any "light metal" (REO Speedwagon, Night Ranger, etc.) song that uses multi-tracking to make it sound like the background vocals are in harmony, Boston (in a big, big way--most of Boston's output is nothing BUT production--there's nothing underneath), etc. > Beyond that, Hounds of Love is OBVIOUSLY MORE >painstakingly produced than The Dreaming, NOT LESS SO! IED is >once again baffled by the inexplicable laxity in Love-Hounds' listening >habits. Well, I'm not really a "Love-Hound," just a concerned, law-abiding citizen. At any rate, "Hounds of Love," to me, exhibits not necessarily less painstaking production but rather a level of production which is more in line with (what I would consider to be) the optimum amount for the material involved. > IED is relatively confident that The Ninth Wave is the most >elaborately processed popular recording ever made. I'm afraid I don't share IED's confidence on this matter. I would point to Mannheim Steamroller (although I don't enjoy their pretensious pseudo-classical muzak), early Alan Parsons Project (surely those syn- thesized human voices took a lot of processing in 1977), or, to really zero in on the "pop" in "popular," Queen (the multi-tracked vocals on "Bohemian Rhapsody" and the choir effects on "Somebody to Love" stand out as examples of an optimum level of production). > The pedestrian notion >that complexity is mere "over-embellishment" stems solely from >the listener's intellectual, emotional and -- above all -- >aesthetic impoverishment, as evidenced by Blore's spectacularly >mindless likening of the production on Lionheart and Never For Ever >to that on The Dreaming. First of all, I never said that complexity is the same thing as over-embellishment. Over-embellishment, much like over-production, is a result of not knowing when a song is done and continuing to add things to it. Take a listen to "And Dream of Sheep"--one of the best cuts on the album. No balalaikas, no pan-flute, no digerido, in short (and to avoid any further misspellings of words not found in "spell") a nice little un-embellished song. But now I'm intellectually, emotionally and aesthetically impoverished? My observations are spectacularly mindless and my notions pedestrian? Hey, I never asked for ad hominem attacks, but I'm willing to defend myself. On what basis have you decided all these things about me? What, if any, evidence would be necessary to convince you that I'm on _at_least_ equal ground with you intellectually, emotionally and aesthetically? -- "The laws of nature don't work if there's nobody looking" Steve "Blore" Howard, Empiricist with his Head in the Clouds {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
nessus@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (10/17/86)
> From: seismo!hao!udenva!showard (Steve "Blore" Howard) >> First of all, IED shares Kate's own opinion (which she has >> expressed in very explicit terms) that her music is not >> "over-produced" at all. In fact, the term "over-produced" is >> foolish and meaningless. > The term "over-produced," to me, indicates a piece of music which > has had too much production done to it. In other words, a piece > that has would have sounded better with less production. I agree that something can be over-produced, but I don't agree on the subtleties of meaning in the term "over-produced". For me, the typical case of over-production usually occurs when production is used to make something "slick", to smooth out rough edges, to make it bland and lacking in detail. A common way to do this traditionally has been to add an orchestra or synth wash with little content for no good reason. On the other hand, production can be interesting all by itself. It can be used to add detail and interesting stuff. Production can be used to add rough edges, not just remove them. If the studio is used to add detail to a record, rather than to smooth it into slickness, the album can't be "over-produced". The result is not necessarily great, but the flaw then is not in "over-production". *The Dreaming* is NOT over-produced. On *The Dreaming*, the studio is the major instrument. This is why *The Dreaming* is such an important album. With significantly less production, *The Dreaming* wouldn't be *The Dreaming*. The instrument of interest on *The Dreaming* IS the studio. The production here does not smooth out rough edges, it adds them. It adds detail and complexity. The production on *The Dreaming* is better than on *Hounds of Love*. The production on *HoL* also adds detail and complexity, but it also is used for commercial slickness. This slickness results in less detail, and therefore, there being less of interest. *HoL* also isn't as good in terms of fidelity as *The Dreaming*. HoL, in some places, I also don't find as interesting musically. HoL has more harmony and less counterpoint than *The Dreaming*. Counterpoint is better than harmony. Baroque music and Stravinsky are better than Classical music for this reason. > Non-Bush examples include Yes's 90125, any "light metal" (REO > Speedwagon, Night Ranger, etc.) song that uses multi-tracking to > make it sound like the background vocals are in harmony, Boston (in > a big, big way--most of Boston's output is nothing BUT > production--there's nothing underneath), etc. By your own definition of "over-produced", Boston can't be over-produced because if their output is nothing but production, then it wouldn't be better with less production -- it would be nothing without production. >> Beyond that, Hounds of Love is OBVIOUSLY MORE painstakingly >> produced than The Dreaming, NOT LESS SO! Says who??? > First of all, I never said that complexity is the same thing as > over-embellishment. Over-embellishment, much like over-production, > is a result of not knowing when a song is done and continuing to add > things to it. Take a listen to "And Dream of Sheep"--one of the > best cuts on the album. No balalaikas, no pan-flute, no digerido, > in short (and to avoid any further misspellings of words not found > in "spell") a nice little un-embellished song. Then again, take a listen to "Jig of Life" and "Waking the Witch", the best cuts on the album: dijeridu, uillean pipes, fiddles, synth guitar, pitch-shifted distorted vocals, helicopters, etc. Quality comes in many forms. >oug "Where on your palm is my little line?"
showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) (10/18/86)
In article <8610170026.AA05974@EDDIE> Doug writes: > > If the studio is used >to add detail to a record, rather than to smooth it into slickness, >the album can't be "over-produced". The result is not necessarily >great, but the flaw then is not in "over-production". But what if, in adding all this detail, the result is to ruin a good song? There is a point beyond which any further additions will serve only to clutter up the mix, and not make the song sound any better. >*The Dreaming* is NOT over-produced. On *The Dreaming*, the studio is >the major instrument. This is why *The Dreaming* is such an >important album. Maybe. But I should point out that just because something is the major focus or main instrument doesn't mean there can't be too much of it. For example, guitars are the main instrument on your typical Lynyrd Skynyrd song, and most Lynyrd Skynyrd songs have too much guitar. > With significantly less production, *The Dreaming* >wouldn't be *The Dreaming*. No, but it might be a better album. >By your own definition of "over-produced", Boston can't be >over-produced because if their output is nothing but production, then >it wouldn't be better with less production -- it would be nothing >without production. Yes, but listening to nothing would be better than listening to Boston. >>> Beyond that, Hounds of Love is OBVIOUSLY MORE painstakingly >>> produced than The Dreaming, NOT LESS SO! > >Says who??? Says IED, for one. > >> First of all, I never said that complexity is the same thing as >> over-embellishment. Over-embellishment, much like over-production, >> is a result of not knowing when a song is done and continuing to add >> things to it. Take a listen to "And Dream of Sheep"--one of the >> best cuts on the album. No balalaikas, no pan-flute, no digerido, >> in short (and to avoid any further misspellings of words not found >> in "spell") a nice little un-embellished song. > >Then again, take a listen to "Jig of Life" and "Waking the Witch", the >best cuts on the album: dijeridu, uillean pipes, fiddles, synth >guitar, pitch-shifted distorted vocals, helicopters, etc. Quality >comes in many forms. > Granted. But my point is that there are no songs like "And Dream of Sheep" on "The Dreaming." Had it been on that album, it would have included fiddles, and dijeridus, and bullroarers, and Renaissance nose flutes, and the melody of the song would have been lost in the mix. -- "I don't think any songs should be banned, except maybe 'The Night Chicago Died' by Paperlace" Steve "Blore" Howard, Average Guy {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard