Controversial opinions on metal

[Spiderchrist]

The only reason I don't like 2nd wave as much is because of the tradition of shitty production. That doesn't define black metal. Mayhem evolved and got away from that, and still succeeded in being a great black metal band. The shitty production works, just not on all black metal. Originality is key.

 

[Einherjar86]

The early Bathory records didn't have shitty production?

 

[SentinelSlain]

There isn't exactly a limitless collection of first wave gems.

 

[Mort Divine]

The early Bathory records didn't have shitty production?

no

 

[Einherjar86]

I admit that I'm not the best when it comes to identifying quality production, but Under the Sign of the Black Mark has pretty bad production, I think.

 

[Spiderchrist]

1st wave did sometimes have shitty production but 2nd wave black metal bands like Burzum and Darkthrone made it into somewhat of a fad.

 

[Mort Divine]

I admit that I'm not the best when it comes to identifying quality production, but Under the Sign of the Black Mark has pretty bad production, I think.

Are the guitars clearly heard? Yes.
Are the drums clearly heard? Yes.
Are the vocals clearly heard? Yes.
Do any of the above overpower anything? No.

It does not have bad production.

 

[Einherjar86]

That is a horrible definition of "good production" dude. And as far as a lot of second wave is concerned, you can still hear all the instruments. I'm talking about high-end, low-end, bass, and all the other things that should go into a production to keep it from hurting your ears. Early Bathory is not "good production."

 

[The Butt]

Yes it is. Early Bathory is primitive, sloppy music, so it has a production job that matches. :/ I don't see how it can be argued that the S/T or The Return has poor production.

1st wave did sometimes have shitty production but 2nd wave black metal bands like Burzum and Darkthrone made it into somewhat of a fad.

Neither Burzum nor Darkthrone have had "shitty production".

 

[Einherjar86]

The self-titled has even worse production than Under the Sign. "Primitive" or sloppy style in no way should be analogous to a "primitive" production quality; that doesn't hold any water. If it's good for the equipment he possessed, then that's a different story; as far as "good production quality" in general goes, most early underground metal records are very poor. It's nothing against the music at all.

 

[Mort Divine]

That is a horrible definition of "good production" dude. And as far as a lot of second wave is concerned, you can still hear all the instruments. I'm talking about high-end, low-end, bass, and all the other things that should go into a production to keep it from hurting your ears. Early Bathory is not "good production."

Good Production:


Everything is audible, bass included, nothing overpowers anything else, despite being 'lofi' it is very clear, no fuzz or muddiness.

Bad Production:


Drums and vocals completely drown out every other aspect of the music

 

[Mort Divine]

The self-titled has even worse production than Under the Sign. "Primitive" or sloppy style in no way should be analogous to a "primitive" production quality; that doesn't hold any water. If it's good for the equipment he possessed, then that's a different story; as far as "good production quality" in general goes, most early underground metal records are very poor. It's nothing against the music at all.

Production quality in regards to music like this CANNOT be viewed in such a black and white 'good vs. bad' way. If the production allows the music room to 'breathe' and each instrument to be heard and have its place it is good production, raw or not.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree. In fact, neither one of the examples you posted above are "good production"; but the Blind Guardian is far better.

 

[Mort Divine]

I don't think you're qualified to judge production in metal music, at least not extreme varities. It is about what fits, not what is crystal clear.

 

[The Butt]

The self-titled has even worse production than Under the Sign. "Primitive" or sloppy style in no way should be analogous to a "primitive" production quality; that doesn't hold any water. If it's good for the equipment he possessed, then that's a different story; as far as "good production quality" in general goes, most early underground metal records are very poor. It's nothing against the music at all.

Why should they not be analogous? Please explain. Personally I feel the production on the S/T (much less Under the Sign) fits like a glove. Everything is audible, the production does nothing but add to the music. If the S/T sounded crisp, neat and tidy, that'd remove a lot of the charm and character the album has.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think you're qualified to judge production in metal music, at least not extreme varities. It is about what fits, not what is crystal clear.

And you're qualified?

If it's an aesthetic choice, then fine; but don't call it "good production" just because the music calls for it. Say it's an aesthetic choice to employ bad production as a value.

 

[Mort Divine]

In the sense that I'm willing to view it in a non-black/white dynamic, yes I am.

Good production is simply that which fits the music. Good production does not have to be shiny, clear, and loud.

If you want to set aside from kind of 'objective removed from the musical specifics' definition of what 'good production is' then it would be production that allows for the natural dynamics of the music to be heard clearly.

 

[The Butt]

Einherjar: "Good production" and "crisp, clean production" are not inherently synonymous. In fact, quite the opposite; clear and glossy production can completely ruin an album in some cases (thus making it "shitty production"). In the same vein, "primitive, sloppy production" isn't inherently "bad production" either.

 

[Einherjar86]

In the sense that I'm willing to view it in a non-black/white dynamic, yes I am.

Good production is simply that which fits the music. Good production does not have to be shiny, clear, and loud.

If you want to set aside from kind of 'objective removed from the musical specifics' definition of what 'good production is' then it would be production that allows for the natural dynamics of the music to be heard clearly.

If you go back and listen to that Darkthrone track, there is no way the drums are being heard in their "natural dynamic." Furthermore, the music itself is muted. In fact, "lo-fi" itself refers to music that has been recorded with equipment considered less-than-standard and results in altering (usually negatively) the quality of the music. Now, this has come to be an aesthetic choice in many black metal acts, and that's fine; but the fact is that those same instruments, that same equipment, could be recorded in such a way that it doesn't distort like old basement black metal does.

Einherjar: "Good production" and "crisp, clean production" are not inherently synonymous. In fact, quite the opposite; clear and glossy production can completely ruin an album in some cases (thus making it "shitty production"). In the same vein, "primitive, sloppy production" isn't inherently "bad production" either.

I say they are synonymous. Just because a band chooses to use bad production as an aesthetic choice doesn't make it good production. Crips, clean production might ruin a recording from an aesthetic standpoint, but that is all that can be said; as far as actually hearing the instruments, clean production doesn't ruin anything.

I would make a distinction between "good production" and the "perfect production"; much the same as I make a distinction between "good vocalists" and the "perfect vocalist." Ozzy Osbourne isn't a good vocalist; but he was the perfect vocalist for Sabbath.

 

[The Butt]

If you go back and listen to that Darkthrone track, there is no way the drums are being heard in their "natural dynamic." Furthermore, the music itself is muted. In fact, "lo-fi" itself refers to music that has been recorded with equipment considered less-than-standard and results in altering (usually negatively) the quality of the music. Now, this has come to be an aesthetic choice in many black metal acts, and that's fine; but the fact is that those same instruments, that same equipment, could be recorded in such a way that it doesn't distort like old basement black metal does.



I say they are synonymous. Just because a band chooses to use bad production as an aesthetic choice doesn't make it good production. Crips, clean production might ruin a recording from an aesthetic standpoint, but that is all that can be said; as far as actually hearing the instruments, clean production doesn't ruin anything.

I would make a distinction between "good production" and the "perfect production"; much the same as I make a distinction between "good vocalists" and the "perfect vocalist." Ozzy Osbourne isn't a good vocalist; but he was the perfect vocalist for Sabbath.

Unlike with vocals though, when it comes to production, different genres of music, different bands, hell even different albums, have different standards for what constitutes "good production"; which is why to analyze production, based on a universal set of standards, is fallacious. What works for one album, will not work for others. Transilvanian Hunger, has "good production", because it enhances the atmosphere of the music. It adds to the end result. If we were to do it your way, and go "oh that's bad production... it's just an aesthetic choice, let's try it this way", and throw crystal-clear, glossy production on it, what you would end up is a very lifeless, sterile excuse of an album, with "shitty production". Production cannot be analyzed in a vacuum, it must be analyzed in relation to the album it is on.