Ah, the ancient argument of how a heavy metal record should sound. Slick and crystal clear, or rough and brutal?
Irrelevant. Heavy metal production is in the details. What exact features the production will enhance is completely up to the individual band. But there are two common points in heavy metal production.
The first key to a heavy metal production is being able to pick out all of the individual elements. Few heavy metal albums have problems with the vocals, guitars, or drums being heard. But the bass? You'd think the instrument of Lemmy and Steve Harris would have more respect in the world of heavy metal. Part of the problem is that guitar sounds just get bigger and bigger (and multi-tracked more often and much easier), and they get heavier and heavier, overwhelming the sonic space that the bass guitar is supposed to have. The other problem is that many musicians don't leave room in their songs for the bass guitar. It winds up being the only instrument represented that doesn't have a unique role to play, and I think that sucks. But if there's a lame guy hanging around the band with nothing really to do, can't blame the production for excluding him.
The second biggest key to a heavy metal production is having everyone actually play their parts. I have no issues with technology being used to make the recording process easier. I'm all for it. But when technology alters the actual performance, it becomes an unforgivable shortcut. The software to do this has become cheap and easy (even home studios can have it), it is more transparent than even the slickest movie computer special effects, and it is everywhere. Singer missed a note? Fix it in the computer. Drummer had a stray beat or twelve in his song? Fix it in the computer.
The argument for such aids is that it is the composition that matters and anything that realizes the composition is a good thing. Cost becomes less of an issue when less time is needed to re-do takes in a studio. More can get done in less time. And listeners demand perfection.
Those arguments can eat a dick. Is it too much to ask that the musicians credited for making the album actually perform the material?
It is against the idea of heavy metal to alter a musician's performance and sell it as that musician's performance. It is a lie. One of the trademarks of heavy metal is the excellence of the individual musician, and anything that prevents evaluating such things simply by ear needs to go. Fans demand perfection and they compulsively create lists and rankings in their mind determining who is good, who is great, and who is immortal. Heavy metal is human. If a heavy metal band writes material beyond their performing capabilities here's a concept rehearsal. Intense rehearsal. Not point-click.
The cost issue is understandable, as nobody wants to sound low-rent and cheap (even Nattens Madrigal wasn't trying to give the impression of "we did not have the resources to do better"). But there's this development in human civilization called a job, and this wonderful thing enables someone to earn money. Money is this strange concept. Little pieces of paper and metal can be exchanged for goods and services. Recording studio time is able to be purchased with this. Good music does not have an expiration date. Musicians should wait and make sure they have enough money to take as much time as they need to record their material.
(Contrary to popular belief, day jobs are indeed good for heavy metal. They allow self-sufficiency. If your income is not dependent on your heavy metal, then you are free to do with it as you please. It is every musician's dream to make a living playing music, but to reach that point a musician will have to be so married to the concepts of pleasing fans and interfering record companies that their material can not possibly retain any degree of uncompromising attitude. When heavy metal becomes your job, how willing are you going to be to risk that status with unusual, unique, abrasive, or unpopular ideas?)
Why is it considered important to have a uniform sound quality for every song on an album? Is that really serving the interest of each individual song? More and more musicians have their own recording facilities, so they can record at their leisure instead of slamming everything together in one session. To me it sounds like the songs are being forced to conform to a standard in order to meet the expectations of an unknown mass of consumers. This is heavy metal?
Irrelevant. Heavy metal production is in the details. What exact features the production will enhance is completely up to the individual band. But there are two common points in heavy metal production.
The first key to a heavy metal production is being able to pick out all of the individual elements. Few heavy metal albums have problems with the vocals, guitars, or drums being heard. But the bass? You'd think the instrument of Lemmy and Steve Harris would have more respect in the world of heavy metal. Part of the problem is that guitar sounds just get bigger and bigger (and multi-tracked more often and much easier), and they get heavier and heavier, overwhelming the sonic space that the bass guitar is supposed to have. The other problem is that many musicians don't leave room in their songs for the bass guitar. It winds up being the only instrument represented that doesn't have a unique role to play, and I think that sucks. But if there's a lame guy hanging around the band with nothing really to do, can't blame the production for excluding him.
The second biggest key to a heavy metal production is having everyone actually play their parts. I have no issues with technology being used to make the recording process easier. I'm all for it. But when technology alters the actual performance, it becomes an unforgivable shortcut. The software to do this has become cheap and easy (even home studios can have it), it is more transparent than even the slickest movie computer special effects, and it is everywhere. Singer missed a note? Fix it in the computer. Drummer had a stray beat or twelve in his song? Fix it in the computer.
The argument for such aids is that it is the composition that matters and anything that realizes the composition is a good thing. Cost becomes less of an issue when less time is needed to re-do takes in a studio. More can get done in less time. And listeners demand perfection.
Those arguments can eat a dick. Is it too much to ask that the musicians credited for making the album actually perform the material?
It is against the idea of heavy metal to alter a musician's performance and sell it as that musician's performance. It is a lie. One of the trademarks of heavy metal is the excellence of the individual musician, and anything that prevents evaluating such things simply by ear needs to go. Fans demand perfection and they compulsively create lists and rankings in their mind determining who is good, who is great, and who is immortal. Heavy metal is human. If a heavy metal band writes material beyond their performing capabilities here's a concept rehearsal. Intense rehearsal. Not point-click.
The cost issue is understandable, as nobody wants to sound low-rent and cheap (even Nattens Madrigal wasn't trying to give the impression of "we did not have the resources to do better"). But there's this development in human civilization called a job, and this wonderful thing enables someone to earn money. Money is this strange concept. Little pieces of paper and metal can be exchanged for goods and services. Recording studio time is able to be purchased with this. Good music does not have an expiration date. Musicians should wait and make sure they have enough money to take as much time as they need to record their material.
(Contrary to popular belief, day jobs are indeed good for heavy metal. They allow self-sufficiency. If your income is not dependent on your heavy metal, then you are free to do with it as you please. It is every musician's dream to make a living playing music, but to reach that point a musician will have to be so married to the concepts of pleasing fans and interfering record companies that their material can not possibly retain any degree of uncompromising attitude. When heavy metal becomes your job, how willing are you going to be to risk that status with unusual, unique, abrasive, or unpopular ideas?)
Why is it considered important to have a uniform sound quality for every song on an album? Is that really serving the interest of each individual song? More and more musicians have their own recording facilities, so they can record at their leisure instead of slamming everything together in one session. To me it sounds like the songs are being forced to conform to a standard in order to meet the expectations of an unknown mass of consumers. This is heavy metal?
