Dag remastered.

Dag remastered.

Postby Dinko » Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:24 pm

I've been increasingly coming back to the original recordings/the combined CD.
The law of average says you will survive.
User avatar
Dinko
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby jaybird » Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:44 pm

Image
User avatar
jaybird
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Dinko » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:09 pm

Sure. I think it's the bass that makes the re-mastered songs sound less (for lack of a better word) compact. I don't know shit, but maybe Peter and Dave should have redone some vocals. Like (totally random pick) that dude from Samiam did, for that record that got re-mastered by some dude. That went as well as it could for a record on which the dude that had played bass finally could switch to the guitar (thus being allowed to write (inferior) songs). There might be more to it. I'll keep you posted.
The law of average says you will survive.
User avatar
Dinko
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby scannest » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:25 pm

Remastering is fine, if done right. Remixing is usually a mistake. Re-recording is always a mistake. It's no longer the same record.
"Maybe if Lewdd posts pics of barbecued salmon, you can post pictures of sushi?" -Jimmy Heartburn
User avatar
scannest
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:55 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:33 pm

scannest wrote:Remastering is fine, if done right. Remixing is usually a mistake. Re-recording is always a mistake. It's no longer the same record.


I disagree with this, you idiot. Remastering is a 50/50 shot. Half the time, it's because older records are squashed to fuck in order to be made as perceivably as loud as humanly possibly. However, I actually *like* records to have a lot of wiggle room for transients. Anyway, sometimes mastering is an improvement. Sometimes it's not.
Remixing: The only reason this isn't done more often is because it's so expensive. Mastering is a more cost effective way to get some sort of change done on a record. However, I'd love to hear something that was mixed like a turd (say, the first Black Flag album), put into the hands of, say, Rick Rubin. Just to see what it would sound like. Of course, it was probably recorded like a turd, too. Which would limit the end result. Still, I'd rather hear Damaged revamped as much as possible with the recordings available by someone capable... rather than someone spit shining and putting a little more sparkle on the overall high end, or whatever. But, a total remix would be a big chunk of change.
Re-recording: I do agree with this. Always a mistake. The only time I ever heard that and thought 'Cool!' was that ALL greatest hits thing. Where, supposedly, some of the tracks were actually lost. So some guitars ended up being redone. It sounded pretty amazing.

I haven't heard the Dag remasters, so I have no idea about those.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Jaygun » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:19 pm

Dinko wrote:Sure. I think it's the bass that makes the re-mastered songs sound less (for lack of a better word) compact. I don't know shit, but maybe Peter and Dave should have redone some vocals. Like (totally random pick) that dude from Samiam did, for that record that got re-mastered by some dude. That went as well as it could for a record on which the dude that had played bass finally could switch to the guitar (thus being allowed to write (inferior) songs). There might be more to it. I'll keep you posted.


I had to do a full remix of said Samiam record. That recording was interesting.... And, yeah it was cool that Jason was up for re doing some of the vocals too. But that was also all recorded in Pro Tools, so it was some what easy to get done. I highly doubt the original multi track tapes of those Dag records would even play at this point. But, with the way things have progressed since those were remasterd, I bet you could do a lot more with the masters now 8-)
Jaygun
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:15 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Neal » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:48 pm

i actually remastered the original cd versions of can i say and wig out and think they sound better than the dischord remasters. it seems like dischord equalized them a tad to seem bassier, but it just sounds a little muddy to me. i like the bright 80's sound of the originals. of course it's probably negligible unless you're listening to them on headphones, which i usually am.

remastering is basically doing nothing but making things louder. i've done it to a lot of my old cds just so they're not so quiet when i'm listening to stuff on shuffle, but it's not any real improvement. i'd like to hear some old stuff remixed, like sam mentioned, but i also still love a lot of old shitty albums for what they are.

i'd definitely like to hear the husker du sst catalog remixed like the version of "makes no sense at all" on the ep. or maybe dag's field day remixed like the other version of "trouble is."
Neal
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:55 am
Location: Barcelona

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby wALLton » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:48 am

Also agree with the Sam camp here. Remastering is fine, and it can occasionally bring small improvements to the sound, but I find remixing a LOT more interesting. I can't think of many instances of albums that have been remixed as it doesn't seem very common, but when you start twiddling with the mix and making certain tracks/parts more prominent so the listener can hear things s/he hadn't heard in the original mix, then I think that can be a very cool experience when it's an album you know inside and out. Whenever I watch music documentaries of how albums were recorded and the engineers isolate individual tracks you typically hear things you never even realised were there, and it makes me wish I could get my hands on some of my favourite albums and have a play. The final mix is so subjective, it would be a fun thing to play around with to see what kinds of different sounds you could get out of it.

Have to also agree with a dislike for re-recordings. As mentioned with the ALL comp, it can be OK when you re-record certain parts while leaving the rest alone, as they did with some of the guitar parts, but re-recording an entire album usually never works and is never an improvement over the original. I can see why bands do it when there are issues with ownership/getting paid, but does anyone buy and listen to the re-record more than the original? I doubt it. And even though ALL re-recorded many of the guitar parts for the Smalley-era songs, I don't think it works as well as the originals. Those albums were super polished production-wise, and Stephen's current tone sounds a little too harsh in the original mix in my opinion. But I guess it's kinda interesting to hear the different take on the guitar parts and how they have likely evolved playing them live for many years after the original recording.
wALLton
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:10 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby soulforce » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:40 am

The combined CD of "Can I Say/Wig Out at Denko's" is all I need from Dag Nasty. I've said it like hundred times here, but the remastered CDs, even those by Dischord, sound too bass-heavy to me, and this is not something I'd enjoy when listening to pre-90s music.

Now, about remixing albums...
As 99.9999% of you, I'm sure, my experience with remixed hardcore/punk comes from that horrid high-pitched remix of Bad Brains' "Rock for Light" which we all hate (and probably Dr. Know does too). With years, however, I've developed some kind of curiosity about what some of my favorite 80s' hardcore records would sound like if remixed, and I'm sure many of these would benefit from a better mixing job (say early 7Seconds, Husker Du etc.).
User avatar
soulforce
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:05 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby scannest » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:04 pm

I see the appeal of re-mixing when it is a record you are already very familiar with. It's a way to shed new light on something overly familiar. My problem with remixing is when the new mix effectively becomes "the record" for many people. Some kids will never know that Han shot first, and that's a bummer.

And Sam calling me an idiot while agreeing with the majority of what I said is either a pretty clever bit of trolling, or he is really just a jackass.
"Maybe if Lewdd posts pics of barbecued salmon, you can post pictures of sushi?" -Jimmy Heartburn
User avatar
scannest
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:55 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby FormerLurker » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:27 pm

scannest wrote:
And Sam calling me an idiot while agreeing with the majority of what I said is either a pretty clever bit of trolling, or he is really just a jackass.


Image
FormerLurker
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:53 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby captain2man » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:32 pm

I'id have to think that any repackaging - remixing, remastering, re-recording, bonus tracks, new liner notes....always comes down to money. The record labels must think to themselves, "how can we get someone to buy the same record over & over & over again?"

I feel like many of the original CDs that came out in the 80s desperately needed a remastering treatment, so that wasn't such a bad thing, even if it meant rebuying something.

Remixing is interesting, but, for me, there is always the emotional impact of how you first heard and fell in love with a record. I can't imagine I'd ever listen to a remix of an album more than I'd listen to the original.

Re-recording is an interesting subject because you are creating a different album with the same songs. I have barely given any attention to re-recorded albums, but I can understand why bands do it, and it's not about improving upon the album (which I'm sure NEVER happens).

We all know that bands get hosed by the record industry all the time. Record companies often own the recordings, but not the songs, and so it's a way for bands to make money off of their music they are rightly entitled to that they may have been screwed out of. Bands have gotten so screwed over, especially in recent years where even the most diehard of fans won't actually buy new music, that if bands can find a way to earn a few extra dollars, I don't have much of a problem with it.

Of course, the most egregious example is the removal of Bob Daisley & Lee Kerslake from the first two Ozzy records (a situation since remedied, thankfully)....because in that instance, the re-recording wasn't meant to put more money in anyone's pocket, it was to financially screw Daisley & Kerslake. A truly abhorrent and nauseating move.
User avatar
captain2man
 
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:49 pm

FormerLurker wrote:
scannest wrote:
And Sam calling me an idiot while agreeing with the majority of what I said is either a pretty clever bit of trolling, or he is really just a jackass.


Image


Exactly. I both agree with some of what you said, and I think you're an idiot.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:04 am

My thoughts on remixes come from some first hand experience. I have recorded most of the recent down by law stuff. The last full length, I began to mix. It sounded like an average demo, at best, sonically. About 1/3 through, we managed to get Bill Stevenson to remix the exact same material. It then ended up sounding as good, or better, than any of the albums we'd spent tens of thousands of dollars on. I can only imagine that some of these older punk albums that were mixed by inexperienced diy'ers we remixed today by a pro with today's technology. I'd love to hear it. However, something like the dag nasty records probably wouldn't apply, because Don has always been very good. And those albums sounded fairly hifi, even back then, compared to their peers. But I'm sure even he wouldn't mind taking a shot with his more experienced ears and current technology. I remember having a discussion with him about how stellar that first minor threat album sounded for only being 4 or 8 tracks. He said yes, but he could still hear a lot of mistakes on it, mix-wise. I certainly don't. I wouldn't touch that record.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby version sound » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:19 am

scannest wrote:I see the appeal of re-mixing when it is a record you are already very familiar with. It's a way to shed new light on something overly familiar. My problem with remixing is when the new mix effectively becomes "the record" for many people. Some kids will never know that Han shot first, and that's a bummer.


I don't know of a single remix that improved the original. The Kill City remix is interesting, but I would still rather hear the original. Iggy's remix of Raw Power is complete shit and did not fix the "problems" of the OG mix. It was a pure ego trip and did actually replace the Bowie mix in the stores for several years. That was complete bullshit.
Rave down
User avatar
version sound
 
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:08 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby JGJR » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:38 am

I've never heard the CIS and Wig Out remasters, so I won't comment there, but I do remember thinking when I had the original 1990 CD that it didn't sound nearly as good as my late '80s vinyl copies (both $6 ppd versions; 2nd press maybe?) do. I generally think that Dischord CD sound quality improved greatly when they started doing the Silver Sonya remastering series in the early '00s. The Embrace CD sounds great. The main issue with the 1990 Dag Nasty and Shudder to Think Ten Spot/Funeral at the Movies CDs is that the 2nd album sounded much quieter/worse than the first one. CD remastering sucked then. This was a common problem then. Shades Apart's first 2 albums (well s/t Lp and Dude Danger 12" EP) on one CD has a similar thing happening where the s/t sounds OK and Dude Danger is barely audible and you have to crank up the volume really high just to hear it and there are few dynamics. I'd bet that the early '00s remasters sound way better, so I don't know what you all are talking about re: bass response or whatever.
yourenotevil wrote:we've been wasting a lot of time on here then!
User avatar
JGJR
 
Posts: 6505
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:27 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:20 am

version sound wrote:I don't know of a single remix that improved the original.


Yeah, but you have horrible taste. Tethered to nostalgia and delusions of street cred.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:23 am

I haven't heard that Embrace remaster. But that would be a prime candidate for remixing, IMO. The guitar, from what I can hear, sounds intricate and amazing. But it is absolutely buried and tonally anemic. As it is, I can barely distinguish if some of the notes are coming from the bass (which also sounds really cool), or the guitar.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby version sound » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:27 pm

SamDBL wrote:
version sound wrote:I don't know of a single remix that improved the original.


Yeah, but you have horrible taste. Tethered to nostalgia and delusions of street cred.


Nostalgia, for sure, but street cred? God no. I love plenty of lousy music that others would only shame me for (or attempt to, at least).
Rave down
User avatar
version sound
 
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:08 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Neal » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:29 pm

soulforce wrote:Now, about remixing albums...
As 99.9999% of you, I'm sure, my experience with remixed hardcore/punk comes from that horrid high-pitched remix of Bad Brains' "Rock for Light" which we all hate (and probably Dr. Know does too).

the caroline mix isn't actually too bad if it's at the right speed. both versions are totally lacking bass, but the caroline version is a little better.

JGJR wrote:Shades Apart's first 2 albums (well s/t Lp and Dude Danger 12" EP) on one CD has a similar thing happening where the s/t sounds OK and Dude Danger is barely audible and you have to crank up the volume really high just to hear it and there are few dynamics.

dude danger actually has too many dynamics. it's not compressed at all to match the volume of the 1st album.
Neal
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:55 am
Location: Barcelona

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby version sound » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:35 pm

Wait, I lied, I do like the stereo remix of Pet Sounds. Possibly more than the OG mono. Not sure if that counts as nostalgia (it's an old record, but I only discovered it in the '90s), but there is certainly no street cred in that opinion.
Rave down
User avatar
version sound
 
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:08 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Knutsen » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:49 am

Black Flag pretty much had a top notch hardcore punk production for the era, the scene, the audience and the situation. i cannot remember zines, magazines or fans complaining about the "turd" production of the record, because it hit like a bomb, was right on the zeitgeist and the feelings of estranged youth everywhere. It was massive and DBL can only wish to sell that many records with their top protools gofundme production today.

My 2 cents.

PS: Acknowledge that your ears got spoiled during the last 30 years of the technical development of audio productions.
User avatar
Knutsen
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:12 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:09 am

Knutsen wrote:Black Flag pretty much had a top notch hardcore punk production for the era, the scene, the audience and the situation. i cannot remember zines, magazines or fans complaining about the "turd" production of the record, because it hit like a bomb, was right on the zeitgeist and the feelings of estranged youth everywhere. It was massive and DBL can only wish to sell that many records with their top protools gofundme production today.

My 2 cents.

PS: Acknowledge that your ears got spoiled during the last 30 years of the technical development of audio productions.



Man, you are duuuuuuumb.

The record, sonically, sounded like absolute shit even compared to Bad Brains, Minor Threat, or even the Germs. Actually, even the BF eps before the full-length album sound light years better. Damaged was a success despite the horrible sound because the band out shined it's horrible production, like a lot of the bands of the era. Having a shitty sounding record was par for the course, since there wasn't enough money or experience to get more than that. If a band had a good sounding record, it was an exception to the rule. That being said, Damaged sounds like utter shit. It did then, and it does now. Because you are too dim-witted to view the album objectively has no bearing on that fact.

PS: No shit, you stupid fucking moron. As such, I think it'd be very interesting to hear those last 30 years of technical development of audio production applied to great records of the past. If I could hear the recordings of Robert Johnson or the Carter Family in pristine, crystal clear, up-to-date audio quality, I'd love to. Meanwhile, purist dipshits such as yourself would be whining about preferring records to sound like shit because the good ol days, and stuff.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby jaybird » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:30 am

SamDBL wrote:
Knutsen wrote:Black Flag pretty much had a top notch hardcore punk production for the era, the scene, the audience and the situation. i cannot remember zines, magazines or fans complaining about the "turd" production of the record, because it hit like a bomb, was right on the zeitgeist and the feelings of estranged youth everywhere. It was massive and DBL can only wish to sell that many records with their top protools gofundme production today.

My 2 cents.

PS: Acknowledge that your ears got spoiled during the last 30 years of the technical development of audio productions.



Man, you are duuuuuuumb.

The record, sonically, sounded like absolute shit even compared to Bad Brains, Minor Threat, or even the Germs. Actually, even the BF eps before the full-length album sound light years better. Damaged was a success despite the horrible sound because the band out shined it's horrible production, like a lot of the bands of the era. Having a shitty sounding record was par for the course, since there wasn't enough money or experience to get more than that. If a band had a good sounding record, it was an exception to the rule. That being said, Damaged sounds like utter shit. It did then, and it does now. Because you are too dim-witted to view the album objectively has no bearing on that fact.



PS: No shit, you stupid fucking moron. As such, I think it'd be very interesting to hear those last 30 years of technical development of audio production applied to great records of the past. If I could hear the recordings of Robert Johnson or the Carter Family in pristine, crystal clear, up-to-date audio quality, I'd love to. Meanwhile, purist dipshits such as yourself would be whining about preferring records to sound like shit because the good ol days, and stuff.


Which Black Flag records are we talking about that supposedly sound so shitty, Damaged? My biggest complaint with that record is that it's mastered way too quiet compared to other records from the time... but as far as how it was actually recorded and mixed, I think it's okay. Like, when I listen to it on headphones, I have no problem picking out the different instruments and who's doing what, and everything sounds pretty good to my ears as far as tones and such. Maybe the vocals sit too high in the mix... I don't know, that just seems like a subjective taste thing. I tend to think their later records sound a lot weirder overall - either really muddy and lo-fi like My War, or really isolated and sterile and echo-ey like In My Head.
User avatar
jaybird
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby JGJR » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:08 am

jaybird wrote: I tend to think their later records sound a lot weirder overall - either really muddy and lo-fi like My War, or really isolated and sterile and echo-ey like In My Head.


I think Loose Nut, while a record I really like song-wise, is really odd sonically. It's like they wanted to make a mainstream hard rock record, but didn't have the budget or know-how to do it at that point, so the result is, well strange-sounding. I don't have issues with the rest of their records sonically.
yourenotevil wrote:we've been wasting a lot of time on here then!
User avatar
JGJR
 
Posts: 6505
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:27 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby JGJR » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:10 am

Neal wrote:dude danger actually has too many dynamics. it's not compressed at all to match the volume of the 1st album.


You're likely correct, but to my ears, it just sounds a lot quieter and that's probably why. Same deal on the 1990 Ten Spot/Funeral at the Movies CD where Ten Spot sounds tinny by comparison to Funeral at the Movies. I guess they hadn't figured out how to equalize the volume at that point.
yourenotevil wrote:we've been wasting a lot of time on here then!
User avatar
JGJR
 
Posts: 6505
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:27 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:58 am

jaybird wrote:
SamDBL wrote:
Knutsen wrote:Black Flag pretty much had a top notch hardcore punk production for the era, the scene, the audience and the situation. i cannot remember zines, magazines or fans complaining about the "turd" production of the record, because it hit like a bomb, was right on the zeitgeist and the feelings of estranged youth everywhere. It was massive and DBL can only wish to sell that many records with their top protools gofundme production today.

My 2 cents.

PS: Acknowledge that your ears got spoiled during the last 30 years of the technical development of audio productions.



Man, you are duuuuuuumb.

The record, sonically, sounded like absolute shit even compared to Bad Brains, Minor Threat, or even the Germs. Actually, even the BF eps before the full-length album sound light years better. Damaged was a success despite the horrible sound because the band out shined it's horrible production, like a lot of the bands of the era. Having a shitty sounding record was par for the course, since there wasn't enough money or experience to get more than that. If a band had a good sounding record, it was an exception to the rule. That being said, Damaged sounds like utter shit. It did then, and it does now. Because you are too dim-witted to view the album objectively has no bearing on that fact.



PS: No shit, you stupid fucking moron. As such, I think it'd be very interesting to hear those last 30 years of technical development of audio production applied to great records of the past. If I could hear the recordings of Robert Johnson or the Carter Family in pristine, crystal clear, up-to-date audio quality, I'd love to. Meanwhile, purist dipshits such as yourself would be whining about preferring records to sound like shit because the good ol days, and stuff.


Which Black Flag records are we talking about that supposedly sound so shitty, Damaged? My biggest complaint with that record is that it's mastered way too quiet compared to other records from the time... but as far as how it was actually recorded and mixed, I think it's okay. Like, when I listen to it on headphones, I have no problem picking out the different instruments and who's doing what, and everything sounds pretty good to my ears as far as tones and such. Maybe the vocals sit too high in the mix... I don't know, that just seems like a subjective taste thing. I tend to think their later records sound a lot weirder overall - either really muddy and lo-fi like My War, or really isolated and sterile and echo-ey like In My Head.


I think damaged sounds horrible. It's not really a level thing. Maybe more of an eq of the instruments, individually. And the mix of the drums sounds super bad to me. Cymbals are reall washy, hardly any kick drum, snare is anemic. The whole thing just lacks punch. Bass sounds like a third guitar. To hear how good the band could sound, just compare the Ep version of nervous breakdown to the album version. In fact, al of the other versions sound better than the re recorded versions. To me, this album is a prime candidate for something's like a remix. Because it's historically important. And the songs and special place it holds with people are way out of sync with how bad the mix is. In other words, maybe a band like verbal abuse, who''s records also sound really bad... it just doesn't matter as much. The first black flag album should almost be in the library of congress, or something. If it could sound better, it should. And again, I think plenty of records coming out at the same time sounded so much better. Minor threat, for instance. I feel like that dude spot shouldn't have been let near so many recordings. He just didn't know what the hell he was doing.
The later black flag stuff sounds odd.. but I still think they sound way better (and more suitable to the music) than damaged. I mean, my war sounds kind of weird. But the tones of the instruments make more sense to me. Especially with how weird the band was at the time.

But really it just comes down to me wishing DBLs gofundme pro tools album did better.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby jaybird » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:28 pm

SamDBL wrote:
jaybird wrote:
SamDBL wrote:
Knutsen wrote:Black Flag pretty much had a top notch hardcore punk production for the era, the scene, the audience and the situation. i cannot remember zines, magazines or fans complaining about the "turd" production of the record, because it hit like a bomb, was right on the zeitgeist and the feelings of estranged youth everywhere. It was massive and DBL can only wish to sell that many records with their top protools gofundme production today.

My 2 cents.

PS: Acknowledge that your ears got spoiled during the last 30 years of the technical development of audio productions.



Man, you are duuuuuuumb.

The record, sonically, sounded like absolute shit even compared to Bad Brains, Minor Threat, or even the Germs. Actually, even the BF eps before the full-length album sound light years better. Damaged was a success despite the horrible sound because the band out shined it's horrible production, like a lot of the bands of the era. Having a shitty sounding record was par for the course, since there wasn't enough money or experience to get more than that. If a band had a good sounding record, it was an exception to the rule. That being said, Damaged sounds like utter shit. It did then, and it does now. Because you are too dim-witted to view the album objectively has no bearing on that fact.



PS: No shit, you stupid fucking moron. As such, I think it'd be very interesting to hear those last 30 years of technical development of audio production applied to great records of the past. If I could hear the recordings of Robert Johnson or the Carter Family in pristine, crystal clear, up-to-date audio quality, I'd love to. Meanwhile, purist dipshits such as yourself would be whining about preferring records to sound like shit because the good ol days, and stuff.


Which Black Flag records are we talking about that supposedly sound so shitty, Damaged? My biggest complaint with that record is that it's mastered way too quiet compared to other records from the time... but as far as how it was actually recorded and mixed, I think it's okay. Like, when I listen to it on headphones, I have no problem picking out the different instruments and who's doing what, and everything sounds pretty good to my ears as far as tones and such. Maybe the vocals sit too high in the mix... I don't know, that just seems like a subjective taste thing. I tend to think their later records sound a lot weirder overall - either really muddy and lo-fi like My War, or really isolated and sterile and echo-ey like In My Head.


I think damaged sounds horrible. It's not really a level thing. Maybe more of an eq of the instruments, individually. And the mix of the drums sounds super bad to me. Cymbals are reall washy, hardly any kick drum, snare is anemic. The whole thing just lacks punch. Bass sounds like a third guitar. To hear how good the band could sound, just compare the Ep version of nervous breakdown to the album version. In fact, al of the other versions sound better than the re recorded versions. To me, this album is a prime candidate for something's like a remix. Because it's historically important. And the songs and special place it holds with people are way out of sync with how bad the mix is. In other words, maybe a band like verbal abuse, who''s records also sound really bad... it just doesn't matter as much. The first black flag album should almost be in the library of congress, or something. If it could sound better, it should. And again, I think plenty of records coming out at the same time sounded so much better. Minor threat, for instance. I feel like that dude spot shouldn't have been let near so many recordings. He just didn't know what the hell he was doing.
The later black flag stuff sounds odd.. but I still think they sound way better (and more suitable to the music) than damaged. I mean, my war sounds kind of weird. But the tones of the instruments make more sense to me. Especially with how weird the band was at the time.

But really it just comes down to me wishing DBLs gofundme pro tools album did better.


:lol:

Now let's argue about how bad the Doughboys' records sound.
User avatar
jaybird
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Knutsen » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:52 pm

SamDBL wrote:
Knutsen wrote:Black Flag pretty much had a top notch hardcore punk production for the era, the scene, the audience and the situation. i cannot remember zines, magazines or fans complaining about the "turd" production of the record, because it hit like a bomb, was right on the zeitgeist and the feelings of estranged youth everywhere. It was massive and DBL can only wish to sell that many records with their top protools gofundme production today.

My 2 cents.

PS: Acknowledge that your ears got spoiled during the last 30 years of the technical development of audio productions.



Man, you are duuuuuuumb.

The record, sonically, sounded like absolute shit even compared to Bad Brains, Minor Threat, or even the Germs. Actually, even the BF eps before the full-length album sound light years better. Damaged was a success despite the horrible sound because the band out shined it's horrible production, like a lot of the bands of the era. Having a shitty sounding record was par for the course, since there wasn't enough money or experience to get more than that. If a band had a good sounding record, it was an exception to the rule. That being said, Damaged sounds like utter shit. It did then, and it does now. Because you are too dim-witted to view the album objectively has no bearing on that fact.

PS: No shit, you stupid fucking moron. As such, I think it'd be very interesting to hear those last 30 years of technical development of audio production applied to great records of the past. If I could hear the recordings of Robert Johnson or the Carter Family in pristine, crystal clear, up-to-date audio quality, I'd love to. Meanwhile, purist dipshits such as yourself would be whining about preferring records to sound like shit because the good ol days, and stuff.


Why am I dump, protools clown? I have seen Black Flag in 1983 and can assure you that the record catches their sound very well. Why don't you just listen to Rollins' 2003 Rise Above compilation?
There you have the fat production that you are asking for. And now go back and keep on polishing turd band sounds with Protools.
User avatar
Knutsen
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:12 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:43 pm

So you're in your 50s? Oh my fucking God. :lol:
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Knutsen » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:57 pm

Yep, kiddo. How old are you?
User avatar
Knutsen
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:12 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby FormerLurker » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:26 pm

SamDBL wrote:So you're in your 50s? Oh my fucking God. :lol:


:lol:
FormerLurker
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:53 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:55 pm

Knutsen wrote:Yep, kiddo. How old are you?


I just pictured like a 20 year old that considers himself a member of 'the local scene'. Now I'm picturing some half autistic old fuck that collects cans and lives in housing provided by the state government.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Knutsen » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:33 am

Nice insults. Great argueing skills.
User avatar
Knutsen
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:12 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:38 am

They're not insults. It's truly how I picture you based on your posts. Did you ever find your Gilman membership card?
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby The Snake » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:06 am

As for Dag remastered records, I have that classic Can I Say/Wig Out CD and I don't mind how it sounds.

As for Black Flag, I think that some of the records should be recorded and mixed better and way louder, Damaged for example.
I don't mind the mix of My War except that also it would be better if it was a louder mix.
As much as I love 82 demos, I think that the production on My War suits better for these songs than more raw sound of 82 demos.
And if you want to hear BF songs in more raw versions, there are lots of live recordings, official and bootlegs.
The Snake
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 3:10 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:50 am

Your ears have been spoiled by protools.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby Knutsen » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:05 am

I found this. It reflects my opinion pretty much.

http://louderthanwar.com/black-flag-damaged-re-evaluated-30-years-on/

QUOTE:
Dukowski’s bass is one of the great sounds, clanking and heavy and played with a Marine like intensity, every song he is in there battering away against Greg Ginn’s insanely brilliant guitar.

If there was one person who really defines Black Flag though, it’s not Dukowski and his free jazz bass violence, or even the tattooed danger of the in your face Rollins. It’s guitarist Greg Ginn- who is one of the most innovative rock guitar players ever. When he peals out a solo it makes virtually no sense at all- they seem to melt from his hands, the notes pound like they are going backwards or zig zagging in strange directions before melting back into the intense wall of sound sludge of his rhythm playing- it’s an amazing sound. This electric carnage is added to by the claustrophobic sound of the album that sounds like it was recorded in small padded room. The non production adds to the album’s brilliance- a big sound would have wrecked this, its that almost demo sound that just increases the sludge and the intensity, the creepy crawly power that makes this album stand the test of time.


PS: We need your vitriol at ALLCENTRAL. Are you still afraid of Wong?
User avatar
Knutsen
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:12 am

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby erin » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:30 pm

Knutsen wrote:I found this. It reflects my opinion pretty much.

http://louderthanwar.com/black-flag-damaged-re-evaluated-30-years-on/

QUOTE:
Dukowski’s bass is one of the great sounds, clanking and heavy and played with a Marine like intensity, every song he is in there battering away against Greg Ginn’s insanely brilliant guitar.

If there was one person who really defines Black Flag though, it’s not Dukowski and his free jazz bass violence, or even the tattooed danger of the in your face Rollins. It’s guitarist Greg Ginn- who is one of the most innovative rock guitar players ever. When he peals out a solo it makes virtually no sense at all- they seem to melt from his hands, the notes pound like they are going backwards or zig zagging in strange directions before melting back into the intense wall of sound sludge of his rhythm playing- it’s an amazing sound. This electric carnage is added to by the claustrophobic sound of the album that sounds like it was recorded in small padded room. The non production adds to the album’s brilliance- a big sound would have wrecked this, its that almost demo sound that just increases the sludge and the intensity, the creepy crawly power that makes this album stand the test of time.


PS: We need your vitriol at ALLCENTRAL. Are you still afraid of Wong?



Allcentral Hahaha! And I agree, that place needs some Sam! I am strictly lurker status over there since I didn't want to join in the first place!
That guys brain is a bag of cats.
User avatar
erin
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:52 pm

Re: Dag remastered.

Postby SamDBL » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:16 pm

Knutsen wrote:I found this. It reflects my opinion pretty much.

http://louderthanwar.com/black-flag-damaged-re-evaluated-30-years-on/

QUOTE:
Dukowski’s bass is one of the great sounds, clanking and heavy and played with a Marine like intensity, every song he is in there battering away against Greg Ginn’s insanely brilliant guitar.

If there was one person who really defines Black Flag though, it’s not Dukowski and his free jazz bass violence, or even the tattooed danger of the in your face Rollins. It’s guitarist Greg Ginn- who is one of the most innovative rock guitar players ever. When he peals out a solo it makes virtually no sense at all- they seem to melt from his hands, the notes pound like they are going backwards or zig zagging in strange directions before melting back into the intense wall of sound sludge of his rhythm playing- it’s an amazing sound. This electric carnage is added to by the claustrophobic sound of the album that sounds like it was recorded in small padded room. The non production adds to the album’s brilliance- a big sound would have wrecked this, its that almost demo sound that just increases the sludge and the intensity, the creepy crawly power that makes this album stand the test of time.


PS: We need your vitriol at ALLCENTRAL. Are you still afraid of Wong?


This is basically describing the greatness of the band in a bunch of over the top, yet generic music critic analogies. With a line admitting that the album sounds like shit, and that somehow adds to it's overall greatness. Typical music critic public dick sucking of an album he has to like because he's supposed to. Of course you find it relatable.
SamDBL
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:26 pm


Return to daghouse

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron