BOC: Old albums' production

[reset3xKO]

Dan Olivadoti <Dano7 at WEBTV.NET> writes:

> I have to chime in on the production and mixes of the old material. I'm
> sorry but the time in which it was recorded is irrelevant.

No it isn't! Actually, it matters a great deal - especially in the case of
BOC...

> Yes, a lot of
> older production "sounds" dated, but BOC's albums all the way through
> "AOF" really just sound BAD!

No they don't! :)

> To a lot of people, I'm sure it's
> unlistenable.

Well, if they have no appreciation of solidly crafted music not necessarily
"saved" or made "perfect" with modern equipment and surface gliss, yeah...
P

Part of the charm of "old" recordings is the inventive problem solving and
creativity with limited technology (i.e. pre-easy like today when any fool
who can turn a knob or three and say "wow, cool" becomes a 'producer' or
even a 'musician').

For example, take The Beatles/George Martin vs. to all these crap bands
today, with all that "great" technology, who try and try and don't even
come close... compared to the Beatles :) In fact, many bands today pay
oodles of money for old equipment to sound good, and *still* can't do it...


> I got really turned on to BOC with "Cult Classic", believe
> it or not, because I could finally get into that material.

Wasn't that just a quick move to renew copyrights?

> Then I
> started appreciating the older albums more. The older stuff, classic as
> it is, is the weakest and shrillest sounding stuff that I've ever heard
> (production-wise).

aaaw, c'mon! Like Black Sabbath's first few albums sounded any better :)

Chr.


> Dano
>
> THE American Band Is Back! www.grandfunkrailroad.com

-------DIY sig:
"Gustav Dore: God knows what they spiked his drinks with."