4 ms·

The thing about cliches is that they only become that via repetition. For example at one point it wasn’t a cliche to talk about Lord of the Rings characters ov

by CPLX 5y ago

The thing about cliches is that they only become that via repetition. For example at one point it wasn’t a cliche to talk about Lord of the Rings characters over alternating bouts of English folk music and heavy rock. And then it was. But in the middle there was the part where people waited in line outside the record store and rushed home to get it on the turntable and had their minds blown. As someone who was around and actually working as a record producer in the same era this letter was written I feel confident saying that the ethos described here was in fact out of step with the mainstream approach to making rock and roll records. Doing things the way he’s describing was in fact an “alternative” approach to coin a phrase. That it was rapidly becoming the mainstream at the time and eventually a cliche is also true. But I think it’s fun to evaluate things in the relevant context, or you’ll skip right from considering things obscure to overdone and miss the exhilarating part where something genuinely valuable and novel is gaining mass acceptance for the first time.

prpl 5y ago
> Doing things the way he’s describing was in fact an “alternative” approach to coin a phrase. Grohl had been in a Dischord band and Kurt/Dave on Subpop with Kurt being great friends with Buzz Osborne (among so so so many other things in Seattle scene). I’m sure Steve knew that too. Different pedigrees, sure, but explaining an alternative approach would be speaking to the choir - so it was never a letter to Nirvana, more like a letter to Geffen.
wolverine876 5y ago
As you knew the industry, I will take your word for it. Thank you for sharing some actual knowledge with us! I'd be interested in more if you are willing and have the time. Was Albini really an "engineer extraordinaire", like the introduction says? Why does live almost always sound better to me than studio, lacking the energy and creativity that make rock'n'roll great. Is it just me? For the most part, I stopped buying studio albums. Why wouldn't they just record Nirvana (or Bruce Springsteen or whoever) playing their new songs live?
- atoav 5y ago
  Because just recording a band and expecting the result to sound like it sounded to the people in the room doesn't work for a heap of reasons. (I have been making my living as an audio engineer) One of those is, that live doesn't actually sound good, it is just a good experience — the people, the light, the atmosphere, you went there and payed potentially a ton of money for it, you are a little drunk, it is loud, everybody who is there is in a good mood, it happens live in front of your eyes... In short: It sounds better than it actually sounds for psychological reasons. While this is not necessarily true for all genres of music equally, audio engineers still have to pull a ton of strings and jump through a bunch of hoops to recreate the energy people felt who were in the room. And sometimes it easier to do so in the studio where the band just plays for the recording and you don't have to compromise between coices that are good for a stage and choices that are good for a recording.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > that live doesn't actually sound good, it is just a good experience — the people, the light, the atmosphere, you went there and payed potentially a ton of money for it, you are a little drunk, it is loud, everybody who is there is in a good mood, it happens live in front of your eyes... In short: It sounds better than it actually sounds for psychological reasons. Certainly I've had this experience! But there are so many great live bootleg recordings, don't they seem like evidence that live music can sound fantastic (in the sense of music, not recording quality)? Listen to the Nirvana clips upthread. But thinking about it, I've forgotten that many, many bands are worse live than in a studio, and far more are no better live. The Rolling Stones stand out to me as a band known for legendary live concerts but who, if you hear the music only, play poorly. I love live music so I realize I have a very strong selection bias toward people who are fantastic live performers. Not everyone, or maybe nobody, is Nirvana.
    - earleybird 5y ago
      Live recordings I enjoy to this day, often in preference to the studio recordings: - Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out - Waiting for Columbus - Stop Making Sense

by CPLX 5y ago

prpl 5y ago

> Doing things the way he’s describing was in fact an “alternative” approach to coin a phrase. Grohl had been in a Dischord band and Kurt/Dave on Subpop with Kurt being great friends with Buzz Osborne (among so so so many other things in Seattle scene). I’m sure Steve knew that too. Different pedigrees, sure, but explaining an alternative approach would be speaking to the choir - so it was never a letter to Nirvana, more like a letter to Geffen.

wolverine876 5y ago

As you knew the industry, I will take your word for it. Thank you for sharing some actual knowledge with us! I'd be interested in more if you are willing and have the time. Was Albini really an "engineer extraordinaire", like the introduction says? Why does live almost always sound better to me than studio, lacking the energy and creativity that make rock'n'roll great. Is it just me? For the most part, I stopped buying studio albums. Why wouldn't they just record Nirvana (or Bruce Springsteen or whoever) playing their new songs live?

atoav 5y ago
Because just recording a band and expecting the result to sound like it sounded to the people in the room doesn't work for a heap of reasons. (I have been making my living as an audio engineer) One of those is, that live doesn't actually sound good, it is just a good experience — the people, the light, the atmosphere, you went there and payed potentially a ton of money for it, you are a little drunk, it is loud, everybody who is there is in a good mood, it happens live in front of your eyes... In short: It sounds better than it actually sounds for psychological reasons. While this is not necessarily true for all genres of music equally, audio engineers still have to pull a ton of strings and jump through a bunch of hoops to recreate the energy people felt who were in the room. And sometimes it easier to do so in the studio where the band just plays for the recording and you don't have to compromise between coices that are good for a stage and choices that are good for a recording.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > that live doesn't actually sound good, it is just a good experience — the people, the light, the atmosphere, you went there and payed potentially a ton of money for it, you are a little drunk, it is loud, everybody who is there is in a good mood, it happens live in front of your eyes... In short: It sounds better than it actually sounds for psychological reasons. Certainly I've had this experience! But there are so many great live bootleg recordings, don't they seem like evidence that live music can sound fantastic (in the sense of music, not recording quality)? Listen to the Nirvana clips upthread. But thinking about it, I've forgotten that many, many bands are worse live than in a studio, and far more are no better live. The Rolling Stones stand out to me as a band known for legendary live concerts but who, if you hear the music only, play poorly. I love live music so I realize I have a very strong selection bias toward people who are fantastic live performers. Not everyone, or maybe nobody, is Nirvana.
  - earleybird 5y ago
    Live recordings I enjoy to this day, often in preference to the studio recordings: - Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out - Waiting for Columbus - Stop Making Sense