Thread: reassessing goo
View Single Post
Old 09.02.2007, 05:52 PM   #46
Dead-Air
invito al cielo
 
Dead-Air's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 4,300
Dead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's assesDead-Air kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by atsonicpark
actually, there are people in this thread who agree the production sucks and have said something about it in their assessments. if i recall correctly, even the book "confusion is next" realizes the production sucks and makes a note of it!... i'm not really sure why anyone would DEFEND the production -- it's obvious that it's muddy and muffled sounding. that's like saying "man, steve albini's production doesn't accentuate the drum sound at ALL!" it's obviously not true -- regardless if you can tolerate the production or not (which i can certainly tolerate goo's), you have to hear it's pretty crappily-produced.. or you don't have ears. it's not like you have to have dog's ears to hear it, it's not something to have to do with the frequencies; the vocals versus the guitars versus the bass vs the drums sound like a muffled swamp of murk. nothing sounds right. the eq .. or SOMETHING .. is just off all over the album. it's no big deal. when the remaster came out, i remember a big deal being made about how goo "finally sounds a bit better". and the remaster is a bit better. but it's been a longstanding fact that goo sounds kinda.. well.. murky. that's just how it is.

Yes, in your personal taste murky = bad. You've proved that over and over again about your personal taste. Congratulations.
Dead-Air is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|