From: mkuinder@cape.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Kuindersma)
Subject: Sound Quality vs. Production
Summary: One is up, the other down (IMO).
Keywords: sound quality, production, opinion, Barry Manilow (really!)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:21:02 GMT

Folks:
 
  There have been a number of articles recently discussing the relative
quality of the various Rush albums with respect to production and sound
quality, so I thought I'd toss in my two cents' worth.

  It is my opinion that we're working with two terms (prodution and sound
quality) and that some people are confusing the two.  They are not quite
interchangeable.  While I don't claim to be Daniel Webster, I would like to
point out my personal working definitions of these terms, and then go on from
there.
 
  `Sound quality' is a term that refers quite literally to the quality
of sound on the recording.  Is there any distortion?  Any hiss?  Pops?
Drop-outs?  If yes to any of these, the sound quality is low.  In this
area, CD's are better, in general, than the analog media.  I do not want
to start a discussion with high-end sound equipment afficianados, some of
whom claim that digitally recorded music sounds `harsh' or `unmusical'.  I'll
leave that for alt.stereo.high-end or wherever.
 
  `Production' or `production quality' is a term that refers to the results
of the decisions made in the recording and mix-down process that govern what
sounds are included in the music, and their relative levels in the mix.  The
term includes such things as arrangement of the music, choice of instruments
and so on.  It is the album's `producer' that has input in this phase, oddly
enough (:-).  The producer listens to the music, and makes suggestions about
how the band can change this or that in order to achieve the results they 
want.  The producer must know the band, and understand what they want.  It is
possible to do too much to the music, making it sound `over-produced'.  
Bands such as Boston and Foreigner come to mind (both of which I like a lot,
no flames please, it is simply my opinion that their music at least borders
on being over-produced in places).  It is also possible to `under-produce'
music, but to me this is usually a positive, desirable state.  Early U2 to 
me has this desirable `raw' `under-produced' `live' edge.  (Pun only 
slightly unintended.)
 
  IMO, early Rush albums have a lower sound quality than the later ones.  
Really folks, recording technology has progressed quite a ways since 1974.
Even for those not totally enamoured with digital music technology, I think
you have to admit that it's better than the first couple albums.  I still
find those first few Rush albums quite acceptable, I listen to 'em all the
time.
 
  IMO, the production quality of the middle albums is the best.  I find the 
earliest albums a bit too raw.  I find the latest albums (since about Signals)
too over-produced, and for me they sound too polished and lifeless.  Remember,
I'm talking arrangement, sound-selection etc. here.  I'm a progressive music
fan, so I'm disappointed that the longer songs have gone away, along with
the time-signature changes, more challenging lyrics (no flames please, Neil's
lyrics are much better than 99% of the dross I encounter these days, it is
just my own opinion that he's become less challenging or interesting.  Maybe
I'm the one who's changed.  Who knows?) and so on.  And yeah, I'll say it,
I miss Alex shredding the guitar now and then.
 
  Rush is still in my top 5 bands, folks, and will be for a long time to come
(unless they start covering Barry Manilow or some such.  Barry Manilow flames
I will accept! *grin*)
 
  Quite a bargain at two cents, eh?
 
  ----- Mike Kuindersma  mkuinder@cape.UWaterloo.ca
 
-- 
*************************************************************************
*  mkuinder@cape.UWaterloo.ca  * Opinions expressed are not those of UW *
*************************************************************************