Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 
Me... I like dry as toast. I hate mixes slathered in goopy reverb. Yuck. They sound so fake. .
|
sorry if I was unclear. I did not mean 'dry' in the engineering sense of less reverb.
I meant 'dry' as in plain and uninteresting. Sorry but that's what it sounds like to me.
Quote:
|
Now I don't think this sounds like it was necessarily recorded on expensive gear. But it was clearly tracked and mixed by someone with a vivid and distinctive musical vision. In a world of cookie-cutter product, it sounds fresh and clean and unencumbered by current fad and fashion.
|
The title of the thread was
"greatest engineer ever?" - for that I expected the sonics of the record to do
more than simply overcome the Low Expectations set for someone recording with a Roland and a 57.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bonnybilly I find it really sad that people can't handle or accept the fact that a good sounding record was made with basic equipment. . |
I could handle that fact, I just don't think that it IS a "good" sounding record. It is an OK sounding record with imaginative and interesting music.
How does making a low-fi record with low-end gear translate into a great engineering achievement? I really think the praise for the "enginering" of this record is overblown, confused with appreciation for the music itself, and biased by the Low Expectations generated by the gear list and session notes.