My friend called this album "over produced."What the fuck does that mean? Do you guys agree?
That's a throwaway useless criticism. Ignore people who use it.
>>54327376It means you need better friends
>>54327390>>54327396These. But did your friend elaborate?
>>54327376i think theres some truth in it but its mostly a dumb criticism. theres a charm to albums that dont have as good production/recording quality but i wouldnt say it was the case with OKC. a lot of metal is very overproduced so every kick beat sounds like a click and everything fits perfectly which can sound a bit robotic compared to more fuzzy and less perfect metal albums, but its not an actual criticism of an album or its music
It means that they tried to add too much fancy shit instead of keeping it simple and clean. It's what Radiohead is known for.
it means they think it should've just been geetarzndrums and none of them fancy studio-boxes and computers
>>54327376It is.
That it should be lo-fi and used instruments to add more layers instead of post production.
>>54328301>post productionthat's not what that means
It means that it was either mixed poorly or the instrumentation for the tracks were too heavily manipulated and needed a producer with a lighter hand.
>>54327390No it isn't. This type of production is incredibly sleek and clear, and in the case of OKC it's perfectly fine so I wouldn't consider it overproduced. This is because of their songwriting style, arrangements, and the mood they went forHowever, take the same production style and put it on Nevermind. It sounds like shit, doesn't it? It's not a bad criticism, just bad in the context of this album
It's supposed to sound cold and robotic, that's the whole point of the album
>>54328322Enlighten me then.
>>54328407post production is the mixing/mastering once the album is done. the effects and adding layers that you're talking about is part of the creative process and generally wouldn't be referred to as post-production
the production on OK computer is fucking acetell your friend to off himself asap
>>54328468I understand now, so how would you call effects added through the studio instead of performance?
>>54328492Inauthentic faggotry
>>54328484this radiohead's production is always top notch
>>54328512the wrong generation
>>54328484More like C-
>>54328543mmmm, numberswhat
>>54328543what's that
>>54328569>>54328585Woops I should've posted the top partDynamic range. It's mastered like shit basically
I would say something like Yeasayer is similarly over-produced, or too reliant on various computer effects. I think OKC is a better album than anything Yeasayer has done though.
>>54328587Iwhatdynamic range has literally nothing to do with how well something is masteredradiohead is pop music of course it has a limited dynamic range, if anything pop music having a wide dynamic range is indicative of the fact that it hasn't been mastered well, people listen to that shit on the radio, they can't afford to having huge leaps in dynamics or people would have to be adjusting their radios all the time and more likely just switching station
>>54327469it's acalled arrengement and that's one of the reasons why this is an outstanding album
>>54328587>dynamic rangelmao
>>54327376>2015>still listening to RadioheadWhat are you, a faggot?
>>54328665>not listening to such an outstanding band because of memesLiterally a mouthbreather.
>>54328690anon is rightradiohead is ersatz shit
>>54328700Anon is (you)
>>54328624>dynamic range has literally nothing to do with how well something is masteredWhat the fuck are you talking about? I'm sure you've heard of the loudness war, compression and all that. It's the difference between to loudest and quietest part of a track, and that has everything to do with how something is mastered. Many engineers will brickwall shit in an effort to make things loud, and it ruins the dynamics>radiohead is pop music of course it has a limited dynamic rangePlenty of pop music contradicts that though. Most Talking Heads records, for example>if anything pop music having a wide dynamic range is indicative of the fact that it hasn't been mastered well[citation needed]>people listen to that shit on the radio, they can't afford to having huge leaps in dynamics or people would have to be adjusting their radios all the time and more likely just switching stationLoudness war in a nutshell. People mastering records for shitty systems, and then they sound like shit if you listen to it on something decent
>>54328492>I understand now, so how would you call effects added through the studio instead of performance?That's part of production, even The Beatles did it, and anyone that uses the studio as a tool for creating an album does that.
>>54328716>Many engineers will brickwall shit in an effort to make things loud, and it ruins the dynamicsEither that or they apply too much high pass / low pass on instrumentation, leading to things like guitars / bass / drums sounding like they had all the life sucked out of them.
>>54328721So it relies heavily on production whereas post production is equalizing and such, am I right?
>>54328716>actually selling me sound production 101 knowledge like it's some big deal and this makes you look less stupidyesno
>>54328836>I was just pretending not to know a thingCongratulations
>>54328799>So it relies heavily on production whereas post production is equalizing and such, am I right?Yes.
>>54328716So you're saying big labels should care? I mean, for those sharks OK Computer was just a product, and they had to promote it. idk the "loudness war" seems more like a pop/big label thing.
>>54327376He mean kid a was better
>>54328468>adding layers isn't production Do you realize how shitty all those layers and textures would sound if they were all just centered
>>54328911Music listeners should care
>>54328938>Not exclusively listening to glorious monoGet the fuck off of /mu/, newfag
>>54328975kek
>>54327376>ok computer>over producedokaayy… i guess he knows only the beatles and up to date top US chart
No.54327376