The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We really needed a thread for the world's premier type of music, so I created one, and here it is.
Rock on!
Rock on!
Page:
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> It's not a huge thing, but
> if you had an under produced version and an over produced version of
> the same song, I'd usually go with the underproduced one. It comes
> from listening to black metal, and I've come to prefer that sound.
Because overproduced songs, like a lot of pop music, are heavily compressed. This is why they often sound so.....fake. Underproduced material doenst have the same compression rate, usually because its recorded in a low budget studio that doenst have the technology available :D (Prime example: My last band's demo!!! At the end of the day you just can't beat a dicataphone in the middle of the room. Well not by much anyway).
> It's not a huge thing, but
> if you had an under produced version and an over produced version of
> the same song, I'd usually go with the underproduced one. It comes
> from listening to black metal, and I've come to prefer that sound.
Because overproduced songs, like a lot of pop music, are heavily compressed. This is why they often sound so.....fake. Underproduced material doenst have the same compression rate, usually because its recorded in a low budget studio that doenst have the technology available :D (Prime example: My last band's demo!!! At the end of the day you just can't beat a dicataphone in the middle of the room. Well not by much anyway).
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> It's not a huge thing, but
> if you had an under produced version and an over produced version of
> the same song, I'd usually go with the underproduced one. It comes
> from listening to black metal, and I've come to prefer that sound.
Because overproduced songs, like a lot of pop music, are heavily compressed. This is why they often sound so.....fake. Underproduced material doenst have the same compression rate, usually because its recorded in a low budget studio that doenst have the technology available :D (Prime example: My last band's demo!!! At the end of the day you just can't beat a dicataphone in the middle of the room. Well not by much anyway).
> It's not a huge thing, but
> if you had an under produced version and an over produced version of
> the same song, I'd usually go with the underproduced one. It comes
> from listening to black metal, and I've come to prefer that sound.
Because overproduced songs, like a lot of pop music, are heavily compressed. This is why they often sound so.....fake. Underproduced material doenst have the same compression rate, usually because its recorded in a low budget studio that doenst have the technology available :D (Prime example: My last band's demo!!! At the end of the day you just can't beat a dicataphone in the middle of the room. Well not by much anyway).
Hehe well, yeah, I'll agree the singing is better on the Run DMC one, and I'll agree the guitars sound better. But you know, it just has that under produced sound I really like. It's not a huge thing, but if you had an under produced version and an over produced version of the same song, I'd usually go with the underproduced one. It comes from listening to black metal, and I've come to prefer that sound.
Anyway, you were supposed to be recommending me songs, not arguing with me.
Anyway, you were supposed to be recommending me songs, not arguing with me.
What you are trying to say homemade quality isn't I'm trying to say it is
It just sounds very empty and rythmless to me. It seems to be lacking the vigour that permeates the DMC cross, and instead offers a mundane piece of guitaring
I'm proposing that both sounds are good but whereas Aerosmiths' own version is very empty and souless, DMC's sounds far more 'interesting' - full of good riffs and evocative singing
It just sounds very empty and rythmless to me. It seems to be lacking the vigour that permeates the DMC cross, and instead offers a mundane piece of guitaring
I'm proposing that both sounds are good but whereas Aerosmiths' own version is very empty and souless, DMC's sounds far more 'interesting' - full of good riffs and evocative singing
Lord Funk wrote:
> Yes, if you want to get 'technical' then the vocals in the Run DMC
> version had a far greater harmonic quality, it was sung with more
> conviction and the guitaring was far more 'alive'
>
> Whereas Aerosmiths' version lacked luster and, above all, quality, it
> sounded like it was recorded in someones' shed. Too empty and not very
> impressive
That's my point! It has less production on it and that gives it such a warmth. I'm sorry but there's something brilliant about a song that sounds like it was recorded in someone's shed/garage/basement. Well, assuming it's a good song, anyway.
Edit: My point was not that it sounded empty and unimpressive.
> Yes, if you want to get 'technical' then the vocals in the Run DMC
> version had a far greater harmonic quality, it was sung with more
> conviction and the guitaring was far more 'alive'
>
> Whereas Aerosmiths' version lacked luster and, above all, quality, it
> sounded like it was recorded in someones' shed. Too empty and not very
> impressive
That's my point! It has less production on it and that gives it such a warmth. I'm sorry but there's something brilliant about a song that sounds like it was recorded in someone's shed/garage/basement. Well, assuming it's a good song, anyway.
Edit: My point was not that it sounded empty and unimpressive.
See? Hip-Hop even helps make rock songs better. Is there anything it can't do?
*leaves before barrage of smart-alec comments*
*leaves before barrage of smart-alec comments*
Yes, if you want to get 'technical' then the vocals in the Run DMC version had a far greater harmonic quality, it was sung with more conviction and the guitaring was far more 'alive'
Whereas Aerosmiths' version lacked luster and, above all, quality. It sounded like it was recorded in someones' shed. Too empty and not very impressive
But whatever, start with the Who, overall a larger amount of better songs than DP. DP have a load of good songs, but just not as many songs released overall
Whereas Aerosmiths' version lacked luster and, above all, quality. It sounded like it was recorded in someones' shed. Too empty and not very impressive
But whatever, start with the Who, overall a larger amount of better songs than DP. DP have a load of good songs, but just not as many songs released overall
Hey, one band at a time, dude.
Weren't the lyrics the same? Or did you mean vocally? In which case, I'll agree. And also on the guitaring. But it was so cold. The Aerosmith version has a nice fuzzy warmth to it and it's lower production.
Sorry, but it's like that, and that's the way it is. (See what I did there?)
Weren't the lyrics the same? Or did you mean vocally? In which case, I'll agree. And also on the guitaring. But it was so cold. The Aerosmith version has a nice fuzzy warmth to it and it's lower production.
Sorry, but it's like that, and that's the way it is. (See what I did there?)
*Sniff*
I'll pretend you didn't say that. The Run DMC version featured superior lyrical and guitaring quality
Aerosmiths' 'Walk This Way' was far too screechy and bland for my liking. The guitaring also didn't sound as good, for some unknown reason
Ah well, if you like Aerosmith, you may like Deep Purple ... and try some The Who
I'll pretend you didn't say that. The Run DMC version featured superior lyrical and guitaring quality
Aerosmiths' 'Walk This Way' was far too screechy and bland for my liking. The guitaring also didn't sound as good, for some unknown reason
Ah well, if you like Aerosmith, you may like Deep Purple ... and try some The Who
Nah, this is the real version.
The Run DMC one was okay, but the Aerosmith only one was better.
The Run DMC one was okay, but the Aerosmith only one was better.
Page: