Check Out This *Horrible* "mastering" Job!

[dvyce]

My point is that as long as music is being produced this badly and put out, it makes the whole industry suffer.

I do not agree with that at all. Besides, the determination of whether music is "produced badly" is rather subjective.

Do you guys really think that you produce in a bubble?

I do not see how this relates to anything being discussed here.

[Hosey]

I do not agree with that at all. Besides, the determination of whether music is "produced badly" is rather subjective.

I don't find it subjective. It sounds bad.

I do not see how this relates to anything being discussed here.

Production aesthetics have nothing to do with what's being discussed here? (in a thread about production aesthetics, mind you)

[dvyce]

I don't find it subjective. It sounds bad.

What does "I don't find it subjective" even mean?


The judgement of whether music sounds "good" or "bad" is subjective.

You may think it sounds "bad"...

I may think it sounds "good"...

Mr. X may think it sounds "mediocre"...

Musical taste is 100% subjective.




It is like you saying "chocolate tastes horrible" and someone else saying "well, I love chocolate"...

You can't tell the person he is incorrect regarding his love of chocolate.

Production aesthetics have nothing to do with what's being discussed here? (in a thread about production aesthetics, mind you)

...and how does this relate to your earlier statement about "producing in a bubble"?

[Hosey]

What does "I don't find it subjective" even mean?


The judgement of whether music sounds "good" or "bad" is subjective.

You may think it sounds "bad"...

I may think it sounds "good"...

Mr. X may think it sounds "mediocre"...

Musical taste is 100% subjective.

Taste is subjective. Whether something clips or distorts is not.

It is like you saying "chocolate tastes horrible" and someone else saying "well, I love chocolate"...

You can't tell the person he is incorrect regarding his love of chocolate.

I wouldn't argue his love for chocolate, but if he's eating Cheetos and says "This chocolate is great," he's wrong. And if he makes chocolate with applesauce, he's not making chocolate. Chocolate is not subjective, it is chocolate. It's not cheese, it's not a steak, it's a defined object. Not subjective. I don't understand how you can't understand something "not being subjective." It's called being objective.

...and how does this relate to your earlier statement about "producing in a bubble"?

I'm confused how you don't understand this? Is the metaphor getting lost? I'm just saying that everything that comes out in the music world has an effect on everything else that's going on. There's no 'bubble' you can hide in and ignore what the rest of the world is doing.

[rocstarr328]

Yeah ok I understand the point of view of you both, but please explain me what the point of this thread is? So you expected that we all jump on your "lets laugh at this idiot" bandwagon but no one did, why? Because even the 15 year old kids on FP are more mature. Discussing about someone else music is way different than laughing at it and making the musician a fool. I'm sure you didn't want to really discuss about it and what the guy could have made better, alone the way how you wrote your first post shows that you just wanted to get some laugher.

And this getting "quiet and then louder" what you described is pretty much a technique for other people (here we go with the subjective argument). For instance listen to J Dilla's Donuts album he has beats where some parts get noticeable quiet and then louder through the whole beat. And he is a favorited producer.

[Hosey]

...childish assumptions deleted...

I didn't want to laugh at anyone, I found the tracks disgusting. I posted them on a forum, about mixing and mastering to see if anyone else had opinions about it. It seems all of you people only have opinions about other people's opinions.

And this getting "quiet and then louder" what you described is pretty much a technique for other people (here we go with the subjective argument). For instance listen to J Dilla's Donuts album he has beats where some parts get noticeable quiet and then louder through the whole beat. And he is a favorited producer.

Well, it's a misinformed technique, and Dilla's use of it is not nearly as aggresively awful sounding. Besides, the fact that the majority of his other beats don't do it leads me to doubt how intentional it was.

EDIT: Also "technique that I described"? Did you not even listen to what we're talking about? Why would you jump in on this?

[dvyce]

Taste is subjective. Whether something clips or distorts is not.

You talked about "overcompression" in your post as the reason you didn't like it... you didn't say you didn't like it because it was clipping and distorted...

I don't know what you can really hear with regard to clipping and distortion in an ultra crappy myspace compressed audio stream, but i didn't hear any unusual clipping or distortion.

"Overcompression" is a statement of "taste"

One persons "overcompression" is another persons "perfect compression."

I wouldn't argue his love for chocolate, but if he's eating Cheetos and says "This chocolate is great," he's wrong. And if he makes chocolate with applesauce, he's not making chocolate. Chocolate is not subjective, it is chocolate. It's not cheese, it's not a steak, it's a defined object. Not subjective. I don't understand how you can't understand something "not being subjective." It's called being objective.

Wow, that is not a very good analogy.

You are making it seem like he said "look of this picture of a chair that I built" and then he plays a song for you.

Who is comparing chocolate to cheetos?

This is a comparison of chocolate to chocolate.

There is a piece of music and you are determining that there is too much compression. It is your "opinion" that there is too much compression. It is not a "fact" that there is too much compression.


To be quite honest, I can't understand how you do not see that your statement is a subjective one.

I'm confused how you don't understand this? Is the metaphor getting lost? I'm just saying that everything that comes out in the music world has an effect on everything else that's going on. There's no 'bubble' you can hide in and ignore what the rest of the world is doing.

You can ignore what the rest of the world is doing if you want to. One persons art only needs to come from within himself.

What this guy does does not necessarily have any bearing on what anybody else decides to do.

If people like what he is doing, it may be influential on their own art.

If people do not like what he is doing, they will disregard it and continue to do what they had been doing all along.


There are "followers" and there are "leaders"...

As a "follower" you can decide who you want to follow or you can follow whoever "they" tell you to follow... and you can decide for yourself when and how much to follow...

As a "leader", you can build your own path and set your own trends...





I was able to read your words and see that you were trying to make some sort of metaphor. I just did not see how it really applies to anything here.

There is a lot of music and art out there. It does not all have a profound effect on the community at large.

[Hosey]

I'll ignore the rest of your post, we've been over the points, this is just a matter of you find validity in every viewpoint, whereas I think some things are definitely 'bad' and 'wrong.' But this struck me:

There is a lot of music and art out there. It does not all have a profound effect on the community at large.

That's absolutely the most depressing, sad, defeatist statement I've ever heard an artist make.

[dvyce]

I'll ignore the rest of your post, we've been over the points, this is just a matter of you find validity in every viewpoint, whereas I think some things are definitely 'bad' and 'wrong.'

The issue is not that I find validity in every viewpoint... the issue is that you think your viewpoint is "correct" simply by virtue of it being "yours."

But this struck me:

That's absolutely the most depressing, sad, defeatist statement I've ever heard an artist make.

how is that "sad", "depressing" or "defeatist"?

It is empowering.

"I" choose what my art will be. "I" will make what comes from my heart. "I" will like what I like and be influenced by what I choose to be an influence upon me. "I" make the music that I like. "I" make music for myself. "I" get personal satisfaction out of making music.

It is only sad or depressing to the person fails in their attempt to have a profound effect on the community at large, when that is their sole purpose for making music in the first place.

Not everyone makes a profound impact on the universe... and that is OK.


When an artist creates for his own satisfaction, they can make true art.

When an artist creates for his own personal satisfaction, then he is a complete success from the moment of his first creation.

...and if his art happens to have a profound effect on the universe, then that is wonderful... but that is not what makes art valuable or worthwile.

Even if his art only has an effect on himself or one person or a small group of people, that artist is a success.




The artist who's goal is to have a profound effect on the universe is never going to be happy with his accomplishments.



The fact is:

There is a lot of music and art out there. It does not all have a profound effect on the community at large.

...and that is OK.

[rocstarr328]

I'm sorry but you don't even notice it. Your posts are full of subjectivity, what else would be "horrible", "laughable" "the overcompression makes me seasick" when not subjective?