Let me start off saying that "the tennessee fire" has quickly become one of my favorite albums. It is quite unique and it embodies a lot of what I look for in music and art in general.
Anyway, I was kind of surprised to see reviews on different websites (amazon.com, etc.) that complained about production. I kind of think that is odd because the people said they loved the music in spite of what they felt as inadequate or less than professional recording and producing. Oddly enough, perhaps, I think I like the album so much partially because of how it sounds.
I mean I think a lot would be lost if it sounded crisper and more glossy in terms of how it was recorded. Is this a commonly shared feeling here or in the MMJ fanbase in general?
I think so. Many people are just conditioned to only be able to appreciate production if it's done with really high end equipment. The first two records have a low-fi sound do to the quality of the recording equipment, but there is no question that the production on both those records is nothing short of stellar, and in the case of At Dawn better than anything ever created by mankind. So to me it's just the difference between lo-fi and hi-fi, many people like lo-fi stuff and I can see why when I listen to stuff like TN Fire and At Dawn - Many people like Hi-Fi and I can also see why on records like It Still Moves and Z.
Yeah, I think that makes sense. I mean I love "the tennesse fire" for what it is and "it still moves" for what it is too.
Basically I enjoy them both for what they are and how they were recorded.
But if "the tennesse fire" was re-recorded or re-prouduced in a way more typical of a customary studio album.. it would be of a crappy standard next to how it originally was.
I say amen and a hell yeah to everything you say. If you don't have the Early Rec. CD's yet, get them, and you will enjoy. You can almost imagine jim in a basement somewhere working his majic like mad scientist. Chptr 1 is overtaking 2 as my current favorite.
I don't think ANYONE here is wanting any kind of reproduction done on any of the early stuff, if anything I think there are some people here that wish they would go back and revisit the low-fi sound for an album.
Personally I just hope Jim gets more involved in the production of the next album regardless of what equipment or what sound they want to achieve. Z is more or less flawless but I think it's missing his touch in the production a bit. I'm just a big fan of what he has done with production and I would hate to see him give it up.
jim's a co-producer on z, so i'm sure he had a fair amount to say. ;)
i think my favorite moment on TN Fire is Jim banging down the stairs into the beginning of I Will Be There When You Die. I wouldn't have that album without it.
and the starkness of They Ran is just beautiful. They milked that farm for that album, and I love it.
QuoteThey milked that farm for that album,
You're full of puns' arnt you?
i suppose it's pretty bad when you get to the point where you don't even realize it as they come out, eh?
I would say so, and in the tab section i think it was you who said something in the Steam Engine topic the line 'i do believe' like the first lyric of the song.
i do believe that was intentional...but maybe not, i really can't remember. i'll never know for sure...
Puns
When will they come? How do you know? How could I know?
That was so corny I could shuck it.
Personally I am not a fan of the TN Fire production. Love the songs but the production is not great. Now I love the production on At Dawn and It Still Moves. To me those albums capture the "it" that makes MMJ sound so great.
QuoteThat was so corny I could shuck it.
Haha. Nice. Except that was so sour it made me pucker.
The production value on "Z" is miles ahead of "At Dawn" and even "It Still Moves" but in my opinion does not make it better, or worse for that matter, just different. With more popularity comes more money, and with more money comes greater production options and values. Granted, "Z" sounds much more like a modern studio recorded album with the clear sound and blending of the songs, but I prefer the sound and feel of the previous CD's. Don't get me wrong, "Z" is great, but it is much shorter and much cleaner, which makes it lose a few points in my book.
I don't have the CD's on me right now or else I would answer this question for myself, but, did "Z" have a different producer (besides Jim) than the previous CD's?
Quote
i don't have the CD's on me right now or else I would answer this question for myself, but, did "Z" have a different producer (besides Jim) than the previous CD's?
john leckie. (i think that's how it's spelled)
he and jim produced it together.
Quote
john leckie. (i think that's how it's spelled)
he and jim produced it together.
Ok, so he produced "Z" ?
Who produced the other CDs?
Quote
Ok, so he produced "Z" ?
Who produced the other CDs?
jim, i believe.
I know that Jim Co-Produced on the CDs, but he was not the overhead producer. Production on an album has a huge effect on the sound and feel of it, which is why I was wondering if "Z" had a different lead producer. I will check on it when I get home and have the CDs in front of me.
QuoteI know that Jim Co-Produced on the CDs, but he was not the overhead producer. Production on an album has a huge effect on the sound and feel of it, which is why I was wondering if "Z" had a different lead producer. I will check on it when I get home and have the CDs in front of me.
tf - produced by jim james
ad - produced by jim james
ism - produced by jim james
z - produced by john leckie and jim james
are you talkin' about engineering and mixing?
Well, I guess so, haha. I was under the impression that production had just as much to do with the sound of the album than it did the funding. Maybe the shorter length and cleaner, more studio sound came from the contributions of John Leckie. I was just trying to point out the differences between the albums in terms of what I thought "production value" was.
aha. okay, well a producer (as far as i've seen) in the music world isn't necessary the money person (like they are in the theatre/film worlds). a producer is more like the person who helps create and oversee the whole sound of the album. the money people, for the most part, in music, are the label and/or the artist.
john leckie would have helped craft the sound of z. ato would have fronted the cash most likely. :)
QuoteI was just trying to point out the differences between the albums in terms of what I thought "production value" was.
Try harder next time. ;D
Quoteaha. okay, well a producer (as far as i've seen) in the music world isn't necessary the money person (like they are in the theatre/film worlds). a producer is more like the person who helps create and oversee the whole sound of the album. the money people, for the most part, in music, are the label and/or the artist.
john leckie would have helped craft the sound of z. ato would have fronted the cash most likely. :)
Uhhhh.. yeah.. that is exactly what my original point was. The difference in SOUND on the records was due to the addition of the other producer, John Leckie. So.. yeah.
umm, maybe this is TOO obvious so nobody's mentioned it, but maybe the sound on ISM and Z is different because they didn't record in a [glb]grain silo[/glb]?
a bigger budget means different and sharper equipment. more sensitive recording almost forces you to clean up the sound because you don't want to drive the listener crazy with hisses and pops and fingers sliding and scratching. a certain amount of that can lend a lot of charm to an album, but on any good stereo it will prolly sound like ass.
the film company i worked for shot entirely on digital video (no, it wasn't porn) and while cost-effective and highly conducive to fast turnaround on editing, it's really really really unflattering to people's skin and appearance unless they're specially lit or made up...
i find that the recording quality, lo-fi on AD and TF, versus more hi-fi on ISM and Z fits nicely within the context of the music. i don't know how "wordless chorus" would sound in a grain silo, but i don't think it would achieve the same mood.
personally, i love the changing styles and settings, it keeps things fresh and keeps me guessing.
Quoteumm, maybe this is TOO obvious so nobody's mentioned it, but maybe the sound on ISM and Z is different because they didn't record in a [glb]grain silo[/glb]?
i was under the impression that tf, ad and ism were all recorded at the same place.
Quotei find that the recording quality, lo-fi on AD and TF, versus more hi-fi on ISM and Z fits nicely within the context of the music. i don't know how "wordless chorus" would sound in a grain silo, but i don't think it would achieve the same mood.
well, i think the grain silo was used for natural reverb. there's still a wee little reverb in the word part of wordless chorus (just a little), and there's a BUNCH in the wordless chorus part - so it might have actually sounded really awesome if recorded in a grain silo. :)
a lot of the difference between recording in a studio and recording somewhere else is that you can get a more clarified sound in the studio. the studio is built for achieving the clearest possible recording, whereas, if you're on a farm or somethin', you're dealing with crickets and sprinklers (;)) and there's more sound bouncing around and stuff. you can use the same equipment in a studio that you would somewhere else, and it'll sound different because the acoustics are different.
Quotethe film company i worked for shot entirely on digital video (no, it wasn't porn) and while cost-effective and highly conducive to fast turnaround on editing, it's really really really unflattering to people's skin and appearance unless they're specially lit or made up...
i find that digital video has changed a great deal over the past few years. i remember we shot something about five years ago, and it looked preeeeeetty weird. and then we shot a film more recently, and it looked really great. i work in a photography studio and we shoot on digital, and it looks awesome. way better than it used to.
anyhow, i was wondering wellfleet, if you were meaning to compare film vs. dv with tape vs. digital audio recordings?
THe reason, for me, that I like TTF so much is that, yes the songs are great, but also that the album reminds me of my teenage years, playing and recording music with my boy Andrew, using whatever equipment we could to record what we were doing. It was very getto, and very cool. I bet that alot of you other folks that grew up playing music have had similar expierences. I'm curious to find out if the majority of people who really enjoy TTF for that home-spun sound grew up playing music and recording it; and likewise if the people who don't care for the sound of the album don't have the expeirence of amatuer recording at home? Does any of that make sense? ???
i love it because i'm in that phase right now, experimenting with different recording techniques.
ayy! Probably so. When I fist heard MMJ I was reading everything I could find about them, in one review of TTF the feller described it as something you might find in some old office building or something. So thats how I listen to it, like I'm the only one who knows of this music, which is the way things were for a while. Also it does sound like something I could do today at home ( production wise).