Thread: reassessing goo
View Single Post
Old 09.02.2007, 03:37 PM   #45
atsonicpark
invito al cielo
 
atsonicpark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 28,843
atsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's asses
actually, there are people in this thread who agree the production sucks and have said something about it in their assessments. if i recall correctly, even the book "confusion is next" realizes the production sucks and makes a note of it!... i'm not really sure why anyone would DEFEND the production -- it's obvious that it's muddy and muffled sounding. that's like saying "man, steve albini's production doesn't accentuate the drum sound at ALL!" it's obviously not true -- regardless if you can tolerate the production or not (which i can certainly tolerate goo's), you have to hear it's pretty crappily-produced.. or you don't have ears. it's not like you have to have dog's ears to hear it, it's not something to have to do with the frequencies; the vocals versus the guitars versus the bass vs the drums sound like a muffled swamp of murk. nothing sounds right. the eq .. or SOMETHING .. is just off all over the album. it's no big deal. when the remaster came out, i remember a big deal being made about how goo "finally sounds a bit better". and the remaster is a bit better. but it's been a longstanding fact that goo sounds kinda.. well.. murky. that's just how it is.
__________________




 
atsonicpark is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|