Page 2 of 2

Posted: 22 Nov 2013, 21:00
by Darkholme
#Infinity wrote:Kelly sounds like it was produced during that dreadful period for A-Beat C from about the late 170's to the mid-180's. Granted, it's not really that bad, it's just mostly forgettable, and the watery production detracts from whatever spark it could've had otherwise.

Can you explain what you meant by "watery production"? I just want to know what irks people about it or just makes them not pay attention, because I can't find anything that I'm that bothered by. I'd say, as long as the beat is playing it's a great track.

Posted: 22 Nov 2013, 23:27
by #Infinity
Darkholme wrote:Can you explain what you meant by "watery production"? I just want to know what irks people about it or just makes them not pay attention, because I can't find anything that I'm that bothered by. I'd say, as long as the beat is playing it's a great track.
Well, the kick beat has very little compression, the synth layers are not loud and crisp like they are in the label's work from preceding eras, and there's a general limpness to the sound of these tracks.

But going beyond that, how can you not consider production quality a important factor to any degree? What if the song had so much bass that you couldn't hear the vocals? What if the synths were ridiculously noisy? What if there was so little harmonic support to the main melody that the track was unprofessionally dry?

Posted: 22 Nov 2013, 23:50
by Darkholme
#Infinity wrote:But going beyond that, how can you not consider production quality a important factor to any degree? What if the song had so much bass that you couldn't hear the vocals? What if the synths were ridiculously noisy? What if there was so little harmonic support to the main melody that the track was unprofessionally dry?
I was talking specifically about Kelly, not production quality in general. I have no issues with Kelly's production, that's why I say that I'm not bothered by it. Of course production quality matters to me.

Maybe it's my english that fails me

Posted: 23 Nov 2013, 05:17
by #Infinity
Darkholme wrote:I was talking specifically about Kelly, not production quality in general. I have no issues with Kelly's production, that's why I say that I'm not bothered by it. Of course production quality matters to me.
Well, part of a song's strength is indeed in its vocal delivery and musical structure, but the instrumentation should also support the other factors. The production is a definite problem for me personally with Kelly. The particular synth style in that track was also pervasive in a lot of A-Beat C tracks from 2007 and early 2008, and they tended to suffer terribly for me as a result.

Posted: 23 Nov 2013, 11:51
by Darkholme
#Infinity wrote:Well, part of a song's strength is indeed in its vocal delivery and musical structure, but the instrumentation should also support the other factors. The production is a definite problem for me personally with Kelly. The particular synth style in that track was also pervasive in a lot of A-Beat C tracks from 2007 and early 2008, and they tended to suffer terribly for me as a result.
I appreciate you describing what bothers you about it with that level of detail, that way it's easier to understand why we think differently!