VTV 11,063 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 sad 2 say i dnt give a f checkout my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5iGoXYpXnIfLHH1o7H9lxA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katie14 4,828 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 That guy actually has some decent points (although I don't think the mix is as bad as he says) but he definitely has a "jazz hipster" mentality. And jazz hipsters can be really pedantic about their interpretation of jazz. I don't understand what he means when he says the album is mixed in a pop way. How can he tell that the piano is compressed, whatever that means? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo 3,993 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 InB4 counts for Metacritic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsterLuv 7 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I just read both parts of the review and to say the reviewer is "pressed" is definitely an exaggeration. The OP only put in negative quotes, when there were positive aspects as well. He says Gaga sings really well, her technique is pretty much perfect, that she sounds like a mature singer, etc. His real issue with the album is the mixing, and he readily admits that he harps on this fact a lot (i.e. he didn't single it out just for Cheek to Cheek). He separated the review into two parts so that his regular readers wouldn't be annoyed reading yet another discussion of jazz mixing and why it matters to him (again, this wasn't a random reason for him to dislike this album). Anyways, I thought he gave an honest review and supported his statements. Also, to say how dare he call the album a "stunt"… I think that's being misinterpreted again. He's asking the question: is this album really a stunt or is it a sincere musical effort? I think that's a reasonable question, and one that a lot of people (non fans) would ask. People think all Gaga does is "stunts," so why would this album be any different? And if you read the whole review, he pretty much admits that Gaga was genuine in making this album. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giskardsb 12,565 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I don't understand what he means when he says the album is mixed in a pop way. How can he tell that the piano is compressed, whatever that means? compression is a processing technique that evens out the dynamics of music to make it more even in volume. It's WAY overused in Pop, Rock, or really any music destined for heavy radio play, because they want the music to sound as "loud" as possible to stand out on radio compared to other songs, which are all doing the same thing. An avid listener of well produced jazz would be familiar with the full dynamic range of a piano, from very soft to loud, and how it translates to recordings. He is saying that the dynamics of the piano parts have been compressed more than he prefers for jazz music, and that is his overall complaint about how the mix is done on C2C. He's not wrong about that, the album could certainly have a broader actual range of soft to loud. When he talked about the "noise floor" being high, that is an artifact of compression which brings up the very quiet sounds to make them louder, including any noise in the signal chain. I don't hear the piano and other instruments being on the edge of distortion like he mentioned though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valextra 58 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Forbes.. Seriously? I don't even care at this point about these ****ty reviews, haters can stay pressed, Gaga is having her moment again with her third number #1 album also doing Jazz, proving that she is here for music, when will the others? Bye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeGoneGaga 86 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'm over the Gaga hate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katie14 4,828 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 compression is a processing technique that evens out the dynamics of music to make it more even in volume. It's WAY overused in Pop, Rock, or really any music destined for heavy radio play, because they want the music to sound as "loud" as possible to stand out on radio compared to other songs, which are all doing the same thing. An avid listener of well produced jazz would be familiar with the full dynamic range of a piano, from very soft to loud, and how it translates to recordings. He is saying that the dynamics of the piano parts have been compressed more than he prefers for jazz music, and that is his overall complaint about how the mix is done on C2C. He's not wrong about that, the album could certainly have a broader actual range of soft to loud. When he talked about the "noise floor" being high, that is an artifact of compression which brings up the very quiet sounds to make them louder, including any noise in the signal chain. I don't hear the piano and other instruments being on the edge of distortion like he mentioned though. Thanks for explaining. I guess what he sees as flaws most people, myself included, would never notice because we aren't that educated about the technicalities in recordings. What is a signal chain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giskardsb 12,565 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Thanks for explaining. I guess what he sees as flaws most people, myself included, would never notice because we aren't that educated about the technicalities in recordings. What is a signal chain? Signal chain basically means the connections from the microphone to any processors then to the recorders. Every electrical wire and component in a chain can end up being a source of static noise, it's impossible to not have some. Any device that amplifies, such as a compressor, can end up bringing nearly in-audible noise to being noticeable. Recording engineers try to avoid that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgusPop 4,064 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I just read both parts of the review and to say the reviewer is "pressed" is definitely an exaggeration. The OP only put in negative quotes, when there were positive aspects as well. He says Gaga sings really well, her technique is pretty much perfect, that she sounds like a mature singer, etc. His real issue with the album is the mixing, and he readily admits that he harps on this fact a lot (i.e. he didn't single it out just for Cheek to Cheek). He separated the review into two parts so that his regular readers wouldn't be annoyed reading yet another discussion of jazz mixing and why it matters to him (again, this wasn't a random reason for him to dislike this album). Anyways, I thought he gave an honest review and supported his statements. Also, to say how dare he call the album a "stunt"… I think that's being misinterpreted again. He's asking the question: is this album really a stunt or is it a sincere musical effort? I think that's a reasonable question, and one that a lot of people (non fans) would ask. People think all Gaga does is "stunts," so why would this album be any different? And if you read the whole review, he pretty much admits that Gaga was genuine in making this album. and 2 pages review-------> THE IMPACT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katie14 4,828 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I really like this review because all his critisisms were explained but some of the things he says just doesn't make sense to me. It was very frustrating and confusing to read to say the least. If someone more knowledgable in music could justify his critisisms and explanations that would be wonderful When discussing "Lush Life" he says, "If you want to distill the album’s ultimate failure into one song, look no further than this number". Why does he say she sounds innmature on "Lush Life" because her voice is too technically perfect? Is he trying to say she doesn't have enough emotion when she sings? I think she did an especially great job of conveying emotion on that particular song. Many other critics praised her vocals and conviction of emotion on that song saying it os one of the highlights of the album. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popo 3,723 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 He wrote a 3 part review about ARTPOP IIRC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vernier 3,786 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I can't get over the "caricaturizing" bit. I'd love a deeper explanation of that, because it makes absolutely no sense as it stands right now. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katie14 4,828 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I can't get over the "caricaturizing" bit. I'd love a deeper explanation of that, because it makes absolutely no sense as it stands right now. The reviewer didn't say that. He was quoting someone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zack 15 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Mine? Yeah, Gaga looking 'at the quote in your post' and facepalming Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trending Now
New Threads
Trending Now
New Threads
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.