Is Louder Better?

GoodNicsTken writes "Rip Rowan over at prorec.com did an analysis of 5 different Rush CD's released from 1984 to 2002. The results show a definite trend in the recording/mastering style from each album. Rip contends that louder is not necessarily better as the record execs believe. The artist however, is often left with little choice in the matter."

Comments

Re:I said it before on /.

[kin_korn_karn]

yeah, but once they're done with the wah pedal, they go find your girlfriend and give her the fucking that you can't with your worn-down pencil dick.

What shit is this?

[Karamchand]

First off it's stupid to base any "analysis" on just 5 items. That's plain stupid.

Second - who said is better? Yea, the prole said it. Nobody else.

Slashdot Kicks Another Pointless Can

[reallocate]

Well, the obvious response is "better than what?", but, for the life of me, I can't figure out what this has to do with computing.

I suspect this piece of doggerel has been foisted on us as one more /. manipulation of its readership designed to boost ad revenue.

One really wonders if /. readers are sophisticaed enough to simply ask "Does this guy know what he's talking about? Does he prove what he says?"

First of all, musicians sign contract with recording labels. That's their choice. If they don't like some of the things done by the label down the road, they need to remember that they signed that contract of their own free will.

That said, look at these assertions from Rip Rowan's piece:

Record labels have never really understood what makes a record "sound good" and frankly, few even care. Many of the people who sign artists don't understand their music at all. Instead, they are able to pick up on musical trends, and replicate those trends across the ranks of their artists. Artists that fit into the trend are fed, the rest are starved.

Labels are in the business of creating and meeting demand. That's why musicians sign with them: to sell CD's and make money. If there's a demand for one kind of music, it makes sense that labels would focus on musicians who make that kind of music. What else would they do? Spend their advertising and promotion budgets on musicians that no one listens to?

Mastering engineers are caught in a Catch-22. If they do not deliver a product that is appropriately LOUD, then they are consdered inept by the labels and are shunned. If they refuse to destroy the artist's music, then they aren't being "team players" and quickly fall out of favor. But if they provide what the customer demands (and remember, the label, not the band, is the customer) then they ruin a perfectly good piece of music,

Why should we believe this assertion? It might be true, but, then again, it might not be. If writers expect readers to take them seriously,, they need to back up their assertions with evidence and facts.

This guy "Rip" is just whining in public, and happened to give the /. crew another pointless can to kick.