So I finally got the Germs GI album (as part of the MIA record put out by Rhino). This was after I decided to take the Germs seriously instead of just laughing at Darby Crash getting wasted in the Decline of Western Civilization. But the album (produced by Joan Jett) sounds good. In the liner notes their manager even says “everything changed after GI came out.” It seems to have been the record they needed for Darby’s voice to be heard. But it does NOT sound like the live performances (which can be heard in the film).

I’ve been following these forums with regards to Nirvana, and recording in general, and remembered what Albini said here:

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... ight=#8772

So I have to wonder whether or not realism is essential for punk, or if this is a case in which stylization was needed. I would tend to argue for the latter, because without Jett’s stylization I would have no interest in listening to Darby Crash moaning and the rest struggling with their instruments (save Pat Smear, I think).

I don’t want to get flamed here either (as I love In Utero), but I think the production of Nevermind might be justified in a similar way.

Of course, I know from a professional’s POV, it’s whatever the client wants, but put that aside. Do we have a right or responsibility to make some of this more obtuse music listenable for future generations who might not understand the context? Or should reality be job one. What does anyone think?

the big difference between GI and the germs live is that the band recorded that album sober. when they played live darby was always completely wasted, which is something that he talks about in decline.

yeah, I think that he was much more sober in the studio. But I was thinking more of the quality of sound on the recording. The guitars don't sound like Aerosmith exactly, but they don't sound like what I would expect after watching the film either.

crvernon wrote: Do we have a right or responsibility to make some of this more obtuse music listenable for future generations who might not understand the context? Or should reality be job one.

I don't think we need to do anything for the future generations as far sound quality and production go. Some of the best records of the past 20 some odd years are considered "unlistenable" by alot of the industries standards yet they are praised by us 'outre rock' fans. Such records are:
Pavement: Westing By Musket Or Sextant
Slanted & Enchanted(not the new version)
Sonic Youth: anything before Goo but especially Confusion is Sex and Bad Moon Rising
Public Image Limited: Public Image Limited, Metal Box/Second Edition, and Flowers of Romance (The 1st album wasn't even released here in the states because of it's production value.)
The Swell Maps A Trip To Marineville and Jane From Occupied Europe
Big Black: any of em

These are just a few great examples of instances where the music is powerful enough to stand on it's own and where Bon Jovi production values aren't really needed. As far as our future generations go, they're more likely to be obsessed with 'November Rain' than with 'Achilles Last Stand". So as far as I'm concerned, let them have Slipknot, I'll hold onto my Polvo records.

Angry_Dragon wrote:Public Image Limited: Public Image Limited, Metal Box/Second Edition, and Flowers of Romance (The 1st album wasn't even released here in the states because of it's production value.)

i fucking love the production on metal box... i guess they were trying to emulate jamaican dub producers and came up with that... i think the crudeness is pure beauty

like anything, i think there is a lot of grey area to this issue. i know a lot of the records i love from the early punk/post punk era probably aren't the most 'honest' records from a 'this is what they really sounded like live' standpoint compared to demos and bootlegs or whatever i've heard. (wire, later buzzcocks, joy division, etc.) then again, none of these bands were using 'proper' recording techniques of the era ala boston or whatever either.

i don't know, it's hard to define, but i think recordings should develop a life of their own. reality is a crucial thing to keep in perspective, but it shouldn't be an end to itself. would you prefer that "Pink Flag" were recorded with a single stereo mic by the band themselves versus a classically trained producer keeping them in line in a professional studio? (go read mike thorne's site for some great insight on those records) i know i wouldn't. then again, "pink flag" didn't sound like it was written for/in the studio either, so what i guess i'm saying is that it's probably not necessary to make this a black and white issue.

I agree with 154 somewhat in that an album like Pink Flag would probably not be as classic as it is if it was done on a Tascam cassette 4-Track. It really all depends on the band. Radiohead would not make a good lo-fi band at all. If you're just playing rock or something very similar, without lot's of stuff going all crazy in it, then a 4 track works. If you're trying to sound like My Bloddy Valentine, then you bloody well need a studio.

doesn't MBV sound pretty terrible though? Loveless anyways, i found it to have harsh highs and just about no bass. which is so weird, for an uber-produced album to sound so crappy. dense, but crappy.

there aren't even audible drums on the record for the most part, why would bass even be needed?