Kurt, in a book I have that is now torn and tattered after much 9th grade perusing wrote:
...if [Steve] would've had it his way, it would've came out a lot raunchier than it did. He likes to mix the vocals at unnecessarily low levels. That's not the way we sound good.

I think this was him being somewhat sarcastic, as he also mentions mics being taped all over the wall, on the floor etc. Maybe that's how it was recorded, although as I understand it, he'll only use 3 or 4 mics (if that) to record the drums. Maybe someone who has recorded with Steve can testify whether or not he has taped a mic to their forehead.

mattw wrote:

Kurt, in a book I have that is now torn and tattered after much 9th grade perusing wrote:
...if [Steve] would've had it his way, it would've came out a lot raunchier than it did. He likes to mix the vocals at unnecessarily low levels. That's not the way we sound good.

I think this was him being somewhat sarcastic, as he also mentions mics being taped all over the wall, on the floor etc. Maybe that's how it was recorded, although as I understand it, he'll only use 3 or 4 mics (if that) to record the drums. Maybe someone who has recorded with Steve can testify whether or not he has taped a mic to their forehead.

matt

we've used anywhere from two to twenty mics on a drum kit, depending on what we're after

i think this vocals thing is self-fulfilling

basically, steve will do whatever people want. some people want their vocals loud, and some people want 'em totally submerged.

but....

a LOT of recording engineers will essentially insist on preferring the almighty vocal to the rest of the music. especially if they are being paid by a big record company.

hence, if you want a record that sound like a band playing music together and not a bunch of stuff backing up a singer, you can get steve to do that, whomever is footing the bill. not everyone is willing to do what a band wants in that situation.

recorded sound like _rid of me_ or the original mix of _in utero_ is not the result of oppression or imposition or whatever

it is the result of freedom from the normal restrictions of making a normal-sounding record with normal recording techniques, which paradoxically lean on artifice far more than anything steve does

it seems to me that Pitchfork is slowly going the path of such GREAT music journalism as SPIN and MAXIM BLENDER

I've liked all the high on fire releases for different reasons, but I think it's funny when Pitchfork even tries to talk about anything metal related because I can see any of the reviewers just logging onto something like allmusic.com and looking it up so they can PAINFULLY just GET THROUGH the DAMN album so they can listen to the NEW ARCADE FIRE EP

ogami itto wrote:it seems to me that Pitchfork is slowly going the path of such GREAT music journalism as SPIN and MAXIM BLENDER

So basically, sucking, and continuing to suck for the duration? I think I agree with you.

slowriot wrote:
like how you personally are the worst interviewer since i babysat that autistic kid and he talked about pizza for four hours.

i love you,
evan.

Man, i gotta' get me some Depends. that was a humdinger.

steve wrote:For what it's worth, I have some minor reservations about the job I did on the High on Fire recording

Pray tell, what? Out of morbid curiosity...

russ wrote:Any form of mass media that doesn't allow critique from their audience should not be trusted as a reliable source of information.

Therefore, Pitchfork sucks.

i would say the same thing about the onion a.v. club, particularly their film criticism. their reviews are fucking cringeworthy at times, like film studies minors who majored in sociology. really predictable tastes. to their credit though, they did just start a reader's poll type thing last year.

glynnisjohns wrote:

slowriot wrote:
like how you personally are the worst interviewer since i babysat that autistic kid and he talked about pizza for four hours.

i love you,
evan.

Man, i gotta' get me some Depends. that was a humdinger.

i haven't seen that in ages.

i'm such a douchebag.

Guys, chill out. You don't need an A+ in studio engineering to review something. The reviewer is just describing the sound not the process - i.e. compressed means 'confusing' or 'densely packed' and the reverb he refers to is just that - reverb: from the room, from a more ambient production. He's just saying that he likes his bassy metal nice n tight and was worried that recording a band like HOF in a more natural way would make it messy somehow. You need that kind of false seperation to make sense of the mulch - I love HOF live but after a while it does turn into a sort of putty sound-wise doesn't it?
I am a massive HOF fan but that album does disappoint me, nothing to do with the production (I don't think so anyway) but more to do with the songs just being so relentless and complex it's pretty impenetrable. It is a big mulch of complex riffs. I'd say the recording captures that exactly and transparently - as the reviewer says.

agreed though, pitchfork reviews may as well be posted in text message slang.

ah, my little user name tag changed to Les Paul with that post. How appropriate!