Jane Doe states right in the liner notes that it was done "completely in the analog domain".

I read somewhere that Andy Gill is an analog loyalist. He engineered "Blue."

THE FISRT TWO ARE ANALOG AND THE SECOND ARE NOT, BUT WHO THE FUCK CARES ANYWAY. IT SOUNDS GOOD THEN IT SOUNDS GOOD, BIG FUCKING DEAL AND OBVIOUSLY IF SOMEONE WAS ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT SOMEONE WOULD CARE ABOUT THE TOPIC AT HAND, BUT WHO CARES IF SOMEONE CARES ABOUT HOW IT WAS RECORDED BUT DONT ACT LIKE YOU DONT CARE CAUSE ITS APPARENT YOU DO.

Of corse i care cos i'm curious or else i wouldn't be asking this question.. the answers don't change how i feel about these records anyway..

So give me a fucking break.. and in the long run why the fuck do all you guys care if I care if they where analog or digital?! (cos you do keep asking me the same question)

I just asked a stupid question waiting for an simple answer and i thank the people that just answered
simply without busting my balls..................................

I think I know why bulldrummer is asking this question.
The guy was clearly against digital up to a week ago, now he heard those record and saw some pictures of the melvins using pro tools, so he thought "hey, digital might actually sound nice". He just wants to reassure this conclusion by asking what records were made in what domain.

I still don't think that it matters and that you should use whatever tools you had, fitting your budget.

if you have an idea to create something, why would you limit yourself to some dumb elite idea to where oh i cant do it this way or that way cause its just not as cool....fuck that....if you have an idea to create use any and all tools possible to get it out and done and good. PERIOD!!

you guys just don't get it do you...

1.i still think digital sucks ass and probably will think that for ages to come, for me it's a pile of bullshit (even though some advantages it has).. but that doesn't mean i won't use it in the future to record my ideas.. or even use it profesionally.. but still.. i want and will always want my basic equipment to be analog not digital

2.i know digital can sound nice and knew it a long time ago before i heard these records i also knew that the melvins recorded digitally long before i entered this forum.. but again i prefer analog.

3.and of corse it doesn't matter what tools you use in order to make and record music whatever your budget, it matters most that you do it cos music is above all.. but anyhow for me recording is also an art not just a service that many people see in it.. and as an "artist" i prefer analog again.

i don't want to reassure any conclusion i am just a curious motherfucker who has recived only 3.5 answers to my question out of the total of 10 statements.. the rest 6.5 are questions like "why do you care" or "it doesn't matter" and other stuff like that.. mercy people.. geez

oh and fuck digital.. tape rules (i will be saying it for many years so get used to it)

i hope none of the above gets misunderstood
i'm just making a statement to confirm my opinion on this matter so that i don't have to answer again..

god bless

Seems like a valid question to me.

I think a band is likely to approach a recording session differently depending on whether the session will be recorded in analog or digital.

Not always but it's likely.

Might give a window into a band's mindset at the time of the recording.

Or might not.

Steve V. wrote:I read somewhere that Andy Gill is an analog loyalist. He engineered "Blue."

Dont know about Blue but he uses both analog and digital these days, has endorsed Prism A/D converters in the past.