Avenged Sevenfold - New Album

How about we all agree we like our own favorite music. It is way to easy to try to namedrop some random band trying to show you listen to underground indie rock or something. Then on the other hand, its easy to listen to whats being farted into your face from the radio and think its the best because its mainstream. I used to think I was special because i listen to stuff thats not on the radio and most kids dont listen to, but then you start to realise it doesnt matter in the end because everyone likes music and it means the same to them even if its crappy to you.

But about mainstream bands I have to admit im not down. I really do believe bands give up alot of their roots and uniqueness when recording a mainstream album. Best example - Modest Mouse - easily has created some of my favorite cd's (moon and antartica, long drive, lonesome crowded west..) and had such a unique quality to them. Then along came Good News and float on and I knew before this cd hit the stands that is would be huge, and not the same band I once loved. Now they were making music for the people, and not for themselves. If you listen to modest mouse and compare the last to cd's to the old ones, you will notice a huge difference. Once Epic Records took them on they just havent been the same. Good for Issac Brock, but not good for me. I still love modest mouse to death though, just not what they have been up to lately.

edit..at Coasterkid

that's your opinion, and i agree in a way. but that's because you can buy a high quality cd, and yo're trying to compare a studio wirtten song that's gone through hundreds of processors compared to a live show that's not going through as much. It simply isn't going to sound as good, no matter how good the equipment is and how skilled the live sound engineer is. Back then you were comparing tape quality music to live music, and it sounded better live.

Live Music equipment hasn't changed as much over the last 30 yeears as recording and distributing music has.

Originally posted by Symbiotic


Best example - Modest Mouse - easily has created some of my favorite cd's (moon and antartica, long drive, lonesome crowded west..) and had such a unique quality to them. Then along came Good News and float on and I knew before this cd hit the stands that is would be huge, and not the same band I once loved. Now they were making music for the people, and not for themselves. If you listen to modest mouse and compare the last to cd's to the old ones, you will notice a huge difference. Once Epic Records took them on they just havent been the same. Good for Issac Brock, but not good for me. I still love modest mouse to death though, just not what they have been up to lately.

I hear ya brudda.

yeah, bands that hit the mainstream get worse and worse after each cd. That's because they believe that they have to sound like "insert band name" to be sucessful. Nothing's original anymore.

examples:
Modest Mouse
Fall Out Boy
Green Day
AFI
Senses Fail
Matchbook Romance
Nickelback
Breaking Benjamin
and the list goes on...

Ugh.

Elitists, get out of the thread if you don't like the band. Your music tastes are just as bad as everyone else's. You only make a fool out of yourself by thinking your cool if you like non-mainstream artists.

I don't like the band at all myself, but I can see why people like it... because everyone has their own tastes. Avenged Sevenfold write catchy stuff that a lot of people like (mostly 13-15 year olds though), and I have no problem with it at all. I just prefer to sit back and listen to the blues/prog metal/Paul Gilbert influenced guitar mastery of Jorn Viggo Lofstad, and let everyone enjoy what they like.

[jayman]

Originally posted by Symbiotic

How about we all agree we like our own favorite music. It is way to easy to try to namedrop some random band trying to show you listen to underground indie rock or something. Then on the other hand, its easy to listen to whats being farted into your face from the radio and think its the best because its mainstream. I used to think I was special because i listen to stuff thats not on the radio and most kids dont listen to, but then you start to realise it doesnt matter in the end because everyone likes music and it means the same to them even if its crappy to you.

But about mainstream bands I have to admit im not down. I really do believe bands give up alot of their roots and uniqueness when recording a mainstream album. Best example - Modest Mouse - easily has created some of my favorite cd's (moon and antartica, long drive, lonesome crowded west..) and had such a unique quality to them. Then along came Good News and float on and I knew before this cd hit the stands that is would be huge, and not the same band I once loved. Now they were making music for the people, and not for themselves. If you listen to modest mouse and compare the last to cd's to the old ones, you will notice a huge difference. Once Epic Records took them on they just havent been the same. Good for Issac Brock, but not good for me. I still love modest mouse to death though, just not what they have been up to lately.

i've never been a modest mouse fan.. there's something to "tweaky " about their sound, BUT i have always had an appreciation for tham and thought they were nice people.. but when johnny marr joins your band .. well that says SOMETHING

I agree with Guitarplayer. I'm not all into automatically dismissing a band because its mainstream, but it does often turn out to be true that they are uninspired. Examples of music that is so rediculously lame, yet impressive to most teenagers, therefor a huge hit
-Hey There Delilah
-Greenday's American Idiot album
-A7X
-Panic At the Disco
-My Chemical Romance
-All American Rejects
-All matter of Rap and Hip Hop

Bands that get popular, and still remain awesomeful
-Arcade Fire
-Rage Against The Machine
-Red Hot Chili Peppers
-Radiohead
-Incubus
-Thrice

[jayman]

Originally posted by pacoasterrider

edit..at Coasterkid

that's your opinion, and i agree in a way. but that's because you can buy a high quality cd, and yo're trying to compare a studio wirtten song that's gone through hundreds of processors compared to a live show that's not going through as much. It simply isn't going to sound as good, no matter how good the equipment is and how skilled the live sound engineer is. Back then you were comparing tape quality music to live music, and it sounded better live.

Live Music equipment hasn't changed as much over the last 30 yeears as recording and distributing music has.

you are on crack.. i would give up a testicle to be able to record with tape hell both even.. cuz i would give up on sex if i was blessed with a really good tape machine.trust me .. i have recorde in studio that had both and paid a pretty penny extra to do tape and it was worth it .. a statement like that indicates a lack of n=knowledge regarding thae nature and science of sound and how to record it. i record with pro tools because i cannot afford a 24 track or even a decent 16 track and, eventhough o have room for all my shiz i dont have room or the money for it.. tape will ALWAYS sound better.and that is a scintifi c and all kidns of oher kind of fact!.and not oooh i'm indie i wanna be "lo fi"kind of way tape is a far more accurate (in fact perfectly accurate) representaition of what's being recorded . whoo jay man is buzzed and cannot properly emphasize this right now..geesh

Originally posted by SFMM homie

I agree with Guitarplayer. I'm not all into automatically dismissing a band because its mainstream, but it does often turn out to be true that they are uninspired. Examples of music that is so rediculously lame, yet impressive to most teenagers, therefor a huge hit
-Hey There Delilah
-Greenday's American Idiot album
-A7X
-Panic At the Disco
-My Chemical Romance
-All American Rejects
-All matter of Rap and Hip Hop

Bands that get popular, and still remain awesomeful
-Arcade Fire
-Rage Against The Machine
-Red Hot Chili Peppers
-Radiohead
-Incubus
-Thrice

Problem with that is though all but RHCP aren't all that popular. They haven't been dragged and dragged over the airwaves. They aren't the most popular bands, and that is probably a way they have been able to stay, how you say 'awesomeful'.

Only the historic Gods of our days can be insanely popular, and still kick rock ass are AC/DC, Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, Floyd, Zeppelin, and a few others...

Eminem was the God of the late 90s early 00s, and might be able to be put into this elite status. Ever since MTV really its harder and harder for awesome bands to become awesome and super popular. They either go uber popular for two CDs to sell out, or they go unnoticed because they don't want to sell out. No band has been able to or I think ever will be able to do both. Sell out and still have awesome beats. Only time will tell.

[jayman]

jayman looks at his room full of equipment,remembers seeing "rhcp" no doubt and fishbone together more times than remember , sighs and realizes he's old and nothing makes sense to him anymore

[A7]

Wow, this thread has carried a bit since I left a few hours ago.. For those who have the time, listen a bit to a recent interview. It is actually quite hilarious after awhile.

http://www.fmqbproductions.com/broadcas ... nload.html

[Coasterkidmwm]

Tape picks up things digital doesn't. True fact. Digitally record a french horn and you're going to get the biggest lump of garbage in the universe.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by pacoasterrider
Live Music equipment hasn't changed as much over the last 30 years as recording and distributing music has.

Yes it has. Nowadays you can suck total ass and have Mr. Computer fix it. LIKE AVENGED SEVENFOLD DOES!

Its just like videography - the highest quality medium is STILL tape because it records every frame RAW. Digital requires some sort of compression.

Audio is the same. Apparently the master discs are still made in the vinyl form but out of some other material.

Its quicker and easier to make music now - but it doesnt mean it sounds better. Alot of digital enhancements just cover stuff up.


BTW - as long as you are over 22 or so, RHCP are STILL awesome and still are popular. They are just overshadowed by the younger crowd swooning over more mediocre bands.

you used to listen to a crackily radio or a vinal from a record, thus music sounded better when you heard the artist live.

Now you listen to high quality cd music that's digitally mastered over and over and sounds perfect, so when you see a band live, it doesn't sound as good as it would over your surroud sound digital sound system...that was my point.

tape is definatly better, but i was referring to cassette tapes and the quality of most home-owned tape players of the 70's and the music systems then as compared to now days 15 dollar cd players.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Originally posted by pacoasterrider
Live Music equipment hasn't changed as much over the last 30 years as recording and distributing music has.

Yes it has. Nowadays you can suck total ass and have Mr. Computer fix it. LIKE AVENGED SEVENFOLD DOES!

Avenge cant miss notes on a guitar or completly bomb shell notes while singing and have it not noticed. There good at doing what they have to do. Mr Computer cant fix it when you mess it up live. Recording is a different story tho.

Actually Vinyl - when its clean and the connections are good - produces a deeper, more quality sound. Ask anyone whos passionate about music and is over the age of 30 and probably owned one. Im sure jayman can vouch as well.

While you may think that digital is like leaps and bounds better - unless its all done in complete raw mode its compressed in some way. Before digital, there was virtually no form of compression. Basically, thats what HD and Blu Ray are getting closer too - RAW. But they are still compressed - so therefore quality is STILL lost. Obviously studio recordings can be done a million times till its perfect but live performances is obviously where the true talent lies.

For example, take a trio like Rush playing live ... the music is freaking dead on. Sure, there is some sampling that is done to fill in the holes, but watching Alex, Geddy, or Neil for 10 minutes will tell any musician that they are the real deal. As a musician, to me that is more appreciated than anything else done in the studio a million times.

yeah, but commercially it was never clean and stuff. that was the point i was trying to get at. CD's sound so much better then old record players, that's why there used.

Im also used to having music being a heavy distorted and usually use a scoobed EQ. jayman has grew up in a different time, and i mean nothing makes me happier then a C5th power chord (CGc) 2 octaives down from middle C. What makes jayman happy is something completly different, im sure he knows what i mean about that. The difference between digital and raw is barley noticeable anymore, especally with how far digital recording has come. I also was born listening to digital music, so it's different for me as compared to some of you guys who grew up in a different time.

I grew up in the 70s my friend ... honestly, I prefer RAW to anything today. hence why I do not play electronic drums, but acoustic only.

Originally posted by SFMM homie

They need to hit puberty, become straight, then make music.

Hello? you can't just become straight over night, dumbass.

Maybe you try making music? HAH. That's something no one would wait for

hahaha burnnnned...not.

and yeah i know where you're coming from TconWell, Nothing beats a nice tube amp, or in you're case acoustic drums..electronic drums blow. But then again, i grew up in the 90's so i must prefer digital, that's all i know.

Im talking a digital studio process. Of course you use you're tube amp heads (occasionally cabs) along with a drum set that's mic'd up. Im just talking in the whole process of recording the music, and how's the data is put onto computers and processed with computers....you really can't go wrong doing it that way.

It takes alot in the process of recording music via computer, i know it takes usually around 40 gigs just to have 12 drum tracks on computer, the quality is that high.

[jayman]

Originally posted by pacoasterrider

yeah, but commercially it was never clean and stuff. that was the point i was trying to get at. CD's sound so much better then old record players, that's why there used.

Im also used to having music being a heavy distorted and usually use a scoobed EQ. jayman has grew up in a different time, and i mean nothing makes me happier then a C5th power chord (CGc) 2 octaives down from middle C. What makes jayman happy is something completly different, im sure he knows what i mean about that. The difference between digital and raw is barley noticeable anymore, especally with how far digital recording has come. I also was born listening to digital music, so it's different for me as compared to some of you guys who grew up in a different time.

apparently you aren't completely ignorant..
but before you try to come off like you actually know what you are talking about you should do some research, it's not that i'm older, it's because i am an audiophile.not only that i have a very solid background in analog electronics , and a fair knowledge of digital..
digital recording is just that .. digital.. a simulated sine-wave that , when magnified with an oscilloscope looks like steps.. because it is a series of steps rather than a continous wave. there is loss there, because the sine wave is NOT complete. with tape or vinyl(analog mediums) the sinewave is unbroken, there is no loss.
to make up for the loss on cds manufasctures use a series of filters to fool your brain into thinking that your ears have actually picked up complete sounds. when music is played on an analog medium (ie high end tape or static free vinyl) the result is exactly like what was recorded onto it.. this is because the recording process is linear( not simulated linear like cubas, opera, nuendo pro tools etc..)and the playback process is as well.
now i will be the first to admit that digital recording has come a long long way,otherwise i would never have bought a computer and would have instead bought a nice 16 track...
yes, when it comes to sound analog is better.. and no that is NOT an opinion.
and as far as "tube amp vs transistors" i can assure you that my 1966 solid state vox berkley two sounds as warm and yummy ( if not more ) than a twin reverb UNTIll they reach saturation at which time the true beauty of tubes becomes apparent..but they are both analog..

Originally posted by jayman
[br apparently you are ignorant..
before you try to come off like you actually know what you are talking about you should do some research, it's not that i'm older, it's because i am an audiophile.not only that i have a very solid background in analog electronics , and a fair knowledge of digital..
digital recording is just that .. digital.. a simulated sine-wave that , when magnified with an oscilloscope looks like steps.. because it is a series of steps rather than a continous wave. there is loss there, because the sine wave is NOT complete. with tape or vinyl(analog mediums) the sinewave is unbroken, there is no loss.
to make up for the loss on cds manufasctures use a series of filters to fool your brain into thinking that your ears have actually picked up complete sounds. when music is played on an analog medium (ie high end tape or static free vinyl) the result is exactly like what was recorded onto it.. this is because the recording process is linear( not simulated linear like cubas, opera, nuendo pro tools etc..)and the playback process is as well.
now i will be the first to admit that digital recording has come a long long way,otherwise i would never have bought a computer and would have instead bought a nice 16 track...
yes, when it comes to sound analog is better.. and no that is NOT an opinion.
and as far as "tube amp vs transistors" i can assure you that my 1966 solid state vox berkley two sounds as warm and yummy ( if not more ) than a twin reverb UNTIll they reach saturation at which time the true beauty of tubes becomes apparent..but they are both analog..

i definatly know where your coming from, and i am ignorant, i definatly wont deny that. i was getting at all along is that the general public would care less about audio, and it doesn't matter to most people, and all artist will save money by recording using computers, (not recording directly to PC, but having the music compressed or whatever onto one to be worked with) then what it takes to find a decent tape recorder, most will agree that it's not worth it. the buisness of music is a buisness, not about talent like it was up to say the 1950's. Should it be that way? that's up to discussion too. But Avenge sells tons and tons of cd's the way they do things, and that doesn't need changed.


this is a complete quesiton tho, not to be ignorant.

How would you get something from a tape recorder to a ipod/cd, or even a radio store? Just mic it??

[jayman]

actually you nailed it.. (sorry i called you ignorant, i had edited my post accordingly.. i didn't read EVERY thing you'd posted in this thread)
computer recording has come so far that while recording analog is always goingto produce a superior product it really isn't cost effective for the type of music most consumers will buy..
as far as hooking up a tape player to your comuter (im assuming you are talking about a cassette deck) simply buy a 1/8 stereo phono jack to dual rca adaptor , plug the phono plug into the line (if you have one ) or mic input of your sound card and the other into the outs of the tape player.. then just download a simple recording program, like protools free ( i'll betcha that theres free programs out there thatwill simply record audio with your soundcard into stereo tracks..)then all you gotta do is upload the files from your computer to your device.. and you're off and running.. total it ought to cost you about a dollar +tax if you buy the adaptor at the 99 cent store..
come to think of it doesn't windows have an audio recorder?