CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › 80s Production Syndrome
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

80s Production Syndrome

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Someone mentioned this term in the Worst Band You Ever Liked thread, and I mentioned to a friend of mine recently how tragic it is that some of Warren Zevon's most well-known albums are riddled with it. Not that they're totally unlistenable, but if you listen to the studio versions of stuff like "Searching For A Heart", "The Indifference Of Heaven", or "Splendid Isolation" and compare them to the stripped-down renditions on Learning To Flinch and there's really no contest. A lot of mid-era Springsteen also suffers from this, imo.

What are the worst offenders when it comes to this?
post #2 of 53
I agree with you on "Indifference of Heaven," but I really like the backing vocals on "Searching for a Heart" and "Splendid Isolation" in general, particuarly the harmonica. I have a hard time seeing it for those two songs. Although "Transverse City" is probably the most 80s of Zevon's catalogue -- but he makes a lot of the production on that album work.
post #3 of 53
Damn the gated snare to hell.
post #4 of 53
Thread Starter 
Fine, I'll give you "Splendid Isolation", and swap in "Mr. Bad Example".

While we're on Learning To Flinch, one that surprised me in how well it works is "Lawyers, Guns, and Money". The album version is a really impressive instrumental piece (and not overly 80sed), and lyrics never jumped out as more than mildly clever, but I can't believe how well it plays with him basically just strumming the chords on an acoustic.
post #5 of 53
I love Born In The USA but that whole album reeks of 80s production and symphs.

EDIT: Oops! Didn't see the last line of your initial post Schwartz. Sorry.
post #6 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dax View Post
Damn the gated snare to hell.
You read my mind.
post #7 of 53
I think the overblown 80's aesthetic can be put to good use just as much as the next sound, and I don't know that Springsteen's work suffers too much from it. But as a rule, I'd say new bands were better at exploring it than veterans trying to jump in. Particuarly atrocious examples include:

"Headed For The Future", Neil Diamond
"Undercover Of The Night", The Rolling Stones
"System Of Survival", Earth Wind & Fire
post #8 of 53
I was the one who mentioned this in the 'Worst Band' thread, specifically regarding the first two Dream Theater albums. Their first one, 'When Dream and Day Unite', isn't a very good album anyways (it had their original singer who, quite frankly, sucked), but the keyboards were too bright in the mix. It wasn't really until their 3rd album, 'Awake', that a proper balance was found between the guitars, bass, and keys. That album, productions wise, holds up today and feels more timeless.

Rush: 'Power Windows' and 'Hold Your Fire'.

They'd taken their basic sound about as far as they could with 'Moving Pictures', so they branched out with more keyboards in 'Signals' and 'Grace Under Pressure'. PW and HYF took it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far, though. There are some great songs on those albums, but the overproduced/oversampled layering of 80s technocrap makes those albums virutually unlistenable to me.

As overproduced as it sounds, I still find that 'Tunnel of Love' is my favorite Bruce Springsteen album.
post #9 of 53
Perhaps no band had more of their catalog inflicted with this shit than Killing Joke. Here you have one of the most primal and powerful post-punk ensembles ever, and the vast, VAST majority of their studio output is drowning in dated 80s production.

Such a shame.
post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Woods View Post
I love Born In The USA but that whole album reeks of 80s production and symphs.
And yet, for all the different arrangements he's tried of the title cut, it never sounds quite as powerful without the damn synths. And, honestly, "Dancing in the Dark" is the only song on the album where the production bothers me sufficiently to dim my enthusiasm.

IMHO, Tunnel of Love suffers from the problem more. And I still like it.
post #11 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
What are the worst offenders when it comes to this?
Leonard Cohen. His electro-clash stuff sounds so dated. It's a shame too because his songs are generally pretty great, but the production just kills them.
post #12 of 53
X's Ain't Love Grand suffered a little from some underwritten songs as the band worked on redefining itself out of its punk/rockabilly/roots rock phase, but it suffered even moreso from the thick, synth-laden 80s production.
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
X's Ain't Love Grand suffered a little from some underwritten songs as the band worked on redefining itself out of its punk/rockabilly/roots rock phase, but it suffered even moreso from the thick, synth-laden 80s production.
Stop reminding me. Bought it unheard, and just sat there refusing to believe what I was hearing.

Several of the songs are redeemed on the Live at the Whiskey A Go Go album, but with Tony Gilkyson filling in for Billy Zoom on guitar (which wasn't a problem sonically, but it was a pretty clear indication that things were coming to a close for the band).
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeb View Post
Stop reminding me. Bought it unheard, and just sat there refusing to believe what I was hearing.

Several of the songs are redeemed on the Live at the Whiskey A Go Go album, but with Tony Gilkyson filling in for Billy Zoom on guitar (which wasn't a problem sonically, but it was a pretty clear indication that things were coming to a close for the band).
I heard the live album first, which made Ain't Love Grand all the more shocking. I still adore See How We Are, which also has 80s production of a sort, but it doesn't sound nearly as dated, and the songs are generally way better.
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I heard the live album first, which made Ain't Love Grand all the more shocking. I still adore See How We Are, which also has 80s production of a sort, but it doesn't sound nearly as dated, and the songs are generally way better.
I like See How We Are, but I think it runs out of steam pretty fast on side 2, and I have the nagging feeling that without Dave Alvin's contribution, I wouldn't even like it as much as I do.
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I still adore See How We Are, which also has 80s production of a sort, but it doesn't sound nearly as dated, and the songs are generally way better.
Yup. See How We Are blows Ain't Love Grand out of the water. X seems to be generally embarrassed by Ain't Love Grand, seeing as how the only songs they bother to perform live from it (that I've noticed) are "My Goodness" and "Burning House Of Love".
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
Yup. See How We Are blows Ain't Love Grand out of the water. X seems to be generally embarrassed by Ain't Love Grand, seeing as how the only songs they bother to perform live from it (that I've noticed) are "My Goodness" and "Burning House Of Love".
I've never managed to catch them live, but I thought they mainly stuck to the first three or four albums these days. Do they do any See How We Are songs?

At the risk of getting further off-topic, hey Zeus! is actually quite a bit worse than Ain't Love Grand, song-wise - I'm not sure if it has what one could call "90s production," but it's definitely not very good (and neither are the two new songs they did on Unclogged).
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
Leonard Cohen. His electro-clash stuff sounds so dated. It's a shame too because his songs are generally pretty great, but the production just kills them.
I was thinking about Cohen, but I don't think you can even qualify his keyboard based stuff (apart from "First We Take Manhattan" and a few more) as "eighties" sounding - it certainly isn't bombastic like Springsteen's. I don't even know how to classify it, really - cocktail piano bar music? Lite Jazz?

The funny thing is of course in a way his 70's acoustic guitar singer/songwriter stuff is just as schmaltzy in its own way.

I think there's something very...old school entertainer like about Cohen, done with tongue in cheek but nonetheless also with conviction. Seeing him live was a very Sinatra-like experience. He's a very perverse artist, and it makes him all the more interesting imo.
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I've never managed to catch them live, but I thought they mainly stuck to the first three or four albums these days. Do they do any See How We Are songs?
Usually: 4th of July, See How We Are, When it Rains, occasionally Cyrano De Berger's Back
post #20 of 53
I really notice this listening to differing versions of the Replacement's 'Can't Hardly Wait'. The version on Pleased To Meet Me (I think, I don't have my albums here so I might be misremembering which is on which) always seems to reek of 80's to me. The guitars sound more artificial, the horns the just feel out of place, there's some goofy guitar noodling flourishes in the background, and even some strings/orchestra. There's no way to not realize it's an 80's song.

The version off Tim (again I think it's Tim, I don't have my albums handy) has a much rawer guitar sound and none of the goofball orchestra, horns or wanky guitar flourishes. And unlike the other version I would be you could convince a virgin listener it was recorded anywhere from the 70's to the 90's.

I think I like the lyrics on the horn version better though.
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louris View Post
I really notice this listening to differing versions of the Replacement's 'Can't Hardly Wait'. The version on Pleased To Meet Me (I think, I don't have my albums here so I might be misremembering which is on which) always seems to reek of 80's to me. The guitars sound more artificial, the horns the just feel out of place, there's some goofy guitar noodling flourishes in the background, and even some strings/orchestra. There's no way to not realize it's an 80's song.

The version off Tim (again I think it's Tim, I don't have my albums handy) has a much rawer guitar sound and none of the goofball orchestra, horns or wanky guitar flourishes. And unlike the other version I would be you could convince a virgin listener it was recorded anywhere from the 70's to the 90's.

I think I like the lyrics on the horn version better though.
Yeah, you've got the versions right. There are the initial versions that were recorded with Alex Chilton, pre-Tim (one is a slow, acoustic version); a nice, raw version recorded for Tim that's on the All for Nothing/Nothing for All set; then there's the official PTMM release with the horns and strings.

I like all of them, even the PTMM one, but my favorite's the Tim-era version on the All for Nothing/Nothing for All set (which is very similar to the non-acoustic, Chilton-recorded pre-Tim one).

As I understand it, the horns and strings were basically demanded by the studio. The band hated them at the time, but Westerberg eventually came around on the horns, if not the strings (he even did a solo version on SNL years later that brought in the house band on horns).
post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
Yeah, you've got the versions right. There are the initial versions that were recorded with Alex Chilton, pre-Tim (one is a slow, acoustic version); a nice, raw version recorded for Tim that's on the All for Nothing/Nothing for All set; then there's the official PTMM release with the horns and strings.

I like all of them, even the PTMM one, but my favorite's the Tim-era version on the All for Nothing/Nothing for All set (which is very similar to the non-acoustic, Chilton-recorded pre-Tim one).

As I understand it, the horns and strings were basically demanded by the studio. The band hated them at the time, but Westerberg eventually came around on the horns, if not the strings (he even did a solo version on SNL years later that brought in the house band on horns).
After making the post I remembered I could just remote into home and listen to my mp3 rips. I was indeed referring specifically to the version on All For Nothing, Nothing For All labeled Tim Version. That's bar none my favorite version of that song.

It's the 'Mats, so it's not like the PTTM version is bad, it's just much more 80's. Thanks for the background info on the label forcing the changes.
post #23 of 53
Here's a couple of posts from the fantastic Aquarium Drunkard blog on the various versions of Can't Hardly Wait (along with the mp3s). He posts 4 distinct versions (including one with synths instead of horns):
http://www.aquariumdrunkard.com/2009...t-hardly-wait/
http://www.aquariumdrunkard.com/2009...ly-wait-contd/

Also, I for some reason love Tunnel of Love. I was frustrated for a long time that they took songs that essentially could have made for another Nebraska and drowned them in synths and drums with too much reverb...but I fucking love it now. Something about the synths makes it the missing link between 80s synth pop and roots rock (in a way that doesn't sound completely misguided and cheesy).
post #24 of 53
For me, Tunnel of Love gets by on the startlingly personal nature of the songwriting. I find myself making allowances for the production, rather than embracing it.
post #25 of 53
I find myself put off by so many albums from that era, albums that I didn't even notice had that sound at the time because everything had it! REM, Replacements, Fishbone...they all have a couple albums with that dead, sterile sound.
post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
I find myself put off by so many albums from that era, albums that I didn't even notice had that sound at the time because everything had it! REM, Replacements, Fishbone...they all have a couple albums with that dead, sterile sound.
In the long run I wonder what's going to sound more dated, the 80's production sound, or our recent run of autotune abuse? I simply can't believe that shit is going to age well.
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louris View Post
In the long run I wonder what's going to sound more dated, the 80's production sound, or our recent run of autotune abuse? I simply can't believe that shit is going to age well.
It'll probably be the same thing, to some degree. The songs that use it minimally will sound dated, but you'll overlook bad production choices if a song's good enough (see Springsteen). But it's going to date a huge number of top 40 pop songs that are swimming in it. Then again, a lot of those are very "of the moment" and weren't really designed to last, anyway.

Then again, there are those projects that take advantage of the production choices of the era and do something kind of cool with them. For instance, some of Peter Gabriel's early 80s albums have the big, gated snares, but it sounds appropriate, and Kanye West's use of autotune on 808s and Heartbreak comes off as more than just a hollow production choice.
post #28 of 53
I guess that depends on how permanent the "trend" is. If those auto-tune effects become a common form of music from now on, like wah-wah pedals or something, then it won't be all that dated. I dunno, the 80's stuff just rubs me the wrong way because it sounds like they tried to sand all the rough edges off the sound.
post #29 of 53
What REM album has 80s production? I'm honestly asking, I always thought they were one of the few bands that managed to avoid the trappings of 80s production.
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beldar View Post
What REM album has 80s production? I'm honestly asking, I always thought they were one of the few bands that managed to avoid the trappings of 80s production.
Yeah, that one throws me a little, too. I guess Life's Rich Pageant and Document have the big 80s drum sound a tiny bit, but it's relatively subdued compared to the drums on most of the other rock music that was out at the time.
post #31 of 53
Actually, Green is the one that I go back and listen to now and here MEGA 80's sound. It just feels very studio. I can sort of hear it on Pageant and Document, but it's really there on Green.
post #32 of 53
Okay, I think I can hear that (mostly on the singles). I think it was an attempt at an arena rock sound (most obviously: big bass, big drums, some more guitar effects and more echo on the vocals) and some of the techniques sound dated now, but overall it's not as bad as the tinny production on Tim or the overproduction on Pleased to Meet Me (though, interestingly, both PTMM and Green were recorded at Ardent in Memphis). But to my ears, it doesn't hurt any of the songs...I think they still come out relatively unscathed.
post #33 of 53
I'm trying to figure out what 80's production is. 80's arrangements I understand, giving old stuff a listen reminded me just how big synthesizers were. And it took Rush recording Grace Under Pressure to make those awful synthetic drums sound like anything other than a videogame. But 80's production? I guess I'm just a philistine, but Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking and the aforementioned REM albums, for instance, don't sound especially badly recorded. Peter Gabriel's drums sound the way they do - whatever way that is, I've never noticed them especially - because he wanted them to sound that way, I would expect.
post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
Leonard Cohen. His electro-clash stuff sounds so dated. It's a shame too because his songs are generally pretty great, but the production just kills them.
Good god, this is right on the money. Some of his stuff is impossible to listen to because of the production.

It seems like every good band that was around in the 60's or 70's and made it to the 80's had one or two of these albums. Didn't Neil Young do one of these?
post #35 of 53
Are you thinking of Trans? Because that's more straight-up New Wave weirdness. It has a cult following in avante garde circles, Sonic Youth are fans I believe.

More losers: "This Was Then, But This Is Now" and "Heart & Soul" by The Monkees.
post #36 of 53
Whose fault is the '80's production syndrome' anyway? Becker and Fagen?
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
Actually, Green is the one that I go back and listen to now and here MEGA 80's sound. It just feels very studio. I can sort of hear it on Pageant and Document, but it's really there on Green.
Okay, I get what you're saying. I guess I wasn't thinking of Green since it was sort of late in the 80s, but "Pop Song 89," "Get Up," and "Stand" definitely have the gloss and "Turn You Inside-Out" the giant drums of 80s production.
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
I'm trying to figure out what 80's production is. 80's arrangements I understand, giving old stuff a listen reminded me just how big synthesizers were. And it took Rush recording Grace Under Pressure to make those awful synthetic drums sound like anything other than a videogame. But 80's production? I guess I'm just a philistine, but Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking and the aforementioned REM albums, for instance, don't sound especially badly recorded. Peter Gabriel's drums sound the way they do - whatever way that is, I've never noticed them especially - because he wanted them to sound that way, I would expect.
I think it's less about artists who always monkeyed around with interesting production choices like Waters and Gabriel and more artists whose sound changed noticeably during the mid-80s to incorporate the sounds of the time.

In fact, if you look at this entry on gated reverb, you'll notice that guys like Gabriel and David Bowie basically popularized it in rock, but they used it well. They wanted the reverb on the drums to sound unnatural. But then every rock act started using gated reverb, from X to Springsteen to Whitesnake, simply because it was the thing to do.

Sure, it was because the artists "wanted it to sound that way," but it sounds very specifically of a time now. If Springsteen were to record "Born in the U.S.A." in the 70s, 90s, or today, it would sound quite a bit different, and the hypothetical 70s, 90s or 00s versions might very well sound a lot more like each other than they would the actual 80s version.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
Whose fault is the '80's production syndrome' anyway? Becker and Fagen?
They helped at least with the perfected, non-live aspect of studio production. But then on the other side you have Bowie and Eno's Berlin Trilogy--especially Low, which really emphasized the gated reverb and heavy use of synths. Then producers like Trevor Horn of Yes and The Buggles, Mutt Lange, and of course, Genesis/Peter Gabriel/Phil Collins took those ideas and ran with them.
post #40 of 53
I don't even mind the drum sounds all that much; for me, the main issue was with the overuse of incredibly bright keyboards in the mix of most of the music released at the time. Guitar based rock bands that had dabbled in keyboards previously now brought them in as main instruments (Rush and Queen are prime examples here), and new synth rock/pop bands appeared overnight that were virtually ALL synths (OMD, anyone?).
post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I think it's less about artists who always monkeyed around with interesting production choices like Waters and Gabriel and more artists whose sound changed noticeably during the mid-80s to incorporate the sounds of the time.

In fact, if you look at this entry on gated reverb, you'll notice that guys like Gabriel and David Bowie basically popularized it in rock, but they used it well. They wanted the reverb on the drums to sound unnatural. But then every rock act started using gated reverb, from X to Springsteen to Whitesnake, simply because it was the thing to do.
I understand the article, and I could understand if not design the circuits to do it right now. But I can't imagine what it sounds like.

Quote:
Sure, it was because the artists "wanted it to sound that way," but it sounds very specifically of a time now. If Springsteen were to record "Born in the U.S.A." in the 70s, 90s, or today, it would sound quite a bit different, and the hypothetical 70s, 90s or 00s versions might very well sound a lot more like each other than they would the actual 80s version.
Yeah, it would suck. It would have no dynamic range. The last actual new album I bought was Snakes and Arrows, and I returned the first copy because I thought it was a dud. Turns out it's supposed to be a big, loud mess of a recording. Good tunes, though.
post #42 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
and new synth rock/pop bands appeared overnight that were virtually ALL synths (OMD, anyone?).
Well, that's why it was called Synth Pop! Orchestral Manouevres In The Dark came out of the Post-Punk boom, and back then using synths was another way to serve the scorched earth ethos that Punk preached (i.e. a reaction against the endless guitar soloing that characterized the previous decade.) Plus of course all those guys were heavily into Kraftwerk. I think that one of the reasons a lot of veterans-going-eighties stuff sounds so bad is that they were trying to establish some sort of compromise between Synth Pop and traditional guitar music, which was very much missing the point.

Of course all that Synth-Pop got heavy play in the underground clubs that would eventually turn up House and Techno. It's a lot easier to understand a lot of that music if you stop thinking of it as Rock and consider it straight Dance.
post #43 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post
Well, that's why it was called Synth Pop! Orchestral Manouevres In The Dark came out of the Post-Punk boom, and back then using synths was another way to serve the scorched earth ethos that Punk preached (i.e. a reaction against the endless guitar soloing that characterized the previous decade.) Plus of course all those guys were heavily into Kraftwerk. I think that one of the reasons a lot of veterans-going-eighties stuff sounds so bad is that they were trying to establish some sort of compromise between Synth Pop and traditional guitar music, which was very much missing the point.
Valid points, but I really cannot think of ANYTHING more definitely tied to the decade than that overly processed synth pop (maybe hair metal, but that's a much maligned genre that deserves more love). There is absolutely NOTHING timeless about that music.
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Yeah, it would suck. It would have no dynamic range. The last actual new album I bought was Snakes and Arrows, and I returned the first copy because I thought it was a dud. Turns out it's supposed to be a big, loud mess of a recording. Good tunes, though.
I could be wrong, but I think the volume war/lack of dynamic range thing is more a matter of mastering and less recording, instrumentation, etc.

From a recording standpoint, Magic and even Working on a Dream are better sounding albums to my ears than Born in the U.S.A. because, generally speaking, I like my drums to sound like drums rather than cannons, and I prefer my guitar-based rock to have the guitars up front in the mix.
post #45 of 53
I don't know, Oingo Boingo's pretty cool. Sort of like Talking Heads if David Byrne had been forced by abusive parents to spend his life in a broom closet.
post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I could be wrong, but I think the volume war/lack of dynamic range thing is more a matter of mastering and less recording, instrumentation, etc.
Doesn't matter. If they were recorded today, they'd be a wall of noise by the time I got them.
post #47 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Doesn't matter. If they were recorded today, they'd be a wall of noise by the time I got them.
'Vapor Trails', by Rush, is the worst offender that I've ever heard for this WALL OF NOISE syndrome.
post #48 of 53
RE: JudasBooth - Well, I'm perhaps the wrong person to talk to about this, because I don't really demand timelessness from my music - in fact I love it when a record screams 1965 or 1971 or 1983 at me; I love the sound of Jangle Pop and Southern Soul and Rocksteady, all of which are genres that seem pretty tied to a specific time and place to me (even if people try to recapture them, to varying extents of success.) But I dunno, I think the 80's jukebox is as established as the 60's jukebox by now, and this decade (for better or worse) was full of people trying to sound Synth Popish: Cut Copy, Ladytron, the whole Electroclash thing, Belle & Sebastian at one point, even some of the stuff Timbaland was doing around "Promiscous Girl" has that 80's sound. I think Synth Pop has a lot more right to be viewed as its own aesthetic than Queen cashing in, mostly.
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post
I think Synth Pop has a lot more right to be viewed as its own aesthetic than Queen cashing in, mostly.
For almost all of the 1970s, Queen had a disclaimer on their albums regarding the fact that 'nobody played any synthesizers'. More than anything, this was a testament to Brian May's guitar work which went into previously unexplored territory and was often confused with synthesizers. I took it as a badge of pride for the band, and I really hated how strongly they embraced synths in the 1980s. They produced some fantastic music in the 80s, don't get me wrong...but I always feel like they betrayed one of their core beliefs by eventually using synths.
post #50 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post
RE: JudasBooth - Well, I'm perhaps the wrong person to talk to about this, because I don't really demand timelessness from my music - in fact I love it when a record screams 1965 or 1971 or 1983 at me; I love the sound of Jangle Pop and Southern Soul and Rocksteady, all of which are genres that seem pretty tied to a specific time and place to me (even if people try to recapture them, to varying extents of success.) But I dunno, I think the 80's jukebox is as established as the 60's jukebox by now, and this decade (for better or worse) was full of people trying to sound Synth Popish: Cut Copy, Ladytron, the whole Electroclash thing, Belle & Sebastian at one point, even some of the stuff Timbaland was doing around "Promiscous Girl" has that 80's sound. I think Synth Pop has a lot more right to be viewed as its own aesthetic than Queen cashing in, mostly.
I think that may be it. The innovators who started using the 80s production techniques that were eventually abused knew how to use them. OMD, the Human League, the more innovative older acts like Bowie and Gabriel had to be resourceful - they knew they wanted their stuff to sound a certain way and went after it, sometimes inventing new technology and innovating as they went. What's an OMD song without the synths and electronic drums, right? So this stuff sounds like it has to sound. It's the style, not the era.

But by the time these techniques rolled around to mainstream rock acts, it was just window dressing - something to make the music sound "of the moment." And artists and producers slathered it on songs that didn't really require it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › 80s Production Syndrome