____twoism

Hi there,

Just a simple topic about two or tree things i actually don't like in TH.

1. The Bit Crusher effect used throughout the LP, it annoys me. Don't know but it sounds a little arch sometimes, some frequencies are clashing with it. It seems to me that a loads of the basses are passing trough it which i personally don't fancy that much.

2. General lack of dynamics on the LP. To me this LP is flatter in terms of beats impulses, some tracks lack energy at full throttle, like RFTD, when the whole beat is here to me it lacks power somehow. I've been expecting more of a blast to be honest.

Compared to older works i think TH is not their best at dynamics audio wise, to me Geogaddi is still their stronger record strictly in dynamics terms.

Of course, no offenses intended here, it's just what I've felt from my many listens of TH.
Though have to say i really like the album and more so on any further listens.

Last, funny enough the LP played at -2 pitch on technics turntables sounds better to me, rounder and with better defined low ends.

Thanks for your reading,
cheers,
m.

I agree but I guess you have to take it for what it is. They must have sacrificed a lot of techniques they have learned with previous work for the sake of the theme. The theme and feel is stronger than the need for perfectly crafted music in their style.
It must have been hard to reign back on certain things so that the record fit their vision and wider picture.

It makes the music weaker in certain ways but stronger in others.

Geogandhi wrote:I agree but I guess you have to take it for what it is. They must have sacrificed a lot of techniques they have learned with previous work for the sake of the theme. The theme and feel is stronger than the need for perfectly crafted music in their style.
It must have been hard to reign back on certain things so that the record fit their vision and wider picture.

It makes the music weaker in certain ways but stronger in others.

Hard to say if they sacrificed anything (vs. simply honing in on a vision that did not require certain things/techniques, or required new ones instead), but yeah, it makes me want to hear the "few albums worth" of tracks that didn't quite fit this theme even more.

Of course, maybe sacrifice was the wrong word because that suggests that this album is poor sounding. But you have to admit that it does not jump as much as Geogaddi, not even cold earth. if it did though it would not fit the TH aesthetic, so "sacrificing" (a Previous BoC aesthetic) sort of fits.
This just means that the BoC Aesthetic has grown wider now as TH is inherently BoC.

I don't think it was a sacrifice as much as a conscious change. In every interview, they always sounded like they knew exactly what they wanted. And the album does have a more subtle approach, and there is much more suggestion than in Geogaddi. But whether it sounds "flat" or not, I really don't know. At least to me, the punchier songs like Palace Posy and Come to Dust seem to do the job just fine. Or maybe I just have low standards.

No dynamic really?

also, what's a 'bitch crusher'? lol

I don't think he meant dynamics perse but I think I know what he means.

I think it's just that it's quite baron sounding, nothing jumps out as a driving force. But that's what fits. I'm certainly not suggesting that it sounds bad just different to past stuff.

I know what you mean. It's less "dynamic" than Geogaddi, but more than both TCHs to my ears.

But I must admit that, production-wise, it's hard to top Geogaddi.

mokaz wrote:1. The Bitch Crusher effect used throughout the LP, it annoys me. Don't know but it sounds a little arch sometimes, some frequencies are clashing with it. It seems to me that a loads of the basses are passing trough it which i personally don't fancy that much.

I wouldn't really say I dislike it, but it's certainly a bit over-used and odd sounding, it's on almost every track. I guess they recorded some of the instrument tracks through really bad A/D converter with no oversampling. At its most annoying it's on the drums of Jacquard Causeway which I think sounds just awful.

The dynamics-part as you put it isn't really true. The album as about as much dynamic range as Geogaddi, if not more. Some parts aren't really as "punchy" maybe, but that's not really entirely related to dynamics.

One thing I don't like about it is how much it sounds like it was entirely produced in a DAW. I'm quite sure though it wasn't but it sure does sound like at least parts of it were. The mastering and overall mixdown were quite obviously done digitally though, and I don't like how it's made sound a bit like a lot of popular music nowadays is. The Campfire Headphase also had a bit of the same sound but not to the extent that I would find it annoying.

Moloch wrote: But I must admit that, production-wise, it's hard to top Geogaddi.

It's actually true. Since my recent Geogaddi/headphone/eureka moment I have been listening to my favourite albums to see how much I have been missing out on. It's seems not that much. Nothing seems to step to geogaddi in terms of electronic music. My personal favourite albums have certainly moved around the pecking order since this moment.

The Bitch Crusher effect

What's a bitch crusher

But I kinda disagree in that respect. In RFTD for instance, a bit crusher was obviously used on drums, which I thought worked well with the more digital, futuristic theme TH has. They also, I noticed, still put a deep kick drum at the start of each measure, as to not lose all the pounding and intensity of their usual drums. I do agree that it's off putting when compared to their other works, but in the context of this release I love it.

Sometimes I wish I had a better ear for all those sordid details in sound design and quality. But honestly, the idea of Boards of Canada "going digital" is extremely appealing to me. After all, people enjoy the "imperfections" of analogue equipment for all its worth, and dismiss the digital stuff as inferior. But if the digital world is inferior, then it also has plenty of "imperfections" to be explored. And if Boards of Canada is doing that, more power to them.

1. The Bitch Crusher effect used throughout the LP, it annoys me. Don't know but it sounds a little arch sometimes, some frequencies are clashing with it. It seems to me that a loads of the basses are passing trough it which i personally don't fancy that much.

Ok, firstly I think the 'bitch' or 'bit'-crushing you mention is actually the sound of old 8 and 12 bit samplers which were coming into use as the 80s began - the exact era of reference TH is built on. I have an old 12 bit Akai X7000 which didn't arrive until the mid 80s and even that has to go down lower than 4kHz just to sample 8 seconds!
Also I'm not really hearing that low bitrate thing on the basses at all. There are deliberate interference and overload effects which I believe are separate sounds, but the main difference with the bass here for me is less sine waves and more sawtooths.
I don't think I'm alone in feeling Tomorrow's Harvest's aesthetic is quite exquisite. I love the sound of it, they are using 30 years worth of recording techniques to get it precisely the way they want it. It is essentially a different kind of BOC album, a grown up one. And having now played it through a 2k rig a couple of times my personal opinion is that at high volume it outshines any of the other releases [/i]

Sorry guys, of course I've meant "bit crusher"...
but bitch crusher is a rather cool name though hehe...

Indeed i agree with your comments here, especially the one about TH being crafted on a DAW and the digital mastering.. feel the same here..

I don't really have much of a clue about music production, while many or even most folk on here are music producers, so I have a general question, out of curiosity - do you think that being able to recognise various production techniques is a benefit or hindrance to a new music listening experience - does analysing details get in the way of experiencing the overall feel of a tune or add an extra dimension to it?
I'm curious because I think that in my own current and previous professions, being aware of details and techniques had interesting effects on how I saw things around me and it led me on to thinking how this might affect someone who is an professional critic, whether the validity of their review/judgement of something might change according to whether the reader has the same technical knowledge as them? Does this make sense?

Bitch crusher effect?

Anyway, tis a good album but has been overshadowed, for me, by James Holden's infinitely more intriguing "The Inheritors". I'll dip back into it eventually, but nothing's drawing me back if I'm being honest.

jcnporter wrote:I don't really have much of a clue about music production, while many or even most folk on here are music producers, so I have a general question, out of curiosity - do you think that being able to recognise various production techniques is a benefit or hindrance to a new music listening experience - does analysing details get in the way of experiencing the overall feel of a tune or add an extra dimension to it?
I'm curious because I think that in my own current and previous professions, being aware of details and techniques had interesting effects on how I saw things around me and it led me on to thinking how this might affect someone who is an professional critic, whether the validity of their review/judgement of something might change according to whether the reader has the same technical knowledge as them? Does this make sense?

Yes and no.
Before I started making music I would wonder how electronic music was made and think that is was way more complicated than it is. The reality is so much simpler. Silly things like stutter, delay and repeat effects, I thought each and every sound heard was placed and doctored to suit, which would have been a crazy amount of work. Now, I know how most stuff is created and it does sort of spoil the experience as you can tell how much work (possibly) has gone into the piece. On the other hand it does bring a different enjoyment to the music knowing this.
I don't enjoy the music any less I guess, if somethings good then it's good whether you can tell whether the producer has spent 5 minutes on it or whether it's so complex it may have taken months to do.

mokaz wrote:
One thing I don't like about it is how much it sounds like it was entirely produced in a DAW. I'm quite sure though it wasn't but it sure does sound like at least parts of it were. The mastering and overall mixdown were quite obviously done digitally though, and I don't like how it's made sound a bit like a lot of popular music nowadays is. The Campfire Headphase also had a bit of the same sound but not to the extent that I would find it annoying.

Listening to it i imagine all the songs with beats are done with a DAW, same goes for Campfire, its only those little tracks without beats i can see being made without a traditional daw but i think they probably dont use too many old hardware sequencers without sampling them into a DAW afterwards (i guess for better mixdowns and mastering).

I think the production is top, sounds so good to me. Some of the best production ive heard this year.
But yeah, i think that its safe to say theyre using a computer for the overall arrangement of most of their tracks (would love to be shown otherwise)

I'm sure most of the arrangements were made using a DAW of course (BOC have said as much themselves). The depth of production and many layers would be a logistical nightmare to manage on a stand-alone sequencer. And yes I would imagine that pretty much all the elements, no matter what they were created on, were then recorded into the DAW. Apart from anything else this makes mixing far more practical. It means you can go back and easily tweak a track months or even years later, this has a huge advantage particularly when you are working with notoriously unstable old synths and other analog equipment where you might never be able to get that exact sound back again!
Try BT's "Binary Universe" for a truly DAW-produced album - the slick, squeaky clean finish is not what the warmth of TH sounds like to me at all

jcnporter wrote: I'm curious because I think that in my own current and previous professions, being aware of details and techniques had interesting effects on how I saw things around me and it led me on to thinking how this might affect someone who is an professional critic, whether the validity of their review/judgement of something might change according to whether the reader has the same technical knowledge as them? Does this make sense?

Makes a lot of sense to me. My personal experience is that, the more I know about the art (be it on a technical or a conceptual level), the more I enjoy it. It's not exactly that I enjoy it "more" or "less", but that I find more things to appreciate, more details to look after, and more ways to enjoy them. But as a critic, I wouldn't never try to shove all that stuff into the head of someone who isn't that knowledgeable, because I know how frustrating it is to read something that goes "just listen to that amazing sound at 2:44, it's the most brilliant thing ever!", and going to listen and coming back wondering "what the hell was so special about that?". It's always a problem when the critic takes the reader for granted like that, without giving the whys and the hows of the whole thing.

One other thing is that I often see people repeating the cliche that "the more you analyse it, the less you enjoy it". That's completely false (though that doesn't mean there aren't people who analyse and don't enjoy), and that stems from a romantic and illusory view that, in art, the reason and the emotion are in constant battle. That's just wrong. In my view, analysing things helps one understand the reasons for his opinions, which in turn enhances the enjoyment.

As for the amount of effort, that's one thing that, in the end, we'll never know for sure. Then BoC says they'll spend two weeks just finding the right hi hat sound, they might just be plain taking the piss. On the other hand, they might as well spend all that time finding melodies, moods and other things that don't necessarily have to do with twiddling knobs. I mean, why should we condemn the artist just for using preset sound? Who's to say that the preset sound isn't exactly what he had envisioned in the first place?

(says the guy who used preset sounds all over his latest album)