Why does Loveless look and sound so ugly? Maybe because it looks ugly.
Up top is some Madonna from the early 90s. Down low is some Loveless. You tell me which tickles your eyes and ears more.
>judging an album on how it "looks"
holy shit rain man you are autistic.
Up top? De Barge.
Down low? De Loveless.
Which is better? You decide.
Up top? Toni Braxton.
Below her? No love.
(holy shit the Toni track...)
This is a new breed of autism and I am glad that I've witnessed its birth.
lmao are you people fucking retarded
the top one clearly even has more dynamic range, just limit to -6dB and EQ at will
Down is a visually and structurally flat recording. Nothing is made to come front in the mix, it's all literally brickwalled and pushed to a sonically pleasant limit. Only not needlessly being limited to -1dB. Just amplifying the signal to the same peaks as the above will present a terrible master.
It's hilarious how such an album would be so inconsistent in terms of mastering. Just the contrast between the heavy and warm Sometimes and the flat and ear-piecing I Only Said is hilarious.
Half of the album can't even be fixed by EQing the low end that would stand up to Sometimes. Can only bring forth drums.
Loveless is a definite contender for the worst mastered album ever. Regarding the 'wall of sound' atmosphere, even Merzbow's music is more pleasant and rich to the ears. Loveless just has drums and easy rhythms (and a few god-awful rock riffs) for the simpletons, i imagine.
possibly wrong on all sorts of terminology but fuck, how stupid can you be
Pic related is an example of perfect mastering. Even the upper one(remaster) sounds absolutely brilliant because the focus went on the low-end. Even if any actual distortion occurs, it's not audibly heard.
I don't see how Loveless or MBV in general is supposed to sound pleasant. It's literally, and I mean it, the most boring and minimal britpop hidden behind ear-raping static and tunnel reverb.
Go ahead and say I don't "get it", but there's nothing to get in my opinion except an ear hemorrhage and a headache.
Kevin Shields has said he vaporized everything with compression when making Loveless. It's just part of the effect and his vision of a wall of sound. If there's not enough dynamic range turn it up, Loveless sounds amazing when it's on great speakers and literally is shaking your body.
It's also part of the loud quiet dynamic for the choruses, I think it works great, especially on Only Shallow and Blown A Wish.
>Behold, /mu/. By taking this screencap, I have proved with logic and science that your ears and personal tastes are incorrect. In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any bogus /mu/ essentials list, but because I am enlightened by my own ability to judge songs on waveforms alone. Checkmate, earfags.
ya'll niggas sayin that this pop bitch's song full of spikes and peaks looks more appealing via image graph then a heavily compressed track with no spikes or peaks on it's image graph
shitman i cant fukn deal with this level of stupidity
>Do you really listen to music? Are you some kind of fucking pleb? Everybody knows the only way to truly enjoy a song is to study it's waveform intensely and draw comparisons to other songs to dictate which waveform is better. I really don't understand earfags.
>If there's not enough dynamic range turn it up
>Using ears to determine quality of music
Beethoven was the greatest musician ever.
Beethoven had no ears.
This is proof that only plebs rely on ears for musical appreciation. Patricians look at waveforms, like Beethoven did. Earfags go "durr the propagating waves that are hitting my eardrums sound cool lol durr"
>Beethoven had no ears.
Thanks for the laughs anon
Explain why there's a big red circle floating around it, then. Was that really there and not photoshopped in? Did they even HAVE red in 1876? No, you dumbo, you didn't even bother to make it realistic by making it black and white like things really were back then. It sticks out from the picture SO badly.
>Van Gogh cuts off ear
>Becomes greatest artist ever
I bet you earfags listen to his work too, right?