what are some other albums like these where they went overboard

>>71493008
I don't think DSotM went overboard but the rest it can be argued. Sgt Pepper is a classic example

Loveless didn't have enough distortion, it should be just constant white noise

>>71493048
>I don't think DSotM went overboard
theres like a billion effects on every song, not to mention on the run, any colour you like...

File: xtc-orange_07.jpg (932KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 1000x1000px

>>71493008
OP here. im also looking for really overproduced albums too, like this

>>71493092
The most they used was tape delay, tape based samples, and a synthesizer, it was far from impossible to reproduce live

>>71493153
you can use gilmorish.com to see the dozens of pedals gilmour used as well as the leslie speaker for practically every song, too

File: cfdf24edeae3fb39450cc6b67a96cd1d.jpg (35KB, 510x511px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 510x511px

every single song has heavy production

The wall went a little overboard with sound effects, but definitely not dark side of the moon.

Animal Collective - MPP

for sure this.

>>71493008
The use of FX on DSOTM was actually a huge point of contention between Gilmour and Waters. If I recall Gilmour wanted a more wet album and Roger wanted it dry.
>>71493276
How so? There's lots of vocal samples like laughing and choirs but I can't think of any FX abuse.

If you like any one of these albums you are a bottom of the barrel prole

ITT: psychedelic music

>>71493008
There's nothing wrong with Loveless and The dark side of the moon.

>>71493092
Yeah but the sound is never muddy like it is on Loveless or Innerspeaker.

>>71493048
How did Sgt Pepper went overboard with effects?

>>71493128
Let it be, but the 1970 version, that one was overproduced

>>71493664
you can have tons of effects and have it sound clean, look at Skylarking or Dusk at Cubist Castle

>>71493522
>There's nothing wrong with Loveless
Uh, the mix is shit for the most part, m8. I really enjoy the album, but it's like the wasted their entire production budget on pedals and forgot to turn up the faders for everything below 150hz.

>>71494130
loveless barely has any pedals on it...

File: flendors2.png (260KB, 436x341px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 436x341px

>>71494143

File: 69092834.jpg (13KB, 210x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 210x200px

>>71494143

File: mbv050213w.jpg (30KB, 604x388px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 604x388px

>>71494182
>>71494201
>The guitarist asserted that unlike other bands of the shoegazing movement of the early 1990s, My Bloody Valentine did not use chorus or flanger pedals. He insisted, "No other band played that guitar like me [...] We did everything solely with the tremolo arm".[35] Shields aimed to use "very simple minimal effects" which often were the result of involved studio work. He stated, "The songs are really simply structured. A lot of them are purposely like that. That way you can get away with a lot more when you mess around with the contents".[21]

>>71494214
>CHORUS OR FLANGER pedals

retard

>>71494229
>We did everything SOLELY WITH THE TREMOLO ARM".[35]
retard

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>71494214
>>71494248
>We did everything solely with the tremolo arm
>all that sustain with the tremolo arm
>that YUGE wall of sound with just the tremolo arm

>>71494248
there's like 17 million albums (particularly CD presses) from the 90's that do the "hidden track" at the end of the last song if you wait long enough