View Full Version : Adore's production


Delicieuxz
01-09-2008, 12:16 AM
I've seen people rave about Adore's great production quite a lot here. To be honest, I'd never before noticed it or thought about it, but I guess it is good, tho I don't know what makes it great.
I'm wondering, how would the details of the production be broken down into the different factors that make it great? Any people who work with audio tools here to help explain?
It'd be especially interesting to me to know what is going on that contributes to the good job Billy did there because I'm starting to do more and more work in audio production myself, for my own music.

Frankenstein
01-09-2008, 12:18 AM
udder perfection

Rickpat12
01-09-2008, 12:19 AM
sheer briliance :D

redbull
01-09-2008, 12:21 AM
It'd be especially interesting to me to know what is going on that contributes to the good job Billy did there because I'm starting to do more and more work in audio production myself, for my own music.

doesn't clip
i think the biggest thing about it is that alot of it sounds like it could be a band playing in your living room (Shame, Annie-Dog, To Sheila)
the fact that it has easily the most sparse arrangements of any SP record also helps...

ciGarski
01-09-2008, 12:26 AM
peanut butter JELLY, peanut butter JELLY :banoonoo::banoonoo::banoonoo::banoonoo::banoonoo:

teh b0lly!!1
01-09-2008, 03:04 AM
i dont think it has that great of a production.
everything sounds kind of tinny, small and obtuse.
(an example for a record that goes for the same vibe but pulls it off amazingly well is In Rainbows).
the thing is, the instrumentation is really great and the songs shine through - and they're the best batch of songs billy has written to date imo.
i dunno, the production works for this record i guess - for me the way they sound has become a part of the songs, and i love those songs dearly - but its not a perfect one at that. has some rough edges.

as for you question what makes a production work great, my personal opinion is -
great texture, good spacing within the recording (have some "air" between the instruments - on a well produced album, you could pretty much hear every instrument clearly and know what each musician is playing), good mixing, good recording quality, and choices within the production process that do the songs great justice. or in other words - making choices concerning pretty much everything (mics, song structure, the way to sing a particular lyric, additional instrumentation) that do the song justice and help pull it together into something more cohesive and impressive.
to use adore as an example, i think the choices made during the production process indeed did the songs great justice, but the recording\mixing wasn't as good as it could have been.

the definition of great production is going to vary pretty much with each person you ask - since everyone seems to have a slightly different idea of what being a producer is actually all about.
i suggest you check out "In Absentia" by Porcupine Tree if you want to hear some really face-melting production. that record is damn near perfect in production.

SlingeroGuitaro
01-09-2008, 03:08 AM
production goes way beyond what something sounds like. i like the production on adore because the instrumentation, arrangement, and sound choices allow the songs to shine.

steve albini and george martin are (were) great producers, but their records sound like shit. they have a knack for arranging a song around its strong suits and capturing a great performance, sound quality be damned. brian wilson is a great producer for the way things sound, but his over analysis leaves a lot of his work sounding watered down. a producer has to have a good chemistry with the artist and be able to work in their world.

adore was going to sound good regardless of what the songs were like. the band was in top form from just returning from a major world tour spanning 2 years or so, and it was a very emotional time for them. i think they should have just recorded and released it. some of the songs edge on 'watered down' but the album is strong enough to pull itself together by the end.

cork_soaker
01-09-2008, 03:42 AM
production goes way beyond what something sounds like.

i would like to think that what an album sounds like would be a result of said album's production.

i realize that's not exactly what you were saying with that quote, but that's what it boils down to.

steve albini and george martin are (were) great producers, but their records sound like shit. they have a knack for arranging a song around its strong suits and capturing a great performance, sound quality be damned.

perhaps i'm confused as to the role of the producer. shouldn't the producer be making sure that, despite the strength of the song, it shouldn't end up sounding like shit when recorded?



brian wilson is a great producer for the way things sound, but his over analysis leaves a lot of his work sounding watered down.

that's really vague. not sure what you mean. "a great producer for the way things sound"? "his over analysis"?



adore was going to sound good regardless of what the songs were like.

that doesn't make sense. to me.

SlingeroGuitaro
01-09-2008, 04:30 AM
a producers main role is to get the best possible performance on tape. it is technically the engineers job to make the recording sound good. a producer is in charge of budget, time frame, and in the end product. they are there to say 'this is good enough, lets move on'


brian wilson is notorious for having his own sound, and is known to move from studio to studio to record one or two small parts for a song simply to get that studios sound on tape. ie he will book a day at a big studio to record 1 gong crash and spend all day making it sound good, then move the next day to another big studio for a bass sound, then the next day to a third studio to record a xylophone. many people (including the musicians he hires) criticize his micromanagement takes away from any spontaneous creativity and ruins any band dynamic that may be going on.


"adore was going to sound good regardless of what the songs were like. the band was in top form from just returning from a major world tour spanning 2 years or so"

the best time to record a band is right after they get off a big tour. the members performances will be in top form and they will be excited to play new material for once. the songs could have all been crap, but the dynamic and energy from the band would have been exciting enough to keep the record interesting.

areyougaffney?
01-09-2008, 07:17 AM
yeah, I like the production as in some songs sound live or close to it, while some have a lot of production but don't sound over produced like machina can.
I think Billy said once that some songs were recorded live in an hour (annie dog, shame) whilst others he spent ages on. But each got the time it needed. I agree with that on this album.
It also has some truly superb songs so agree that it would have been hard to fuck it up.

redbreegull
01-09-2008, 07:34 AM
Adore's production is very very lush without being forced or over-crowded, and it brought the band for the first time into a more "live" feel because of the sparser arrangements, space between the instruments, etc. Corgan's voice is also used more as an instrument in previous albums. You can tell he did many many takes in some places to get the perfect tone. The production is also very good because the band was able to successfully bring together three very different sounds (acoustic, piano, and electronic) and make them gel together as one sound. Furthermore the "depth" of the mix is very good. If you have ever listened to Adore on nice headphones, you know there are noises, echoes, and instrumentation hidden far back in the mix. It's not even possible to tell what some of these are because they are so quiet and drawn back. Overall it is a very intimately produced record. If you think it sounds tinny I would suggest messing with your speakers.

M.Night
01-09-2008, 07:43 AM
I've seen people rave about Adore's great production quite a lot here. To be honest, I'd never before noticed it or thought about it, but I guess it is good, tho I don't know what makes it great.
I'm wondering, how would the details of the production be broken down into the different factors that make it great? Any people who work with audio tools here to help explain?
It'd be especially interesting to me to know what is going on that contributes to the good job Billy did there because I'm starting to do more and more work in audio production myself, for my own music.

10 years to late

teh b0lly!!1
01-09-2008, 08:27 AM
Adore's production is very very lush without being forced or over-crowded, and it brought the band for the first time into a more "live" feel because of the sparser arrangements, space between the instruments, etc. Corgan's voice is also used more as an instrument in previous albums. You can tell he did many many takes in some places to get the perfect tone. The production is also very good because the band was able to successfully bring together three very different sounds (acoustic, piano, and electronic) and make them gel together as one sound. Furthermore the "depth" of the mix is very good. If you have ever listened to Adore on nice headphones, you know there are noises, echoes, and instrumentation hidden far back in the mix. It's not even possible to tell what some of these are because they are so quiet and drawn back. Overall it is a very intimately produced record. If you think it sounds tinny I would suggest messing with your speakers.

great post.
you actually made me rethink what i said and i think youre right about the deep mix thing.
to elaborate upon what im trying to convey;
when i say tinny i mean tracks like tear, once upon a time, the solo on for martha...
these examples could have all been massively epic in their beauty, but still ended up sounding pretty flat.
now, dont get me wrong - theyre not horribly produced or anything, and those are some of my all time favourite sp songs.
anyway as an approach to the record, actually i think the small sound is very fitting, and it works for the most part.
in the end i guess it boils down to personal taste;
i just think my ears want to hear a more 'wet' and processed sound than what's on adore - chorus, reverb, layers of big keyboard parts..
when that does happen on adore (i.e the outro for shame), its just fucking stellar.
all in all i would say the production on adore is terrific in the sense that the songs are executed just the way they need to be performed, the arrangements are brilliant, and it achieves exactly the mood its trying to create.
what i think could have been slightly better about it is more about mixing and recording techniques, plus the processing\keyboards thing - but again, that comes down to personal tastes.
and as a piece of art, i would never change anything at all about adore. its just a perfect album imo, despite its small flaws.

syntheticdna
01-09-2008, 11:30 AM
you feel the orchestra, but you don't hear it

Mayfuck
01-09-2008, 11:40 AM
the production on this is okay. better than average i suppose. the only real stellar production on this album is on to shiela and shame. the louder tracks are too compressed and i agree with teh b0lly!1 about it being small, tinny and obtuse in general.

teh b0lly!!1
01-09-2008, 11:47 AM
the only real stellar production on this album is on to shiela and shame. .

thats pretty true.
blank page, too. those seasick\'crooked' guitar sounds (deep chorus) in the background are brilliant

teh b0lly!!1
01-09-2008, 11:48 AM
man i really got into the adore mood because of this thread
listening to it now :smoke:

and to think the same guy who wrote adore wrote zeitgeist :(

mccririck
01-09-2008, 11:49 AM
Tear seems to lack something imo, the big orchestral backing sounds a bit sat-on and homogenized. Songs that sound good are To Sheila, Ava Adore, Annie Dog, Pug, Shame

Twineball
01-09-2008, 12:59 PM
udder perfection

http://sciencecastle.com/sc/app/webroot/img/experiments/158.jpg

Mayfuck
01-09-2008, 02:31 PM
thats pretty true.
blank page, too. those seasick\'crooked' guitar sounds (deep chorus) in the background are brilliant

forgot about blank page. that is a good one too, excellent piano tone.

Tear seems to lack something imo, the big orchestral backing sounds a bit sat-on and homogenized. Songs that sound good are To Sheila, Ava Adore, Annie Dog, Pug, Shame

Tear is probably the most regrettable track. I think billy was going for a "big" sound on this with the zepplin kashmir style drums but he could have easily gotten an orchestra to do the string parts which would have soudned WAY better than the muffled synth strings he ended up using.

areyougaffney?
01-09-2008, 03:17 PM
Tear seems to lack something imo, the big orchestral backing sounds a bit sat-on and homogenized. Songs that sound good are To Sheila, Ava Adore, Annie Dog, Pug, Shame

I like tear on the album but agree that it does lack something. I love the live version with the gothic piano before the guitars kick in. this would have worked really well on the album, still a great studio song though.

Home
01-09-2008, 03:33 PM
The live version of Tear is mostly random jamming with the main riffs of the song and that's really awesome

monkeyfritters
01-09-2008, 03:33 PM
ive been experimenting with lucid dreaming

peabody
01-09-2008, 03:47 PM
holy crap

this post made me realize that adore came out almost 10 years ago.

SlingeroGuitaro
01-09-2008, 03:48 PM
10 years this summer.

sucks for us

smashkin33
01-09-2008, 03:50 PM
10 years this summer.

sucks for us
and my boyfiriend's 10 year high school reunion is this summer
this is crazy talk, where'd all the time go?

monkeyfritters
01-09-2008, 03:53 PM
into COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKIE CRISP

SlingeroGuitaro
01-09-2008, 03:58 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wiYMubh2L._AA280_.jpg

teh b0lly!!1
01-09-2008, 04:21 PM
Tear is probably the most regrettable track. I think billy was going for a "big" sound on this with the zepplin kashmir style drums but he could have easily gotten an orchestra to do the string parts which would have soudned WAY better than the muffled synth strings he ended up using.

again, i completely agree.
to me it really sounds like he had some zeppelin songs in his head when they recorded that song - those mellotron sounds always reminded me of the kind of sound zep got on 'the rain song'.
'tear' does have a couple of good moments, though - mainly the quiet synth interlude.

i_adore_adore
01-09-2008, 04:47 PM
This is a wonderful thread. I've always loved the way Adore sounds (haha of course I have). I think it has this sort of vintage feel to it while still sounding modern. I really have nothing more to add; I'm no expert on this stuff, and most of what I had in mind has already been said. This thread just made me happy :) I haven't listened to Adore in a while.

darcyismybass
01-09-2008, 06:25 PM
thats pretty true.
blank page, too. those seasick\'crooked' guitar sounds (deep chorus) in the background are brilliant

BRILLIANT description of that particular part of Behold! The Night Mare! It's almost as if it's right between a guitar and banjo sound...