Why is 24KG produced so badly?
 

If you look at the names associated with the album: Dave Stewart as producer, Chris Lord-Alge mixed it, Ted Jensen mastered it, why on earth does it sound as if they recorded Stevie's voice through rubbish car speakers and passed it off as a finished product?

I love 24KG but I feel if the quality of the vocals had been imrpoved, the whole album would have gone up a level.

I think it's deliberate. It's an album of old songs re-recorded by a seasoned singer, so they tried to give it an oldfashioned feel. Personally I liked it.

I think with the whole production of the album you either love it or hate it. Personally, I don't like it but I can appreciate how people like the rawness of it.

I'm going to have to go back and listen to it again. I thought the production was pretty good. Nothing beats the production on Bella Donna and The Wild Heart. I wonder if Jimmy Iovine would ever produce again for Stevie. She seems to love Dave's approach to things. I think to the point that she doesn't seem to want to commit to doing another Fleetwood Mac album.

I had no clue that it was really an issue. While I didn't love the sound I certainly didn't hate it either. Will haven to relisten.

Finally, somebody else noticed! The music isn't so bad, but the vocals sound so distorted and make the whole album sound like a dodgy stream rip or like it's being played on a worn out cassette. It ruins the songs that I actually do like.

I just think it was a completely lazy rush job of a record with very little real effort put in. I expect most of the recordings were done in single takes and just slapped together.

The production is perfect. It's the sound that made her famous.

It must sound good on a pair of 1970's Kraco, Sparkomatic 6x9's speakers along with a Audiovox AM/FM Cassette and a 40watt Audiovox power booster.LOL........

That setup probably sound better then that cheap crap they have out now.LOL....Speaking of rubbish.

I think Dave wanted to keep a nostalgic sound with the album which it sounds good to me. His work on IYD was crisp as new which it suppose too be.

I honestly like the production and sound of 24k, but there is certainly better stuff out there. I don't find it a problem, but I'm not usually not too critical of things like that unless it really ruins the sound/vibe for me.

i like it
i wish ppl would stop b!tching about it
it was NEW music produced in a handful of weeks
be grateful we got anything.

i personally like Stevie's harsh(er) older voice
i like that most of the songs on 24k sound rough and like there were had she done them on tour. I don't need fancy pants over-produced $ h!t
i like it simple and scaled down
not all the songs are on par with the demos
but they're pretty good.

the "new" stuff is what ruins the album for me.
not Dave. not Stevie. but the actual songs ... yukko :nod:

Thank you for saying this.

Screw you! People are entitled to their opinion and just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make you or them wrong.

I'm in complete agreement with the OP. It's sloppy, lazy and rushed. So what if it was recorded in two weeks? It should still SOUND good. The vocals are distorted all over the place. It makes it sound like no thought or care really went into it.

I think I like 24KG among the best of all her solo albums, sketchy rushed production bedamned. I really couldn't care less, especially given that much of her solo output has been blighted by crappy production.

It sounds great. Over production has hurt her a lot in the past. This is perfect.

In my opinion, and I respect others too, TISL was produced to perfection, IYD not that good and 2KG isn't good at all. I'm so frustrated after listening to it over and over again as the songs are fantastic and could've been so much better!

Well Said !

This discussion is starting to resemble one of my holiday family reunions...

I just think people on this board always have something to complain about. If Stevie threw a million dollars at you, You'd still figure out a way to make an argument about it.

Nobody can respect Stevie's opinions either. She is 67 years old. When I'm 67 I'll be in my house in California on the beach resting. Stevie is touring the world 2 and a half hours a night. Then she try's to be nice to fans and record an album for fans to enjoy, and people just bash it.

You have the right to think or say whatever you want, but I do too.

I think the production sounds fine, musically. The mixing and mastering sounds far superior to most albums being released today. My only complaint with this record is how the vocals were mixed into the music. I first noticed this when we got to hear "The Dealer". Something is off with the compression. And I feel that maybe they did it this way because the main intent was to master it for vinyl. When I listen on my record player, the vocals don't sound off at all. But when I listen to the CD or the download on my iPod, it sounds off again.

The thing is, I only really notice this on a handful of songs, NOT the whole album. And even then, it doesn't hamper the enjoyment for me.

I LOVE the raw aspect of this album and all of its eccentricities. As a whole entity, I don't think it's produced badly at all! Just some compression issues with the vocals on a few songs. That's it.

Belladonna, TWH, Rumours, etc, were all recorded on equipment that was large, bulky, expensive and built to AUDIOPHILE specs. Some of it might have been tube equipment, or custom built with old paper in oil capacitors, high quality transistors, and pure copper signal paths. The way that many studios are now they use digital tape, hard drives, computers, and glorified version of Garage Band. if there is a mixing console and other equipment I am betting it is all mass produced Chinese crap . I do not know if 24K was recorded on tape, but if it was I am guessing the mixing console, equipment and all that was far inferior to the mixing consoles of old. Modern music is all done in the digital world now. I dont know much about Blackbird studios, but I am sure it is nowhere near as god as the old Record Plant, Sound City and Capitol studios sound boards and equipment. They did the best they could with how long they had to record, how much money they could spend and how much time they had to perfect it. Could have been worse!

As for Child Lord Algae Plum..... i think he is getting old and is suffering hearing loss. His mixes are not all that. I like what he did with Sleeping Angel on the Enchanted box set though.

:nod:

there is a difference between songs being minimally produced and sh&tty sound quality.

The vocal edits on 24k are some of the worst ever. You can totally hear the cuts from one take to another, and she sounds blurry on so much of it. There's no excuse not to have clear clean sound no matter how simply a song is produced. Good examples are many of her demos--- just her and a piano, can't get more minimally produced than that, and yet her vocals are clear (except in some cases where she physically moved away from the mic). Sloppy sloppy. It's like they got cocky about how well they could mash it all together with computer technology.

The vocals on 24KG are muffled and distorted. It sounds as though she's singing into a pillow. :eek:

Anybody have some specific examples of the bad overdubs and so on so the less attuned, like me, can get a better sense of what the problems might be?

Oh give it a rest! Who are you trying to preach to? You won't find a bigger Stevie fan than myself - I've been following her career since I was 4 years old! I've bought everything she's released in my lifetime on release day and at her first and only solo show in my country in my lifetime, I was outside the venue from 7am!

I can sing her praises and DO sing her praises constantly. Just because I'm a Stevie fan doesn't mean I have to believe everything she does is perfect. And regardless of how old she is, if Stevie is going to continue to make music, it should be of a high a standard. She set the standard herself, she should keep it up. Stevie is, after all, a professional and should be critcised as such. Sloppy work in any career will be scrutinised. IYD was fantastic and well produced - there is no reason why 24KG couldn't have recieved the same treatment.

She didn't make an album "for fans to enjoy", she rushed an album together to get out of her contract.

All this is coming from a fan who frequently praises "Street Angel" and considers BD, TWH and TISL as 3 of the greatest albums ever made.

It sounds great through my setup and it sounds 100 percent better then what I hear on the radio.:eek:

Its not compressed like todays recordings are.

Atlease she can still sing .The others cant without autotune.:eek:

If she didn't tell us the album was done in two weeks you wouldn't be complaining about it. Best album she has done since Bella Donna.

The funny thing is that there are A LOT of production issues on both "Bella Donna" and "The Wild Heart". Not just vocally, but musically, and in the mixing and mastering as well...and nobody complains about those albums in regards to those issues.

I could compile a HUGE list of production issues with those albums, and go song by song if needed.

But the fact is both those records are lauded as being a part of the "very best" of Stevie's solo career (and I would agree) so everyone turns a blind eye to the production "mistakes", despite there being many more "issues" than 24KG!

So why are we "picking apart" 24KG just because it was recorded in 2-3 weeks?
What's funny is that NO ONE is complaining about the music and how it was mixed. EVERYONE here seems to be complaining about the weird compressed vocals within the mix. Granted, that's a big reason as to why we are all Stevie fans...BECAUSE of her voice.

No. The timeframe of when it was recorded to when it was released has NOTHING to do with the weird compressed vocals. They are what they are. You either like them or you don't. I, for one, refuse to let something as innocuous as weird compressed vocal takes hinder my enjoyment of an album I've been waiting YEARS for her to record.

"If You Were My Love", "ATBW", "Belle Fleur", "Hard Advice", "Watch Chain" and ESPECIALLY "24 Karat Gold" are just pure, classic Stevie Nicks...and I defy ANYONE to tell me otherwise simply because of a "compression" or "production" foible. How stupid!

"Shut up people! Why do you have to keep this up?"

I like the somewhat raw, imperfect sound of the album because it is so distinct from her previous work. What some might see/hear as flaws, I consider as unguarded intimacy and immediacy.

Several unusual factors come into play with this album. Not only did it lean on a batch of unearthed abandoned songs, it was recorded with unprecedented expediency, with efficient session musicians much like the lauded Wrecking Crew in the 1960s. It bears no resemblance to Stevie's arduous conventional methods. That is why some people see it as a refreshing change of pace.

That there are such wide contradictions of opinion of the album is perversely a good thing, Noteworthy art, like it or leave it, often evokes polarizing perspectives.

Great points and perspective! :thumbsup:

We're all just people/fans expressing our perceptions and opinions. Stevie isn't affected in any way from our chatter whether it be positive or negative. Nothing we say here is that precious. We're not kicking her dogs.

Wrong. You can't polish a turd, regardless of how long it's been floating.

I'd rather listen and do listen to any of Stevie's other solo albums. I regularly listen to them all. 24kg is the only one I find to be complete rubbish.

we're not talking about production mistakes, we're talking engineering mistakes. technological mistakes.

Really? Because the name of this thread, and the question posed by the OP is "why is 24Kg PRODUCED so badly. So that's the question in which I was giving my opinion.

fair enough. but I was referring to and continuing the thread of the last several posts. :shrug:

Ok, now this is exactly like one of my family discussions.

Could someone explain what and where exactly are these insurmountable sound problems?
For now it's only been named the compressions of the vocals, which didn't bother me at all personally.
And what is the difference between engineering problems and production problems? Isn't engineering part of the production?

Production is the artistic vision for each song and the album as a whole: the mood, the arrangement, what the musicians play, how fast, how she sings it, how many overdubs there are, backing vocals, whatever. A producer in music is like a director in films.

Engineering issues are the technicalities of actually recording the vision. It would be a lot like the camera person in movie making. You can have a beautiful story for your film, and the director can have great ideas on how to film it, when to use close ups, how elaborate the sets or costumes are, how to edit it, what shots to leave in or take out etc. But no matter how great a scene, if the camera man jiggles the camera, or doesn't get it in focus, etc. then your great film looks like crap and annoys people who can't see a clear picture.

Since the producer is the boss of the process, s/he should also ensure that the engineering of the album is up to snuff.

So on 24k, to me, and a lot of other folks, Stevie's voice is "out of focus" on many of the songs, among other things. Hope that helps.

Thanks for explaining the distinction. It helped me!:wavey:

Thanks helped me too :wavey:

To me 24k is like a rough diamond, and exactly why i love it..

And you can't give someone good taste either...