What's the album equivalent of putting ketchup on steak?
What's the album equivalent of putting ketchup on steak?
Other urls found in this thread:
...
Listening to music with EQ
Any kind
His voice fucking ruins an otherwise good album. It does not fit in at all with the production
you already made this thread today
To be fair, the speakers or headphones themselves that you use sort of put a hardware EQ on the music.
the problem is that not all speakers/headphones have the same fidelity across the whole frequency spectrum, so an album can sound totally different from one listening apparatus to another
whats the album equivalent of the mist at the bottom of water falls?
whats the album equivalent of road hockey?
whats the album equivalent of mowing the lawn?
whats the album equivalent of sneezing?
whats the album equivalent of trying to take a sip from your cup and finding a bug in it?
whats the album equivalent of a lava lamp?
huh OP, tell me
Kenny G when he recorded himself over Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World"
You are welcome
Skullcandy
brian wilson
>whats the album equivalent of the mist at the bottom of water falls?
Selected Ambient Works 85-92
>whats the album equivalent of sneezing?
youtube.com
>whats the album equivalent of trying to take a sip from your cup and finding a bug in it?
bad remasters
>whats the album equivalent of a lava lamp?
The Byrds
Listening to anything below 320 kbps. Or listening to music on youtube
These
But I will admit there's some albums in my library I can't find in 320/flac
using apple headphones
putting an album on shuffle
Non-musical memelord detected.
Literally nothing wrong with listening to a studio album in whatever order you want. Each piece is made to stand on its own.
>believing this
most albums were put in that order by the artists to be listened to that way.
steaks are cooked to be flavorful enough to eat them without ketchup.
yeah you can listen to an album out of order and you can eat your steak with ketchup, but that was not the intended way of enjoying them
It's not my fault that you got made fun of by kids on Sup Forums who didn't know what they were talking about and since so few people here are actually musicians or even aware of music theory, it goes uncorrected.
Musicians usually write individual songs which are made to stand on their own. Studio albums (most music in general and most music on this board) consist of these individual songs that the artist writes.
They may add transitions from song to song in order to make listening go more smoothly, but it is an afterthought. Only concept albums require that you listen to an album in order to get the artistic vision.
>It's not my fault that you got made fun of by kids on Sup Forums who didn't know what they were talking about
I can't say I've ever been made fun of on here for listening to an album out of order.
Mostly because I'm not autistic enough to purposely listen to an album out of order, but whatever.
It's an afterthought, it's really a small part of the creation of that album. The songs don't need to go in consecutive order to be complete. You can listen to them in any order you want and you will not be missing out on much at all. Unless you are listening to an album that was made to be listened consecutively, that is called a concept album.
>claims that it's wrong to listen to a studio album out of order
>doesn't seem to understand that normal people will often just listen to one or a few of their favorite songs off an album and then move on
>is calling anyone else in the world autistic
>implying openers and closers aren't important
>implying artists don't create some songs as interludes
>implying individual songs on albums are made completely out of context of the others
>implying this has anything to do with music theory
viper yourself
Listening to a few tracks off of an album isn't the same as listening to an album. If you're going to sit and listen to an album, it makes literally no sense to listen to it out of order.
anything mark kozeleck has done in the past 5 years.
>implying openers and closers aren't important
There are a lot more songs on an album than the openings and closers.
>implying artists don't create some songs as interludes
Really most studio albums don't feature an interlude.
>implying individual songs on albums are made completely out of context of the others
In the way that they were created by the same artist in roughly the same time period of weeks or more, but not more than that.
>implying this has anything to do with music theory
Maybe a start would be learning that songs often are made as individual pieces.
It often makes no sense to listen to it in any order, because albums are usually not written as one piece in the first place. If you have your iphone on shuffle and pick an album, there is usually no need to turn off shuffle when you pick an album.
i love kozelek but i have to agree
literally like OP said
Only right answer so far
y u heff to be med?
>Great concept for an album
>Fantastic original double album line up
>Set to be the grand finale of the band
>Strong AF opener
>Studio interference. Album circumcised from 18 to 10 songs, out of order
>Jeff Lynne forced to shit out another album to void his contract
>What could have been one of ELOs strongest albums is left a mediocre, incohesive wreck
What a loadda fuck.
does Sup Forums just love the byrds now or is it just one very sad person
or is it a meme
you have so many citations and sources for your argument i can't help but accept it
>2016
>still eating meat.
I don't love the byrds, but they are both a relic of the 60's, and people are either indifferent about them or they like them, there isn't usually too many people that are outspoken about either
you fucking retard
Usually the order is decided on by the record label who give no shits about art.
bad production
Unless of course it's a concept album or any prog rock album which require you to listen to it in order