production all depends on what kind of music you're making really. I mean for example, death/black metal stuff wouldn't have the same effect if it were pristinely produced in a crispy, antiseptic, 8 mics to everything that makes a slight bit of noise recording studio, just the same as devs music wouldn't be the same inside a studio the size of a photo booth with one mic hanging from the ceiling. production can't really be too GOOD, but it can be too CLEAN. if 1349 had everything spotless like dev they'd view it as bad production, because it doesn't work with their music. so production depends on music =]

there's a great deal of difference between "good" production and "clinical" production.

in this case, i guess everyone is talking about "too clinical", so yeah, i agree with most. A production CAN be too clinical and sound like it needs more spice. But it can never be too GOOD.

A production being too good.
That was EXACTLY my first thought when I put "Mer De Noms" by A Perfect Circle in my stereo.

I dunno about that. It's very polished, sure, and occasionally sounds lifeless, but the mix bugs the shit out of me. The guitars and bass are far too low beneath Maynard and the drums to actually be as powerful as the songs sound like they're supposed to be. The production on their Live in Phoenix promo is infinitely better in almost every way - the only advantage (besides obvious things like the crowd) that can be found in the studio record are the drums, which sound perfectly crisp and are mixed just as perfectly. Funny how they got the drums and vocals so right, but the string instruments sound almost lifeless and mechanical. The live record has a lot more life, due at least in part to the mix.

As for whether something can be produced too well, I think it depends on the band. A lot of tr00 necro kvlt black metvl fans diss Dimmu Borgir for their insanely well-produced records, but I think it very much suits their sound - it's huge and organic in atmosphere, but the vocals and drums often sound mechanical. I think it works in their favor most of the time. I may be impaled for saying it, but the re-recorded version of Stormblast is about a bajillion times better than its original, and mostly because of the production (but also because of Hellhammer and the new songs). I also think a major part of what made Enthrone Darkness Triumphant such a classic and well-received record was its production - the band literally stepped out of the forest and applied its composition techniques to material that definitely suited the upped production value. (It's because of those compositional techniques that I don't think the band can ever top that record, actually.)

I recently started listening to Tool again, and their record Ænima has really shite production, IMO. It's sad because the drums are thin, poorly mixed and recorded in this echoey, shitty room, half the guitars on the record are mono, and the guitar levels in general are too far below Maynard to hit as hard as they should. The climactic portions of "Third Eye" are muted because of this. You listen to "Third Eye" on their live record, Salival, and it's as if that's how the song was always meant to be heard - not just because of the new intro, but because of the production and mix. (Now, it's really too bad Danny's snare sounds so fucking terrible...)

It definitely is dependent on the band in question, and little else. You don't give Graveworm the same production value you give Dimmu Borgir for reasons not just limited to the separation in black metal.

I think the production of AEnima suits it well, ambitious music with very gritty, lo-fi production. Then again I think Converge's You Fail Me and The Mass's Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness are awesome so maybe I just like that style.

I think I've said it before in this thread, but oh well - production can be too clean and make the album sound sterile and lifeless, but that's not the same thing as saying good.

interesting topic, clinical sounds nstuff. i'd like to throw into the room that the manic street preachers make some mellow, radio-friendly music that sounds like it's completely sterile, and that fits it perfectly. i often listen to their stuff to "clean my head out", and i never miss anything in the sound. so, it might depend on the band's style whether a very clean production is good or bad.

for metal, it sucks most of the time.

I reckon some bands fit the super clean production, and devin or DTB is one of them. Devin and Gene and incredibly tight musician (and delightfully humble about it too I might add) and the guitar tones and vocal lines need to sound and perfect and clear and 'science fictiony' as possible. Maybe Accelerated Evolution and Punky Bruster sound less polished, but that is because those two albums aren't typical Devin, although nothing Devin does is ever really typical.

Who thinks Tool's Lateralus is too cleanly produced? I do, and it ruins the whole experience for me.

Who thinks Tool's Lateralus is too cleanly produced? I do, and it ruins the whole experience for me.

I think that album sounds good, it suits it that they probably spent hours obsessively perfecting its sound

This is a very interesting thread. I have to bring it up (although I'm sure there's a million threads on it elsewhere) - 2 words: St. Anger. Is this album over-produced or under-produced? Or over-produced made to SOUND under-produced? Because it certainly has a very raw sound about it and there are times where James and Kirk sound a little out of sync. Personally, I think it was a desperate attempt to give Metallica a kind of garage-band feel about there music. It's just a shame that their heads were so all over the place during the recording of the album! I've recently heard it for the first time (having avoided it for the last few years) and I have to say it's not as bad as I feared. Fingers crossed for the new one with Rick Rubin at the helm. That should make a world of difference. His 'Christ Illusion' production is possibly Slayer's best yet IMO.

Over-produced is every record where for the listener production becomes an issue apart from music itself. If a production does not support the music, if it doesn't elevate the music to its inherent level, then the production becomes a goal in itself, which is ... not so good.

I would love to hear a project for which one person does the writing, one band does the recording, and three to five producers then work on the recorded material, practically using it a sample. They can do with it whatever they like, add to it, subtract, whatever, and then let's hear it. It would be "wow."

i don't know who produced Mercenary's "The Hours That Remain" album but it's probably my favorite not-produced-by-devin metal ...production

There's a difference between a full production (such as those that Devin makes) and overproduction found on every run-of-the-mill MTV-spawned band. Devin loses none of the emotion and abience of his music. In fact, he enhances it.

There's a fine balance between over- and uner-production. Many extreme metal bands deliberately make their albums sound like the band was recorded in a well using an answering machine. Steve Albini is usually credited simply for "recording" a band rather than producing. It all depends on the music and the artist

As far as Nirvana goes, some of it lays in the hands of the engineer...Steve Albini recorded In Utero. Steve is known for his raw live sound, yet makes sure the band plays as a solid unit on tape. Not to mention, he's probably one of the hardest-working people in the 'business', having recorded over 1000 albums in his career.

I think it depends on what kind of music it is, but generally I do like to have my music pretty well produced.

It can be overdone.................. In a good way!