Should sound quality determine reviews?

Lewian wrote: I belong to those who say "leave this to the individual reviewer's taste"; it may but doesn't have to, all fine by me. Surely music is for the ears and is about how it sounds, so sound quality is a part of the experience. I tend to be forgiving though as long as the quality of the music can sufficiently shine through. Then there's music for which the sound quality is more or less important. Much electronic music is about the sound; Talk Talk's last two albums needed their brilliant sound for all the detail to be appreciated; Eloy end 70s and early 80s sounded stunning and that was a major selling point; on the other hand I don't think that sound quality, or the lack of it, would be a major factor in anyone's appreciation of, say, "Close to the Edge", or some instrumentalist-focused music such as much fusion. That Cardiacs are maybe not the best when it comes to production affects the Sea Nymphs albums much more than the actual Cardiacs output that probably works with any kind of sound. Bald Jean wrote: I already made a remark about this topic in another thread. sound quality is in my opinion a typical male issue; I have yet to meet a woman who cares about it. this does not mean that all men care about it, but if somebody cares about it it is a safe bet the person in question is a man. I am actually of the opinion that sound quality can be too good. this makes the music appear sterile. music should in my opinion be recorded live (for studio albums live in the studio). the reason is that with live recordings overtones are being created that won't come up if each voice and instrument is recorded separately. this does in my opinion enrich the musical experience. But you are contradicting yourself - you actually say you do care about it, too, except in different ways ("too sterile") from many. And I can identify with that to some extent. I like a "lively" sound, and I often prefer live albums for this reason. (Although they can be awful when done wrongly.)

If it affects the experience of the music, then it matters and should affect the review. Experience, however, is a subjective thing. There was a period of time in the early 70s for example, when bands seemed to favor a clean but flat and sterile sound. I avoided getting a cop of The Yes Album for decades because I did not like the performances and  sound quality, preferring the livelier sound of Yessongs. At the same time, the studio album is full of early Yes classics and because of that I would rate it five stars. Machine Head is another album with great songs but unsatisfactory sound - until it was remastered and the flatness was opened up. A controversial pick of mine, Born Again by Black Sabbath,originally sounded terrible, but a later remastered release showed that the original recordings sounded much better than people realized and so I rated the album  higher than most. What it comes down to again is the experience - whether the sound enhances the experience in a positive sense or not. There are a lot of technical directions to take with this issue; most of us can hear the differences even if we do not fully understand why. 

This is a subjective thing. Personally it depends on how it affects the music. There are some albums where the production is pretty weak but the music is so good i don't care. If the production is a major part of the sound then it does matter. There are also cases where someone seems to rate an album based on the original release without having heard the newer remastered releases that corrected the original problems. There are many albums i have read a lot about complaints about production but because i purchased a new remastered copy do not understand what the limitations of the first releases. In short, it depends on context.

BaldJean wrote: I have yet to meet a woman who cares about it. this does not mean that all men care about it, but if somebody cares about it it is a safe bet the person in question is a man. I am actually of the opinion that sound quality can be too good. this makes the music appear sterile. music should in my opinion be recorded live (for studio albums live in the studio). the reason is that with live recordings overtones are being created that won't come up if each voice and instrument is recorded separately. this does in my opinion enrich the musical experience

^ 'Superb' is subjective, I'd say 'immaculate' .

No - a great song can survive indifferent production, but a good mix can enhance a good song and make it great. However, it doesn't mean a classic song can't hit new heights if the remix/remastering is done well.

I think I'm the one being mentioned here in the original post haha. My view on it is that while mix and sound quality isn't the be all end all, it definitely is able to exacerbate issues or alternatively, bring a great album to new heights. In the case of Aenima, I personally found its mix to take away from the overall feel of the album, especially since Tool is often so beloved for their amazing interweaving riffs and amazingly tight jamming and interplay in the instrumental sections, both of which I felt were less prominent in this due to the muddy production taking away from the emphasis on these sections. I also feel like in this case, the muddiness took away from some of the power and impact that some of the more aggressive sections could have had.

I think that it can be a segmentof the reviewer's description of the material.  However, again, it is subjective, just like all music is.  And I do agree with whomever wrote that too sterile is not good (as in overly-produced, or too perfect, lacking in human element).

It is a good question , my answer is yes sound quality certainly matters .. remember all the fuss people made when vapor trails from Rush was first released it was a good album had some great songs on it but people focused more on its sound quality than the material itself  (it was an over compressed brick wall mess as far as recording quality goes). I have several albums in my collection that I would have added an extra star to had they been better recorded , so yes sound quality is important for a good review these days. But if we are talking a  late 60's early 70's album review sound quality isn't as important because we don't expect perfection, technology had not advanced enough at that stage it's amazing yes, jethro tull and King crimson etc albums sound as good as they still do. I noticed a big leap in about 1972 in sound quality then another leap in about 1975. I don't think the modern trend of volume wars is helping sound quality brick walling the dynamic range really bothers me, it hurts the feel of the music I think. Anyway a good question I hope I've helped in some way answer  

Edited by Enchant X - March 06 2020 at 22:10