Kevin and Martin

nuno_c

nuno_c

A hollow universe in space
I absolutely love Martin produced albums, but i think the Kevin ones actually sound more "natural" and more live, so i have to say i actually prefer Kevin's production. Since i know he gets a lot of criticism, am i the only one who prefers his production overall? Why? What do you think?
 
Kevin Shirley is a great producer. He's produced some of Dream Theater and Rush's best sounding albums, production wise. You're right, he's very big on the live sound and is great at capturing that. I think a lot of the criticism he gets is very misdirected. The production issues on the new Maiden albums are really due to Steve Harris' wacky decisions.
 
Mosh said:
Kevin Shirley is a great producer. He's produced some of Dream Theater and Rush's best sounding albums, production wise. You're right, he's very big on the live sound and is great at capturing that. I think a lot of the criticism he gets is very misdirected. The production issues on the new Maiden albums are really due to Steve Harris' wacky decisions.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What decisions by the way?
 
Like the decision to not master AMOLAD. There's also a scene in the Dance of Death doc where Shirley talks about showing the album to another producer and being told that the bass end didn't sound good, so Shirley fixed it and Steve hated the result. And of course he's not going to say no to Steve Harris.
 
nuno_c said:
Don't mean to sound offensive at all... maybe sentimental value?
Click to expand...
Could be a factor, but the reasons don't change my opinion.
I like AMOLAD better than Killers, but Killers sounds better.
Mob Rules, Fire of Unknown Origin...every instrument clear and balanced.
 
mckindog said:
Could be a factor, but the reasons don't change my opinion.
I like AMOLAD better than Killers, but Killers sounds better.
Mob Rules, Fire of Unknown Origin...every instrument clear and balanced.
Click to expand...
I think, although it really sounds good, when you listen to Killers you know it is not an album made recently. On the other hand, Kevin produced albums sound, at least to me, timeless in the sense that they just sound like a live band playing with a natural sound, and that's timeless in itself, you know?
 
nuno_c said:
I think, although it really sounds good, when you listen to Killers you know it is not an album made recently. On the other hand, Kevin produced albums sound, at least to me, timeless in the sense that they just sound like a live band playing with a natural sound, and that's timeless in itself, you know?
Click to expand...
Shirley's albums with Maiden still need to pass the test of time. Piece of Mind was released more than 30 years ago, and it is absolutely not dated. Mckindog's opinion makes sense to me. Birch gave every album a distinctive sound, each instrument could be heard perfectly. Shirley would like the band to sound "live", but he associates bits and pieces recorded during different takes, which causes different problems. I think he might have helped the band to last longer, as this recording mode seems to motivate them more and to be less demanding, but I don't think the result is equivalent to the traditional way of doing things.

Mosh said:
Like the decision to not master AMOLAD. There's also a scene in the Dance of Death doc where Shirley talks about showing the album to another producer and being told that the bass end didn't sound good, so Shirley fixed it and Steve hated the result. And of course he's not going to say no to Steve Harris.
Click to expand...
Of course not. The record is an Iron Maiden's, not Shirley's. It is normal that the final word goes to the artist. He knows how he wants things to sound like. And unless I hear the two conflicting versions of a record, I wouldn't allow myself to say that he has commited a mistake.
 
harrisdevot said:
Of course not. The record is an Iron Maiden's, not Shirley's. It is normal that the final word goes to the artist. He knows how he wants things to sound like. And unless I hear the two conflicting versions of a record, I wouldn't allow myself to say that he has commited a mistake.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting that the final say doesn't belong to Maiden.

And I get that Steve likes the way those albums sound, but that's not going to stop me from thinking they sound awful.
 
harrisdevot said:
Shirley's albums with Maiden still need to pass the test of time. Piece of Mind was released more than 30 years ago, and it is absolutely not dated. Mckindog's opinion makes sense to me. Birch gave every album a distinctive sound, each instrument could be heard perfectly. Shirley would like the band to sound "live", but he associates bits and pieces recorded during different takes, which causes different problems. I think he might have helped the band to last longer, as this recording mode seems to motivate them more and to be less demanding, but I don't think the result is equivalent to the traditional way of doing things.

Of course not. The record is an Iron Maiden's, not Shirley's. It is normal that the final word goes to the artist. He knows how he wants things to sound like. And unless I hear the two conflicting versions of a record, I wouldn't allow myself to say that he has commited a mistake.
Click to expand...

Althouh they are different takes, the energy present when recorded is greater, wich gives the album an overall different kind of feel. It's more about how to capture rather than how it's selected.

Shirley's albums are not as old as any 80's or 90's album, but two of them are more than 10 years old. We can surely say they're not new. And yet, they could've been released yesterday i think.

It seems to be a matter of taste, but although Piece of Mind sounds VERY good even to this day, and surely not a typical 80's sounding album, i don't think it sounds like something recorded yesterday. One thing is to sound good, another is to sound recent.

At least that's how i see it :p
 
Don't know if it was Birch, but when he stepped off after Fear of the Dark, I stopped liking all of Maiden's subsequent releases :/
 
DrRocklml said:
Don't know if it was Birch, but when he stepped off after Fear of the Dark, I stopped liking all of Maiden's subsequent releases :/
Click to expand...
It can't just be the producer, or you have liked the live versions of the songs : on this matter, the producer's imput is far less important than on studio albums.
 
I am not sure if I follow you well harrisdevot. FOTD was Birch's last job. It is possible that DrRock likes A Real Live One (Birch has nothing to do with it) less. It has a very rough, unproduced character.
 
I get your point. Maybe I'm not well informed on allt he technical possibilities, but I've always thought that a producer couldn't really change the sound of a live recording, his job consisting mainly in mixing the tracks (and doing the overdubs) ; this is a big part of the job, but my guess is the guitar sound, for example, cannot be really altered at that point. In fact, I can't that big difference between Live after Death and A Real Live/Dead one. I would say the first one, although produced by a fantastic producer, sounds horrible, except for the fourth (Hammersmith) side, and that the later two are really decent.
 
Two of the best-sounding albums in my collection are Rush Counterparts and Bill Squier's Tell the Truth.
Both were recorded in the early '90s and engineered by Kevin Shirley.

Kevin's recent Black Country Communion stuff sounds great too.
 
Were these albums recorded according to the same "semi-live" process as the last four Maiden albums ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top