Ever tossed a record aside as poorly engineered and produced only to think otherwise later


I did this with John Lee Hooker's "Mr. Lucky".  I bought this in high school and thought it was great.  As I progressed through the hobby I thought it was light, limp wristed and too soft.  I think some of this downward evolution was due to the loudness wars. Everything became more bombastic. 

Here I am 25 years later and hearing great dynamics in this Johnny Lee recording.  After I lap up this goodness of audio delight, I think to myself, "what other recordings have I dismissed before that I loved the music on but couldn't stand the production?" 

Have you done this?  I'm thinking if you offer up your experiences I can check in with them too to make sure I don't discard recordings I shouldn't. 
128x128jbhiller

Showing 6 responses by jbhiller

@lowrider57 , 

I meant weak or ineffectual by design or in effort.  I've never known that term to mean anything other, but the Urban dictionary says it can mean something like that to some. Whoops.  

Please allow this to be amended on its face to state "feeble". 
I think the Hooker album didn't sound so great to me years later and it's because the loudness wars skewed my view a bit.  The recording actually has great dynamics and it allows the listener to crank it up to get a ton of range.  

All of this aside, it's John Lee Hooker!  I'd vote him for president.
You are correct, Frank, Charlie Parker never played a motif twice.  Endless ideas. Endless.  
Maybe it’s my system is way better these days but I’m finding other recordings I previously dismissed as “listless” from the engineering or production level (not the art or music). 

One such recordung is Clapton’s 461 Ocean Boulevard.  Listened last night.  Tom Dowd did a great job on it. 
@gawdbless, my sense is you’re joking around but if not all apologies!

i should’ve used the term “listless”