I am having a hard time understanding the distortion/clipping during the chorus of "Castle on the Hill" by Ed Sheeran. When asking Google about this, many people seem to have noticed this and related discussions conclude that "the song was poorly mixed or mastered".
However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Ed Sheeran's engineers are top of the line. There is absolutely no way that the distortion/clipping wasn't noticed before release or was overlooked. Obviously, it was put into the song intentionally and I don't buy that it's for the sake of loudness. Not when its present at such an extent. But to my ears, the effect doesn't support the lyrics nor the sound of the track. So the question is... why is it there?
Distortion/clipping on "Castle on the Hill" (Ed Sheeran)
Just my thoughts, fwiw;
Is the same distortion apparent across all mediums - on YouTube, iTunes, etc.?
It could be a way to incentivize peeps to buy it legitimately if it isn't distorted on the paid mediums. A bit like music videos with stops, gaps and visuals which break up the content of a song - which can also discourage peeps from downloading it via a YT/mp3 decoder...
Is the same distortion apparent across all mediums - on YouTube, iTunes, etc.?
It could be a way to incentivize peeps to buy it legitimately if it isn't distorted on the paid mediums. A bit like music videos with stops, gaps and visuals which break up the content of a song - which can also discourage peeps from downloading it via a YT/mp3 decoder...
Adam Gill | BandLab
My 2 cents…
OK, I was curious about this so I did a little research. Yea, there's some aggressive saturation going on in the chorus, especially evident on the kick. But here's the thing. No one cares. Well, that's not entirely true, the audiophiles and audio engineers and wanna be engineers care. But none of the review or fan comments even HINT at anything "wrong" on the chorus. Most love it, some don't but it's the lyrics or the genre they complain about, not the "distortion".
But the audio geeks say it's totally unlistenable, it's horrible, a crime against nature. What's to "understand"?
I have a harder time "understanding" lyric choices or melodic/harmonic choices - I'm far more open to sonic choices!
Some say it's a mastering fiasco, but I'd be shocked if this was an "accident" that slipped by everyone, or some "loudness war" issue. There are MUCH cleaner ways to limit/compress a mix these days, and any distortion you hear is almost always going to be intentional, or at the least they'd be aware of it and release it anyway. I don't think this is an accident, certainly nothing to take personally as many did in the comments I read (mostly on audio forums btw, not in the youtube comments or reviews/comments).
I've been a part of projects that had an "aggressive" sound to a song or parts of a song - you do it knowing that the "purists" out there won't get it, and will scream bloody murder and exclaim how "unlistenable" it is, all the while the fans listening over and over and loving it.
Bottom line IMO - It's just some creative distortion, for goodness sake, someone taking a risk and trying something new IMO. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but honestly if you can't listen and judge the SONG, and instead get all hung up on the stuff only 1% of folks even know to listen for, then maybe you're too close to the technical side of things and have lost touch with the artistic. While I'd probably never intentionally do such a treatment on a song like that, I take no personal offense at someone else doing it - I can hear the music though a crappy 78 RPM recording from almost 100 years ago, and enjoy it for what it is.
Artists, you can't trust them! Now, back to reading about that famous "Beatles tape saturation"…
OK, I was curious about this so I did a little research. Yea, there's some aggressive saturation going on in the chorus, especially evident on the kick. But here's the thing. No one cares. Well, that's not entirely true, the audiophiles and audio engineers and wanna be engineers care. But none of the review or fan comments even HINT at anything "wrong" on the chorus. Most love it, some don't but it's the lyrics or the genre they complain about, not the "distortion".
But the audio geeks say it's totally unlistenable, it's horrible, a crime against nature. What's to "understand"?
I have a harder time "understanding" lyric choices or melodic/harmonic choices - I'm far more open to sonic choices!
Some say it's a mastering fiasco, but I'd be shocked if this was an "accident" that slipped by everyone, or some "loudness war" issue. There are MUCH cleaner ways to limit/compress a mix these days, and any distortion you hear is almost always going to be intentional, or at the least they'd be aware of it and release it anyway. I don't think this is an accident, certainly nothing to take personally as many did in the comments I read (mostly on audio forums btw, not in the youtube comments or reviews/comments).
I've been a part of projects that had an "aggressive" sound to a song or parts of a song - you do it knowing that the "purists" out there won't get it, and will scream bloody murder and exclaim how "unlistenable" it is, all the while the fans listening over and over and loving it.
Bottom line IMO - It's just some creative distortion, for goodness sake, someone taking a risk and trying something new IMO. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but honestly if you can't listen and judge the SONG, and instead get all hung up on the stuff only 1% of folks even know to listen for, then maybe you're too close to the technical side of things and have lost touch with the artistic. While I'd probably never intentionally do such a treatment on a song like that, I take no personal offense at someone else doing it - I can hear the music though a crappy 78 RPM recording from almost 100 years ago, and enjoy it for what it is.
Artists, you can't trust them! Now, back to reading about that famous "Beatles tape saturation"…
Selig Audio, LLC
Hah, still didn't listen to Ed's record but I trust Giles' sense for artistry
ZZ Top are known for playing heavily with distortion not only on their guitars, listen to the chorus of this song from about 0:30 on, thats NOT a "mastering mistake"
P.S.: Comment of a colleague of mine about the guitar distortion sound: "Could you please not sit in front of my amp?" ^^
ZZ Top are known for playing heavily with distortion not only on their guitars, listen to the chorus of this song from about 0:30 on, thats NOT a "mastering mistake"
P.S.: Comment of a colleague of mine about the guitar distortion sound: "Could you please not sit in front of my amp?" ^^
Interesting ideas from all of you. I fully agree that artistry comes first. The music per se always trumps everything else. But whenever some ideas/sound/genre surfaces, I find it rewarding (and fun) to understand artistic intent - especially when it's something new. In other words, my rather open question was not aimed towards the technical side of things, but rather the song as a whole.
To me, the way the distortion is used in the song is most "novel" (let's put it that way) on the vocals. I've never heard anything like it, at least not in a pop song like Sheeran's hit. It makes me curious how the song would sound without the distortion? Consequently, what was added to the story that Sheeran tells us when someone put it there?
Far fetched attempt:
I have noticed that the high octave pick bass is far from quantizised (prominent in the first verse). So in other words two major elements (at least) are not engineered "as expected". And both these elements, in my opinion, are audible to such an extent so that it seems like they were supposed to be noticed.
So on second thoughts, the story of nostalgia and the simple life of his younger years maybe is somewhat emphasized by the "imperfect" sound. Maybe that is what he wants to underline while showing off the "technical regression" in all its glory on hit charts around the world? It's his "audiofied" time machine, which in fact goes well with the video.
It's getting late.
Thanks for your thoughts on this subject, made me think twice!
To me, the way the distortion is used in the song is most "novel" (let's put it that way) on the vocals. I've never heard anything like it, at least not in a pop song like Sheeran's hit. It makes me curious how the song would sound without the distortion? Consequently, what was added to the story that Sheeran tells us when someone put it there?
Far fetched attempt:
I have noticed that the high octave pick bass is far from quantizised (prominent in the first verse). So in other words two major elements (at least) are not engineered "as expected". And both these elements, in my opinion, are audible to such an extent so that it seems like they were supposed to be noticed.
So on second thoughts, the story of nostalgia and the simple life of his younger years maybe is somewhat emphasized by the "imperfect" sound. Maybe that is what he wants to underline while showing off the "technical regression" in all its glory on hit charts around the world? It's his "audiofied" time machine, which in fact goes well with the video.
It's getting late.
Thanks for your thoughts on this subject, made me think twice!
I like this idea. I mean the idea that Sheeran is open to trying regression, to give the track a nostalgic feel. Let's face it, he isn't a conventional artist by any means. He'll go with the flow and, if it sounds alright to him, he'll say "that'll do". And if Ed Sheeran says "that'll do" - it'll do...
Adam Gill | BandLab
I studied Music production at University some years ago and have only recently started getting back in to recording. I've set up a basic home recording studio and was listening to the Ed Sheeran Album on the studio monitors and noticed the same thing.
I find the vocal distortion on his song 'Dive' off the same album to be hella extreme, especially in the chorus - at first I just assumed this was his vocal technique (I do love myself some Metal where the vocals can get pretty aggressive), can someone confirm if this is distortion/clipping at the recording end? Given the thread I can only assume it is clipping.
This kinda stuff always fascinates me! Thanks.
(Always learning)
I find the vocal distortion on his song 'Dive' off the same album to be hella extreme, especially in the chorus - at first I just assumed this was his vocal technique (I do love myself some Metal where the vocals can get pretty aggressive), can someone confirm if this is distortion/clipping at the recording end? Given the thread I can only assume it is clipping.
This kinda stuff always fascinates me! Thanks.
(Always learning)
I was curious and took a listen. Awful! Not sure, if it is the chorus or the bad sounding drums or the guitar that interference the voice. I dont care, it sounds like crap.
I already become accustomed those overcompressed, saturated, cleaned and corrected voices, but this is really bad.
I already become accustomed those overcompressed, saturated, cleaned and corrected voices, but this is really bad.
Reason12, Win10
It must be difficult, when genre and audience expects a track to be both manicured and polished to the nth degree, and also to be "raw" and "real" and "energetic". It's a contradiction that, by its nature, you've got to be continually looking for new ways to achieve.
The idea that pops to mind is "Bayhem" - a (largely derogatory) word for the experience of watching one of Michael Bay's action films (the Transforners films, Armageddon). A constant mess of just CGI stuff happening, stuff smashing into stuff, stuff exploding. And it's all so perfect and so frequent and so CGI that it becomes meaningless, and unaffecting - but each set piece must be bigger than the last, each movie must be bigger than the last, so it's just what happens.
The same forces are at work in music, especially pop music - and when the super-expensive-mega-produced sound was a virtue, so much the better!
But here's an artist who's selling to an audience who expect that sound, but what he's selling is being rootsy and folksy and DIY and imperfect - so now the challenge is to make a super-expensive-mega-produced record AND somehow make out that it's not, that it's messier than that. So the people making the record are having to create that same sense of explosions-all-the-time epicness while pretending the record isn't as "produced". So things like distorting random stuff for no particular reason are totally understandable in that context - stuff is happening.
Long-winded, but y'know what I mean?
The idea that pops to mind is "Bayhem" - a (largely derogatory) word for the experience of watching one of Michael Bay's action films (the Transforners films, Armageddon). A constant mess of just CGI stuff happening, stuff smashing into stuff, stuff exploding. And it's all so perfect and so frequent and so CGI that it becomes meaningless, and unaffecting - but each set piece must be bigger than the last, each movie must be bigger than the last, so it's just what happens.
The same forces are at work in music, especially pop music - and when the super-expensive-mega-produced sound was a virtue, so much the better!
But here's an artist who's selling to an audience who expect that sound, but what he's selling is being rootsy and folksy and DIY and imperfect - so now the challenge is to make a super-expensive-mega-produced record AND somehow make out that it's not, that it's messier than that. So the people making the record are having to create that same sense of explosions-all-the-time epicness while pretending the record isn't as "produced". So things like distorting random stuff for no particular reason are totally understandable in that context - stuff is happening.
Long-winded, but y'know what I mean?
Yea, i understand. Thats why the gear must be sounding vintage like in the 50s today. Or even get further and be unique, let it sound like in the 20s.EdGrip wrote: ↑09 Mar 2018It must be difficult, when genre and audience expects a track to be both manicured and polished to the nth degree, and also to be "raw" and "real" and "energetic". It's a contradiction that, by its nature, you've got to be continually looking for new ways to achieve.
The idea that pops to mind is "Bayhem" - a (largely derogatory) word for the experience of watching one of Michael Bay's action films (the Transforners films, Armageddon). A constant mess of just CGI stuff happening, stuff smashing into stuff, stuff exploding. And it's all so perfect and so frequent and so CGI that it becomes meaningless, and unaffecting - but each set piece must be bigger than the last, each movie must be bigger than the last, so it's just what happens.
The same forces are at work in music, especially pop music - and when the super-expensive-mega-produced sound was a virtue, so much the better!
But here's an artist who's selling to an audience who expect that sound, but what he's selling is being rootsy and folksy and DIY and imperfect - so now the challenge is to make a super-expensive-mega-produced record AND somehow make out that it's not, that it's messier than that. So the people making the record are having to create that same sense of explosions-all-the-time epicness while pretending the record isn't as "produced". So things like distorting random stuff for no particular reason are totally understandable in that context - stuff is happening.
Long-winded, but y'know what I mean?
Reason12, Win10
Yeah but these movements go back and forth all the time. Music won't just become one drone sound and a bass drum, it won't become completely clean and inhuman etc. there will always be movements in the other direction once it got too far. Not just in music.EdGrip wrote: ↑09 Mar 2018It must be difficult, when genre and audience expects a track to be both manicured and polished to the nth degree, and also to be "raw" and "real" and "energetic". It's a contradiction that, by its nature, you've got to be continually looking for new ways to achieve.
The idea that pops to mind is "Bayhem" - a (largely derogatory) word for the experience of watching one of Michael Bay's action films (the Transforners films, Armageddon). A constant mess of just CGI stuff happening, stuff smashing into stuff, stuff exploding. And it's all so perfect and so frequent and so CGI that it becomes meaningless, and unaffecting - but each set piece must be bigger than the last, each movie must be bigger than the last, so it's just what happens.
The same forces are at work in music, especially pop music - and when the super-expensive-mega-produced sound was a virtue, so much the better!
But here's an artist who's selling to an audience who expect that sound, but what he's selling is being rootsy and folksy and DIY and imperfect - so now the challenge is to make a super-expensive-mega-produced record AND somehow make out that it's not, that it's messier than that. So the people making the record are having to create that same sense of explosions-all-the-time epicness while pretending the record isn't as "produced". So things like distorting random stuff for no particular reason are totally understandable in that context - stuff is happening.
Long-winded, but y'know what I mean?
cool topic !
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5
hear scince reason 2.5
- JiggeryPokery
- RE Developer
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: 15 Jan 2015
"Driving at 90 down those country roads"
That'll end in a mercifully short career then.
That'll end in a mercifully short career then.
Distorted? Clipped?JiggeryPokery wrote: ↑09 Mar 2018"Driving at 90 down those country roads"
That'll end in a mercifully short career then.
Reason12, Win10
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Neo and 6 guests