production quality on appetite

[Loaded NightraiN]

You're not crazy... It was released 7/21/1987.. My b-day?

Really?? Because wikipedia says August.? And there's never anything wrong on wikipedia.


Can anyone for sure tell us what the actual date for sure was for the release of AFD?

I can tell you for sure... July 21st 1987... Look at your calendar... 8/21/87 was a friday...

Oh and you're kidding about the wikipedia remark surley 

[JuicySwoos]

I think the "production" of a record ?is just as important, if not more important ?than the music itself. Appetite has a "sound" that is timeless, much like many great albums, regardless of time period. ?The Illusions are arguably "over produced", which almost makes the Illusion material sound more "dated", ?even though much of the body of work on the Illusions is right up there with Appetite. ?Such is the paradox, Appetite and Lies were so "simple", Illusions were "complex". ?If one takes the "complex" route, it best be up there with the White Album or risk it being cliche 10 years down the road.

[Danny]

I can tell you for sure... July 21st 1987... Look at your calendar... 8/21/87 was a friday...

Well.  I don't keep a 1987 calender on my wall, but I'll take your word for it.

So...for CD to be out by the 20th Anniversary it would have to be 7/17/07 then, huh?  Hmm.

[Loaded NightraiN]

I can tell you for sure... July 21st 1987... Look at your calendar... 8/21/87 was a friday...

Well.? I don't keep a 1987 calender on my wall, but I'll take your word for it.

So...for CD to be out by the 20th Anniversary it would have to be 7/17/07 then, huh?? Hmm.

I meant on your computer smart ass?

Go somewhere better for GNR info.. Like here:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/history/history87.php

July 21st, 1987 - "Appetite For Destruction" is released in the US by Geffen Records. The record was produced by Mike Clink who had been working with Ozzy Osbourne and Heart. The cover art featured a painting by Robert Williams which got censored.

Yes you can change your sig now?

[Danny]

You know, I did a bunch of google searches trying to find the right date when I could have just looked here on HTGTH the whole time.  I'm kind of a moron sometimes. 


Thanks.  Sig changed.

[Loaded NightraiN]

You know, I did a bunch of google searches trying to find the right date when I could have just looked here on HTGTH the whole time.? I'm kind of a moron sometimes.?


Thanks.? Sig changed.

Dont worry, it took me a minute to sit and think of a good place to find solid evidence 

[luciano]

What I listen when i put head phones is the Izzy's marvellous work with the rithym guitars.

WONDERFUL, FANTASTIC GUITAR PLAYING. 
IZZY AND SLASH'S GUITARS TOGETHER ARE PURE GREAT ROCK N' ROLL. 
NO RECORD SINCE APPETITE HAS TOPPED THAT. 
YEAH, I AM SCREAMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
 

[pollyblue]

i love the raw and honest sound of appetite. recorded in a time were protools didn't exist. i'm a little bit worried that CD might get overproduced with all the multimedia that's around these days.

[TheMole]

The mixing and production quality on AFD is below par. Even back then, most records sounded heaps better, production wise. It speaks volumes for the quality of the music that the disc is regarded as a classic these days, despite the terrible mix. It doesn't really sound dated, as such, it sounds cheap. As in, recorded in a cheap recording studio, mixed and mastered by cheap engineers.

I would love to hear the fan remastered version of the disc mentioned earlier. I don't know if it's against the rules to ask for that, since I have Appetite and bought it legally (obviously) several times?

[25]

It doesn't really sound dated, as such, it sounds cheap. As in, recorded in a cheap recording studio, mixed and mastered by cheap engineers.

Wasn't the original master rejected because it sounded too polished? The low-fi sound of the album was quite deliberate, I'm sure.

[redx]

Production quality on AFD was as good as it could at the time. Wasn't AFD out just before the invention of the compact disc. With the arrival of the compact disc, a new digital recording process became available. Sadly AFD missed out on this. Sound quality issue's a side, AFD is still the best thing to emerage from the Gn'R camp.

Who knows, maybe one day the old AFD master tapes will be re mastered, or better still have a few tweaks made here and there, as I know Slash wanted to make some of the songs heavier. They should leave Axl's vocals as they are though. If Axl were to re do the vocals for AFD, then he should only do them with the new line up, and make it an AFD 2010 or something.

[25]

Production quality on AFD was as good as it could at the time. Wasn't AFD out just before the invention of the compact disc. With the arrival of the compact disc, a new digital recording process became available. Sadly AFD missed out on this. Sound quality issue's a side, AFD is still the best thing to emerage from the Gn'R camp.

You're quite mistaken. The compact disc and digital recording pre-dated AFD by five years*. Listen to any mainstream album from the same period and you'll notice an incredible difference in sound quality.




*In fact, the "red book" cd standard pre-dates AFD by about seven years. Commercial availability of the format came about two years later, in 1982.

[hrova_gnr]

the 'Sweet Child' snipit from Big Daddy sounds amazing

?

That sounded like shit and wasn't from Appetite. It was Axl singing in the late 1990s over live and/or studio versions of the song done by the original band. Then the pitch was increased to hide the fact that Axl sounded like garbage.

The first half was live (Paris '92 I think?) but the second half was all new. Finck plays the solo.

can someone upload this one please?? ?
Thank you

[redx]

Production quality on AFD was as good as it could at the time. Wasn't AFD out just before the invention of the compact disc. With the arrival of the compact disc, a new digital recording process became available. Sadly AFD missed out on this. Sound quality issue's a side, AFD is still the best thing to emerage from the Gn'R camp.

You're quite mistaken. The compact disc and digital recording pre-dated AFD by five years*. Listen to any mainstream album from the same period and you'll notice an incredible difference in sound quality.




*In fact, the "red book" cd standard pre-dates AFD by about seven years. Commercial availability of the format came about two years later, in 1982.

It probably did pre date AFD, but the fact remains, AFD did not make use of (for what ever reason) up-to-date recording technology at the time, and the quality of compact disc shows up the average sound recording of AFD 

[25]

It probably did pre date AFD, but the fact remains, AFD did not make use of (for what ever reason) up-to-date recording technology at the time, and the quality of compact disc shows up the average sound recording of AFD 

The quality of compact disc shows up the average sounding mix of AFD. It would be a stretch to say that it shows anything about the quality of the actual recording, which was likely done on industry standard DAT. Let's not pretend that it wasn't recorded in a pro studio by recording professionals.

[redx]

It probably did pre date AFD, but the fact remains, AFD did not make use of (for what ever reason) up-to-date recording technology at the time, and the quality of compact disc shows up the average sound recording of AFD 

The quality of compact disc shows up the average sounding mix of AFD. It would be a stretch to say that it shows anything about the quality of the actual recording, which was likely done on industry standard DAT. Let's not pretend that it wasn't recorded in a pro studio by recording professionals.

I'm no expert on these things, but isn't DAT tape digial audio tape. AFD was originally recorded using analog equipment. From the AFD cd cover: Because of it's high resolution, however, the compact disc can reveal limitations of the source tape.

Digital or Analogue?
http://www.wwsrs.co.uk/format.htm

[25]

It probably did pre date AFD, but the fact remains, AFD did not make use of (for what ever reason) up-to-date recording technology at the time, and the quality of compact disc shows up the average sound recording of AFD 

The quality of compact disc shows up the average sounding mix of AFD. It would be a stretch to say that it shows anything about the quality of the actual recording, which was likely done on industry standard DAT. Let's not pretend that it wasn't recorded in a pro studio by recording professionals.

I'm no expert on these things, but isn't DAT tape digial audio tape. AFD was originally recorded using analog equipment. From the AFD cd cover: Because of it's high resolution, however, the compact disc can reveal limitations of the source tape.

Digital or Analogue?
http://www.wwsrs.co.uk/format.htm

 You could probably find out exactly which format was being used at the studio at the time of the recording, I'd think that a combination of digital and analog tapes were used. It's hard to say exactly what "industry standard" would have been at the time, with open-reel digital being firmly established and analog still widely used. Regardless, the point is that AFD would have been recorded on the same equipment used on other professional recordings of the time, so it's not as if the sound quality was hampered by sub-standard hardware.

Most cds carry the old "limitations of the source tape" warning, though many would argue that 44.1 kHz @ 16bit is hardly the high bar of sound quality and that cds fail to capture the quality of the source in many cases.

[luciano]

The mixing and production quality on AFD is below par. Even back then, most records sounded heaps better, production wise.

You are kidding, right? What record sounded better back then "production wise"? Maiden's Somewhere in Time? Some Poison record? Bon Jovi?

It doesn't really sound dated, as such, it sounds cheap. As in, recorded in a cheap recording studio, mixed and mastered by cheap engineers.

What? You gotta be kidding! What next? Now you are gonna say that UYI has a better production, right?

[redx]

It probably did pre date AFD, but the fact remains, AFD did not make use of (for what ever reason) up-to-date recording technology at the time, and the quality of compact disc shows up the average sound recording of AFD 

The quality of compact disc shows up the average sounding mix of AFD. It would be a stretch to say that it shows anything about the quality of the actual recording, which was likely done on industry standard DAT. Let's not pretend that it wasn't recorded in a pro studio by recording professionals.

I'm no expert on these things, but isn't DAT tape digial audio tape. AFD was originally recorded using analog equipment. From the AFD cd cover: Because of it's high resolution, however, the compact disc can reveal limitations of the source tape.

Digital or Analogue?
http://www.wwsrs.co.uk/format.htm

 You could probably find out exactly which format was being used at the studio at the time of the recording, I'd think that a combination of digital and analog tapes were used. It's hard to say exactly what "industry standard" would have been at the time, with open-reel digital being firmly established and analog still widely used. Regardless, the point is that AFD would have been recorded on the same equipment used on other professional recordings of the time, so it's not as if the sound quality was hampered by sub-standard hardware.

Most cds carry the old "limitations of the source tape" warning, though many would argue that 44.1 kHz @ 16bit is hardly the high bar of sound quality and that cds fail to capture the quality of the source in many cases.

On the cover of AFD it clearly states that AFD was recorded using analog equipment. Analog equipment was probably the industry standard at the time.

[TheMole]

The mixing and production quality on AFD is below par. Even back then, most records sounded heaps better, production wise.

You are kidding, right? What record sounded better back then "production wise"? Maiden's Somewhere in Time? Some Poison record? Bon Jovi?

Well, slippery when wet probably is a good example of a better mix (not better record, of course...)

It doesn't really sound dated, as such, it sounds cheap. As in, recorded in a cheap recording studio, mixed and mastered by cheap engineers.

What? You gotta be kidding! What next? Now you are gonna say that UYI has a better production, right?

Not really, UYI is overproduced. What I'm saying is that you can record a raw rock album without the imbalanced, unprocessed sound of AFD. The overheads and cymbals are way too high in the mix and the bass sounds flat and hollow. I'm saying you could've produced a way better sounding album with the seperate tracks as they existed back then, without resorting to pro-tools alike trickery, or endless layers of effects and synths. Just a better mix and EQ would've helped a lot.