Jump to content

THE RECORDINGS OF KERPLUNK/39 SMOOTH SUCK...


masondayot

Recommended Posts

 Hey guys, I always thought the production on the 39/smooth and kerplunk records were.. lacking. And it was a main reason why I avoided those albums. But I always wondered what they would sound like with modern and cleaner recordings...

SO, I did "Going to Pasalacqua" with modern production And I think you might like what you hear.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hey, can you try to keep your thread titles relevant to and descriptive of the thread topic - there are plenty of places I can go on the internet if I want clickbait, but GDC isn't one of them.  Frustrating as your covers are actually really good.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the production on kerplunk and 39. I can't even imagine them to be different, it's got punk rock soul and I'm not a fan of best quality and sterile sound nowadays.

I don't really think your purpose was to make it cleaner, just beacuse you wondered how it would sounds like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love kerplunk for that reason. It's raw and dirty and not polished at all. It's everything a punk record should be. If you polish it off it just loses all its edge and personality that made the record so great and unique. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jake69 said:

I love kerplunk for that reason. It's raw and dirty and not polished at all. It's everything a punk record should be. If you polish it off it just loses all its edge and personality that made the record so great and unique. 

I dont know man, for me I just can't stand to listen to it, unless the song itself its melodically really good. I'm not even sure if it was delivarate or not because they did it twice (for 39/smooth and then AGAIn for kerplunk). And they ended up re recording Wellcome to paradise too.. but thats my opinion. I just really love when they started using P90's and start sounding really punchy.

17 minutes ago, greenalert997x said:

I love the production on kerplunk and 39. I can't even imagine them to be different, it's got punk rock soul and I'm not a fan of best quality and sterile sound nowadays.

I don't really think your purpose was to make it cleaner, just beacuse you wondered how it would sounds like...

Hmm.. I really wish they recorded one of their old songs with their style of production especially on Revrad. I just wish those old songs had the punch and energy of their new stuff (post nimrod). or even dookie quality. the guitars sound like water bottles like uuuuughh. But thats my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what people are saying regarding the edginess of the originals, but let's be honest, it's just bad quality. 39/Smooth at least. Anyone who doesn't think this cover is fucking brilliant is a massive boner. And I wish I was in a band with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sound like the decade in which they were recorded. They both have a lot of soul, especially 39 smoth, slappy and 1000 hours. Saying they suck is just silly really considering the budget and equipment they had at their disposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were recorded very cheap at a cheap studio what do you expect? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39/Smooth and Kerplunk are my least favourite GD albums largely because of the quality. The songs are quite good though. Welcome to Paradise is better to me on Dookie than Kerplunk. And the alternate version of 409 in your coffeemaker which appears on the Basket Case single is also much better than on 1,039/SOSH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dig their old recordings and I dig their new recordings. Cool evolution from DIY garage band to the rock n roll super stars they are today. Lol next time just post the cover, no need to shit on their old recordings dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billie and Mike were 16/17 when they recorded the stuff on 1,039. When they recorded 1000 Hours, they hadn't even toured yet. A year later they recorded 39/Smooth, they pooled all of the money they had earned playing shows to pay for that album. Same thing for the Slappy EP 5 months later. They were just kids, doing the best they could, doing it for the love of the music. It's just rude to insult their albums. They didn't have the budget that they had once they became superstars, and even if they did have more money, there was never a guarantee that they'd become famous, so it would have been seen as a waste to put too much into making the albums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what this guys saying. I always thought 39smooth and kerplunk had some solid songs on both records, but I also love punk rock and rock music with really big sounding production, (21st century breakdown, appeal to reason - rise against. If you've never listened to appeal to reason and love punk rock, definitely give that album a listen). I'd rather hear kerplunk and 1039 with their really stripped down production as opposed to the trilogy with their REALLY shitty overproduction. Though I do wish i could hear those two albums with a similar production style to dookie or nimrod. They'd sound bigger but still stripped down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Albums rule big time! Some people like a rough edgy sound which was my draw to them originally. That and the age they were and they were a punk band. The aim was to have people moshing and shit and I love those old albums for exactly what they are. Kerplunk! especially is amazing, so many well written songs from these dudes at such a young age. Sound production was not such a priority in those days with that type of music, not when your just kids recording for the first time and your reckless as hell wanting to blow shit up! Great albums, leave them be :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmn, Excuse the fuck you.  If i wanted shitty sterilized rock i wouldn't have looked to green day int he first place. 39/smooth is one of my favorite albums period, and the production of it is one of the reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like 39 Smooth and Kerplunk the way they sound originally. They were recorded on an independent label with a very low budget and in a short amount of time, so that's why. They sound more like a garage band and more gritty and that's what I like about them. They were young and hungry and unknown at that time. What I don't like is the over polished, over produced albums like 21CB and Trilogy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should change the title to something a little less...

Offensive? I can respect your opinion that you don't really like the sound of the first two albums, but "SUCKS" is kind of asking for people to verbally slaughter you with the facts. They didn't have the budget to get top notch sound equipment, so Billie and Mike worked with what they had for the love of music.  

((Besides, low quality equipment gives a satisfying gritty sound that HQ equipment can't replicate easily.))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to the Jerky Boys 2,000 light years away mix. I like it better but I thought that for the time and the budget of a no-name band in 1990 they did pretty good on the production of 39/smooth and in general it doesn't even sound bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying and trying to do, but for me, that's how I first heard the band and I love those recordings.  Looking back, you young people you, you can't imagine what it was like to hear them at the time, so yes, from today's perspective they are poor quality but nothing will happen improve them.  Sometimes I think I would love to hear them redone but that would be out of character for GD.  I guess I mean some of the songs redone rather than whole album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the 39 Smooth/Kerplunk records just the way they are. There's no need for them to be polished. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...