My Morning Jacket - do their albums sound any good?

[are1981]

I've become interested in My Morning Jacket, after hearing them on a 2008 episode of Saturday Night Live I saw about a week ago.

But I own too many CDs that sound bad. So I don't want to spend any more money on CDs that

• have been poorly recorded
• have been excessively dynamically compressed

So does anyone own any physical albums, and can you shed any light on the audio quality of their music?

[pentatonic]

I have a flac rip of the cd Z that my buddy let me rip. i think the recording is flat, no highs, low-mids are flat and undefined but that's through my half decent monitors on my PC. but they usually sound good, not this.

But, if you want to discover the band, it's a good one I was told, hence the rip. I like it and just put the sound to the bands sound and enjoy like that.

[wilky61]

Z is the album where the band really turned the corner and started injecting their alt-rock/slightly alt-country sound with elements of psychedelia, R&B, etc. Their older works aren't nearly as magical, and Evil Urges (2008) doesn't always work (tracks are sorta hit-or-miss).

I think Z (2005) and Circuital (2011) are excellent but personally I just listen to the live album Okonokos (2006) in addition to the new album now. The new album particularly has some lush textures; it's not as much of a straightforward rocker as Z. But MMJ really comes alive when live. I always say that comparing MMJ's studio works to their live shows is analogous to comparing the Talking Heads' studio albums to their live works.

So in summary, I'd listen to Z first, then spend money on Okonokos + Circuital. Okonokos features like all the tracks on Z plus many more. Also, Okonokos comes in DVD concert format as well as CD x2/vinyl x4.

I am going to see them live for myself next month, and I couldn't be more excited.

[are1981]

I appreciate all comments, thank you!

But I'm really interested in sound quality, as I'm not willing to buy music that isn't sonically up to my standards.

Maybe someone here know of any websites that reviews albums with a focus on sound quality?

[arrt vandelay]

Originally Posted by are1981

I appreciate all comments, thank you!

But I'm really interested in sound quality, as I'm not willing to buy music that isn't sonically up to my standards.

Maybe someone here know of any websites that reviews albums with a focus on sound quality?

don't put too much emphasis on sound quality. if the music is good, it's good. mmj is one of my favorite bands, and their first 2 records are def not the best recorded. they were recorded in a grain silo, but imo they're so much better than any of their major label stuff recorded in state of the art studios. the songs have more of an earthy, real quality...

i suppose i don't want a record to sound like crap, but if the music is good, i definitely would not limit myself because i thought the recording was not up to snuff. somewhat close-minded if you ask me...

[wilky61]

Originally Posted by arrt vandelay

don't put too much emphasis on sound quality. if the music is good, it's good. mmj is one of my favorite bands, and their first 2 records are def not the best recorded. they were recorded in a grain silo, but imo they're so much better than any of their major label stuff recorded in state of the art studios. the songs have more of an earthy, real quality...

i suppose i don't want a record to sound like crap, but if the music is good, i definitely would not limit myself because i thought the recording was not up to snuff. somewhat close-minded if you ask me...

I'm with you; I listen to music for the quality of the music, not the quality of the recording.

But I did listen to my 320kbs MP3 rip of Circuital again tonight, and I still think that is a lush and fantastic-sounding album. MMJ is the kind of band that demands to be played loud so that the music fills the room.

[are1981]

Originally Posted by arrt vandelay

don't put too much emphasis on sound quality. if the music is good, it's good. mmj is one of my favorite bands, and their first 2 records are def not the best recorded. they were recorded in a grain silo, but imo they're so much better than any of their major label stuff recorded in state of the art studios. the songs have more of an earthy, real quality...

i suppose i don't want a record to sound like crap, but if the music is good, i definitely would not limit myself because i thought the recording was not up to snuff. somewhat close-minded if you ask me...

Originally Posted by wilky61

I'm with you; I listen to music for the quality of the music, not the quality of the recording.

But I did listen to my 320kbs MP3 rip of Circuital again tonight, and I still think that is a lush and fantastic-sounding album. MMJ is the kind of band that demands to be played loud so that the music fills the room.

You may believe someone considering sound quality an issue "close-minded", but I don't enjoy listening to music where poor sound quality distracts from the experience.

"The quality of the music" incorporates both

1. the artist's performance,
2. the capture & presentation,

both of which are important to me.

Example: I don't listen to Coldplay's Viva La Vida And Death And All His Friends anymore. I can't stand it, because it sounds really bad. The performance was great, maybe their best. But the way it was recorded, mixed, or mastered, destroyed that record. Even the following concert tour sounded better than the album.

I still would like more input, especially from people who listens to CDs/SACDs/DVD-As/BDs/vinyl and not low bit rate data files. Thank you in advance!

[arrt vandelay]

Originally Posted by are1981

You may believe someone considering sound quality an issue "close-minded", but I don't enjoy listening to music where poor sound quality distracts from the experience.

"The quality of the music" incorporates both

1. the artist's performance,
2. the capture & presentation,

both of which are important to me.

Example: I don't listen to Coldplay's Viva La Vida And Death And All His Friends anymore. I can't stand it, because it sounds really bad. The performance was great, maybe their best. But the way it was recorded, mixed, or mastered, destroyed that record. Even the following concert tour sounded better than the album.

I still would like more input, especially from people who listens to CDs/SACDs/DVD-As/BDs/vinyl and not low bit rate data files. Thank you in advance!

if you do write off a band b/c their recordings are not up to your standards than that is pretty much the definition of close minded.

i don't think any of mmj's albums are considered pristine in sound quality, but that definitely will not limit me from listening to great music...

[are1981]

Originally Posted by arrt vandelay

if you do write off a band b/c their recordings are not up to your standards than that is pretty much the definition of close minded.

i don't think any of mmj's albums are considered pristine in sound quality, but that definitely will not limit me from listening to great music...

We will never agree. I won't spend anymore money on trash.

Maybe someone else will be so kind to give their thoughts?

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by are1981

We will never agree. I won't spend anymore money on trash.

Maybe someone else will be so kind to give their thoughts?

General concensus seems to be they are less than stellar, as I said earlier I have flac rips from a buddy's cds (flac is lossless, exact copy) and they don't sound good, you would not be pleased.

[arrt vandelay]

Originally Posted by are1981

We will never agree. I won't spend anymore money on trash.

Maybe someone else will be so kind to give their thoughts?

your loss

[are1981]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

General concensus seems to be they are less than stellar, as I said earlier I have flac rips from a buddy's cds (flac is lossless, exact copy) and they don't sound good, you would not be pleased.

Thank you for your input.

Originally Posted by arrt vandelay

your loss

?