I have been analyzing old vs new recordings lately, especially since i`ve downloaded the Chic album catalog.
Really curious how you people see the old stuff vs new.
Now before you attack me how dare i attack the Daft Punk production.I love em but thats just my personal opinion regarding this particular subject.
To me the old Chic material just sounds so much better.A lot less bloated than Daft Punk, simpler more modest production but with more dynamics ,head room, warmth and the instruments have so much more depth and focus.
Yea, different song, different times and a dozen of reasons why they sound so different....
In Get Lucky bass and drums are buried in the mix, with vocals being the more prominent part, its more about the general groove, yet the Chic version captures the groove,the instruments and the vocals.
Just my opinion, you can disagree.

Fact is though, Bernard Edwards (bass) could not be a part of the Daft Punk production(RIP), so its not that fair, but Nile Rodgers kicks ass in both songs.

 

Compared to most of you guys I know jack about mixing.
Drums seem more prominent in the Chic video but Daft Punk's kick, in comparison, smacks me upside the head.

I just like 2:20 - 2:35 in the Get Lucky video you posted.

 

i'd say the chick record is more a "recording" and the daft punk song a "production"

 

Very good comparison.

 

With Chic i can picture a real band, the sound is anchored firmly to the ground, with drums and bass being so much more 3D in space, while Daft Punk is like a balloon, everywhere yet with no strong foundation, sounds big but not enjoyable to listen to individual instruments.
I guess muab made a great comparison, production vs recording.
Also the Chic production is more gritty, raw, focused and confident.

 

When interested in the kind of mixing, Chic represents, there's no way around the early to mid ABBA. Their production is pretty much underrated. I think a lot of the success of ABBA was due to their mixing/mastering.

 

I have to agree with this. It almost sounds as if the kick and bass are tuned to the same frequency. I can't determine where the kick is in the Daft Punk track.
The bass in the Chic track is more snappy and less muffled.

 

Nothing personal Von but you are comparing apples to oranges.
First Chic was musicians, real musicians they played instruments not machines.
Second Chic had a great talented guitarist Nile Rodgers..

I know Draft Punk guys play a bass and a drums set.
They also use a bunch of computers, samples,etc.

To me nothing beat the real thing baby, Musicians.

 

pretty much nailed the difference between " that was then and this is now.."
sometime in the 90's the new music.. became something less than music for me...

with all the processing that is done in electronic music.. it just doesn't match a real band... and maybe
all that analog gear carving out a place for individual instruments/voices/sounds to live and breathe and shine...

no offense to anyone.. it's just the way I feels...

 

Drunk millenials and 13yr old girls will not listen & PJ dance at the sleepover to the first version, but will love the second one. End of story

 

Definitely agree with you.
Though Daft Punk tried to capture that 70s spirit but didnt quite deliver, probably decided to take a different/modern direction.
Duo is good, but lacks the human elements, they arent good in playing the instruments like those guys from Chic, ergo lack a certain understanding which computers can not replace.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2016

The way I can explain it best is by visual reference. In a finely composed painting my eyes are constantly scanning and finding new relationships that tie the composition together. In each successive viewing, new elements are exposed and are internalized, the painting growing in beauty in how it is held and experienced both intellectually and emotionally by me. In this case, the Chic piece ticks off all those boxes albeit in a musical sense. Conversely, the Daft Punk take is very two dimensional to me as there are none of the elements that I previously discussed as lending novelty to my experience. Their rendering is flat and to me lifeless as compared to the vibrancy and immediacy of the Chic performances. Although Niles Rodgers might be adding his signature funky grooviness on the newer offering, it but feels to me at best gratuitous and a reasonable assumption on my part to just to add the human factor into the literal mix to save it from the lifeless blur that it might be without it. I can just picture Niles with a Strat slung over his shoulder in an amazingly outfitted control room playing take after take after take to try to find a happy median, one that massages that beat, that strict machine gun tat tat tat with the flesh and soul of a human playing a real instrument. I bet even then they edited the hell out of his comps to create the final stem. Welcome my friend, welcome to the machine.

 

Great analysis
The Chic version is the ultimate aural pleasure

 

Chic. That music always remain vibe of those times, 70s and 80s. Daft punk, synthwave, nu disco is just modern emulation of music of those times. I like sound of classic retro more than modern stuff. Modern is more boomy, retro is funkyrockygroovier.
Speaking about mixing quality, can't say, I am with my phone. But in advance I choose chic.

Yeah baby!

 

@The-RoBoT
Your opinion?

 

The professional one 'Chic'

 

I did some research on this and this opinion seems to be very related to the age of the listener. Older guys like me (early 30) seems to prefer the "Chic" type of mixes, probably because we are used to mixes like these since we listened to them when we were young.

Ask teen - he will like Daft Punk mix, ask older adult - he will like Chic mix. It is almost like a rule.

Here it seems that everybody prefer Chic mix. May I ask you guys about your age?

 

Well, kids today also think Batman V Superman is Oscar material.You know ?
I grew up in the 90s(im 34) yet listened to my fathers LPs, stuff from the 70s and 80s.
Its all about musical education and the free adventurous spirits that like to discover new sounds, new worlds