A number of points bother me about this review.
1. “ computer-oriented sequencing devices were used in its creation, something that no doubt shaped some of the overall sonic footprint of the recordings.”
- what on Earth does this mean? How can a sequencer make a difference to recorded sound?
It is a control device, it has no influence over audio.
Even if synthesisers were used, they in no way degrade the overall sound definition or clarity.
2. “Even for what was effectively an early-’80s computer-programmed production”
Again what point are you trying to get across?
How does ‘computer programming’ affect audio production quality?
Unless of course the inference here is computers/synthesisers are bad…
3. “ Popular Hurting songs like “Mad World” (Track 2, Side One) and “Change” (Track 3, Side Two) still resonate organically, despite the computer-driven pulse running throughout much of the album”
DESPITE the computer driven pulse? the drum machines and synths ARE part of the overall sound canvas, choices made by the musicians and producer, there is no ‘despite’ about it.
4. “The point is, The Hurting LP isn’t going to reflect a big-budget studio sound akin to what you hear with Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon or The Beatles’ Abbey Road”
It wasn’t recorded in Abbey Road no, however you don’t need to go there to necessarily gain that big budget studio sound. The overall sound of this album was the intended contemporary sound choice. If you are not a fan of synths and drum machines then I suggest listening to something else. This doesn’t use all analog instruments and so perhaps doesn’t fit the criteria for review on this website?
Anti-music tech nonsense like the above spoils a lot of otherwise reasonable reviews.