Aren't you people being a *little* too hard on Astley and Charlesworth?
Michael Julian Topper
OK, I have problems with the two of them as well. The remasters
and the box set definitely aren't perfect. But they clearly love
the band, and their efforts *have* resulted in the finding of dozens
of unreleased tracks, excellent remixing and remastering for *all* of
the albums (esp Sell Out, Tommy and Quad) which blows away all
previously released CD versions, and extensive liner notes for the
releases with photos, recording dates, etc. It seems like everyone
here is picking too closely at some pretty minor faults in the remasters
(OH MY GOD! There's a small "o" instead of a big "O" on the spine!!!).
I'm all for complaining, but only when it seems worth it. And,
overall, I'm pretty pleased with the remasters. I, like most of you
probably, have spent far too many hours obsessing over their more
serious imperfections. But, compared to the treatment MCA gave those
CDs only five years ago, I'm just happy someone is showing any kind
of care at all for them, and that they're not mucking it up as bad
as some OTHER artists' remaster series I could mention...
Michael
RWhiteFang
Michael, re:
>OK, I have problems with the two of them as well.
The point isn't, "oh, it could have been a lot worse, therefore be grateful",
the point is, it could have been SOOO much better, had they been minding the
store a bit better and actually paid attention to what they were doing with a
little more effort. Some of the recent mistakes are just about carelessness,
and nothing more...
-wf
"I just wanna be pop-u-lar, I don't really care who you are, I just gotta be
pop-u-lar" - - - "I wanna be more popular than the rest, I'll do anything that
I think will impress..."
Brian Steven Cady
rwhit...@aol.com (RWhiteFang) wrote:
>Michael, re:
>
>>OK, I have problems with the two of them as well.
>
>The point isn't, "oh, it could have been a lot worse, therefore be grateful",
>the point is, it could have been SOOO much better, had they been minding the
>store a bit better and actually paid attention to what they were doing with a
>little more effort. Some of the recent mistakes are just about carelessness,
>and nothing more...
>
>
>-wf
I honestly tried to give them every benefit of the doubt throughout
the remaster campaign although there were things I didn't like from
the beginning. "Maybe that's just their way of seeing the Who, maybe
the tapes weren't in that good of a shape," etc.
"Odds & Sods" cured me of that very quickly. Liner notes full of
wrong information, wrong tracks remastered at the wrong speed, tracks
much better on the original... There really is no excuse that can be
made for such obvious carelessness.
-Brian in Atlanta
Michael Julian Topper
ca...@mindspring.com (Brian Steven Cady) wrote:
>I honestly tried to give them every benefit of the doubt throughout
>the remaster campaign although there were things I didn't like from
>the beginning. "Maybe that's just their way of seeing the Who, maybe
>the tapes weren't in that good of a shape," etc.
>
>"Odds & Sods" cured me of that very quickly. Liner notes full of
>wrong information, wrong tracks remastered at the wrong speed, tracks
>much better on the original... There really is no excuse that can be
>made for such obvious carelessness.
Odds and Sods is the worst of the remasters series, yes (my vote for
second worst goes to A Quick One). But I still can't see all the griping
and complaining for the rest of them. The Quadrophenia remaster was ten
times better than the original.
Michael
Circus Fly
>I'm just happy someone is showing any kind
>of care at all for them, and that they're not mucking it up as bad
>as some OTHER artists' remaster series I could mention...
The Rolling Stones come to mind immediately.
Cheers,
Justin
RWhiteFang
Brian, re:
>"Odds & Sods" cured me of that very quickly.
What's funny about that is this... I warned Ass-tley up-front that blowing
"Odds & Sods" would reak havoc amongst the fans...
Apurva Parikh
Mark brings up some good points. I have purchased many remastered albums
by rolling stones, beatles, zep, etc and none of them are as good as the
MCA records remasters. Esp. the Who and Hendrix. Both of those catalogues
have been reissued, and the new cds have extensive liner notes and song by
song detailed descriptions. Let's not get greedy.
*************
Apurva Parikh
*************
All Along this path I tread,
my heart betrays my weary head,
with nothing but my love to save,
from the cradle to the grave....
--From the Cradle liner notes
On 4 Apr 1998, MarkCMD wrote:
> Alright, people are really blowing this out of proportion. Personally I think
> they did a very good job on reissuing the Who's entire catalogue. The average
> fan will barely (if even) notice the errors present in the mixes or liner
> notes. Does the average fan care if a song was recorded on July 7th or July
> 8th? No, they want the MUSIC. And the music we've gotten, tons of unreleased
> stuff over the past few years. Maybe the hard core fans will care about
> recording dates, but honestly, I'd rather have a remastered Who album with
> bonus tracks and completely wrong recording dates than one without bonus tracks
> but all the correct recording dates.
>
> People mention that a few other bands have gotten better reissuing- but I could
> name many, many more that have gotten much worse. People complain of the bonus
> tracks, but many bands haven't even gotten bonus tracks on their remastered
> albums. Just look at Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones. All they got was
> remastering that really wasn't all that big an improvement over the original
> CD's.
>
> Lets go over a few of the quibbles:
> 1) The mixes on A Quick One:
> They sound fine to me and just about everybody I've spoken to. And look! We
> have 10 bonus tracks!
> 2) Liner note date problems:
> This is the most minor error. If you're a fan and know somethings is wrong
> here, well great, but the rest of us don't know (or even really care) when the
> 3rd version of Mary Anne With The Shaky Hand was recorded. I'd rather listen to
> the song than know when it was recorded.
> 3) Poor mixes on Odds and Sods:
> Yes, some of the mixes could definately been better and the screw up on Young
> Man Blues and Under My Thumb should have been noticed and taken care of, you
> have no argument from me here. But just about everything else sounds fine.
> 4) Quadrophenia mix problems:
> Sounds better than ever to me. I remember reading that tears came to Pete's
> eyes when hearing the remixed and remasterd version because it finally sounded
> the way he envisioned.
> 5) Lack of extensive liner notes on Face Dances and Its Hard:
> MCA got cheap on us, but the bonus tracks on Face Dances were great, and those
> on Its Hard were quite good. I always loved their live stuff.
> And finally, someone in the band should have overseen the entire production. I
> agree with this completely, but all things considered, they've done a fine job
> on the reissues. I think its time we stop knocking on Astley and company,
> they've worked hard on this stuff for years now, and WE are the one's who've
> benefited from it. Its all been for the fans, and for that I'm grateful to
> them. Disagree if you want, but thats the way I feel.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
MGreen1224
>It seems like everyone
>here is picking too closely at some pretty minor faults in the remasters
>(OH MY GOD! There's a small "o" instead of a big "O" on the spine!!!).
>
>
ah, lets recap the highlights of the screw ups shall we?
1) crap mixes on A Quick One- should have called the Polydor folks like some
highly knowledgable people recommended.... small mistake...no.... smacks of
laziness!!
2) enumerous screw ups on liner notes for Odds and Sodds.... wrong tracks
supposed to be from The House The Track Built.... poor mixes and distortion....
minor mishaps, No! rush job on remixing and liner notes..... careless
mistakes!
3) harsh sound to MCA Quadrophenia that jumps out at you like lies from Charles
Worthless's mouth.... if such a small nitpicky error, why is the Polydor
version so much better?
4) lack of extensive liner notes on Its Hard (with poor bonus track
selections), and major skip (not once but twice!!) on You've Got It In You
(sic).... slight oversightly mistakes... no... major blunders!!
The Who should have taken more stock in this project (or maybe just one member
of the band that cared enough to do it right and make sure it sounded well)...
but no... leave it to family members and friends of the group to frig up
something that could have been as good as the Bowie Ryko disk remasters, or the
Elvis Costello stuff, or Zappa's stuff, or the detail being poured over on the
upcoming Kinks reissue overhaul (being watched over by one of the Davies
brothers)....
On my report card, I would say that this reissue series passed with a C... but
just barely with a curve!!
Daz
MarkCMD
IDerby
>or the detail being poured over on the
>upcoming Kinks reissue overhaul (being watched over by one of the Davies
>brothers)....
oh really??? When are they going to start the reissues? Something Else,
Village Green Preservation Society, and Arthur should be vastly improved.
IDerby
On the "Odds and Sods" mailing list, certain members are complaining about the
fact that bonus tracks now exist on albums that were once "masterpieces"
untouched. This train of thought just makes certain Who fans too anal. I
hope everyone realizes that many/most CD players give one the option to program
tracks to their desire. Even I programmed Odds and Sods the other day just to
hear the original track order. It's not that difficult.
The best reissue series I've come across thus far is the Byrds. The original
album's track order remains intact, and the liner notes are informative while
packed with photos. Of course the sonic improvments make the 1990 box set
obsolete.
The Who's catalog has been on both sides of the fence. Tommy, Sell Out (liner
notes aside), Who's Next, Live at Leeds, and Who By Numbers are excellent
reissues. Anyone remember the "gold" Who's Next? It was a step above the
original MCA release, yet would anyone play it now over the reissue? The
only true disasters are Who Are You, Odds and Sods (bonus track dispute) and A
Quick One. Who Are You sounds quite good, but the remixing went much much too
far. If Astley thought he has rights to this material because he was it's
replacement producer, that's his arrogance. A Quick One is well documented,
I can't stand the mono mixes, yet I enjoy the bonus tracks so it's not a total
loss.
My grade for the project is a B-. So many small mistakes eliminated could've
made this an A+ project. Before you rant, remember "Voodoo Soup".
Roverpick
Thanks for curing me of any desire to go out and pick up the O&S remaster!!!
Sounds like I better wait for the re-re master.
J.L.
Czeskleba
The first five Kinks albums have already been reissued in England. There are
no plans for US release at the moment. The remastering is just okay, not
great. They used too much digital noise reduction for my taste. On the plus
side, they used the original mixes rather than try to remix and rewrite
history, like certain other bands I could mention. All five are in mono, which
is somwhat of a bummer because stereo tapes exist for the fifth album.
LeeAnselmo
Czeskleba wrote,
> The first five Kinks albums have already been reissued
> in England. There are no plans for US release at the moment.
I hear the first two albums, "Kinks" (U.S. title "You Really Got
Me") and "Kinda Kinks," are scheduled to be released this
week (April 7, 1998, Essential Records).
Michael Julian Topper
mgree...@aol.com (MGreen1224) wrote:
>1) crap mixes on A Quick One-
This is true. Stereo on all of the tracks would've been nice. Still,
I'll take it over the original CD issue, which had NO liner notes and
even worse sound quality. But you're right; the reissue could've been
better (there's room for more bonus tracks, as well).
>2) enumerous screw ups on liner notes for Odds and Sodds.... wrong tracks
>supposed to be from The House The Track Built.... poor mixes and distortion....
> minor mishaps, No! rush job on remixing and liner notes..... careless
>mistakes!
Careless mistakes, yes, and the distortion on two of the tracks does
go beyond "minor"...
>3) harsh sound to MCA Quadrophenia that jumps out at you like lies from Charles
>Worthless's mouth
Huh?? This remixed version blows away all other previous CD versions (even
the gold disc) AND the original vinyl.
>4) lack of extensive liner notes on Its Hard (with poor bonus track
>selections), and major skip (not once but twice!!) on You've Got It In You
>(sic).... slight oversightly mistakes... no... major blunders!!
Um, I never cared enough about this album to buy the remaster, but these
don't sound like major errors to me except for the skip.
As long as we're listing reissue blunders, I would've taken out Glow Girl
as a bonus track on Sell Out (as it appears on O&S, anyway), and replaced
it with Dr.Jekyll And Mr.Hyde, which I believe has not appeared on any
of the reissues so far, and fits that period of the group's history. I
also would never have had Dave Marsh write the liners, but that's a minor
quibble (as are any complaints about *any* of the liner notes to the
reissues...really, you people can get pretty anal...I mean, conflicting
recording dates can get annoying but I'm not losing sleep over it!).
Tommy, Live At Leeds, Who's Next, and Quadrophenia all sound perfect to
me, much better than they've *ever* sounded.
>On my report card, I would say that this reissue series passed with a C...
On mine, it gets a B+.
Michael
BellBoy310
Michael, re:
>Um, I never cared enough about this album to buy the remaster, but these
>don't sound like major errors to me except for the skip.
The skip is on "Face Dances". I play the FD reissue a lot...
-Mike
"Goodbye all you punks, stay young and stay high
Hand me my checkbook, and I'll crawl off to die
Like a woman in childbirth, grown ugly in a flash
I've seen magic and pain, now I'm recycling trash..."
-Pete Townshend, "They Are All In Love"
RWhiteFang
Mark, re:
>Lets go over a few of the quibbles:
1) The mixes on A Quick One:
They sound fine to me and just about everybody I've spoken to. And look! We
have 10 bonus tracks!
Oh? Perhaps YOU are completely unaware that TRUE STEREO masters are available
for that material and sound day and night better???
John Jones
On 4 Apr 1998 06:33:12 GMT, ide...@aol.com (IDerby) wrote:
>The Who's catalog has been on both sides of the fence. Tommy, Sell Out (liner
>notes aside), Who's Next, Live at Leeds, and Who By Numbers are excellent
>reissues. Anyone remember the "gold" Who's Next? It was a step above the
>original MCA release, yet would anyone play it now over the reissue? The
>only true disasters are Who Are You, Odds and Sods (bonus track dispute) and A
>Quick One. Who Are You sounds quite good, but the remixing went much much too
>far. If Astley thought he has rights to this material because he was it's
>replacement producer, that's his arrogance. A Quick One is well documented,
>I can't stand the mono mixes, yet I enjoy the bonus tracks so it's not a total
>loss.
I happen to like the US mono mix of "Run Run Run".
It has some heavy Pete feedback that the stereo mix is lacking.
John
--
No one will ever know exactly why or how, but by the
year 2050, everyone born in Baltimore will look
exactly like Ernest Borgnine.
Drew Friedman
MarkCMD
>I happen to like the US mono mix of "Run Run Run".
>It has some heavy Pete feedback that the stereo mix is lacking.
This is true of most of the mono mixes of A Quick One. Some people consider the
stereo better, but I like the rawness of the mono. I don't see why there's been
so much complaining over this.
Mark