Hall of Shame Recordings-5 WORST.
Todd R
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
>
> >
> > Faraz Hussein <f...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
> > <60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>...
> > > Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
> > > perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
> > > I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
> > > sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
> > >
> > > 1- U2- Joshua Tree
> > > 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> > > 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> > > 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> > > 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
> Graceland has several excellent sounding, excellently produced, and
> superbly recorded tracks on it! You guys are f'ing crazy! Diamonds on
> the Soles of Her Shoes is a GREAT track! Go back to square on!
I have to agree with Zip, the tracks from Graceland on Paul Simon's Negotiations and Love
Songs (Greatist Hits) sound great, in fact this whole album sounds good (Vinyl).
My worst sounding ......CDs
1. XTC Oranges & Lemons (Excessively bright, no bass)
2. U2-Josua Tree (mud mix)
3. Metalica, black album (cymbals sound like breaking glass)
4. The Guess Who, Greatest of.........(just bad)
5. Robert Plant, Now and Zen (drills straight thru both ears)
Fleetwood Mac, Tango in the Night qualifies as well, and that reminds me of a question. Why
can't groups and artists hear what a producer or engineer has done to their sound? If you
listen to other recordings by "Fleetwood Mac" like Tusk, Fleetwood Mac, or Rumors there was
a much better sound, even if it was a touch on the soft side.
You would think a performer would know what he, or she sounds like.
Faraz Hussein
Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
1- U2- Joshua Tree
2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
4- Paul Simon- Graceland
5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
Actually none of these records are entirely bad sounding, they
are just far away from how a good-recording should sound.
Arny Krüger
Faraz Hussein <f...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
<60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>...
> Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
> perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
> I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
> sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
>
> 1- U2- Joshua Tree
> 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
>
I share your concerns about several of these recordings. Since all but one
are all from (at the time) sucessful groups that can presuably spend what
on recording technology, one has to ask what went wrong.
The exception is "Sounds of Silence". This is a very interesting recording
from some guys who were pretty widely unkown when they made it. This was
actually S & G's second Columbia album, as I discovered when my roomate
found this "new" album in a Schwann catalog and ordered it from a
deep-stock mail order place and actually got it. It turns out that the
title track was originally done without the heavy rock backing. Later I
heard that the first Columbia album was a flop, and someone "knew" the
title track was a "hit", and hustled in some studio musicans and "made" it
a "hit". The crappy sound was no doubt due to haste and many extra
production steps, all on a speculative budget. This was all in the time
before multi-track recording with NR was the rule, so it may have been just
overdubbed, and the crappy sound came from a mastering engineer trying to
get a bright sound without so much hiss.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Graceland has several excellent sounding, excellently produced, and
superbly recorded tracks on it! You guys are f'ing crazy! Diamonds on
the Soles of Her Shoes is a GREAT track! Go back to square on!
BTW, the producer of Graceland owns an INFINITY IRS series V, with all
Levinson electronics - whcih ain't too shabby, and indicates a interest
on Roy Halley's part to produce a superior product.
Get a friggin grip, guys!
Cheers
Zip
Bob Michael
In article <60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>, f...@acpub.duke.edu (Faraz
Hussein) wrote:
> Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
> perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
> I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
> sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
>
> 1- U2- Joshua Tree
> 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
>
> Actually none of these records are entirely bad sounding, they
> are just far away from how a good-recording should sound.
Graceland is a fantastic album musically, but it's a relief to know that
I'm not the only one disappointed with the recording. The vinyl is OK,
and I had high hopes when I picked up the CD. Simon's voice is mixed way
too high, and the instruments sound flattened and dull. I say just make
his voice another element in the mix; we'll make out the lyrics over time!
Jay B. Haider
On 1 Oct 1997 16:13:24 GMT, Bob_M...@nt.com (Bob Michael) wrote:
>> 1- U2- Joshua Tree
>> 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
>> 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
>> 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
>> 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
I'll add two, because lately they're really bothering me.
1) Soundtrack to "A Clockwork Orange". It's really a cool disc (For
some unknown reason I actually LIKE the synth rendition of the
glorious Ninth) but just plain sounds like ass.
2) Remastered "Best of the Moody Blues", particularly the earlier
stuff ("Ride my See-Saw", "Nights in White Satin", "Blue Guitar",
etc.) One of the boomiest recordings I own.
--
Jay B. Haider
Class of 2000, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs (Georgia Tech)
"Science, like Nature, must also be tamed
With a view towards its preservation.
Given the same state of integrity,
It will surely serve us well." -Neil Peart
Stewart Pinkerton
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com>
writes:
>Graceland has several excellent sounding, excellently produced, and
>superbly recorded tracks on it! You guys are f'ing crazy! Diamonds on
>the Soles of Her Shoes is a GREAT track! Go back to square on!
>
>BTW, the producer of Graceland owns an INFINITY IRS series V, with all
>Levinson electronics - whcih ain't too shabby, and indicates a interest
>on Roy Halley's part to produce a superior product.
>
>Get a friggin grip, guys!
I entirely agree, Graceland is a classic album, and immaculately
produced.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
ASP Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |
Stephen McElroy
Why pick on Paul Simon when Iggy and the Stooges' "Raw Power" exists? This
sonic horror even has two versions, the second being a recent remix that
pumped up the bass (mud instead of nothing) and revealed hitherto
unsuspected instrumental tracks. In a way, I felt like this recording
spoke to me personally, because I couldn't imagine anyone else listening
to it for pleasure.
I think it would be fun to limit the Hall of Shame to bad or misguided
recordings of great music, but I'm sure you all will have your own
opinions.
Listening to music,
Stephen
--
Here is not there and will never be.
--- WIlliam Carlos Williams ---
Johnny Y Boey
All Oasis CD's are terrible.
JB
Scott Kriefall
On 1 Oct 1997 02:31:08 GMT, f...@acpub.duke.edu (Faraz Hussein) wrote:
>Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
>perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
>I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
>sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
>
>1- U2- Joshua Tree
>2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
>3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
>4- Paul Simon- Graceland
>5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
Jethro Tull - Aqualung
... has to be one of the worst. Rush's self-titled debug was also rather
poor.
Jay B. Haider
>... has to be one of the worst. Rush's self-titled debug was also rather
>poor.
True, although the Remaster is far superior to the original
pressing. I can now listen to "Working Man", et. al. and enjoy the
music instead of being pissed off at the person behind the console...
Jay B. Haider
The music or the recordings or both?
Johnny Y Boey
Jay B. Haider wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Oct 1997 19:04:16 -0500, Johnny Y Boey
> <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >All Oasis CD's are terrible.
> >JB
>
> The music or the recordings or both?
>
music is good, recordings are terrible. The singles sound a little
better though.
JB
TCASSETTE
>> > > perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
>> > > I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
>> > > sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
>> > >
>> > > 1- U2- Joshua Tree
>> > > 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
>> > > 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
>> > > 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
>> > > 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
>
1. Live Kinks (the first one)
2. Todd Rundgren-"Initiation" or " A Wizard, A True Star"
3. Roy Wood - "Wizzard's Brew"
4. Any original issue Stones album on London
5. Original issue of ELO II on United Artists.
Steve Ranta
In article <smcatut-0110...@slip-89-15.ots.utexas.edu>,
smc...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen McElroy) wrote:
. . .
> I think it would be fun to limit the Hall of Shame to bad or misguided
> recordings of great music, but I'm sure you all will have your own
> opinions. . .
Most of the posters in this thread seem blissfuly unaware of the 'garage'
band groups of the early 1960s, or the usually quasi-bootlegs of live
1950s performances by jazzers like Charlie Parker.
Lucky for them!
--
Steve Ranta
Jason C. Cotton
smc...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen McElroy) writes:
>Why pick on Paul Simon when Iggy and the Stooges' "Raw Power" exists? This
>sonic horror even has two versions, the second being a recent remix that
>pumped up the bass (mud instead of nothing) and revealed hitherto
>unsuspected instrumental tracks. In a way, I felt like this recording
>spoke to me personally, because I couldn't imagine anyone else listening
>to it for pleasure.
Wow, I didn't think anyone else owned that record!
You're right about the sound quality. Pretty representative of Iggy
live in the old daze, though, minus the all-important visuals...
>I think it would be fun to limit the Hall of Shame to bad or misguided
>recordings of great music, but I'm sure you all will have your own
>opinions.
Most of the early Roxy Music catalog could've been better recorded, IMHO.
-Jason
Gruvmyster
Jay B. Haider wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 03:13:40 GMT, skri...@ic.mankato.mn.us (Scott
> Kriefall) wrote:
>
> >... has to be one of the worst. Rush's self-titled debug was also rather
> >poor.
>
> True, although the Remaster is far superior to the original
> pressing. I can now listen to "Working Man", et. al. and enjoy the
> music instead of being pissed off at the person behind the console...
IMO *all* remasters I've heard sound better. I think the fact they had to
remaster is a tacit admission of poor sound quality the first time around.
Doug
--
"A good solution applied with vigor now is better than
a perfect solution applied ten minutes later"-- George S. Patton
Jacob Albert Kramer
I always thought the CDs of Sign of the Times by Prince, London
Calling by the Clash, and Sgt. Peppers by the Beatles sucked cock.
In article <Bob_Michael-01...@nrtpmc16.rtp.nt.com>,
Bob Michael <Bob_M...@nt.com> wrote:
>In article <60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>, f...@acpub.duke.edu (Faraz
>Hussein) wrote:
>
>> Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
>> perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
>> I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
>> sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
>>
>> 1- U2- Joshua Tree
>> 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
>> 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
>> 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
>> 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
>>
Stephen McElroy
In article <sranta-0210...@van-as-09b08.direct.ca>,
sra...@macwest.org (Steve Ranta) wrote:
> Most of the posters in this thread seem blissfuly unaware of the 'garage'
> band groups of the early 1960s, or the usually quasi-bootlegs of live
> 1950s performances by jazzers like Charlie Parker.
>
> Lucky for them!
>
> --
> Steve Ranta
Truth is that most of my collection "sounds bad" for whatever reason:
historical recordings (78 transfers, air checks on acetate, etc);
compromised pop records; jazz documentaries; ADAT home studio projects.
Fortunately. I try to listen to the music, although this attitude hasn't
kept me from spending a bunch of money on the front end. It takes many $1
LPs to make up the cost of an LP-12.
Some bad records have interesting sonic properties. Another poster
mentioned the old Kinks live record, presumably the one from Kelvin Hall.
I think this actually has an impressive soundstage, rather like having a
bad seat at a concert with a very bad PA. A great representation of bad
sound? Was Dave's amp unmiked or unplugged?
All part of the fun.
Stephen
PS Stiff Records box set; Elvis Costello on Columbia; all Prince (bright!)
Robert McNeice
> >> 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> >> 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> >> 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> >> 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
>
>
> 1) Soundtrack to "A Clockwork Orange". It's really a cool disc (For
> some unknown reason I actually LIKE the synth rendition of the
> glorious Ninth) but just plain sounds like ass.
>
> 2) Remastered "Best of the Moody Blues", particularly the earlier
> stuff ("Ride my See-Saw", "Nights in White Satin", "Blue Guitar",
> etc.) One of the boomiest recordings I own.
>
1) Yessongs - This live album by Yes had all of the energy and masterful
playing that characterized the group in the 70's but lousy, lousy, awful
sound quality. It's a shame considering most of their studio work had
very good sound quality for the time.
Bob
W0lph
In article <Bob_Michael-01...@nrtpmc16.rtp.nt.com>,
Bob_M...@nt.com (Bob Michael) wrote:
> In article <60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>, f...@acpub.duke.edu (Faraz
> Hussein) wrote:
>
> > Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
> > perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
> > I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
> > sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
> >
> > 1- U2- Joshua Tree
> > 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> > 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> > 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> > 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
> >
> > Actually none of these records are entirely bad sounding, they
> > are just far away from how a good-recording should sound.
>
> Graceland is a fantastic album musically, but it's a relief to know that
> I'm not the only one disappointed with the recording. The vinyl is OK,
> and I had high hopes when I picked up the CD. Simon's voice is mixed way
> too high, and the instruments sound flattened and dull. I say just make
> his voice another element in the mix; we'll make out the lyrics over time!
It is said, the best works are the worst recorded.. and the worst works, are
the best recorded...
Arnold Layne
Stephen McElroy wrote:
>
> I think it would be fun to limit the Hall of Shame to bad or misguided
> recordings of great music, but I'm sure you all will have your own
> opinions.
>
In that vein, let me offer:
Allman Brothers, Live at Ludlow Garage (even cutting this a lot of slack
for being an old, live recording, this sounds like it was made on a $20
Radio Shack tape recorder). Unbelievable playing on it, though......
PatH
--
/* email address: */
/* pheaveyATlondonbridgeDOTcompost, except take out "london" and
"post"*/
Jason C. Cotton
W0...@emi.net (W0lph) writes:
>It is said, the best works are the worst recorded.. and the worst works, are
>the best recorded...
It is *sometimes* wrong...
-Jason
Gerald Wang
In article <60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>,
Faraz Hussein <f...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
>perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
>I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
>sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
>
>1- U2- Joshua Tree
>2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
>3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
>4- Paul Simon- Graceland
>5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
>
>Actually none of these records are entirely bad sounding, they
>are just far away from how a good-recording should sound.
>
I have 1, 4, and 5 above. I would have to disagree about Graceland - it
is excellent! On my previous ttable, it sounded a bit dull and
rolled-off. With my new ttable, I've realized that it was my old
ttable/cartridge that was rolled off! I am curious as to what makes you
think that this album sounds bad.
Tango in the Night is a bit bright on my system, but it still sounds
rather good. I have not listened to the U2 much, however I remember it
sounding dull and undynamic.
Regards,
Gerald
Jason C. Cotton
gtw...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Gerald Wang) writes:
<snip>
>Tango in the Night is a bit bright on my system, but it still sounds
>rather good. I have not listened to the U2 much, however I remember it
>sounding dull and undynamic.
What do you expect from the World's Most Overrated Band?
My favorite story about U2 is how I saw them for FREE at San Jose
State right after they released their first record (1980 or 81 it was)
and walked out on it halfway through. I would have bet a wad
against them ever becoming huge after that show... I would have lost.
And that first record was the best thing they ever put on wax, IMHO.
-Jason
Tom Morley
> In article <smcatut-0110...@slip-89-15.ots.utexas.edu>,
> smc...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen McElroy) wrote:
>
> . . .
> > I think it would be fun to limit the Hall of Shame to bad or misguided
> > recordings of great music, but I'm sure you all will have your own
> > opinions. . .
>
> Most of the posters in this thread seem blissfuly unaware of the 'garage'
> band groups of the early 1960s, or the usually quasi-bootlegs of live
> 1950s performances by jazzers like Charlie Parker.
There are indeed some wretchedly badly recorded quasi-bootleg
50s jazz recordings. But, I get then for the music (see quote on sig).
The same is true of quasi-bootleg opera recordings.
The saddest case of a bad recording I know of is
"Preacher's blues" by Son House. I belive that, at least
as of a few years ago, there were something like 2 known copies
of the original 78. The metal parts have, of course,
long since dissapeared. Both copies of "Preacher's Blues" are in
wretched condition. Great song, though... :-(
For simply bad music it is hard to beat the whitebread
covers of classic R&B or gospel, recorded in the 50s and 60s.
Tom Morley | My God! What does sound have
mor...@math.gatech.edu | to do with music?
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |-- George Ives to Charles Ives,
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | as reported by Charles Ives.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Faraz Hussein wrote:
>
> Both Graceland and Tango in the night are typical examples of thin and
> bland digital recordings from the 80's. One good exception is Dire
> Straits Brothers in Arms. It sounds quite good, but of course not nearly
> as good if it were recorded with state of the art analog equipment.
> Also the Madonna LP's sound pretty good but not as good as her first
> LP which was analog recorded.
>
> : >4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> : >5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
You are nuts, Mr. Hussein.
While a couple of the tracks on Graceland are mediocre, several are
stupendous. If the sound sucks, look to your system or your room.
It was mixed down on a pair of Infinity IRS-V's, which, last time I
looked, were magnificent speakers.
Diamonds, Graceland, and some other tracks are ANYTHING BUT THIN!
What kind of system are you plaing it back on?
By the way - it was originally released on LP and was analog.
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Dunlavy,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Chiro, Quicksilver, CODA, Straightwire, Magnum Dynalab, Lightstar,
RoomTunes, Chesky, Reference Recordings, Jadis, Zenith INTEQ,
Scott Kriefall
On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 05:09:02 GMT, gte...@prism.gatech.edu (Jay B. Haider)
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 03:13:40 GMT, skri...@ic.mankato.mn.us (Scott
>Kriefall) wrote:
>
>>... has to be one of the worst. Rush's self-titled debug was also rather
>>poor.
Oops... a little too much Visual C++ that day :). Of course, "debug" ==
"debut"...
> True, although the Remaster is far superior to the original
>pressing. I can now listen to "Working Man", et. al. and enjoy the
>music instead of being pissed off at the person behind the console...
Haven't heard the remaster of their debut yet, although the Hemispheres
remaster was an improvement (albeit not a huge one).
Faraz Hussein
bill waslo/carol stewart
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in
article <343238...@sunshinestereo.com>...
> > Faraz Hussein <f...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
> > <60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>...
> > > Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
> > > perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
> > > I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
> > > sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
> > >
> > > 1- U2- Joshua Tree
> > > 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> > > 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> > > 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> > > 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
> Graceland has several excellent sounding, excellently produced, and
> superbly recorded tracks on it! You guys are f'ing crazy! Diamonds on
> the Soles of Her Shoes is a GREAT track! Go back to square on!
Maybe it was a bad pressing he had of it?
The Creative Director
>bland digital recordings from the 80's. One good exception is Dire
>Straits Brothers in Arms. It sounds quite good, but of course not nearly
I've heard that Dire Straits Brothers in Arms is a reference
recording.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
ON EVERY STREET is even better. Play track 4 and 6
Cheers
Jay B. Haider
>Haven't heard the remaster of their debut yet, although the Hemispheres
>remaster was an improvement (albeit not a huge one).
Interesting. I found the "Hemispheres", "Permanent Waves", and
"Signals" remasters to be leagues better than the original pressings.
The others were also improvements, albeit not to such a night-and-day
degree. (The "Signals", especially, IMO is awesome; it's the only
Remaster that can compete with the MoFi remaster!)
G...@uvt.edu
Robert McNeice wrote:
>
> Jay B. Haider wrote:
> >
> > On 1 Oct 1997 16:13:24 GMT, Bob_M...@nt.com (Bob Michael) wrote:
> >
> > >> 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> > >> 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> > >> 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> > >> 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
> >
> >
> > 1) Soundtrack to "A Clockwork Orange". It's really a cool disc (For
> > some unknown reason I actually LIKE the synth rendition of the
> > glorious Ninth) but just plain sounds like ass.
> >
> > 2) Remastered "Best of the Moody Blues", particularly the earlier
> > stuff ("Ride my See-Saw", "Nights in White Satin", "Blue Guitar",
> > etc.) One of the boomiest recordings I own.
> >
> I'll add one more:
>
> 1) Yessongs - This live album by Yes had all of the energy and masterful
> playing that characterized the group in the 70's but lousy, lousy, awful
> sound quality. It's a shame considering most of their studio work had
> very good sound quality for the time.
>
> Bob
Any, and I mean any, vinyl from Atlantic or ATCO pre-1980. The bastards
absolutely ruined every CREAM album made.
G...@uvt.edu
The Creative Director wrote:
>
> >bland digital recordings from the 80's. One good exception is Dire
> >Straits Brothers in Arms. It sounds quite good, but of course not nearly
>
> I've heard that Dire Straits Brothers in Arms is a reference
> recording.
Yep. Its a reference, alright.I use it as a reference for the worst in
digital.. Gets them to buy a turntable every time. "Money for Nothing"
and the last track work like a charm.
Steve Collier
My nomination is 'Texas Campfire Tapes' by Michelle Shocked. I was
reading the paper while my SO picked it out of her 'dead wood' part of
the CD rack last night and played it. I was really disturbed by what
sounded like a crummy home-recording tape-flutter effect and generally
not so hot sound. When we looked at the sleeve notes, we found it was
recorded with a Sony Walkman. It was really diabolical and I hope nobody
paid full price for it. If I ever visit Texas I will take the advice and
make a campfire with it.
SteveC
--
OECD Halden Reactor Project ^ fax: +47 6921 2460
Postboks 173, __,@ /|\ tel: +47 6921 2286
1751 Halden, _-\_<, '/|\` mob: +47 9284 0669
Norway_____________________(*)/'(*)______' | `_____I prefir cycling__
Faraz Hussein
: You are nuts, Mr. Hussein.
: While a couple of the tracks on Graceland are mediocre, several are
: stupendous. If the sound sucks, look to your system or your room.
I admit my copy of Graceland was purchased used for $2. Upon inspection
the copy does not look mint, more like good. I do agree that some tracks
sound good, such as the second side last few tracks. But overall the
sound is nothing compared to my $1 copies of Eric Clapton's Slowhand
or even Michael Jackson's Thriller. If I find a cheap mint copy
of Graceland, I'll buy it and give it another chance. BTW are you
sure it was all recorded in analog??
A few more to the Hall of Shame list:
1) Aerosmith- Toys in the Attic
2) Led Zepplin- In through the out Door (my vinyl may just be worn out)
3) Beatles- Sgt. Pepper- Lacks brightness
4) Santana- Greatest Hits
Gruvmyster
G...@UVT.edu wrote:
> Any, and I mean any, vinyl from Atlantic or ATCO pre-1980. The bastards
> absolutely ruined every CREAM album made.
Ah, that explains the terrible Peter Gabriel-era Genesis recordings.
Paul Zrimsek
Robert McNeice <mc_neic...@jpmorgan.com> wrote in article
<343390...@jpmorgan.com>...
> I'll add one more:
>
> 1) Yessongs - This live album by Yes had all of the energy and masterful
> playing that characterized the group in the 70's but lousy, lousy, awful
> sound quality. It's a shame considering most of their studio work had
> very good sound quality for the time.
I was disappointed with the CD release of "Going for the One". I'd always
assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the gutless bass on the original LP was
dictated by the 25-minute length of side 2, and remastering it for CD would
let them give the organ its pedals back. But noooooo.....
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Led Zep II. Perhaps everyone but me
experiences this record's massive LF distortion as a deliberate grunge
effect?
Paul Zrimsek
pzri...@tiac.net
Jay B. Haider
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 06:06:31 -0700, G...@UVT.edu wrote:
>Any, and I mean any, vinyl from Atlantic or ATCO pre-1980. The bastards
>absolutely ruined every CREAM album made.
I dunno... I have a vinyl pressing of "Houses of the Holy" (Thanks
Mom!) that doesn't suck. In fact, it's better than the original CD
(wow, that's saying a lot...) if not anywhere near the (slightly above
average) Boxed Set.
Jason C. Cotton
Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>G...@UVT.edu wrote:
>> Any, and I mean any, vinyl from Atlantic or ATCO pre-1980. The bastards
>> absolutely ruined every CREAM album made.
> Ah, that explains the terrible Peter Gabriel-era Genesis recordings.
They may be somewhat better if you can find the imports on
The Famous Charisma Label...
According to a friend, the CD remaster of "The Lamb..." is quite
an improvement, BTW. Must remember to invite him over soon...
-Jason
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
W0lph wrote:
>
> It is said, the best works are the worst recorded.. and the worst works, are
> the best recorded...
Whoever said that hasn't heard:
Gillian Welch, "Revival"
Dire Straits, "Love Over Gold", "Brothers in Arms", "On Every Street"
Most Chris Isaak, Lyle Lovett, and probably many more than I can
mention...
In other words, a rule with probably more exceptions than inclusions.
Brian
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
>
> Arny Krüger wrote:
> >
> > Faraz Hussein <f...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
> > <60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>...
> > > Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
> > > perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
> > > I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
> > > sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
> > >
> > > 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> > > 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> > > 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> > > 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
> > >
> >
> > are all from (at the time) sucessful groups that can presuably spend what
> > on recording technology, one has to ask what went wrong.
> >
> > The exception is "Sounds of Silence". This is a very interesting recording
> > from some guys who were pretty widely unkown when they made it. This was
> > actually S & G's second Columbia album, as I discovered when my roomate
> > found this "new" album in a Schwann catalog and ordered it from a
> > deep-stock mail order place and actually got it. It turns out that the
> > title track was originally done without the heavy rock backing. Later I
> > heard that the first Columbia album was a flop, and someone "knew" the
> > title track was a "hit", and hustled in some studio musicans and "made" it
> > a "hit". The crappy sound was no doubt due to haste and many extra
> > production steps, all on a speculative budget. This was all in the time
> > before multi-track recording with NR was the rule, so it may have been just
> > overdubbed, and the crappy sound came from a mastering engineer trying to
> > get a bright sound without so much hiss.
>
> Graceland has several excellent sounding, excellently produced, and
> superbly recorded tracks on it! You guys are f'ing crazy! Diamonds on
> the Soles of Her Shoes is a GREAT track! Go back to square on!
>
> Levinson electronics - whcih ain't too shabby, and indicates a interest
> on Roy Halley's part to produce a superior product.
>
> Get a friggin grip, guys!
> Cheers
> Zip
You get a grip! I've mentioned before here that my copy of "Graceland"
is so bright that when Simon prounounces an "s" at mid-volume your
ears will bleed. You are making the assumption (and it's a big one)
that all copies of "Graceland" are the same. I bought my copy in 1986,
and it sounds the way a lot of the discs I bought back then sound--
edgy and shrill.
I'm getting just a little annoyed at being called "f'cking crazy" when
my assessments don't match yours.
Brian
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
TCASSETTE wrote:
> >
> This list isn't so bad. How could you overlook:
> 4. Any original issue Stones album on London
Yeah, but the remasters are terrific!
The original Zeppelin stuff is nearly unlistenable, and the remasters
aren't as much an improvement as the Stones.
Brian
Gerald Wang
In article <343a7039...@news.gatech.edu>,
Jay B. Haider <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:56:27 GMT, skri...@ic.mankato.mn.us (Scott
>Kriefall) wrote:
> Interesting. I found the "Hemispheres", "Permanent Waves", and
>"Signals" remasters to be leagues better than the original pressings.
>The others were also improvements, albeit not to such a night-and-day
>degree. (The "Signals", especially, IMO is awesome; it's the only
>Remaster that can compete with the MoFi remaster!)
When were these remasters released? Do you think I'd still be able to
find them?
Gerald
Gerald Wang
In article <611usv$kjg$1...@news.duke.edu>,
Faraz Hussein <f...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>or even Michael Jackson's Thriller. If I find a cheap mint copy
>of Graceland, I'll buy it and give it another chance. BTW are you
>sure it was all recorded in analog??
Yes, Steve is correct for the most part. Most of the tracks were
recorded using both digital and analog decks, and for the LP the analog
tracks were used when available.
Regards,
Gerald
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Steve Collier wrote:
>
> My nomination is 'Texas Campfire Tapes' by Michelle Shocked. I was
> reading the paper while my SO picked it out of her 'dead wood' part of
> the CD rack last night and played it. I was really disturbed by what
> sounded like a crummy home-recording tape-flutter effect and generally
> not so hot sound. When we looked at the sleeve notes, we found it was
> recorded with a Sony Walkman. It was really diabolical and I hope nobody
> paid full price for it. If I ever visit Texas I will take the advice and
> make a campfire with it.
Okay, but don't judge all MS that way. "Short Sharp Shocked" and
"Arkansas Traveler" are not bad recordings at all, and great music
besides.
Brian
Greg Smith
>1- U2- Joshua Tree
>2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
>3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
>4- Paul Simon- Graceland
>5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
Sheesh, I think somebody here doesn't like Paul Simon. The version of
"Sound of Silence" on the S&G Complete works sounds decent, certainly not
out of line with other albums of that era. I haven't heard the original
CD release, maybe it's worse. Graceland sounds fanastic in spots, and
anybody who thinks otherwise needs to examine a) their equipment b) their
hearing or c) the time period since they last heard live music. Tango in
the Night is quirky and very processed, but one of the five worst? Not
even close. Joshua Tree certainly isn't good (although getting the MoFi
version helps), but again it's nowhere close to being truely bad sounding.
I've easily got 100 CDs from 60's and 70's bands that sound worse without
even trying hard.
Now, Brothers and Sisters, there's an awful sounding CD. Whenever I hear
early Allman material I think of the ad campaign that used to run showing
all the guys in the band sitting next to Pioneer speakers and commenting
on how great they were. Guys, you did great music, but let somebody else
pick the speakers next time. There stuff still doesn't sound very good
even with the Zounds remastered versions.
The problem with this whole "worst recording" thing is that fact that you
can't declare a random CD or LP a bad recording; all you can say is that
it was badly presented in that format. For all you know, the _recording_
is great, but the _mastering_ for that format is terrible. The Rush stuff
that's been mentioned is a perfect example. The original CD release of
2112 would be real close to the top of my worst list, yet the MoFi
remaster sounds wonderful. Same thing goes for the original Yes: Fragile
and, another pick someone mentioned, Aqualung. Go listen to the new DCC
release of Aqualung; while it's still obviously an early 70's recording,
it's not bad at all. Certainly not a top 5 pick anymore.
If I had to pick five really badly mastered CD recordings, that I can do.
The eponymous _Blue Oyster Cult_ album is downright terrible. Ditto for
_Heart_; that one makes my ears bleed. Todd Rundgren's _No World Order_
makes we dream of having a treble control again. _Who's Next_ makes me
think Who's Deaf. And _Elton John_ makes me wish I knew the number for
the hiss police. But none of these except the Rundgren album are actually
bad recordings (Todd wanted it to sound that way, I guess). I've got
remastered BOC from Zounds, Heart from MoFi, Who from MCA, and Elton from
Rocket which all sound, if not great, at least good. Unless you've got
the master tape you're listening to, you can't be sure why something
you're listening to is bad. Blaming the guy behind the console isn't
always the right thing to say; it could just as easily be some dweeb at
the mastering plant.
--
* Greg Smith gsm...@westnet.com Hoboken, NJ
* http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/ for Make Your PC Fast!, CD-R,
* Progress RDBMS, CD shopping, speaker building, rock music remasters
* http://www.soundstage.com/ SoundStage!, the high-end audio magazine
EAlafita
f...@acpub.duke.edu (Faraz Hussein) wrote:
<<<<<Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good, perhaps we
can share our opinions on what sounds BAD. I only listen to LP's and here is
my pick for the 5-worst sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
>
> 1- U2- Joshua Tree
> 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
> 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
> 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
> 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
>
> Actually none of these records are entirely bad sounding, they
> are just far away from how a good-recording should sound.
>>>>>
I don't think the last two are really that bad. Particularly, with Graceland,
perhaps it's high expectations that cause you to include it. NOTHING is worse
than 70's guitar rock that was quickly transferred to CD. Stuff like UFO's
Lights Out, Journey's Evolution and Infinity, and Zenyatta Mendatta by the
Police were criminally horrific. Try listening to any of these at good volume
on a revealing stereo for ultimate torture. Upper-mids shrill enough to make
a seal massacre sound like Mozart in comparison, Nerf-like percussive
transients, and bass akin to bathtub flatulance.
Eric
Rhys Morgan
> > It is said, the best works are the worst recorded.. and the worst
works, are
> > the best recorded...
>
> Whoever said that hasn't heard:
>
>
'Private Investigations' and 'You and Your Friend' sound amazing on any
decent system period.
Why do some sixties bands (The Who , Yardbirds, Zeppelin) sound awful and
others (Beatles , Small Faces , Kinks) sound good?
Surely the quality of engineering cannot have differed that much?
-Rhys
Faraz Hussein
Yesterday I had the unfortunate pleasure of purchasing the most awful
sounding record, August by Eric Clapton. I should have known it was
going to sound bad when I saw the huge Duck on the center label. The
previous Duck label record by Eric clapton that I bought was Behind
the Sun, which sounded pretty bad also. I belive both these awful
sounding records were produced by Phil Collins or someone. When
I play Slowhand, I can't belive the same person can record such
bad sounding music a decade later.
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Erik Kowalewsky wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:44:09 +0000, HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >W0lph wrote:
> >>
> >> It is said, the best works are the worst recorded.. and the worst works, are
> >> the best recorded...
> >
> >Whoever said that hasn't heard:
> >
> >Dire Straits, "Love Over Gold", "Brothers in Arms", "On Every Street"
> >mention...
>
> of Love Over Gold, it has always annoyed me to no end the obviousness
> of the multitrack mix and the tape hiss. For instance, the beginning
> of Private Investigations starts out with guitar (and tape hiss), then
> the tape hiss swells up as the bass beat track is mixed in, and then
> recedes back, like a wave. This is, in my opinion, an album that is
> long overdue for a remix, with something done (if at all possible)
> about the background hiss, and consequently the annoyance of hearing
> the multitrack mix take place. Hello MoFi....
I only have it on vinyl (import), and there are probably a hnumber of
reasons as to why, in my experience, that problem isn't nearly as
dramatic.
Brian
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Rhys Morgan wrote:
>
> > > It is said, the best works are the worst recorded.. and the worst
> works, are
> > > the best recorded...
> >
> > Whoever said that hasn't heard:
> >
> >
>
> decent system period.
> Why do some sixties bands (The Who , Yardbirds, Zeppelin) sound awful and
> others (Beatles , Small Faces , Kinks) sound good?
> Surely the quality of engineering cannot have differed that much?
My experience with Kinks stuff differs from yours, but as to the
Beatles, I think it boils down to Martin/Emerick. And the Who stuff
isn't NEARLY as bad as Zeppelin.
Brian
Stewart Pinkerton
czmkd...@ix.netcom.com (Erik Kowalewsky) writes:
>Although there are a lot of great things about the music and recording
>of Love Over Gold, it has always annoyed me to no end the obviousness
>of the multitrack mix and the tape hiss. For instance, the beginning
>of Private Investigations starts out with guitar (and tape hiss), then
>the tape hiss swells up as the bass beat track is mixed in, and then
>recedes back, like a wave. This is, in my opinion, an album that is
>long overdue for a remix, with something done (if at all possible)
>about the background hiss, and consequently the annoyance of hearing
>the multitrack mix take place. Hello MoFi....
There's a lot of truth in this, but OTOH, LOG was the first CD I ever
bought, way back in 1983, and it's a great example of how there was
never really a problem with digital per se, only with the mastering
and with the early players. Every time I upgrade my CD front end, LOG
sounds better......................
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
ASP Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |
Erik Kowalewsky
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:44:09 +0000, HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>W0lph wrote:
>>
>> It is said, the best works are the worst recorded.. and the worst works, are
>> the best recorded...
>
>Whoever said that hasn't heard:
>
>Gillian Welch, "Revival"
>Dire Straits, "Love Over Gold", "Brothers in Arms", "On Every Street"
>Most Chris Isaak, Lyle Lovett, and probably many more than I can
>mention...
Although there are a lot of great things about the music and recording
of Love Over Gold, it has always annoyed me to no end the obviousness
of the multitrack mix and the tape hiss. For instance, the beginning
of Private Investigations starts out with guitar (and tape hiss), then
the tape hiss swells up as the bass beat track is mixed in, and then
recedes back, like a wave. This is, in my opinion, an album that is
long overdue for a remix, with something done (if at all possible)
about the background hiss, and consequently the annoyance of hearing
the multitrack mix take place. Hello MoFi....
- Erik Kowalewsky
Remove "debris" to email
Erik Kowalewsky
Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime," has to be the absolute worst
recording of decent music that I own.
Also, when it comes to tubby bass, Jamiroquai's "Return of the Space
Cowboy" (is that the title? I don't want to run downstairs and check)
takes the cake. It was the first album I played on my speakers after
buying them, and I thought either the speakers were trash, or placed
so as to excite nasty room modes. I was wrong on both counts.
Tony Ching-Kong Hwang
Todd R (tar...@michiana.org) wrote:
: Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Faraz Hussein <f...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in article
: > > <60sclc$mu7$2...@news.duke.edu>...
: > > > Since nobody in this newsgroup can agree on what sounds good,
: > > > perhaps we can share our opinions on what sounds BAD.
: > > > I only listen to LP's and here is my pick for the 5-worst
: > > > sounding records, excluding Greatist Hits album.
: > > >
: > > > 1- U2- Joshua Tree
Why does this CD suck so bad? I have it, and listen occasionally, it's
pretty good (love With oir without you).
I hate the "Police, the singles" from BMG. IT sucks!!!! The songs are
good, but the recording... :(
Anyways, tell me why everyone thinks the U2 CD sucks, is it cause it's
electrnoic? Well, it's supposed to be like that, I think. Bye!
- Tony
: > > > 2- Simon and Garfunkel- Sounds of Silence.
: > > > 3- Allman Brothers Band- Brothers and Sisters
: > > > 4- Paul Simon- Graceland
: > > > 5- Fleetwood Mac- Tango in the Night
: > Graceland has several excellent sounding, excellently produced, and
: > superbly recorded tracks on it! You guys are f'ing crazy! Diamonds on
: > the Soles of Her Shoes is a GREAT track! Go back to square on!
: I have to agree with Zip, the tracks from Graceland on Paul Simon's Negotiations and Love
: Songs (Greatist Hits) sound great, in fact this whole album sounds good (Vinyl).
: My worst sounding ......CDs
: 1. XTC Oranges & Lemons (Excessively bright, no bass)
: 2. U2-Josua Tree (mud mix)
: 3. Metalica, black album (cymbals sound like breaking glass)
: 4. The Guess Who, Greatest of.........(just bad)
: 5. Robert Plant, Now and Zen (drills straight thru both ears)
: Fleetwood Mac, Tango in the Night qualifies as well, and that reminds me of a question. Why
: can't groups and artists hear what a producer or engineer has done to their sound? If you
: listen to other recordings by "Fleetwood Mac" like Tusk, Fleetwood Mac, or Rumors there was
: a much better sound, even if it was a touch on the soft side.
: You would think a performer would know what he, or she sounds like.
--
- Tony
/*** Tony Ching-Kong Hwang ******* (510) 549 - 2808 ************\
* T R Y S O M E O R A N G E M A R M A L A D E *
\**************** http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~thwang/ ***/
Rontoolsie
<<There's a lot of truth in this, but OTOH, LOG was the first CD I ever
bought, way back in 1983, and it's a great example of how there was
never really a problem with digital per se, only with the mastering
and with the early players. Every time I upgrade my CD front end, LOG
sounds better......................>>
I understand that by your lack of disqualifying emoticons that you actually
meant what you said...
But have you heard the latest European-import SBM remasters of the Dire
Straights catalog(ue)? I have replaced my 80's- vintage US copies of LOG,
their debut and Communique with these French pressings. The original US
domestic release of their debut album sounds like a muffled cassette copy by
comparison, no life, no presence and plain old boring. And yes, even LOG has
been improved on, albeit it to not the same degree.
And it is really all CD players that sound the same, not all CD masterings ;-)
Ron
Gerald Wang
In article <3434D5...@ix.netcom.com>, <HEA...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>You get a grip! I've mentioned before here that my copy of "Graceland"
>is so bright that when Simon prounounces an "s" at mid-volume your
>ears will bleed. You are making the assumption (and it's a big one)
>that all copies of "Graceland" are the same. I bought my copy in 1986,
>and it sounds the way a lot of the discs I bought back then sound--
>edgy and shrill.
>
>I'm getting just a little annoyed at being called "f'cking crazy" when
>my assessments don't match yours.
Umm... are you referring to the CD here? We are talking about the LP,
which is quite different. I have compared the two, and the CD is
noticeably brighter than the Graceland LP.
Regards,
Gerald
Tom Morley
In article <611v1m$b4u$1...@mycroft.westnet.com>, Greg Smith
<gsm...@westnet.com> wrote:
> The problem with this whole "worst recording" thing is that fact that you
> can't declare a random CD or LP a bad recording; all you can say is that
> it was badly presented in that format.
Example of a bad recording -- The Fug's first album. I belive
is was rocorded (in glorious mono) by Harry Smith using
god knows what microphone feeding some comsumer portable
tape deck.
Nothing, nothing, nothing
Tom Morley | My God! What does sound have
mor...@math.gatech.edu | to do with music?
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |-- George Ives to Charles Ives,
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | as reported by Charles Ives.
Jay B. Haider
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:27:47 +0000, HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>The original Zeppelin stuff is nearly unlistenable
Yep. Their untitled fourth LP is one of the few things that actually
sounds better on my Bang & Olufsen turntable than on (original
pressing) CD.
>and the remasters
>aren't as much an improvement as the Stones.
>Brian
All too true. Do you know if the remastered individual discs are
any better than the boxed sets? (The original 4-disc set and the
companion "everything else" two-disc set.) True, I'm not the Zepfreak
I was, but every once-in-a-while I just *need* some "Tea for One" or
"The Lemon Song" or "For Your Life", and I'd like it to sound better.
Emil Gottfried
May I suggest Ricki Lee Jones new CD "GHOSTY HEAD" be put at the top of this list!!!
I am quite a fan and in general recent recordings were pretty good musically andd
sonically.
I stumbled onto this new one while browsing a local music store and got quitee
excited to find something new. Have fun with this one....
The music sounds like RLJ got hold of some acid, probobly 4 way, and she didn't share...
Mostly synth instruments and the characteristic slide in her voice, well I don't she ever
made it on key the entire CD. AS for the recording, it's the worst I've heard since the
orig CD issue of Trafics "Low Spark...".
I supose the cover art should have been a clue - it pretty much reflects the content of the
music. Scary stuff this.... I almost choked when a review in the new FI didn't trash this
CD.
If anyone want this sucker, I'll be glad to send it for the cost of postage and envelope.
BTW, this group has been quite entertaing and informative of late. Thanks all you cheekyy
monkeys. Hey are you looking at me bum....
Emil
Gerald Wang
In article <34447866...@news.gatech.edu>,> The Mercury Remasters were released last March or April, and
>they're still out. The MoFi stuff is older, but was available at Tower
>Records in Buckhead, GA, as of yesterday. (TIP: For the Mercury
>Remasters, go to Media Play, because they're selling 'em for US$10 a
>piece! Ignore the Sound Savers logos, they really are the new
>remasters!)
Thanks Jay! Now where can I find a Media Play? (I'm in Ontario, Canada)
Perhaps they do mail order??
Gerald
Brianonei
Honestly, a real Hall of Shame recording has to go to producer Nick Lowe's
first Damned album back in 1976 on Stiff.
Even for an early Punk band, the recording is a mess.
On the LP, one of the first full-length Punk albums... not the first... The
Damned did a cover of The Stooges "1969" which is a nice comparison-point. It
shows the terrible quality of the recording-- Not the performance for an early
UK punk group. The Damned's next recordings were good recording-wise. And
Nick Lowe had by 1976 done good technical recordings.
But, this paticular LP has really got to be about the very worst RECORDING of
all time. It definately would have sounded better if it were a live
in-the-studio mono recording on a K-Mart cassette recorder using a 49 cent
Denton casette tape and the built-in mike.
This above statement is not a joke. The multi-track only made matters worse.
The Damned's 1st LP is a textbook study of everything not to do when recording
any sound.
Brian
US Enclosures
Walter Tice USG
In article <01bcd0b8$ac66a820$88964cd1@john> "Rhys Morgan" <j_mo...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>Why do some sixties bands (The Who , Yardbirds, Zeppelin) sound awful and
>others (Beatles , Small Faces , Kinks) sound good?
>Surely the quality of engineering cannot have differed that much?
>-Rhys
Well I disagree, "I Can See For Miles" by the Who is a magnificent rock recording
for the time. All the Beatles stuff before "Rubber Soul" is nothing to brag about.
There are hundreds and thousands of below average recordings, the only way I can
pull up a five count is with this criteria:
It was touted as good/great sounding, and sounded bad:
All the TELARC digital LP's were awful, and the worst ever was the "Ethyl?
Waters" on Orinda, which was the first digital recording put on vinyl. It is
beyond description in it's horror.
W
Rhys Morgan
> >Why do some sixties bands (The Who , Yardbirds, Zeppelin) sound awful
and
> >others (Beatles , Small Faces , Kinks) sound good?
> >Surely the quality of engineering cannot have differed that much?
> >-Rhys
>
> Well I disagree, "I Can See For Miles" by the Who is a magnificent rock
recording
> for the time. All the Beatles stuff before "Rubber Soul" is nothing to
brag about.
> There are hundreds and thousands of below average recordings, the only
way I can
> pull up a five count is with this criteria:
I Can See for Miles and most of the rest of Sell Out are admittedly an
exception to the early Who sound quality. I meant specifically the earliest
singles , like My Generation , I'm A Boy , Kids are Alright.
The early beatles arent spectacular , but they sure beat most rock
recordings of the period.
-Rhys
TCASSETTE
.
>From: "Rhys Morgan"
and their label(s) never got full control of the original master tapes from
the notorious Shel Talmy, their producer. A second or third generation "My
Generation" just won't sound as good as most of the later stuff.
Although I have never seen it substantiated in print, I think that a similar
situation exists for the pre-"Sticky Fingers" Stones catalog. The
"remastered" early albums released on CD and vinyl by Abkco (the even more
notorious Allan Klein) are probably remastered from the old American London
label submasters, not the original British Decca master tapes. Compare an
Abkco version with an import version of just about any early Stones song. The
import "Hot Rocks" (remastered by Mobile Fidelity) is a good source.
It seems that much of the late 60s to early 70s British rock released on
American labels (vinyl or CD) has been sonically inferior to that released on
British labels.
Jay B. Haider
On Mon, 06 Oct 1997 13:31:56 +0000, HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Jay B. Haider wrote:
>> Oh, I dunno... I'd put my "Live at Leeds" LP up against even a
>> pre-remaster Zepdisc.....
>
>Then it must be wretched!!
Yep, really is.
>My LAL is a British pressing, which at
>least makes the shitty recording somewhat more palatable.
I know that my mom purchased my copy of it when it came out in
Vienna, but I don't know where it was pressed.
>Forunately,
>Leeds is raw emotion, and can be enjoyed immensely in just about any
>incarnation. If you haven't, tho, check out the remastered disc
Second Who CD I bought -- after the MoFi Tommy!
>-- in
>addition to the original six cuts, it's got Entwistle's "Heaven and
>Hell", "I Can't Explain", "Fortune Teller", the beautiful but
>underrated "Tattoo", "Happy Jack", "I'm A Boy", "A Quick One", and
>"Amazing Journey/Sparks" from "Tommy".
>Brian
"Amazing Journey/Sparks" rocks, "Happy Jack" is really fun to
listen to -- in an omph-pa kinda way! -- and in general I like
everything on it. Why they didn't just release a double-album in the
first place is beyond me.
Walter Tice USG
In article <jccEHn...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jason C. Cotton) writes:
>
>Speaking of "digital" LP's, one of my favorite Miles' albums, "In
>A Silent Way", was re-released from a digital master. Talk about
>making a classic album unlistenable. Positive defacement of art!!
>-Jason
YES! I have 3 copies of that, the original pressing in very good shape,
the 2nd pressing in dismal shape, and the re-release - OUCCCHHH!
was given as a gift, really quite demonic. I also have an English (in general
the best vinyl and pressings are from the UK IMO) re-master of the Eagles
"Desperado", it is awful! My beat-up Asylym US sounds much better.
W
Gruvmyster
Greg Pavlov wrote:
> Gerald Wang (gtw...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
> :
> : Thanks Jay! Now where can I find a Media Play? (I'm in Ontario, Canada)
> : Perhaps they do mail order??
If you find their number, they will mail it to you. I recently found an
out-of-print MFSL CD which I bought over the phone.
> Media Play tends to locate in smaller cities for some reason. If you
> ever come down the QEW towards Niagara Falls, there is one in the
> Buffalo area.
Media Play is a division of Sam Goody/Musicland. Their initial startegy was
to be in larger metro areas as well. They soon found they were getting their
butt kicked by Best Buy and Circuit City for music, and the large bookstores
and computer big boxes for other media.
They pulled out of the Twin Cities about two years ago. The only Media Play
left in Minnesota is in St. Cloud, a town of about 100,000 an hour north of
the Cities.
Doug
--
"A good solution applied with vigor now is better than
a perfect solution applied ten minutes later"-- George S. Patton
James Pritchett
Gruvmyster (dhau...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: G...@UVT.edu wrote:
: > Any, and I mean any, vinyl from Atlantic or ATCO pre-1980. The bastards
: > absolutely ruined every CREAM album made.
: Ah, that explains the terrible Peter Gabriel-era Genesis recordings.
Not entirely true, as Selling England by the Pound is actually very good
(though I suppose you can argue it was on Charisma, then distributed by
Atlantic/Wea).
Worst for me is King Crimson's Earthbound, which was (intially) not
released in the US. Very poor recording.
--
/ l l l \
rl1...@i***x***.netcom.com
TCASSETTE wrote:
> >
> One reason most early Who recordings sound bad on vinyl or CD is that the group
> and their label(s) never got full control of the original master tapes from
> the notorious Shel Talmy, their producer. A second or third generation "My
> Generation" just won't sound as good as most of the later stuff.
One thing to keep in mind is that different masters were used for the
singles vs lp. The rock lps of the era generally had the bass rolled
off to mitiagate potential tracking errors with the equipment of the
times. I have first pressings of the first 3 WHO albums, the bass is
rolled off and the sound slightly compressed on "My Generation" vs the
later albums. >But I still enjoy hearing the album!< By "Sell Out",
bass and dynamics are far superior.
>
> Although I have never seen it substantiated in print, I think that a similar
> situation exists for the pre-"Sticky Fingers" Stones catalog. The
> "remastered" early albums released on CD and vinyl by Abkco (the even more
> notorious Allan Klein) are probably remastered from the old American London
> label submasters, not the original British Decca master tapes. Compare an
> Abkco version with an import version of just about any early Stones song. The
> import "Hot Rocks" (remastered by Mobile Fidelity) is a good source.
>
> It seems that much of the late 60s to early 70s British rock released on
> American labels (vinyl or CD) has been sonically inferior to that released on
> British labels.
Yes, rolled off bass and compressed dynamics. Better to look for the
singles of the more popular tunes. Deffinately sound better to my ears.
The publication "The Tracking Angle" has had some pretty good articles
regarding the LP pressing histories for some artists. Articles on The
Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix come to mind. The articles discussed,
song titles of US vs English as well as pressing variations and reletive
sound quality.
Ross Lipman
--
To reply: delete *** from address.
I refuse to accept any unauthorized or unsolicited E-mail
communications.
The sending of an unsolicited E-mail communication shall
be proof that the sender has agreed, by action, to send $500.00
US/ certified funds to me, prior to any unsolicited or unauthorized
transmission.
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation."
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Benjy Compson wrote:
>
> Miles Davis - Kind of Blue. It kind of blew me away that they would
> put out such an obvious piece of shit.
Benjy:
Oy Gevolt! Go back to your Ear Doctor. There is something very wrong
with your hearing.
Kind of Blue is superb recording and contains some of the finest playing
of all time. It is surely on everyone's Desert Island top five!
Cheers
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Dunlavy,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Chiro, Quicksilver, CODA, Straightwire, Magnum Dynalab, Lightstar,
RoomTunes, Chesky, Reference Recordings, Jadis, Zenith INTEQ,
rl1...@i***x***.netcom.com
James Pritchett wrote:
>
> Gruvmyster (dhau...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
> : G...@UVT.edu wrote:
>
> : > Any, and I mean any, vinyl from Atlantic or ATCO pre-1980. The bastards
> : > absolutely ruined every CREAM album made.
>
> : Ah, that explains the terrible Peter Gabriel-era Genesis recordings.
>
> Not entirely true, as Selling England by the Pound is actually very good
> (though I suppose you can argue it was on Charisma, then distributed by
> Atlantic/Wea).
I have a few Charisma/ UK releases and they are definately supperior to
the US counterparts.
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Jay B. Haider wrote:
>
> Second Who CD I bought -- after the MoFi Tommy!
>
I dicked around and kept putting off buying the MoFi "Tommy", and now
they're all gone! musicdirect had some recently, but they were sold
out by the time I got the brochure-- same with the Quadro :-(
Brian
Jay B. Haider
Doh! Quadrophenia was the third Who CD I bought! 8)
I wonder what's going on at MoFi, anyway? I understand that they're
no longer producing many of their greatest assets, like "Dark Side"
and The Who stuff. I wonder if they're saving 'em for a "GAIN III"
re-remaster? 8)
Greg Smith
: no longer producing many of their greatest assets, like "Dark Side"
: and The Who stuff. I wonder if they're saving 'em for a "GAIN III"
: re-remaster? 8)
They get permission from the record companies to print discs up for a
certain period of time. That "Limited Edition" stuff isn't a lie. They
have to go through some amount of negotiation to continue making more, and
I'll bet that since Sony and MCA have released their own remastered
versions of these two the sales have dropped so much that it's no longer
worth the trouble to keep them in print. I'll ask about those
specifically next time I call them up.
Now that the remixed versions of the Who albums are out, it's getting real
tough to get the original, superior sounding ones (the MoFi Tommy and the
MCA Gold Who's Next, for example). Ditto for Elton John. It's not a nice
trend.
--
* Greg Smith gsm...@westnet.com Hoboken, NJ
* http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/ for Make Your PC Fast!, CD-R,
* Progress RDBMS, CD shopping, speaker building, rock music remasters
* http://www.soundstage.com/ SoundStage!, the high-end audio magazine
The Creative Director
>> Miles Davis - Kind of Blue. It kind of blew me away that they would
>> put out such an obvious piece of shit.
Something must be very wrong with your system or your ears! Time
to upgrade both! As far as I know, Kind of Blue is the reference
CD of many top notch reviewers.
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Greg Smith wrote:
>
> Jay B. Haider <gte...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> : I wonder what's going on at MoFi, anyway? I understand that they're
> : no longer producing many of their greatest assets, like "Dark Side"
> : and The Who stuff. I wonder if they're saving 'em for a "GAIN III"
> : re-remaster? 8)
>
> They get permission from the record companies to print discs up for a
> certain period of time. That "Limited Edition" stuff isn't a lie. They
> have to go through some amount of negotiation to continue making more, and
> I'll bet that since Sony and MCA have released their own remastered
> versions of these two the sales have dropped so much that it's no longer
> worth the trouble to keep them in print. I'll ask about those
> specifically next time I call them up.
Should you discover that they are planning to reissue them, would you
let me know about it?? I'd be grateful forever...
Brian
Steven Sullivan
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) (z...@sunshinestereo.com) wrote:
: Benjy Compson wrote:
: >
: > Miles Davis - Kind of Blue. It kind of blew me away that they would
: > put out such an obvious piece of shit.
: Benjy:
: Oy Gevolt! Go back to your Ear Doctor. There is something very wrong
: with your hearing.
: Kind of Blue is superb recording and contains some of the finest playing
: of all time. It is surely on everyone's Desert Island top five!
He might be referring to the crappy Sony Jazz Masterworks CD version that
was recently supplanted by the 20-bit remaster.
Arny Krüger
HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <3434D5...@ix.netcom.com>...
>I'm getting just a little annoyed at being called "f'cking crazy" when
>my assessments don't match yours.
>
Turnabout seems fair play! ;-)
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Ah, you must have an example of where I called someone "f'cking
crazy". Let's see it...or butt the hell out.
Brian
Gerald Wang
In article <61k9d3$l8...@beaker.nit.gwu.edu>,
LP. I can't wait to get the new SBM remaster.
Gerald
Arny Krüger
HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <343E9A...@ix.netcom.com>...
See your last 200 or so posts replying to a post of mine. That has been the
gist of them. Mabye you did not use the exact same character string, but the
idea comes across, loud and clear.
Then there is your harassing private email to me, which is so bad, I now
just delete it when I see it, like the other spam.
Scott (Davis) Strang
In article <3436c858...@news.dircon.co.uk> pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
>From: pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton)
>Subject: Re: Hall of Shame Recordings-5 WORST.
>Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 22:55:45 GMT
>czmkd...@ix.netcom.com (Erik Kowalewsky) writes:
>>Although there are a lot of great things about the music and recording
>>of Love Over Gold, it has always annoyed me to no end the obviousness
>>of the multitrack mix and the tape hiss. For instance, the beginning
>>of Private Investigations starts out with guitar (and tape hiss), then
>>the tape hiss swells up as the bass beat track is mixed in, and then
>>recedes back, like a wave.
This is probably because when that track was turned on during the mixdown the
level at which it was originally recorded was probably variable. The level
had to be high at first because it had been recorded low at first then
increased in record level.
Just my opinion but it makes sense.
Scott
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Arny Kr經er wrote:
>
> HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <343E9A...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >Arny Kr經er wrote:
> >>
> >> HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <3434D5...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >>
> >> >I'm getting just a little annoyed at being called "f'cking crazy" when
> >> >my assessments don't match yours.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Turnabout seems fair play! ;-)
> >
> >Ah, you must have an example of where I called someone "f'cking
> >crazy". Let's see it...or butt the hell out.
> >
>
> See your last 200 or so posts replying to a post of mine. That has been the
> gist of them. Mabye you did not use the exact same character string, but the
> idea comes across, loud and clear.
So you aren't up to tjhe challenge...what a surprise! I'll make it
easier on you then; show some examples of my *inferring* that you are
"f'cking crazy".
You continue to be unaware of your own output. That in itself ought to
trouble you not some little bit.
> Then there is your harassing private email to me, which is so bad, I now
> just delete it when I see it, like the other spam.
I had exactly *one* e-mail experience with you...you seem to be
suggesting I pepper your mailbox with angry missives (yet MORE
distortion). How about agreeing to post the whole exchange? That way
your lies about it will be clear to everyone. Are you game? Don't back
away, rise to the challenge for once.
Brian
Arny Krüger
HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <343F5D...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>I had exactly *one* e-mail experience with you...you seem to be
>suggesting I pepper your mailbox with angry missives (yet MORE
>distortion). How about agreeing to post the whole exchange? That way
>your lies about it will be clear to everyone. Are you game? Don't back
>away, rise to the challenge for once.
>
I just looked at my "deleted messages" file. Would you approve me posting
some of your "mail" tome?
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Surely...as long as you post it *all*, including your responses, so
the context is clear.
Brian
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Arny Kr經er wrote:
>
> HEA...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <344104...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HEA...@ix.netcom.com <HEA...@ix.netcom.com>
> To: Arny Krueger <ar...@concentric.net>
> Date: Thursday, October 09, 1997 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Typical pattern of responses in this NG.
>
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >> all messages from you will henceforth be summarily deleted
> >
> >Fuck you...you needn't bother, there won't be any
> >
>
> Needless to say, you continued to post messages to me on RAO.
I took you to mean e-mail, which there certainly won't. And BTW, you
coveniently omitted this, which PRECEDED the one you posted (I figured
you would):
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > >
Quoting my post:It shouldn't reflect badly on the movement-- but the
fact that he
> > >could go, spend a couple of days in refelection and rededication to
> > >making himself a better human being, and then come back and jump right
> > >in where he left off here speaks volumes about his own commitment.
> > >
> >
Arny: Ah, it is so good to be "judged" by such a "righteous" person.
;-)
>
Me: I don't claim to be "righteous". As far as RAO is concerned, I try
to
> adhere to an ethical standard; that is, I don't instigate flame wars,
> I never take the first shot. I don't make accusations I can't back up,
> and when I'm called on to prove something I claim, I either do so or
> retract the claim. Nothing righteous about any of that, just seems the
> obvious course to set in any forum...wouldn't you agree?
>
Arny: Or, recent events should tell you that this is not the first
time I
> > reflected on exactly what you object to, weighed it all out, and set pretty
> > much the same course of action.
>
Me: What is it that you have determined that I object to? I'm very
curious
> about that, because whatever it is appears to lie at the heart of your
> disagreement with me, as well as that of so many others.
>
Arny: What I'm doing here takes a little commitment to a purpose,
would you not
> > agree?
>
Me: Sure, but to what end? Friend and foe alike clamor for you to tone
> down the rhetoric, but you respond by whining about how much abuse is
> heaped upon you daily. You miss the point, Arny. As Bob Myers is only
> the most recent to point out, you are the ONLY one that generates this
> kind of heat on an ongoing basis. Do you really not know why?
>
> Brian
....and then this:
I wrote:
> > >Challenge me then. If I post just a few of your many lies and
> > >distortions, will you publicly apologize to me and make a pledge to
> > >mend your ways?
Arny wrote:
> > There is nothing I have ever done to keep you from doing what you think is
> > right. If you think that doing something is right, you need no promises from
> > me to do it.
>
Me: I just have to believe that deep down you know what you're doing
is
> *wrong*. I certainly know when I'm doing wrong, and have admitted as
> much publicly. You're right, I don't NEED you're compliance to end my
> participation in this, but nor do I want to stand silent while you
> continue to attack me.
>
> Let's just each forget the other exists. Should one of us feel the
> need to respond to a post from the other, let's attempt to be civil
> about it...that's all. I'm pretty sure that these easy-to-follow
> guidelines will result in our each discoivering that the other isn't
> the hopeless bastard he now appears.
>
> You've got a lot to offer, and it would take virtually no effort from
> you to go from being scorned and derided to acclaimed as the most
> valuable asset in RAO. I for one would be happy to see that happen.
> Really.
>
> Brian
....and then finally this:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I don't claim to be "righteous".
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!
>
Me: Fine. Show me where...
>
> > > As far as RAO is concerned, I try to
> > >adhere to an ethical standard; that is, I don't instigate flame wars,
> >
Arny: No, but you pick at folks you disagree with over 100's of
senseless posts.
> > Same diff.
>
Me: And that differs from you exactly how?
>
> > >I never take the first shot.
> >
Arny: You've shot at me 100 times for every reply from me, at some
stages in this
> > little dance...
>
Me: I can't help you if you continue to lie to yourself this way.
>
>
> > >I don't make accusations I can't back up,
> >
Arny: Me lying? You jest.
> >
Me: and when I'm called on to prove something I claim, I either do so
or
> > >retract the claim.
> >
Arny: You solve that by rarely claiming anything substantial.
>
Me: So what's your beef, asshole?
>
> > Nothing righteous about any of that, just seems the
> > >obvious course to set in any forum...wouldn't you agree?
> >
Arny: You are a self-righteous ass, audio know-nothing in the Middius
tradition.
>
Me: And you are no Christian, buddy. Attending a thousand rallies
ain't
> gonna change that!
>
> > >
Arny: Or, recent events should tell you that this is not the first
time I
> > >> reflected on exactly what you object to, weighed it all out, and set
> > pretty
> > >> much the same course of action.
> > >
Me: What is it that you have determined that I object to?
> >
Arny: Me posting.
>
Me: Hardly. Unlike you, I've never once demanded you stop.
>
> > > I'm very curious
> > >about that, because whatever it is appears to lie at the heart of your
> > >disagreement with me, as well as that of so many others.
> >
Arny: To disgree with you, I would have to see a post of yours that
had
> > substance - was not whining or belittling.
>
Me: Again, self-delusion...and looking hopeless.
>
> > >
Arny: What I'm doing here takes a little commitment to a purpose,
would you not
> > >> agree?
> > >
Me: Sure, but to what end? Friend and foe alike clamor for you to tone
> > >down the rhetoric, but you respond by whining about how much abuse is
> > >heaped upon you daily.
> >
Arny: You don't read my private Email, do you?
>
Me: Don't have to, it's posted publicly.
>
> > >You miss the point, Arny. As Bob Myers is only
> > >the most recent to point out, you are the ONLY one that generates this
> > >kind of heat on an ongoing basis.
> >
Arny: I'm not the only guy, just the current guy. Before me there was
always Gene
> > and/or Nousaine, and before them...
>
>
Me: Never ever ever the kind of shit you stir up. Please stop lying to
> yourself; that's the first step toward getting well.
>
Arny: I am intentionally trying to take hits so that guys like Myers
and Nousiane
> > can do their jobs. It is working, Nousaine toasts me for my efforts every
> > time we both see glasses.
>
Me: Then he is as much an idiot as you. I didn't think that was
possible.
>
> > > Do you really not know why?
> >
Arny: I don't think you get it. There is an agenda and it is working.
>
>
Me: If you think that, then it is YOU that doesn't get it. You are
easily
> the most detested entity on the board and there isn't anything you
> have to say that anyone takes at all seriously. Keep up the good work!
>
Arny: Now buzz off, you worthless little twit. Please resume posting
on RAO when
> > you get a clue about audio, and not one second before!
>
Me: Oh, I'll be posting plenty, and about what I please, thanks.
Sorry for
> mistaking you for a rational human being and wasting my time trying to
> reason with you. I was wrong to ever think you might be anything but a
>
> And, next time you pray, toss in one that I never see you face to
> face, because my face is the last thing you'll see for a long, long
> time...but you'll never forget my smile!
>
> Brian
I'm certainly not proud of the last exchange, but I was enraged that
you would take what was obviously an attempt at peace and use it as a
springboard for attack.
You're not going to change-- that's pretty obvious, and too bad
besides. But you're right; it doesn't matter what you do, it's what I
do that counts. So, even though you may refuse to accept the true
sequence of events and your own complicity therein, I won't let that
deter me. It's simply going to be:
Whatever you say, Arny.
Brian
Arny Krüger
TCASSETTE
Arny Kr經er wrote:
>blah blah blah
Brian retorted:
>blah blah blah
Can't you guys finish your slap fight privately? Or at least change the name
of the thread to something more appropriate, like "Hall of Shame Whine Fests"
or "My _____ is Bigger than Yours."
Arny Krüger
TCASSETTE wrote in message
<19971014014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
I agree. The problem is that Brian was so abusive in private email that I
decided to stop reading his weird trash, and then he decided to drag this
out on RAO again.
Did we not read that Brian solemly promised to stop doing stuff like this
yesterday? ;-)
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
> >>blah blah blah
> >
> >Brian retorted:
> >>blah blah blah
> >
> >Can't you guys finish your slap fight privately? Or at least change the
> name
> > of the thread to something more appropriate, like "Hall of Shame Whine
> Fests"
> > or "My _____ is Bigger than Yours."
> >
>
> I agree. The problem is that Brian was so abusive in private email that I
> decided to stop reading his weird trash, and then he decided to drag this
> out on RAO again.
>
> Did we not read that Brian solemly promised to stop doing stuff like this
> yesterday? ;-)
I was merely trying to keep your distortion of our exchange from being
the accepted version. You unethically mischaracterized it by
abbreviating it-- I simply posted the trimmed parts. You don't have a
problem with accuracy, do ya, Arn? 8-D
Brian