smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
From | Christobal <plattc@optonline.net> |
Subject | Re: Sgt Peppers remixed. |
Date | Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:02:04 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (5.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I've never heard the Beatles. I just never felt motivated to do so.
I just felt like saying so.
(Sorry. Couldn't resist. Removing tongue from cheek now.)
Christopher
> -----Original Message-----
> From: audities-owner@smoe.org
> [mailto:audities-owner@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Jaimie Vernon
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:47 AM
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Re: Sgt Peppers remixed.
>
>
> At Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:16:16 Mark wrote:
>
> >Ok, sometimes I may be in a quiet mood, but usually I want
> real impact
> >from my music. Perhaps this is one reason why some
> enthusiasts prefer
> >>the mono mix? I definitely wouldn't go as far as to want
> that. So I
> >>mucked with the music using some stereo plugins, in order to create
> >the >blend, while still preserving the stereo effect, and created my
> >own >version of this album. As an example, here's the first
> 2 minutes
> >of "A >Day in the Life", before and after samples. I
> selected this one
> >as an >example, because they especially mess with the vocals here.
> >Initially >they are in the right channel, then in the
> middle, and then
> >finally in >the left channel, something which I might have one found
> >cool, but now >find annoying. Creating a blend helps to make the
> >transitions seem >less
> >severe:
> >
> >http://web.mit.edu/london/www/beat/beatles_orig.mp3
> >
> >http://web.mit.edu/london/www/beat/beatles_remix.mp3
> >
> >A few weeks ago I also mentioned about the supposed defects
> I heard on
> >>the
> >Sgt Peppers CD which I had just bought. Actually, comparing
> to the >LP,
> >the same "defects" are there also. Mostly, I guess I'm
> hearing >artifacts
> >caused by the heavy compression and other processing
> >techniques that were
> >used. I.e., notice on some songs how hard the K >and P are
> in some words.
> >I fixed as many of these as I could.
>
> An interesting mix. But, I've got to ask: why?
>
> You're trying to impose 21st Century expectations on a 35 year old
> recording. That's like bitching about the 2-track mixes of
> Robert Johnson
> material from 1923.
>
> These are snapshots of the creative process from a specific
> time period. And
> they had technical limitations. Pepper was recorded using two 4-track
> machines run in parallel. The single channel issue (with
> vocals in one side
> and the reverb return the other) was part of an audio
> standard at the time.
>
> I've been in recording studios in recent years where
> engineers lose their
> ever-loving minds when a tambourine is panned to the left and
> the maracca in
> the right. They don't get it. They think everything should be
> broad spectrum
> with everything centred in the stereo mix.
>
> Sorry, the human ear doesn't hear sound that way. We don't
> perform music
> live in single-file....so why should our audio recordings be
> presented that
> way?
>
> But, I digress.
>
> Guess my point is, why is it so important to correct the
> falibility of a
> record that was intended to sound exactly the way it does?
> The Beatles
> haven't gone back to remix it, so why should anyone else?
>
> >In any event, after all the hoopla about the production, that part
> >>doesn't
> >have much of an impact for me any longer.
>
> Of course not. Because the technical feat achieved in
> producing the record
> can be duplicated NOW with a few plug-ins on a computer. You have to
> understand that the album was ground breaking, sonically, for
> its time.
>
> >But what does still stand out is the great catchy hooks and
> lyrics, and
> > >especially the cool vocals. Could Lennon really sing in
> that high a
> > >register, or was that due to speeding up the tapes? Well,
> whatever the
> > >case, it's those things that make this a really great pop album.
> > >Entertaining, fun to listen to and to sing along with, and
> with one or >2
> >exceptions (i.e. "Within You Without You") a very consistent album,
> >>i.e.
> >one that doesn't have too much jarring different songs.
>
> Hmmmm..."She's Leaving Home" and "Good Morning" are similar?
> These tunes
> could been recorded by two-different bands never mind been on
> two different
> albums.
>
> >I.e., Compare Sgt Peppersto Abbey Road, which IMHO is very overrated.
> > >There, you are bounced between upbeat pop songs and heavy
> durge like
> > >songs such as "Something" named "I Want You". Plus, the
> nonsensical
> > >lyrics on that LP have zilch impact on me and simply bore me. And
> > >Lennon's vocals are now sounding like a rocker rather than
> the sweet >pop
> >vocals on Sgt Peppers. I don't understand how people think
> Abbey >Road
> >is
> >a great album. Yes, some songs are great, but I don't think
> it >stacks up
> >with any of the prior albums. I simply can't listen to the
> >plodging and
> >nonsense songs any more, even after not hearing them for >many years.
>
> And "Lovely Rita" was such a serious opus. Seriously, the
> comparison thing
> was always ridiculous just by virtue of the fact that it was
> created by a
> band who'd recorded a few albums between them. They'd grown, they'd
> changed...for better or worse. Peppers was a studio
> concoction during its
> creation. Abbey Road was a studio concoction during the editing.
>
> >So is Sgt Peppers the best album of all time? Of course
> not. There is
> >>no
> >such thing. Art and music is subjective, and even for a
> given >person,
> >that person is going to like different music at different
> >times. But,
> >IMHO, it is one of the best albums of all time.
>
> Now, this I can agree with....
>
>
>
> Jaimie Vernon,
> President,
> http://www.bullseyecanada.com
> #1 West Hill Dr., Toronto, ON
> M1E 3T4 Canada (416) 284-7067
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.