smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Mark Eichelberger" <markeichelberger@verizon.net> |
| Subject | Re: Remix vs Remaster Was: Beatles Remasters |
| Date | Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:17:24 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (2.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Mike,
Well, I still have a basic question. Just what occurs during mastering?
(And I am assuming this mastering process happens after mixing.) If the
producer/artist mixes the master tapes to get the sound they want, what else
is there to do? Why does is now have to be mastered? Confused....
Thanks,
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Myers" <mmyers1446@yahoo.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Remix vs Remaster Was: Beatles Remasters
Mark;
Here's one easy way to think of it... but there are a couple fine points in
here too :)
Any tape or original sound source can be remastered to some degree...
whether it is the original "un-mixed" master tape for instance, or, as in
the case of the Beatles, they took the MIXED tapes that were the ones used
to create the singles and LPs long ago and did a lot of digital wizardry to
clean the sound up.... and this is what you are hearing on the CDs we're all
raving about... so in other words, the engineers did not feel empowered nor
were they allowed to go back to the UNMIXED original tapes and make changes
back at that point in the process...
REMIXING, however, is a whole other can of worms, and that is what I think
you're wanting info on as well... if those engineers were to go back to the
original 4 or 8 track tapes and start REMIXING things, it would have set off
a whole new controversy... when things are remixed, that means they could
actually pan sounds differently in the stereo channels, make the guitar lead
a lot louder, change the dynamics in the harmony parts etc... remember,
George Martin, some Abbey Road engineers and the BEATLES themselves made
those music/dynamics/sonic choices as to how the songs would be MIXED and
this is sacred ground in the opinion of many... those mixes were artistic
statements and they resulted in the master copy tapes that were used in
these recent releases...
You probably have other CDs in your collection that say they were REMIXED
and REMASTERED.... which means someone like Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend or
Robbie Robertson went back and took all of the unmixed contributions to a
song and sat and made new versions of the sons with a remxing project that
probably inlcuded remastering as well...
Did that help?
Mike
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Mark Eichelberger <markeichelberger@verizon.net> wrote:
From: Mark Eichelberger <markeichelberger@verizon.net>
Subject: Remix vs Remaster Was: Beatles Remasters
To: audities@smoe.org
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 7:47 AM
Folks,
All this talk of mixing, remixing, mastering and remastering is confusing my
non-musician brain. Could one of you musician/recording studio types define
these terms or describe the process. I've always been confused on the
differences of a mix vs. a master.
TIA,
Mark E.,
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.