At 11:34 AM 2/3/2003 -0800, ronald and karen sanchez wrote:
>
>
>Kinks poorly recorded? I think not. You'd have to look pretty hard to find
>music as powerful recorded in this day and age. I have had long discussions
>about this very matter. "The Snare doesn't have to be the loudest sound on a
>record." Nor does everything have to be lined up on your ProTools grid. I
think
>that modern sheen is much more dated, and makes everything sound so much
alike.
>Just listen to some of those XTC albums (which I do like) with that big gated
>snare. It just sounds so stiff now.

Yeah, but most of the available Kinks LPs and CDs, to put it mildly, suck
ass fidelity-wise.  Their early records were pretty sloppily recorded --
because everything Shel Talmy ever did was sloppy, and that was a huge part
of his charm -- but that wouldn't be a problem if the CDs weren't so badly
done.  They're hissy, they're thin-sounding, and they're mastered at an
absurdly low volume.  They're not as horrible sounding as the Marble Arch
LPs from the '70s, or even worse, those Spanish LPs from the 80s that for
years were the only Pye-era Kinks records you could find, but I can't think
of a major group whose back catalogue has been so shoddily served.

S