From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V14 #8 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Saturday, January 10 2009 Volume 14 : Number 008 To unsubscribe: e-mail ecto-digest-request@smoe.org and put the word unsubscribe in the message body. Today's Subjects: ----------------- Today's your birthday, friend... [Mike Matthews ] Re: Adrienne Pierce - another angle [birdie ] 2008, the year that was [Adam Kimmel ] Re: Adrienne Pierce - another angle [Marypt51@aol.com] The loudness war [Greg Dunn ] Re: The loudness war [Birdie ] Re: The loudness war [Birdie ] Re: The loudness war [Tim Jones-Yelvington ] The Moon Whispers (gothic) ["Karen Hester" ] Re: The loudness war [Greg Dunn ] Jesca Hoop pictures up from Hotel Cafe last night [birdie ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 03:00:02 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Matthews Subject: Today's your birthday, friend... i*i*i*i*i*i i*i*i*i*i*i *************** *****HAPPY********* **************BIRTHDAY********* *************************************************** *************************************************************************** ******************** Greg Bossert (bossert@fuaim.com) ********************* *************************************************************************** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Greg Bossert Tue January 09 1962 OfTheTimes Troy J. Shadbolt Thu January 14 1971 Capricorn Chris Sampson Wed January 15 1964 Void where prohibited Alex Bertran Fri January 15 1971 Capricorn Denis G Parslow Fri January 17 1964 ...of the Saint Ross Alford Thu January 17 1957 Positive Sarah Morayati Tue January 17 1989 Capricorn Nancy Whitney Mon January 19 1959 slippery when wet Sarah Noelle Pratt Ferguson Tue January 20 1970 Seanympf-Aquarius David Beery Tue January 20 1976 drum Terry Partis Sun January 22 1933 Rocker Steve Hughes Thu January 24 1963 Aquarius Sarah McLachlan Sun January 28 1968 Aquarius Ilka Heber Mon February 01 1965 Mermaid Bob Lovejoy Sun February 02 1947 Aquarius Diane Burke Sat February 02 1963 slow children Timothy S. Devine Tue February 03 1970 Aquarius Stephen Thomas Fri February 04 1966 Aquarius - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:05:26 -0800 From: birdie Subject: Re: Adrienne Pierce - another angle Marypt51@aol.com wrote: >To be honest, although I feared the worst from the descriptions I read >previously about her show, when I watched the youtube clip, I saw nothing horrendous >about the guitarist's playing, nor did I see him staring at his hands or >playing poorly. > This was at the point where he had progressed to overplaying (adding bits that were never in the original songs - unless it actually improves upon a song, it is known as inflicting ones bad taste on to other peoples songs, and fans do take offense to it and did in this case ) and the number of songs he played on was reduced to ones he could handle best. Still, he's hogging the stage in the center position where she should be, pushing her with his take on her song, and overplaying - the country twang and faux country accent were not in the original. Fans like to hear the songs as close to how they know them from the records as possible. That is just a time worn reality. Obvioulsy he thought he was such hot shit he could run the song his way....it's not even his song. I just found it appalling.. >I wouldn't have any problem seeing this artist if I had the >opportunity. Actually, it hurts me to see people bash anyone who is trying to work >in this very difficult music world. > > It hurts me to see artists screw up their careers this way!!!!! Artists DO make mistakes. She screwed up! Audiences have rights, too! In this case, I think she got suckered by Bongo Beat Records, and the deal with Borders. Borders, once upon a time, was a good place to sign. But that was a number of years ago, before Amazon took over....it looks like they will fold this year. Bongo Beat has a roster of artists that they promote as "Sounds like...." So, if you want a Mazzy Star knock-off or an Elvis Costello (early days) knock-off and so on....go to Bongo Beat. It's like a label of fans of REAL artists who kinda rip off their style or riffs or whatever and make not as good as the real thing songs.... Derivative to the max. There's the wanna be beatnik that runs it and he's the head dude and the rest are all his wanna be somebody else's. They are promoted that way. YES, times are difficult. I am going to spend all my time and money on artists that are the real deal, work hard at their craft, are truely talented, and do not insult my sense of fair play (dont rip other artists off or trash their songs or whatever). Not all artists are created equal. I want the fabulous ones - to survive. So, shoot me. You can take all the wanna be poorly executed just wanna have fun "artists". I love a good meal - imitation junk food, I dont need. The thing about this economic melt down. is that real deal indie artists with great live shows and who have real fans and real talent will survive this....and, they deserve my support. If you hung your hat on some big sinking retail chain, a label that prides itself on "sounds like..." artists, got yourself some dude that..... I didn't have a thing to do with any of that - and - thank goodness. If you want to kill your career - follow that path! And do not blame the audience or your fans for your demise. Thank you very much. Audiences have rights, too. In fact, some would argue that the audience is king. "Personally I like to spend my time sharing about >other people or artists whose work I like because there is so much good stuff >out there that isn't getting exposure. " > We mostly do around here but sometimes artists decide to sell out and go commerical in a way that really dooms them. This is what happened here and there are lessons to be learned from it. Were you on the list when Jewel sold out? These things happen. Thankfully, not too often, but they do. >When I am remembering self control >(which I'm sure I forget often) I try to avoid steering people away from people I >don't like or whose work I don't like because I don't want the karma, >personally, and I know that in the cases where I don't like something, that doesn't >mean it doesn't have plenty of value to someone else with an equally valid set >of preferences. > > Yes, but many of us have shared taste and instincts here to a very high degree and by alerting each other to the changes in an artists direction I am sure others will not be happy about - is not a bad thing. Times are tough. Money not wasted on an act that will disappoint or insult is money that can be spent on one that will inspire and uplift. I just saw Lelia Broussard and Jesca Hoop tonight at the Hotel Cafe and they were AMAZING!!!!!! The place was PACKED. The bands were spot on, tasteful, and incrediable. It was SO worth it. There is less room for poorly executed shows and so on these days. The road has gotten narrower. If you want to do a show that will disappoint people - expect them in hard times, to really remember it! $20 bucks to see a show these days means more than it did 6 months ago. The risks are higher now. Suggesting that artists get a great act together before doing auditions or shows is hardly mean spirited. You want mean, tell them their 1/2 half assed show is great. You want mean, build peoples expecations up and then disappoint them. You want mean, leave the original artists out of the picture and put $$ down on the knock offs. This whole economic shake down is going to see a lot of people not survive this business. I think this is one example. Does someone see a raging success story here? Learn from your own and others mistakes. This is going to be a very hard year. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 03:07:29 -0800 From: Adam Kimmel Subject: 2008, the year that was I just wanted to throw this out there, but disclaimer might be in order: 2008 was an odd year for me. I gained a grandchild, got my first ever real job (at nearly 50 years old I am now the bored secretary I swore I'd never become) and lost my father. He was the American part of me, the surreal Jewish streak and mordant humour, pessimism and nostalgia. He gave me my love of old films and of storytelling, encapsulating a story of his own that took in Depression-Era Brooklyn, the tenements and the stickball, the Pacific Theatre in WW2 where he served in Saipan, Trujillo-era Dominican Republic, where he met my mother, a show-dancer, and got threatened by the gun-weilding dictator himself and then...well, bouncing back between America and England, dragging his frustrated and resentful family along with him, before retiring for a spell in Spain on his own where he drank, smoked and painted to his heart's content (and his circulation's detriment). Not a model father by any stretch of the imagination, but I miss him. After he'd gone I found it hard to engage with a lot of stuff and still do, so take any of this with a pinch of salt. And, natch, IMHO. Favourite Albums (in some kind of order) "This Riot Life" by Veda Hille. As an atheist, I was both baffled and thrilled by this album, something truly beautiful and unique. "Cowper's Folly" was one of my favourite tracks of the year, bar none. "Third" by Portishead. Absolutely spine-chilling. Like being trapped in a haunted house with an ex-girlfriend who's possessed by the spirit of a torch singer, dead at her own hand. Uneasy listening, to say the least, and it seems to have taken a lot of fans by surprise. "Rooks" by Shearwater. A band new to me, but this is just a lovely album. The title track is another one of my songs of the year. "Dig Lazarus, Dig!" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds. Great big, filthy, stomping, literate stuff. "Liejacker" by Thea Gilmore. A welcome recovery after the rare mis-step of "Harpo's Ghost": warm and beautiful with wit and intelligence to spare. One of her best. "Seventh Tree" by Goldfrapp. Never been a fan, but this album really moved me. "Music Hole" by Camille. Clever, tuneful and very, very funny. "Alas I Cannot Swim" by Laura Marling. Delicate and beautiful, her voice gets under the skin. "The Promised Land" by Dar Williams. After her previous album, I'd pretty much given up on her, but I'm glad I took a chance on this: it's really very lovely and very listenable, a return to form. "The Works" by Jonatha Brooke. An album I admire more than I like, but it's a more sincere and more organic work than her last album, and for that she makes the list. Bubbling under: "Peaceful the World Lays Me Down" by Noah and the Whale. "A Fine Frenzy" s/t: only released over here this year. "Dreaming of Revenge" by Kaki King. "All Hour Cymbals" by Yeasayer. Technically, I think, released last year, but it's a great album. Also, Eliza Gilkyson, Alison Crowe and Juliet Turner all turned out albums that started out really well, (Allison Crowe's even contains some of her best material), but they all ran out of steam, I felt, about halfway through. Close, but no cigar. Disappointments: "Living in Dreams" by Sandy Dillon. I'm being unfair, as I don't even think I've made it through this album once. After the mature, swooning carnival side-show that was "Pull the String", this is...um, a return to basics, I guess. Lo-fi blues tunes that only serve to underscore how boring the blues can be. "Accelerate" by REM. Mid-life crisis in musical form: loud, insistent and irritating guitars smother everything, like spicey curry sauce on chips. It's a bit like watching your embarassing uncle dance at a wedding because he feels he can show the youngsters how to "bust a few moves". "Trisector" by Van der Graaf Generator. I'm a huge fan, and Hammill's last solo was one of his best, but I've listened to this endlessly, and I still can't get into it. To me, it has none of the energy and barely-contained chaos of their previous outing, and it sounds like generic offcuts from Hammill's 90s solo work. I've tried to like it, I really have. "Fleet Foxes" s/t. After all the hype, how could I not be disappointed? This is perfectly tuneful, perfectly accomplished and perfectly pretty, the sound of a Beach Boys tribute band covering CSNY's back catalogue while leaning heavy on the reverb. Hardly the "landmark" or "breath of fresh air" the critics have cited, and I actually find it quite dull. "The Stand Ins" by Okkervill River. After seeing them live earlier this year, I declared them the best band EVER and bought their back catalogue and this new release. None of which interested me half as much as last year's "Stage Names", so maybe I'm just not ready for them. There's nothing really wrong with it, it's just not terribly memorable. Oh, and Radiohead's "In Rainbows". I know, I know, it's "untouchable" and, again, actually from last year, but I was one of those old fogeys punished for wanting a hard copy by being forced to wait until the very last day of 2007 before I could order one, which I think is breathtaking arrogance and snobbery ("Hey, take that, GRANDAD!!") The hard copy, when it arrived, further rubbed my nose in my obsolescence by having illegible, artsy liner notes and bulky packaging. None of this would be so bad if, even after repeated listenings, I could actually remember any of it. Best gig: Leonard Cohen. I came curious, I left elated. One of the best, most moving, most uplifting and transporting gigs of my life. Watch out for: Florence and the Machine. Best film: Well, I only saw about five, so it would have to be -- to my great surprise -- "There Will Be Blood", while Mike Leigh's godawful "Happy Go Lucky" takes the raspberry. That was the year that was, and that was me, as much as I could be. If you've gotten this far: Happy New Year to you all, Adam K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:38:54 EST From: Marypt51@aol.com Subject: Re: Adrienne Pierce - another angle Forgive me, but I really do not see this little indie artist as having sold out or destroyed the music industry yet from anything you have mentioned that she did. I did not use the word "mean-spirited" anywhere in my posts since you kept repeating that word in a message to me, and I did not suggest you praise music you don't like. I said I prefer posts bringing people's attention to music that one finds worthy since there is so much out there that is overwhelmed by all the attention given to the commercial world. In doing so the music you find boring will not get any attention and energy, which is the way I prefer to handle things. If you want to single out struggling artists you dislike to crusade against, laughing at their lack of success, be my guest however. I would feel bad if I were the artist in question and was subscribed to the list if we continue singling out little indie artists to tell people not to go see. I think this list includes a lot of artists subscribed. Your warnings against Adrienne Pierce's work have been duly noted, and thanks for the pointers and lessons. ************** New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:30:29 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Dunn Subject: The loudness war I can't remember if this has been discussed much here... I know the list is focused on current releases more than re-releases (a good thing IMHO) but some of us surely have a library of older artists and want the best sound we can get from their catalogue. While I'm not a crazed audiophile, I do like to have as little as possible distracting me from the music - which is the real goal. Back in the 80s a friend and I marveled at how many LP releases from obscure artists actually got transferred to CD in the rush to fill the shelves with those little silver discs. It was great for us, having worn LP copies and no easy way to replace them; the noise-free ultra-convenient CDs helped me enjoy a lot of artists all over again. But of course, a number of the studios cranked out their reissues with little regard to trivial things like setting the levels, stripping off the LP-specific EQ, seeking out the original master tapes when available, etc. etc. so I'm sure a fair number of them were sub-optimal. I remember in particular the first 2 Deep Purple albums on CD which were clearly transferred from worn LPs that sounded worse than my own! So when catalogs got bought up, transferred or reverted, many discs started getting reissued again in the 90s as "remasters". I naively hoped that anyone involved in a remaster would seek out the best source, transfer it carefully, and restore the ultimate sound as closely as possible to what got recorded in the first place. It appears that some albums got this treatment (I'm still trying to compile a list of them!); however, the insidious forces that think all music is intended for tiny FM table radios or boomboxes have managed to get the ear (or more likely, arm) of the mastering people. A shocking number of remasters are actually run through volume compressors to make them nice and LOUD - to compete with the average over-compressed pop recordings you hear today, apparently. Of course, this destroys the dynamic range and often results in audible clipping of the waveform. I've participated on a couple of audio forums where specific examples have been singled out, and they're pretty depressing. I did some tests on a few CDs where I have both the original and the remasters, with results that ranged from acceptable to enraging. I can comment on what I've found for the small number of samples I've explored directly, but I'm also interested in others' responses. And in recommending that you all be very, very careful when thinking about buying a remaster of an existing CD. Often the original 80s disc is simply better than the remaster, all things considered. It's a crap shoot, and you're likely to get a downgrade. The Deep Purple CDs I mentioned earlier did in fact get a proper transfer from master tape later on, but I haven't checked the mastering yet - they're on my list. Anyone else have observations and/or recommendations? Anything that jumps out at you or that you're unhappy with? I'll share my ongoing investigations if there's interest. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 21:07:47 -0500 (EST) From: Birdie Subject: Re: The loudness war Hi Greg I am not at my desktop but I think I have some old posts saved there re: loudness wars with redirects to urls that have good insight. I need to transfer 70 songs off 24 trk analog, and remix/remaster them into digital file formats. The type of converter used is key. I also need to transfer a ton of ADAT tapes, and I work with audiophiles, so my research is geared towards the highest quality and it gets very interesting as most people will settle for 44.1 k....and if you go to 48k and then bump it down later to 44.1 (the standard for CD's/LP's etc) you get artifacts and such. I am going to have to go to at least 88k on some of it and higher. The early 80's CD's were very tinny....drums sounded totally compressed and thin. They were not adept at mastering to digital. Some do sound better as they were analog to digital. The digital to digital usually sucked the most. Look for the ADD or AAD or DDD on the inserts - that is the indicator. Dolby stereo was bad at the start, too - sounded like stereo out of a transitor radio. A far far cry from the warm rich full tube amp and mag sounds of yester year. Besides transfer and sample rates and equipment/software - there is the issue of the person who does the mastering and like anything - some people just run the equipment and others are artists who really know how to work it...the guy who pushes buttons vs a conductor. so, there are all those factors, and different periods of time brought better equipment - more experienced engineers and so on..anything that started off as an analog master generally sounds best. There should be a CD audiophile bible!!! - -----Original Message----- >From: Greg Dunn >Sent: Jan 9, 2009 12:30 PM >To: Ecto >Subject: The loudness war > >I can't remember if this has been discussed much here... I know the list is focused on current releases more than re-releases (a good thing IMHO) but some of us surely have a library of older artists and want the best sound we can get from their catalogue. While I'm not a crazed audiophile, I do like to have as little as possible distracting me from the music - which is the real goal. > >Back in the 80s a friend and I marveled at how many LP releases from obscure artists actually got transferred to CD in the rush to fill the shelves with those little silver discs. It was great for us, having worn LP copies and no easy way to replace them; the noise-free ultra-convenient CDs helped me enjoy a lot of artists all over again. But of course, a number of the studios cranked out their reissues with little regard to trivial things like setting the levels, stripping off the LP-specific EQ, seeking out the original master tapes when available, etc. etc. so I'm sure a fair number of them were sub-optimal. I remember in particular the first 2 Deep Purple albums on CD which were clearly transferred from worn LPs that sounded worse than my own! > >So when catalogs got bought up, transferred or reverted, many discs started getting reissued again in the 90s as "remasters". I naively hoped that anyone involved in a remaster would seek out the best source, transfer it carefully, and restore the ultimate sound as closely as possible to what got recorded in the first place. It appears that some albums got this treatment (I'm still trying to compile a list of them!); however, the insidious forces that think all music is intended for tiny FM table radios or boomboxes have managed to get the ear (or more likely, arm) of the mastering people. A shocking number of remasters are actually run through volume compressors to make them nice and LOUD - to compete with the average over-compressed pop recordings you hear today, apparently. Of course, this destroys the dynamic range and often results in audible clipping of the waveform. > >I've participated on a couple of audio forums where specific examples have been singled out, and they're pretty depressing. I did some tests on a few CDs where I have both the original and the remasters, with results that ranged from acceptable to enraging. I can comment on what I've found for the small number of samples I've explored directly, but I'm also interested in others' responses. And in recommending that you all be very, very careful when thinking about buying a remaster of an existing CD. Often the original 80s disc is simply better than the remaster, all things considered. It's a crap shoot, and you're likely to get a downgrade. The Deep Purple CDs I mentioned earlier did in fact get a proper transfer from master tape later on, but I haven't checked the mastering yet - they're on my list. > >Anyone else have observations and/or recommendations? Anything that jumps out at you or that you're unhappy with? I'll share my ongoing investigations if there's interest. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 21:07:47 -0500 (EST) From: Birdie Subject: Re: The loudness war Hi Greg I am not at my desktop but I think I have some old posts saved there re: loudness wars with redirects to urls that have good insight. I need to transfer 70 songs off 24 trk analog, and remix/remaster them into digital file formats. The type of converter used is key. I also need to transfer a ton of ADAT tapes, and I work with audiophiles, so my research is geared towards the highest quality and it gets very interesting as most people will settle for 44.1 k....and if you go to 48k and then bump it down later to 44.1 (the standard for CD's/LP's etc) you get artifacts and such. I am going to have to go to at least 88k on some of it and higher. The early 80's CD's were very tinny....drums sounded totally compressed and thin. They were not adept at mastering to digital. Some do sound better as they were analog to digital. The digital to digital usually sucked the most. Look for the ADD or AAD or DDD on the inserts - that is the indicator. Dolby stereo was bad at the start, too - sounded like stereo out of a transitor radio. A far far cry from the warm rich full tube amp and mag sounds of yester year. Besides transfer and sample rates and equipment/software - there is the issue of the person who does the mastering and like anything - some people just run the equipment and others are artists who really know how to work it...the guy who pushes buttons vs a conductor. so, there are all those factors, and different periods of time brought better equipment - more experienced engineers and so on..anything that started off as an analog master generally sounds best. There should be a CD audiopile bible!!! - -----Original Message----- >From: Greg Dunn >Sent: Jan 9, 2009 12:30 PM >To: Ecto >Subject: The loudness war > >I can't remember if this has been discussed much here... I know the list is focused on current releases more than re-releases (a good thing IMHO) but some of us surely have a library of older artists and want the best sound we can get from their catalogue. While I'm not a crazed audiophile, I do like to have as little as possible distracting me from the music - which is the real goal. > >Back in the 80s a friend and I marveled at how many LP releases from obscure artists actually got transferred to CD in the rush to fill the shelves with those little silver discs. It was great for us, having worn LP copies and no easy way to replace them; the noise-free ultra-convenient CDs helped me enjoy a lot of artists all over again. But of course, a number of the studios cranked out their reissues with little regard to trivial things like setting the levels, stripping off the LP-specific EQ, seeking out the original master tapes when available, etc. etc. so I'm sure a fair number of them were sub-optimal. I remember in particular the first 2 Deep Purple albums on CD which were clearly transferred from worn LPs that sounded worse than my own! > >So when catalogs got bought up, transferred or reverted, many discs started getting reissued again in the 90s as "remasters". I naively hoped that anyone involved in a remaster would seek out the best source, transfer it carefully, and restore the ultimate sound as closely as possible to what got recorded in the first place. It appears that some albums got this treatment (I'm still trying to compile a list of them!); however, the insidious forces that think all music is intended for tiny FM table radios or boomboxes have managed to get the ear (or more likely, arm) of the mastering people. A shocking number of remasters are actually run through volume compressors to make them nice and LOUD - to compete with the average over-compressed pop recordings you hear today, apparently. Of course, this destroys the dynamic range and often results in audible clipping of the waveform. > >I've participated on a couple of audio forums where specific examples have been singled out, and they're pretty depressing. I did some tests on a few CDs where I have both the original and the remasters, with results that ranged from acceptable to enraging. I can comment on what I've found for the small number of samples I've explored directly, but I'm also interested in others' responses. And in recommending that you all be very, very careful when thinking about buying a remaster of an existing CD. Often the original 80s disc is simply better than the remaster, all things considered. It's a crap shoot, and you're likely to get a downgrade. The Deep Purple CDs I mentioned earlier did in fact get a proper transfer from master tape later on, but I haven't checked the mastering yet - they're on my list. > >Anyone else have observations and/or recommendations? Anything that jumps out at you or that you're unhappy with? I'll share my ongoing investigations if there's interest. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:18:30 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Jones-Yelvington Subject: Re: The loudness war I've never been fully happy with the sound on Kate's discs (everything before Aerial). Do others have this problem? - ----- Original Message ---- From: Greg Dunn To: Ecto Sent: Friday, January 9, 2009 11:30:29 AM Subject: The loudness war I can't remember if this has been discussed much here... I know the list is focused on current releases more than re-releases (a good thing IMHO) but some of us surely have a library of older artists and want the best sound we can get from their catalogue. While I'm not a crazed audiophile, I do like to have as little as possible distracting me from the music - which is the real goal. Back in the 80s a friend and I marveled at how many LP releases from obscure artists actually got transferred to CD in the rush to fill the shelves with those little silver discs. It was great for us, having worn LP copies and no easy way to replace them; the noise-free ultra-convenient CDs helped me enjoy a lot of artists all over again. But of course, a number of the studios cranked out their reissues with little regard to trivial things like setting the levels, stripping off the LP-specific EQ, seeking out the original master tapes when available, etc. etc. so I'm sure a fair number of them were sub-optimal. I remember in particular the first 2 Deep Purple albums on CD which were clearly transferred from worn LPs that sounded worse than my own! So when catalogs got bought up, transferred or reverted, many discs started getting reissued again in the 90s as "remasters". I naively hoped that anyone involved in a remaster would seek out the best source, transfer it carefully, and restore the ultimate sound as closely as possible to what got recorded in the first place. It appears that some albums got this treatment (I'm still trying to compile a list of them!); however, the insidious forces that think all music is intended for tiny FM table radios or boomboxes have managed to get the ear (or more likely, arm) of the mastering people. A shocking number of remasters are actually run through volume compressors to make them nice and LOUD - to compete with the average over-compressed pop recordings you hear today, apparently. Of course, this destroys the dynamic range and often results in audible clipping of the waveform. I've participated on a couple of audio forums where specific examples have been singled out, and they're pretty depressing. I did some tests on a few CDs where I have both the original and the remasters, with results that ranged from acceptable to enraging. I can comment on what I've found for the small number of samples I've explored directly, but I'm also interested in others' responses. And in recommending that you all be very, very careful when thinking about buying a remaster of an existing CD. Often the original 80s disc is simply better than the remaster, all things considered. It's a crap shoot, and you're likely to get a downgrade. The Deep Purple CDs I mentioned earlier did in fact get a proper transfer from master tape later on, but I haven't checked the mastering yet - they're on my list. Anyone else have observations and/or recommendations? Anything that jumps out at you or that you're unhappy with? I'll share my ongoing investigations if there's interest. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 21:56:20 -0500 From: "Karen Hester" Subject: The Moon Whispers (gothic) If you like "psychnoir/ alt-goth/ dark ambient/ emotronic" (as they label themselves), you might like The Moon Whispers, Wellington NZ band fronted by Italian Elisa Di Napoli. http://www.themoonwhispers.com/TheMoonWhispers/Main.html (more recent songs and videos on Facebook I think - http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Moon-Whispers/7940903041) K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 23:09:38 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Greg Dunn Subject: Re: The loudness war Does anyone else have the import EMI pressings of her original CD releases? I think mine sound OK, but I don't think I have any of the domestic pressings and I know many of the EMI releases differ from the US in terms of the source used, etc. My Genesis imports from that era were certainly better than the domestic LPs... Might be interesting to see if there's a correlation with KaTe's CDs. - -----Original Message----- >From: Tim Jones-Yelvington >Sent: Jan 9, 2009 9:18 PM >To: Greg Dunn , Ecto >Subject: Re: The loudness war > >I've never been fully happy with the sound on Kate's discs (everything before Aerial). Do others have this problem? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:27:09 -0800 From: birdie Subject: Jesca Hoop pictures up from Hotel Cafe last night www.myspace.com/birdiepix look for Hotel Cafe folder in pics. I saw her over a month ago at the Hotel Cafe and she & band were fantastic then, but were even better this time...they had an additional backing vocalist. They were stunning. gorgeous. lovely. inspiring. uplifting. and.... really a treat. songs sounded just as fab as they do recorded, but better as they were live. run don't walk to see her if she plays anywhere near you. www.myspace.com/jescahoop oh, and Hotel Cafe was packed!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:36:27 -0800 From: birdie Subject: Re: The loudness war I have the Japanese boxed set the european ones were most likely made off an element closer to the master than the US domestic. There was also a remastered release of The Hounds of Love. That would be good to compare, too. On Jan 9, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Greg Dunn wrote: > Does anyone else have the import EMI pressings of her original CD > releases? I think mine sound OK, but I don't think I have any of > the domestic pressings and I know many of the EMI releases differ > from the US in terms of the source used, etc. My Genesis imports > from that era were certainly better than the domestic LPs... Might > be interesting to see if there's a correlation with KaTe's CDs. > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Jones-Yelvington >> Sent: Jan 9, 2009 9:18 PM >> To: Greg Dunn , Ecto >> Subject: Re: The loudness war >> >> I've never been fully happy with the sound on Kate's discs >> (everything before Aerial). Do others have this problem? ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V14 #8 *************************