From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V5 #182 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Thursday, July 28 2005 Volume 05 : Number 182 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] since nothing else is going on here... [Michael Bowen ] [loud-fans] Yes Master ["Bradley Skaught" ] Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master [Jeff ] [loud-fans] enz split off (addendum to reply to Bradley) [Jeff ] Re: [loud-fans] enz split off (addendum to reply to Bradley) ["Bradley Sk] Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master ["Bradley Skaught" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:20:53 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: Re: [loud-fans] since nothing else is going on here... "Leonard Bernstein!" from REM's ITEOTWAWKI. Can't think of any single words right now. MB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:24:31 -0700 From: "rslloyd" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] since nothing else is going on here... Ha! I've always loved the way Patti Smith yells out "Lenny!" before Lenny Kaye takes a verse on "Rock N Roll Nigger." Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-loud-fans@smoe.org [mailto:owner-loud-fans@smoe.org] On Behalf > Of Michael Bowen > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:21 AM > To: loud-fans@smoe.org > Subject: Re: [loud-fans] since nothing else is going on here... > > "Leonard Bernstein!" from REM's ITEOTWAWKI. > > Can't think of any single words right now. > > MB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:42:44 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: [loud-fans] since nothing else is going on here... On 7/27/05, rslloyd wrote: > Ha! I've always loved the way Patti Smith yells out "Lenny!" before Lenny > Kaye takes a verse on "Rock N Roll Nigger." Somebody has to cover that song, and before that verse yell out "Squiggy!" - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:39:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Toren Subject: [loud-fans] sorry about earlier "msg" greasy fingers :-( http://www.angrylambie.com ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:37:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Toren Subject: [loud-fans] Re: loud-fans-digest V5 #181 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:47:46 -0400 > From: Grahame Davies > Subject: Re: [loud-fans] since nothing else is going > on here... > > how about > > > "Oh pal Joey, we're losers we know..." > > > - -- Grahame > > > > On 7/26/05, Chris Prew wrote: > > "Tin roof....rusted!" > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2005, at 7:52 PM, Jeff wrote: > > > > > I'd like to assemble a list of a cappella > interjections, preferably > > > single words. Example: "magnifico-o-o-o!" from > "Bohemian Rhapsody." > > > Words from entirely a cappella songs don't quite > work - it's the > > > contrast between the fully instrumental sections > and the solo vocal > > > bit I'm looking for. > > > > > > (In the non-single-word category, there is of > course "But I wouldn't > > > bet much" from > He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named-On-This-List...) > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ...Jeff > > > > > > The Architectural Dance Society > > > http://spanghew.blogspot.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:38:28 -0700 (PDT) > From: Gil Ray > Subject: [loud-fans] What the ?!?! > > Stacey brought home a Yellow Pills comp. cd (vol 4), > === message truncated === http://www.angrylambie.com Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:31:13 -0700 From: Dennis Subject: Re: [loud-fans] sorry about earlier "msg" http://www.angrylambie.com/images/snapshots/me%20priest.jpg Is it just me or does this look like Neil Diamond? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:19:53 -0700 From: "Bradley Skaught" Subject: [loud-fans] Yes Master I'm kind of obsessed with mastering--I get really excited about remastered albums and I can't wait to hear the differences--it's a supreme nerd fascination. Having done lots of work with low end recording devices over the years, i'm fascinated by how good a recording can sound on a mediocre piece of equipment, and so i've become increasingly interested in how badly recorded (or obviosuly low budget) albums sound when remastered. I recently bought a remaster of Split Enz's True Colours*, and it's really incredible how much depth and color has been missing on previous issues of that album. The Split Enz catalog is, in my opinion, a rinky dink sounding catalog--thin, gimmicky and usually subject to the whims of whatever studio zeitgeist held sway at the time. It always seems like the vocals are too quiet, the drums too dull, the guitars are box-y, etc. They were done cheaply and without access to the kinds of resources that, say, XTC had at the same time to make great sounding records. But with a good remaster, a lot of the little details that those of us who fall in love with recording (again, often on cheap gear) are brought to life--the texture of the snare drum, the fullness of some amazing Tim Finn vocals and the effective relationships of reverbs and echos and things that were completely buried before. It really changes the album in a good way--substantiates it somehow. I feel I could play it for a music-head friend of mine and it would earn some attention and rise above what might have previously been an off-putting sonic character. To me, there's an element of wanting to hear what a band _really_ sounded like. It's fun to hear board tapes of a band like the Real Nightime-era Game Theory, for instance, where the sound of the album is such a studio product that for me it's hard to imagine what standing in front of that band would have been like sonically--all those instruments working together in the same room.I think I have a better idea of what standing in front of Split Enz would have been like. I do hope the Game Theory catalog can get an update someday--listening the latest Split Enz, Go-Betweens, Dumptruck CDs is a bit of a minor revelation. I know i've had much better luck turning folks onto these albums because of the improved sound. So, is it because the albums have been brought closer to a current popular sensibility or is there really a sonic improvement--something scientifically superior? B *In an act of supreme nerdiness, I ordered the CD through the Friendz of the Enz fanclub in order to get a version signed by most of the band members. I can't explain what overcame me, but it was a moment of real fanboy weakness. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:41:52 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master At Wednesday 7/27/2005 08:19 PM, Bradley Skaught wrote: >I recently bought a remaster of Split Enz's True Colours*, and it's really >incredible how much depth and color has been missing on previous issues of >that album. >The Split Enz catalog is, in my opinion, a rinky dink sounding catalog--thin, >gimmicky and usually subject to the whims of whatever studio zeitgeist held >sway at the time. Hmmmm. Not sure I agree about the sound of the Enz catalog. I was never much of a TRUE COLOURS fan (though I do own it). The Enz album I really got into was CONFLICTING EMOTIONS. I had the LP and loved the sound/production on it. And then it was one of the first CDs I bought, and I thought at the time it only sounded better. Now I'm going to have to go back and listen to it with a more discerning ear. Maybe it was the gimmicks that you speak of that made it sound big to me. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:32:09 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master On 7/27/05, Bradley Skaught wrote: > I'm kind of obsessed with mastering--I get really excited about remastered > albums and I can't wait to hear the differences--it's a supreme nerd > fascination.... > I recently bought a remaster of Split Enz's True Colours*, and it's really > incredible how much depth and color has been missing on previous issues of > that album. > The Split Enz catalog is, in my opinion, a rinky dink sounding catalog...But with a good remaster, a lot of the little details that > those of us who fall in love with recording (again, often on cheap gear) are > brought to life--the texture of the snare drum, the fullness of some amazing > Tim Finn vocals and the effective relationships of reverbs and echos and > things that were completely buried before.... > To me, there's an element of wanting to hear what a band _really_ sounded > like. First, yeah, the *sound* of Split Enz albums has always been a little off-putting to me, in the ways you describe. But I lose you when you move from things like "the effective relationships of reverbs and echoes" to "what a band _really_ sounded like" - since echo, reverb, etc., are (while based on naturally occurring acoustic phenomena) clearly studio-bound effects, particularly when they're calibrated so as to produce the sorts of carefully timed and spaced relationships I think you're talking about. That is, why assume that what a band sounds like live is what it "really" sounds like? Maybe the way it sounds in recordings is the way it "really" sounds - and the live sound is an approximation. Okay: with some bands, the balance is clearly going to be tipped toward the live band being the "real" thing (jam bands, say), while an Aphex Twin record (does he even play live?) is clearly going to be the real thing while any live performance is either an approximation or (better approach) a whole 'nother animal. But with most bands, the truth is somewhere in between. My bias is toward the record. I think it's because while for some people the performance is the structure around which a recording is built, for me it's the sound of the recording and the structure of the music itself that roots a song for me. This probably comes from normally experiencing music first in recorded form, as opposed to hearing it, or playing it, live. And I wonder, then, how much of your perspective comes from your being a performing musician. Not that either perspective is "right" or "wrong" - but they lead to different conclusions in listening to music. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:38:21 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: [loud-fans] enz split off (addendum to reply to Bradley) On the subject of recorded sound, some of us were talking the other day about the old "why is it for many people yr typical '80s sound is so offputting and felt to be artificial, while equally artificial and dated sounds - like psychedelia, say - are regarded by many as charming or intriguing?" Obviously a lot of assumptions there - but I think one reason is that for me, what characterizes that '80s sound is a whole lot of chiming high-end, a sort of boomy midrange, and not a whole lot of bass (I'm talking about rock records). And I think all that high-end, esp. not balanced by bass, can actually be physically tiring after a while, with your ears being buffeted by the same frequencies over and over again. I think what gets referred to as "warmer" sound is a more even distribution of frequencies - with a fuller, rounded bass, a clear and spacious midrange, and crisp, clear, but not piercing high end - and while some of the gnarlier psych records went in for that piercing high end (phased and wah-wah'd solos, say) most were closer to that "warmer" sound. Similarly, that kind of clear, dry, punchy sound I associate with '70s electric guitar tones...nicely distributed across the frequency ranges. I may, of course, be talking utterly out my ass. Impressions? - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:56:28 -0700 From: "Bradley Skaught" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master > The Enz album I really > got into was CONFLICTING EMOTIONS. I had > the LP and loved the > sound/production on it. Conflicting Emotions is later and their fortunes had changed a bit--"I Got You" from True Colours earned them bigger recording budgets. "Message To my Girl" from CE is such a fantastic song! My favorite album of theirs is Dizrythmia, which has a very dead, 70's sound and would probably sound fantastic with a good remaster. B ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:22:51 -0700 From: "Bradley Skaught" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] enz split off (addendum to reply to Bradley) I, too, am intrigued by "the 80's sound"--what is so off putting and difficult. I remember talking with Scott about how much better the early GT stuff sounded on vinyl because the synths and electronic drums interacted with that format better than on CD. And a lot of that is changing with remastering that is somehow better able to capture some of the grit and warmth of those sounds (is it higher bit rates? Different ideas about compression or different compression technology?) It seems the whole concept of what's important in EQ-ing an album has changed--and then, perhaps, Jeff is right about fatigue and balance. Hearing the Kirsty MacColl album with a more natural balance of EQ makes it sound real now, and not as glossy--tightly produced, but not _manipulated_ somehow. B ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:16:07 -0700 From: "Bradley Skaught" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Yes Master >But I lose you when you > move from things like "the effective relationships of >reverbs and > echoes" to "what a band _really_ sounded like" - >since echo, reverb, > etc., are (while based on naturally occurring acoustic >phenomena) > clearly studio-bound effects When I read that I see the contridiction, but I know it makes sense to me! Basically, i'm saying that the sounds of the individual instruments, now properly remastered, have the texture, presence and blend of actual instruments together in a room--they're much closer to what they actually sound like to the ear in person (this is not always true, but in the case of this album it is.) The echoes and reverb used to create some depth and a sense of placement are artificial, but they're not unlike what would happen in a room (as oppsed to records of similar vintage where the instrument sounds are not at all "natural".) It's more about the individual textures of the instruments and how they relate to eachother (not so much spacial relationships as "this texture and also that texture") that give me a better sense of they might have sounded like live. > That is, why assume that what a band sounds like > live is what it > "really" sounds like? Well, because those players and those instruments do really sound like something. It may not be what the record is, and the record may be better or more effective, but there is usually a point for a rock band when they all play in the same room and the same time. > And I wonder, then, how much of your > perspective comes from your being a performing > musician. 100% of it! It's certainly because I spend a lot of time working with a band in a room adjusting sounds and listening to interactions that I want to hear other bands that way. And for a band like Split Enz who I can't see live, and whose records are very obviously colored by the production/engineering techniques used to make them, i'm very curious about what it sounded like when they all set up in a room together. Another fascinating new remaster is Kirsty Maccoll's Kite. Obviously not a low budget record, but the new remaster, again, seems so much more "natural" to me--more realistic. More and more I think the mastering in the 80's/early 90's had a lot to do with the pesonality of those albums--underneath that vaguely invisible mist of "mastering" are sounds that seem so much more "timeless" and "real". The XTC remasters were like that, too. Everytime I write one of those adjectives little question marks appear in my head--it's a strangely difficult phenomenon to talk about when I have no technical knowledge to explain what i'm hearing! B ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V5 #182 *******************************