From: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org (navy-soup-digest) To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Subject: navy-soup-digest V6 #37 Reply-To: navy-soup@smoe.org Sender: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk navy-soup-digest Tuesday, March 4 2003 Volume 06 : Number 037 In This Digest: ----------------- Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison [Greg Teltschik ] FW: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! ["herb ladrillo" ] Juno webcast ["nicole gilbertson" ] Re: Juno webcast ["James McGarry" ] tic's gone. [bkbelsher@shaw.ca] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:22:44 -0600 From: Greg Teltschik Subject: Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison I've listened to this thing a couple of times already. I think I actually prefer the late version myself. Here's a few interesting observations, which may be affecting the opinions to some extent: 1. The late version is stripped down, with only Sarah (on piano) and a guitar. The early version is with a full band, giving it a much fuller sound. 2. The early version has a much higher RMS value (relative loudness). Given two nearly identical things, people tend to prefer the louder version. 3. The late version is an audience recording, while the early version sounds like a stereo soundboard. There are subtle sonic differences between the two that can color an opinion. Generally, vocals are "fuller" with more detail direct from the soundboard. However, the ambience of the venue and any crowd interaction tends to be lost. I can't be sure that the early is a soundboard since the clip is so short, but it sounds like one. Just some things to think about as you listen to the comparison. Is it really the difference in the lyrics or the recordings that you are comparing? Greg At 10:25 AM 3/1/2003 +0000, Somno Rific wrote: >This will be my first ever criticism of the wonderful Sarah Slean. :-) > >Here's an mp3.. > >http://www.sweetsaliva.net/california-comparison.mp3 > >Two clips of the song California, just a verse and chorus.. two different >recordings.. the first one from LATE 2002 and the second one from EARLY 2002. > >I sooooo soooo much prefer the way she sang California in EARLY 2002.. In >later versions, she only sings one note for ..all in his *EYES*.. and she >changes the note for "HE" and "I", all in the chorus... Might one convince >her to go back to the old version? What do you guys think? ;-) > >_________________________________________________________________ >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Greg Teltschik gteltschik@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:34:50 -0600 From: Greg Teltschik Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! My two cents on the new site: I'm indifferent as to whether it's flash or not. I prefer straight web pages, but they don't allow the full functionality that you get with flash. Regarding some of the objections that have been raised: The web is not the same as it was back in 1993. In 93, the web was primarily text. Now a large part of it is graphics. if you're using a text-only browser, you have to expect not to be able to see everything. It comes with the territory. Just because people still have black and white tv's doesn't mean I shouldn't broadcast in color. And of course, the people using a radio to listen to the tv audio can't see the picture, but that doesn't mean I need to provide a narrative overdub for them. The site is, as many have said, new. I'm sure some of the old content will come back, some of it will never return, and there will be new content that never existed before. I usually look to the fan sites for the most comprehensive information anyway. Labels tend to focus on the here and now as opposed to the past. With each new album, they create a new graphic identity and just trash the old. Fan sites tend to expand on the old to encompass the new. My biggest beef with flash sites is that it typically makes getting to a particular piece of content that much more difficult. Rather than being able to come in the side door directly where I want to be, I always have to come in the front and make my way down the hall. But then, no one really listens to me on this stuff anyway. Greg Teltschik gteltschik@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 02:34:13 -0500 From: "Ian" Subject: Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison Neither of the recordings in that MP3 are soundboard recordings. :) But it DOES sound like one, doesn't it? hehe.. I was there for that early recording (the one that appears last in the mp3) .. feb 13, private media concert.. wonderfulllll song... I've heard California live in person twice more since then, and I inwardly frown everytime she sings the chorus the 'new' way.. LoL.. What exactly makes you prefer the version you hear first in the MP3? - - Ian - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Teltschik" To: Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:22 AM Subject: Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison > I've listened to this thing a couple of times already. I think I actually > prefer the late version myself. Here's a few interesting observations, > which may be affecting the opinions to some extent: > > 1. The late version is stripped down, with only Sarah (on piano) and a > guitar. The early version is with a full band, giving it a much fuller sound. > > 2. The early version has a much higher RMS value (relative > loudness). Given two nearly identical things, people tend to prefer the > louder version. > > 3. The late version is an audience recording, while the early version > sounds like a stereo soundboard. There are subtle sonic differences > between the two that can color an opinion. Generally, vocals are "fuller" > with more detail direct from the soundboard. However, the ambience of the > venue and any crowd interaction tends to be lost. I can't be sure that the > early is a soundboard since the clip is so short, but it sounds like one. > > Just some things to think about as you listen to the comparison. Is it > really the difference in the lyrics or the recordings that you are comparing? > > Greg > > At 10:25 AM 3/1/2003 +0000, Somno Rific wrote: > >This will be my first ever criticism of the wonderful Sarah Slean. :-) > > > >Here's an mp3.. > > > >http://www.sweetsaliva.net/california-comparison.mp3 > > > >Two clips of the song California, just a verse and chorus.. two different > >recordings.. the first one from LATE 2002 and the second one from EARLY 2002. > > > >I sooooo soooo much prefer the way she sang California in EARLY 2002.. In > >later versions, she only sings one note for ..all in his *EYES*.. and she > >changes the note for "HE" and "I", all in the chorus... Might one convince > >her to go back to the old version? What do you guys think? ;-) > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > Greg Teltschik > gteltschik@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 02:39:36 -0500 From: "herb ladrillo" Subject: FW: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! Well said Greg. Couldn't have said it better. :) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org [mailto:owner-navy-soup@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Greg Teltschik Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:35 AM To: Navy Soup Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! My two cents on the new site: I'm indifferent as to whether it's flash or not. I prefer straight web pages, but they don't allow the full functionality that you get with flash. Regarding some of the objections that have been raised: The web is not the same as it was back in 1993. In 93, the web was primarily text. Now a large part of it is graphics. if you're using a text-only browser, you have to expect not to be able to see everything. It comes with the territory. Just because people still have black and white tv's doesn't mean I shouldn't broadcast in color. And of course, the people using a radio to listen to the tv audio can't see the picture, but that doesn't mean I need to provide a narrative overdub for them. The site is, as many have said, new. I'm sure some of the old content will come back, some of it will never return, and there will be new content that never existed before. I usually look to the fan sites for the most comprehensive information anyway. Labels tend to focus on the here and now as opposed to the past. With each new album, they create a new graphic identity and just trash the old. Fan sites tend to expand on the old to encompass the new. My biggest beef with flash sites is that it typically makes getting to a particular piece of content that much more difficult. Rather than being able to come in the side door directly where I want to be, I always have to come in the front and make my way down the hall. But then, no one really listens to me on this stuff anyway. Greg Teltschik gteltschik@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:54:35 -0600 From: Greg Teltschik Subject: Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison At 02:34 AM 3/3/2003 -0500, Ian wrote: >Neither of the recordings in that MP3 are soundboard recordings. :) But it >DOES sound like one, doesn't it? hehe.. Yes. I'm aware of a few ways to get a recording that sounds like a soundboard, but you either need a very cooperative audience and a relatively dead room or you put your mics right up in the monitors. The second can make for some very interesting hollow audience effects, though. >What exactly makes you prefer the version you hear first in the MP3? Probably because it sounds more like the version I heard in concert perhaps (even sounds amazingly like my recording). But also, I don't really go into lots of vocal flourishes, which the early version seems to have a little more of. And honestly, negating all the other factors I mentioned, they don't sound all that different. Yes, I can hear the difference in the lyrics, but lyrics are never the thing I really listen for. To me, they tend to be secondary to the overall feel of the music and the pure sound of the vocals. The content always comes second with me, which is not necessarily what artists want to hear. Greg >- Ian > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Greg Teltschik" >To: >Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:22 AM >Subject: Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison > > > > I've listened to this thing a couple of times already. I think I actually > > prefer the late version myself. Here's a few interesting observations, > > which may be affecting the opinions to some extent: > > > > 1. The late version is stripped down, with only Sarah (on piano) and a > > guitar. The early version is with a full band, giving it a much fuller >sound. > > > > 2. The early version has a much higher RMS value (relative > > loudness). Given two nearly identical things, people tend to prefer the > > louder version. > > > > 3. The late version is an audience recording, while the early version > > sounds like a stereo soundboard. There are subtle sonic differences > > between the two that can color an opinion. Generally, vocals are "fuller" > > with more detail direct from the soundboard. However, the ambience of the > > venue and any crowd interaction tends to be lost. I can't be sure that >the > > early is a soundboard since the clip is so short, but it sounds like one. > > > > Just some things to think about as you listen to the comparison. Is it > > really the difference in the lyrics or the recordings that you are >comparing? > > > > Greg > > > > At 10:25 AM 3/1/2003 +0000, Somno Rific wrote: > > >This will be my first ever criticism of the wonderful Sarah Slean. :-) > > > > > >Here's an mp3.. > > > > > >http://www.sweetsaliva.net/california-comparison.mp3 > > > > > >Two clips of the song California, just a verse and chorus.. two different > > >recordings.. the first one from LATE 2002 and the second one from EARLY >2002. > > > > > >I sooooo soooo much prefer the way she sang California in EARLY 2002.. In > > >later versions, she only sings one note for ..all in his *EYES*.. and she > > >changes the note for "HE" and "I", all in the chorus... Might one >convince > > >her to go back to the old version? What do you guys think? ;-) > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > > >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > Greg Teltschik > > gteltschik@mindspring.com Greg Teltschik gteltschik@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:46:17 -0500 From: "James McGarry" Subject: Re: New Sarah site and free tickets!!! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian C. Dunn" To: Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:33 PM > Not to mention his previous experience in the Jitters coming in handy > whenever 80's singalongs occur :-) I remember the Jitters, I think I have some of the vinyl somewhere :-) I went through a brief phase of listing to them and the Extras :-) James. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:06:41 -0500 From: "James McGarry" Subject: Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Teltschik" To: Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:22 AM > Just some things to think about as you listen to the comparison. Is it > really the difference in the lyrics or the recordings that you are comparing? Greg's keen analysis also provides some insight into why artists like Ms. Slean, don't like bootlegs as they have no control over the quality of the end recording. James. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:06:49 -0500 From: "Kelly Goodlad" Subject: Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison With me, it's mostly the rhythm...I like the older rhythm better. >From: Greg Teltschik >To: navy-soup@smoe.org >Subject: Re: OLD/NEW California MP3 Comparison >Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:22:44 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from mc3-f29.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.236.164]) by >mc3-s2.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sun, 2 Mar >2003 23:25:08 -0800 >Received: from smoe.org ([199.201.145.78]) by mc3-f29.law16.hotmail.com >with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:23:59 -0800 >Received: from smoe.org (ident-user@localhost [127.0.0.1])by smoe.org >(8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h237MqMr007372for >; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 02:22:52 -0500 (EST) >Received: (from majordom@localhost)by smoe.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id >h237Mqnp007370for navy-soup-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 02:22:52 -0500 (EST) >Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net >[207.69.200.25]) by smoe.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h237MoMr007363 >for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 02:22:50 -0500 (EST) >Received: from ip6-231.eyrkonaeac01.dialup.ca.telus.com ([209.29.85.231] >helo=sdf-1.mindspring.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim >3.33 #1) id 18pkHh-00022t-00 for navy-soup@smoe.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 >02:22:50 -0500 >X-Message-Info: dHZMQeBBv44lPE7o4B5bAg== >Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030303011342.021c3ed8@pop.mindspring.com> >X-Sender: gteltschik@pop.mindspring.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 >In-Reply-To: >Sender: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org >Precedence: bulk >Return-Path: owner-navy-soup@smoe.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2003 07:24:00.0632 (UTC) >FILETIME=[DC6BD780:01C2E155] > >I've listened to this thing a couple of times already. I think I actually >prefer the late version myself. Here's a few interesting observations, >which may be affecting the opinions to some extent: > >1. The late version is stripped down, with only Sarah (on piano) and a >guitar. The early version is with a full band, giving it a much fuller >sound. > >2. The early version has a much higher RMS value (relative loudness). >Given two nearly identical things, people tend to prefer the louder >version. > >3. The late version is an audience recording, while the early version >sounds like a stereo soundboard. There are subtle sonic differences >between the two that can color an opinion. Generally, vocals are "fuller" >with more detail direct from the soundboard. However, the ambience of the >venue and any crowd interaction tends to be lost. I can't be sure that the >early is a soundboard since the clip is so short, but it sounds like one. > >Just some things to think about as you listen to the comparison. Is it >really the difference in the lyrics or the recordings that you are >comparing? > >Greg > >At 10:25 AM 3/1/2003 +0000, Somno Rific wrote: >>This will be my first ever criticism of the wonderful Sarah Slean. :-) >> >>Here's an mp3.. >> >>http://www.sweetsaliva.net/california-comparison.mp3 >> >>Two clips of the song California, just a verse and chorus.. two different >>recordings.. the first one from LATE 2002 and the second one from EARLY >>2002. >> >>I sooooo soooo much prefer the way she sang California in EARLY 2002.. In >>later versions, she only sings one note for ..all in his *EYES*.. and she >>changes the note for "HE" and "I", all in the chorus... Might one convince >>her to go back to the old version? What do you guys think? ;-) >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* >>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >Greg Teltschik >gteltschik@mindspring.com _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:15:32 -0700 From: Blu and Katie Belsher Subject: free tickets!!! hey, i guess i won some tickets... but i cant go now, so whoever is able go, email me, and i will submit your name so that you are on the guest list (and you get to bring a friend). damn, i wish i could go. so... whoever emails me first i guess. anyways. enjoy life. blu > Hey everyone... > > I just checked Sarah's site and it has been redesigned and this is what the > opening page says: > > The first twenty-five visitors who send an e-mail to > heather@whatmanagement.ca win two tickets to see Sarah perform at an > exclusive Juno Concert Series webcast being produced by Sympatico.ca. The > show takes place on Tuesday March 25th, doors open at 7:30pm, at 888 Yonge > Street (Masonic Temple) in Toronto. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:06:28 -0800 From: "nicole gilbertson" Subject: Juno webcast hey, does anyone know how we can watch the Juno webcast? The site says it will be broadcasted from the Bullard Studio... but does that mean we can watch it??? Also, my friends keep telling me that they keep seeing Sarah Slean in some commercials for something called IdeaCity. Apparently she was a part of it last year and it was a bunch of famous Canadians and musicians talking about the issues in Canada. I emailed CityTV about it and they said this year's will be airing on March 27th at 8pm (in vancouver). Do you know if Sarah will be in it again this year? ~nik _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:28:55 -0500 From: "James McGarry" Subject: Re: Juno webcast - ----- Original Message ----- From: "nicole gilbertson" To: Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 3:06 PM > does anyone know how we can watch the Juno webcast? The site says it will > be broadcasted from the Bullard Studio... but does that mean we can watch > it??? Isn't that just the Sam Roberts thing? (http://junos.ctv.ca/) > Also, my friends keep telling me that they keep seeing Sarah Slean in some > commercials for something called IdeaCity. Apparently she was a part of it They do, she was: http://www.ideacityonline.com/2002gallery.asp > last year and it was a bunch of famous Canadians and musicians talking about Its Moses' idea... its not just famous folk, but people in the business of 'selling' ideas. More here under Who Should Attend http://www.ideacityonline.com/who.asp Hawksley and Slean both attended last year... my guess is they were some of the few interesting people dragging down the average $100,000/yr salary of participants. And I guess that Warner Canada was paying the freight on that one (registration is about $2K) (hey I might foot that bill to meet one of the astronauts there but most folks we'd want to meet (i.e. not the investment banker/investor types that dominate the attendees) are readily approachable elsewhere.) James. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:38:08 -0700 From: bkbelsher@shaw.ca Subject: tic's gone. someone emailed me 13 minutes after i posted. so... its gone now... i am happy that the tickets wont go to waste. enjoy life. blu ------------------------------ End of navy-soup-digest V6 #37 ******************************