Re: No Subject

[Slipkid@gnn.com (Ian Derby)]

>Really??? Explain to me exactly what that difference is? You mean to tell
> me,
>if the NYC sessions were actually recorded in the same studio, the next day
>as the previously released material, but with the same results as they are
>now, it wouldn't have been as "big"??? The fact of the matter is, at the
> time
>it was released, nobody knew where those songs were from. If you look at
> the
>packaging, it doesn't tell you anything. My first guess was that they were
>live studio rehearsals. However, by looking at the packaging, I said to
>myself, oh, more demos! The truth of the matter is that they were
>**different**. Their origin is nice from an historical standpoint, but that
>'s
>it...
>

Oh really?  So you're saying that no one knew about the story behind 
Lifehouse and how Pete had abandoned his original project for what became 
Who's Next?  According to the back of the CD, it says "Studio Recordings 
1970".  That right there (though false) would raise interest since Who's 
Next was recorded in May 1971.  Even if you didn't know about the NYC 
sessions, you knew that there was more Lifehouse/WN material that what was 
released, and that they were working on this previous to May '71.  



>>>The mixes aren't what's important.  It's the fact that the original
> master 
>was touched and transformed with modern technology.  I could care less
> about
>remixing, because Im used to how it sounded when I was 10.  
>
>"Transformed"??? Into what? "Modern technology" as you say doesn't make it
>automatically better. Not all the "mixes" were "redone". For example,
>"Diguises" was the original stereo mixed used on "Back Track 3" (released
>5/70), while "I'm A Boy" was a new stereo mix. Perhaps your "When I Was A
>Boy--of 10" theory might be a bit different if you listened to the
> different
>mixes that were available at the time...
>


I would think that after owning the second generation MCA LP's and their 
CD's that the songs needed improvement.  You would think that if they went 
back to the original masters (not what you hear on many of the previous MCA 
material) that you would hear songs in close to their original state, 
hopefully a cleaner version which means better.  Even the new Quick One is 
cleaner which is a definate improvement, I just don't like the mixes.  I 
also realize that this isn't Astley's fault since he was working with what 
he had.  


>>> Personally I'm dissapointed with the new Quick One CD compared to the
> old
>LP version of Whiskey Man.  Maybe I do like the first version I heard the
>best because of it's familiarity.  I still hate A Quick One (the song)
>because it's not in stereo anymore.  
>
>Yeah, the CD stinks. However, don't tell me, tell Jon Astley! The only
> "good"
>that CD has, is that "Batman" is in stereo, there's a new "Happy Jack" and
>"The Man With Money" is on it. But, under your theory, that doesn't mean
>much, yes?


I didn't know I was discussing theories or hypotheses.  Personally I'm very 
pleased with the new material released and I never said I had a problem 
about releasing obscure material.  Obscure material is one thing, it's when 
you seek out the same exact album from some other part of the world that it 
gets a little redundant.  


"I'm pissed off, I'm pissed off all the time" ---Ray Rhodes