[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rereleases



> No, Daltrey does deliver the "bum note & a bead of sweat" line in
interviews,
> however, it's always in the context of giving an energetic live
performance

Scott:

Yet every one of their live albums, including BTTB, include overdubs and
edits. Over, I assume, bum notes.

> Odd that there hasn't been dozens of contemptous reviews by critics around
the
> world bemoaning this horribly remastered sound that's so clearly evident
to you.

I was in on this "debate" very early, when it got ugly, that being when the
remixed Quad was released. I have both, and there IS a noticable difference.
The US Quad is slightly clearer and a bit less smooth and the Polydor
version has a bit more depth but not quite as clear highs. I'm listening on
Klipsh speakers (flat EQ, no tone controls), which certainly reveal all
there is to be revealed. Both sound great, however. It's just a matter of
some of this or a bit of that.
But the sonic difference in the remixes is one you have to seach for. The
remixes ALL sound better than the original releases, every single one. Could
they sound better? Perhaps, but as I often find when I'm writing a story it
comes down to saying it like THIS or like THAT, neither of which is better
but merely different ways of expressing something. On a good stereo, they
all sound great. On a poor stereo, they might not sound as good and certain
"qualities" might be more apparent. During these early days of the releases
White Fang often complained but he also mentioned how they sounded on his
car stereo...and a more hostile environment for listening would be hard to
find. He might be listening elsewhere now, I don't know. I also don't know
what Jon R. is listening to them on, or Rich either...but on my stereo, they
sound great. The Quick One CD I made from the Phases boxed set version DOES
sound better than the rerelease, but mainly because it's in stereo.
I have not gotten any of the newer rereleases (the solo albums and
soundtracks), as I figure they'll show up in my store sooner or later and
the original releases sound fine.

> It's great publicity for the album.  You don't have to go.

Keets:

Believe me, I will not go. And I don't care about the publicity, I care
about the watering down of Rock music to Sinatra music. I like Sinatra for
Sinatra and The Who for The Who, but I never wanted to hear Frank sing I Can
See For Miles nor a Broadway chorus sing "Her fella's gonna kill me/Oh
fuckin' will he?"

> Eel Pie and Trinifold are two "seperate" "legal"
> entities. There are specific and rather complicated
> reasons why Who material is not released under the Eel
> Pie umbrella.

Dave:

True, but Trinifold is a management company and Eel Pie is clearly not only
that. The legalities are not so complicated that they cannot be worked out
by parties interested in working them out. Or any less complicated than
writing an entirely new contract for a new label. That's what lawyers are
for (there had to be something, right?). I notice they managed to get
together for a tour last year, and have been able to also find a way to
release a DVD of one of the shows. And even though the MP3's were a give
away, rights were still involved and they had to be worked out prior to the
posting of the files.
I do wonder what happened to Track, though. To release on Track seems the
obvious solution.

> The chances of material by the The Who recorded either
> live or studio during the 60's and 70's with Keith or
> post work either live or studio are very, very slim.

Perhaps, but Tommy from Leeds is certainly being released. And that could
well signal the beginning of a new run of releases...before it's too late to
make a decent amount of money. Talmy seems tamed at this point; he might be
more apt to consider some money rather than none now. All it would take is
determination. I don't dream, I believe in never giving in to obstacles.
Onward and upward. It's only impossible if you believe it to be so.

> With...

That's something, anyway.

> I don't think 'the critics' give a shit, or can even hear very well,
judging
> by the kind of crap they like.

Jon:

Perhaps, but they certainly noticed the bad mastering on the rerelease of
Aqualung, forcing a new issue of the CD a mere two years later.

> difference in the pitch of the cds Jon Astley worked on.  Are they
generally
> sped up or something?

Keets:

He sped up the live bonus tracks on It's Hard, if nothing else.

> Ever heard of a used CD store?

*I* have...I'm sitting in one right now.

> Out of print stuff can be found if its
> really that important to you.

Yes, support your local used CD stores!

> It wasn't until the MSG shows in October that someone
> mentioned to Bill that MP3's from some of the shows

Dave:

Pete told NO ONE he was going to do it? Hard to believe...perhaps Bill was
preoccupied by the tour and wasn't in the loop at that time.

> No, that's what the ostrich movement was about; burying your head in the
> sand and pretending that everything is perfect.

Jon:

There is that, but there is also looking at something so hard you find
something wrong. I can't think of anything, even by Journey, that would
stand up to the scrutiny the remixes have been subjected to.

> I never look for perfection from The Who.  I do like to see the whole band
> believe in what they are doing though.

Kevin:

To perform a song like Water, they'd have to.

> Oooooooo, that's a low blow.

I calls them as I sees them.


"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."
     George "Internationic" Bush

               Cheers                 ML