Who Reissue Comments (LONG POST)

["David C. Olstein" <born2run@pipeline.com>]

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but my e-mail has been screwed up
and I haven't been able to read some of the recent digests.  
 
1.  Not including Happy Jack and Pictures of Lilly as bonus tracks on A
Quick One 
>>My feeling on this is that all the Non-LP A-sides will be 
>>saved for the 1-CD Best Of The WHO compilation. This makes sense if you
think 
>>about it: why repeat Non-LP A-side tracks, thus taking up extra space on
the 
>>album reissues, when all the A-sides can be compiled ONCE on a 1-CD Hits 
>>package? Also, this arrangement compels the buyers (i.e. US) to HAVE to
buy 
>>the Hits CD in order to get the remixed remastered A-sides. Make$ $en$e, 
>>Doe$n't it???? 
 
I think your second observation hits the mark exactly.  While I too would
rather not have A side tracks already available on the box set (and
presumably to be released yet again on a single disc "greatest hits"
package) taking up space that might otherwise be filled with unreleased
tracks, that clearly wasn't the case with A Quick One, which only ran 55
minutes.  There was plenty of room left and it would have been great to
have all the post-Talmy '66 recordings on one disc.   "Circles" most likely
was not included because it was a Shel Talmy production and, pending some
kind of negotiated settlement, Talmy isn't letting anyone near the master
tapes.     
 
2.  Re: A Quick One "remixed" and in "stereo" 
The sticker on the jewel box for A Quick One says "remixed and digitally
remastered" and the disc itself says "stereo," but I don't think either is
entirely accurate.  My ears (and my preamp, which has a mono switch) tell
me that only four tracks are in true stereo ("Run, Run, Run," "Batman"
(vocals in stereo), "I've Been Away," and "Man with Money").  There may be
some vocal separation in "In the City" as well, and "Whiskey Man" sounds
like electronically rechannelled (i.e., fake) stereo (yecchh!!!).  
Interestingly enough, "Disguises," which was in stereo in the box set, is
now in mono.  Haven't never heard the "stereo" LP or the old MCA CD, I have
no idea whether true stereo mixes were used, but I have heard a true stereo
version of "A Quick One" (as a bonus track on a Blue Kangaroo repressing of
"Lifehouse ot Leeds") and, oddly enough, "My Generation/Land of Hope and
Glory" (on Life with the Moons). 
 
As far as remixing goes, only "I've Been Away" clearly sounds like it's
been remixed.  The rest of the tracks sound pretty good (except for Whisky
Man, which is downright impossible to listen to through headphones), and
may have been re eq'd, but they don't sound remixed.  Here are a few
reasons why I don't think remixing was done: 
First, the liner notes state that "Run, Run, Run" is a stereo mix
originally found on The House that Trax Built, a statement that doesn't
make any sense if the entire album (including "Run, Run, Run") was newly
remixed.  Second, as I've stated before, Whiskey Man is in simulated
stereo, and only someone with a truly sick mind would remix a song so as to
approximate simluated stereo.  Finally, the bulk of the tracks are in mono,
and why remix to mono?  Sure, it's been done before (e.g., Bill Inglot's
remixing of tracks on Rhino's Sonny and Cher's greatest hits package), but
the High Numbers tracks were remixed to stereo, and I see no reason why
Astley wouldn't do the same if he had access to the A Quick One multitracks
(especially since a decent sounding mono CD of A Quick One has long been
available in Europe).  Certainly one would have expected them to remix to
stereo the studio portion of the "Quick One" studio/live hybrid on the box
set, since the live portion was in stereo.    
 
My conclusion: at most a few tracks have been remixed, but the vast
majority were simply remastered from the best available tapes because the
multitracks were either unavailable or unusable.  I can only assume that
the mono tape of Whiskey Man was damaged or lost, because I can't see any
other reason for choosing fake stereo over true mono.  If I am wrong and
Charlesworth, Astley, et al DID have access to all the multitracks, then I
can only say they have passed up a great opportunity by choosing not to
release (for perhaps the first time) a complete true stereo version of A
Quick One. 
 
3.  Mary Ann with the Shaky Hand -- Alternative Version = Single Version? 
The liner notes of the Sell Out reissue say that there versions of Mary
Anne were recorded -- two electric (one of which appeared as a b-side) and
one acoustic (the album version).  The bonus track is identified as the
b-side version, but it sounds different (to my ears at least) than the
version which appeared on Who's Missing (and the Rarities import, and
Horton Hears the Who), which I think was also identified as the single
version.  Which one is which? 
 
4.  Dave Marsh's liner notes on Sell Out. 
Brilliant.  Enough said. 
 
5.  Tommy not being part of the reissue program. 
<<* Since the Tommy album was remastered in 1993, it will not be included
in 
<<  the reissue series (Makes sense, eh?). 
Not exactly.  First, even though Tommy was remastered only two years ago,
the sound quality can still be noticeably improved by either (a) remixing
the album, or (b) using one of the new second-generation remastering
technologies (e.g. super bit-mapping) that wasn't around in 1993.  Second,
even though improved sound quality is perhaps the most important feature of
the new reissues, they also feature restored artwork and new photos and
liner notes, which are all missing on the current Tommy CD.  Third, it
strikes me a little odd that every Who album (or at least the Keith
Moon-era Who album) will get the royal treatment EXCEPT for Tommy which is
arguably their most famous work (though, IMHO, hardly their best).   
 
My suggestion to MCA: Release a remixed and remastered version of Tommy in
a slip case with jewel-box sized reproduction of the original booklet and
newly penned liner notes.  Release a limited edition version (10,000
copies) in an LP-sized box with a full-sized reproducton of the original
album booklet (including gatefold cover), a reproduction of a Tommy-era
concert poster, and a bonus CD of the Leeds Tommy performance.  Retail
price: $35.  [MCA, Can you hear me?] 
 
6.  Quadrophenia 
>>* The status of Quadrophenia and what to do with it is still in the air.
The  
 >> master tapes are apparently not in such good shape. 
Hmmm . . . The Mobile Fidelity Ultradisc of Quadrophenia came out only a
few years ago, so the master tapes must have been in pretty good shape
them.  And since the Mobile Fidelity release is out-of-print, I see no
reason why MCA couldn't use Mo-Fi's digital master if necessary.   
 
Of course, since I already HAVE the Mo-Fi version, I'd much rather have
them remix the album.  I'm sure Daltrey would agree, since he's never
passed up an opportunity to complain about the original mix of
Quadrophenia.  Then again, if the multritracks have started to deteriorate,
then I suppose I'll be disappointed, as will Roger.  Whether remixe or
merely remastered, I certainly hope MCA will released a limited edition
version in an LP-sized box.  
 
As for the reissue being up in the air, somebody should tell that to MUZE,
which has Quadrophenia scheduled for released in August. 
 
5.  Odds and Sods 
<<* Yes, Odds and Sods is planned as a 2-CD set - no release date yet.>> 
While I loved Pete's liner notes on the original release, I certainly hope
Charlesworth et. al. don't feel obligated to include all the original
tracks (some of which may appear as bonus tracks) on the reissue.  I've
heard that a 3-CD release was originally considered (and, of course,
rejected, probably by the same people who though a 2CD Leeds set wouldn't
sell), so there may be more unreleased material that can fit on 2CDs. 
Thus, I'd prefer that they leave off songs that have already appeared as
bonus tracks in order to make room for additional unreleased material. 
 
7.  Mary, Time is Passing, and the Lifehouse to Leeds tapes 
<<Also, Mary and Time Is Passing have definitely been axed.>> 
Can somebody please clear up my confusion on this?  On the basis of the
Charlesworth interview in a recent Generations newsletter, I orignially
believed that (1) a Who recording of Time is Passing had been located, but
it was missing guitar parts and would require some "doctoring" in order to
be released; and  (2) no recording of Mary had been located, which means
that it was either never recorded by the Who or the tape was lost or
destroyed.  Then Record Collector said that Time is Passing was
"irrevocably damaged."  If the tape was indeed damaged, wouldn't
Charlesworth have mentioned this fact in the interview?  Was Charlesworth
ever able to listen to the tape?  (I'd like to know if Pete or Roger
handled the vocals).  And, to respond to Marty's comments, how can Mary be
"axed" if no tape was ever found? 
 
Also, did the Who organization ever recover the multitracks that were used
for Lifehouse to Leeds?  I know that there was some kind of offer to buy
back the tapes with "no questions asked."  Judging from an article on
bootlegs that appeared a while back in Musician magazine and discussed the
origins of the Lifehouse to Leeds CD, it shouldn't have been too hard to
track down the person who has the tape (it was pretty clear that either to
author of the article knew his identity or knew someone else who did).    
  
8.  The Isle of Wight video fiasco 
<<Warner Home Video had planned to release the WHO's Isle Of Wight 1970
show  
<<on home video this coming September, but Bill Curbishley pulled it due to
 
<<the masters being in bad condition. He didn't want to put an inferior  
<< product out in the marketplace. Apparently there were some dark passages
in  
<<the film. 
 
Let see . . .  it was ok to release Who's Last (which probably should have
been titled Who Cares?), and it was ok to keep the dreaded MCA CDs around
for nearly ten years, and it was ok to rehash Tommy for the umpteenth time
on the Join Together box set.  But now that the Isle of Wight
show--arguably one of the Who's greatest performances--is about to be
released on video, Bill Curbishley suddently has an attack of conscience
and insists that no "inferior" Who product be released.  Hey Bill, don't do
me any favors.  This consumer WANTS to be exploited.  Seriously, can
anybody reason with this guy?  I don't think any Who fans are expecting
technical perfection from a 25 year old unreleased concert film.  Besides,
an official release, warts and all, would no doubt be a marked improvement
over the bootleg videos that have circulated.