Fw: Fw: Acid Thrash and LAL bitching

["Jon Rhein" <rhein@betterthanlife.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luke Pacholski" <LukPac@lukpac.org>
To: "Jon Rhein" <rhein@betterthanlife.com>
Cc: <rwhitefang@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Acid Thrash and LAL bitching


> Again...
>
> >Why is it so important for so many (or is it so few?) folks to piss all
over
> >what is released?
>
> How does "because it sounds bad" work for you?
>
> Once again - why should a *new* release sound worse than an *old*
> release of the same material?
>
> >Since when was the sound quality of Who recordings that big of a deal
anyway?
> >I was always under the impression that emotion was the key to The Who.
>
> So, by that logic, you'd be *more* than happy to listen to Leeds via
> a poor sounding mono audience recording, correct? The "emotion" is
> still there, after all...
>
> Here's a question for you - is there *any* logic behind making
> something not sound as good as possible? "This album *can* sound
> really good, but since it's The Who I think I'll make it sound like
> crap, just because I can."
>
> Sound quality can invoke emotions. If I'm listening to something
> that's hollow and shrill, I'm a lot less likely to get into the music
> than if it sounded good. If a recording actually hurts my ears (and
> I've heard some that do), I may not play it at all, even though the
> music itself might be very good. Those negative emotions regarding
> the sound directly interfere with any emotions that might exist
> regarding the music.
>
> The fact is, good mixing/mastering let's you get to the music. Bad
> mixing/mastering creates a wall between you and the music. Not
> *impossible* to scale or break down, but there nevertheless.
>
> When I play the LALC bootleg, I can sit back, relax, and enjoy the
> MUSIC. When I play the LAL DE, the mixing and mastering is a constant
> interference to the music itself.
>
> >"A bum note and a bead of sweat."
>
> Well, other than all those bum notes they edited or overdubbed on LAL DE.
>
> >But...what is wrong - dead wrong - is to say:  "{(Pete) avoided the
subject
> >and instead went on with a number of flat out lies."
>
> No, it isn't wrong. It's correct. Pete said that LAL DE was the "best
> that [he] could do" and that the bootleggers had more resources than
> he did. Well, listening to previous releases of Leeds clearly show
> that the DE was *not* the best he could do, and the bootleggers
> obviously don't have access to the master tapes, as Pete does.
>
> It's also pretty absurd to say that bootleggers would have more
> financial resources than Pete. Most bootleggers are very small time
> operators, and only produce titles in the thousands (10,000 would be
> a *lot* of copies sold - 2,000 or 3,000 is more like it). Despite
> their "no overhead" (ie, no royalty payments), the bootleggers have a
> lot less money to throw around for mixing and mastering than someone
> like Pete does.
>
> >How do you know they are lies? How can you say that he avoided the
subject?
>
> See above.
>
> >Where does it say that an artist has to create (or release) something
> >according to the audience? If the audience were strictly the driving
factor
> >then we would be stuck with the tastes of the "market place" -- the
> >Carpenters, the Monkees, N' Sync and the Backdoor Boys. All of these are
> >hugely popular, but certainly not art -- unless, of course, you're young
and
> >find most of these kinds of groups "retro".
>
> Pete is quoted as saying the whole reason the DE came out was because
> of the bootleg. I'd have to say the audience was the "driving factor"
> there...
>
> Besides, that's not what this is about. Having Jon Astley *ruin* the
> sound of the DE doesn't suddenly make it "art". The "art" was
> recorded on Valentines day 1970. The DE is an attempt to mangle that
> art.
>
> >But, you get personal - you call him a liar when he doesn't tell you what
you
> >want to hear. You, and others like you, berate him, his family and then
ruin
> >it for the rest of us.
>
> Pete *is* a liar. Why can't you accept that? Because he's a "star"?
> Because you somehow look up to him? Because you somehow can't fathom
> that he would actually lie to his fans? Re-read my comments above,
> and take another listen to "However Much I Booze" sometime...
>
> >But, when your "truth" crosses the line into invective -- "that's one
reason
> >he posted that rant on his website. As you can see, contacting Pete did
no
> >good either - he avoided the subject and instead went on with a number of
> >flat out lies" -- it's no longer criticism, or even opinion, it becomes
> >character assassination.
>
> Again, see above. I can't help it if you can't accept the truth. The
> truth is Pete lied.
>
> To get back to the original point - say you wanted to see the Mona
> Lisa. When you got there, you noticed that somebody had splattered
> mud on it in an attempt to "improve it". What would your thoughts be
> then? Would *that* be "ok"?
>
> How about this - you have your favorite movie on VHS, and it looks
> pretty good. You get the DVD because it has extra footage and you
> expect the quality to be improved. When you watch the DVD, though,
> you notice the colors are washed out, there's little contrast, and
> the print is riddled with dirt and scratches. Would *that* be "ok"?
>
> Luke
> --
> "It's clear to all my friends that I habitually lie,
> I just bring them down." - Pete Townshend
>
> http://lukpac.org/