Re: Leeds mark 3

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@akrobiz.com>]

> But you can't help but notice that Amazing Journey/Sparks does NOT have this
> sound. Compare the drums on it to the opening of Eyesight. That means they
> used the earlier remix of AJ/S but did something different to the rest (I'm
> starting to think they didn't remix it)...and that also doesn't make sense,

Oh, I agree there's a difference but, again, I don't hear anything horribly wrong
on either disc(apart from the obvious vocal overdubs) to warrent the negative 
attacks I've read elsewhere.

Let me interject here & say that I completely repect your opinion, Mark, & 
any harsh statements that follow are certainly not solely directed at you.  I've 
met you & you seem to be a reasonable fella (for a white boy). 

Believe you me, I'm a picky person.  Especially when it comes to The Who.
I've purchased bad import vinyl versions of albums & horrible-sounding CD
compilations.  I know what bad is.  And the new LAL is *not* bad.

Could it have been done differently & a bit better?  Sure.  Does that bother
me?  No.  Is it adequate for the record-buying (CD-buying now, I guess)
public?  Sure.  Will I be embarrassed to play this for my CD-buying friends?
No.

Now some people believe in Perfection.  That ultimate sound.  I don't.  That's
rubbish.  With the infinite ways in which a piece of music can be remixed & 
remastered there's always going to be someone, somewhere who doesn't like 
this or that.

I go into each purchase of a "re-release" with the knowledge that there's going 
to be *something* odd or different-sounding on the disc.  And not just with 
Who discs either.  The crucial question then has to be this:  Is the overall prod-
uct an upgrade of what has come before (boot or otherwise)?

That's the crux.  Is the release a step forward or is it a step backwards?

In the new LAL's case, I'm comparing it to the boot LIVE AT LEEDS COM-
PLETE.  My answer:  Yes, the new LAL release *is* an upgrade of LALC.  
To say it isn't is a flat out lie.

Is it perfect?  No.  Are there spots that I'm uncomfortable with?  Yes.  The
vocal overdubs especially.  Am I bitter?  No.  Do I call for the ousting of Jon
Astley?  No.  Do I start inventing silly notions that because the sound quality
isn't perfect it must be because Pete is indifferent & just "doesn't care?"  No.
Do I harbor the pomposity to believe that I could do any better?  No.  Do I
have the nerve to lash out at the very man whose beauty & artistry created
this music in the first place?  No.  If it came to that, I'd turn in my Who badge.

Why is there no talk about Moon's wonderful cascading, g'nip-g'nop tom
rolls?  Why is there no talk about Daltrey's magnificent "sweet fuck all" in
"Young Man Blues?"  Why is there no talk about The Ox's bubbling fluidity
at the beginning of "A Quick One?"  Why is there no talk about the warm,
poetic-like subtlety reached by Pete in the quiet moments of the "My Gener-
ation" jam?

> Another note: the hollow sound here is very similar to the Monterey and
> Woodstock boxed sets. 

You're right.  I have that Monterey box set & I remember that the audience is
processed-sounding on that, too.

> It may just be that sounding like the real thing is not the goal anymore.

Trust me, people would complain about the real thing, too.  ("Why didn't they
fix *that*?!")

> I'm not as upset as they reportedly are, and I wasn't kicked out of a
> chatroom, and I have no agenda

I know you don't, Mark.  You're a fine, upstanding Democrat.  Anyone who
runs a record or CD store is OK in my book.  That's like a fantasy job.

>....other than LAL all sounding as good as it could. That's all. 

I understand.

> And this doesn't, quite. I'm going to try to expand it  with a program I have 
> called Cool Edit 

There you go again (!).  Fiddling about!!

> I'll let you know if it works, 

Please do.

> .....but I DO feel that I shouldn't have to do this with a legitimate release!!!

You don't!!!


- SCHRADE in Akron