gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
670525 Posts in 26994 Topics by 3942 Members - Latest Member: Andyfonz August 05, 2021, 03:22:14 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 120 121 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 129 130 ... 148 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Feel Flows box set  (Read 450407 times)
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11537


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3100 on: March 29, 2021, 05:17:01 PM »

Gotta say, it’s great to read a FF thread that doesn’t have most of the board and moderators ganging up on a single member and telling them their posts are awful
isn't that the guy you called a waste of flesh


Rainboweyez is the guy who made that crack about me dying of Covid? Didn’t know that; in that case, f*** him. Didn’t realize it was the same guy

Edit

Yup sure is.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 08:00:32 PM by ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 » Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
Cork On The Ocean
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #3101 on: March 29, 2021, 06:09:46 PM »

Mike & ESQ interview, acknowledges Feel Flows set is coming out soon.

https://www.insiteatlanta.com/california-music?fbclid=IwAR2U_3cVZFN1BSZUe68d94VGTAgluKoKQyaHkrEkyE-faYMzkDWXf-MEJTQ
Logged
Shady
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6336


I had to fix a lot of things this morning


View Profile
« Reply #3102 on: March 29, 2021, 08:09:39 PM »

Thanks Mike
Logged

According to someone who would know.

Seriously, there was a Beach Boys Love You condom?!  Amazing.
hideyotsuburaya
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


View Profile
« Reply #3103 on: March 30, 2021, 09:14:37 AM »

for this upcoming Feel Flows box set I certainly hope none of the original master stereo mixes that Stephen desper meticulously engineered under carl Wilson approval are tampered with in the least.  you cannot improve on perfection

I found objectionable the remastering of Our Sweet Love for the 2009 comp. CD Summer Love Songs, since the quiet little percussion shake that nicely closed that sunflower song (I'd become so accustomed to) was (for all intents and purposes) excised.  WHY!?  FOR WHAT PURPOSE SERVED!?


Logged
hideyotsuburaya
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


View Profile
« Reply #3104 on: March 30, 2021, 09:15:38 AM »

.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 09:16:26 AM by hideyotsuburaya » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9342



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3105 on: March 30, 2021, 09:43:49 AM »

for this upcoming Feel Flows box set I certainly hope none of the original master stereo mixes that Stephen desper meticulously engineered under carl Wilson approval are tampered with in the least.  you cannot improve on perfection

I found objectionable the remastering of Our Sweet Love for the 2009 comp. CD Summer Love Songs, since the quiet little percussion shake that nicely closed that sunflower song (I'd become so accustomed to) was (for all intents and purposes) excised.  WHY!?  FOR WHAT PURPOSE SERVED!?


Are you saying the original mixes should never be remastered? Or that the raw multi-tracks should never be remixed?

I mean, pretty much every archival release we've seen has involved new mixes of vintage multi-tracks, or new remasters of old mixes. None of this is "tampering."

Multiple different engineers have remastered "Sunflower" and "Surf's Up" material over the years, and I haven't really heard a *bad* remaster of that material. Some might be slightly more preferable than others.

The original mixes of those albums aren't going anywhere; there are 10 different ways to get them right now. In the meantime, I think the material will sound great and interesting in fully remixed form; a remix doesn't erase the original mixes, and is just *another* way to hear the material.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
sloopjohnb72
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #3106 on: March 30, 2021, 12:02:31 PM »

for this upcoming Feel Flows box set I certainly hope none of the original master stereo mixes that Stephen desper meticulously engineered under carl Wilson approval are tampered with in the least.  you cannot improve on perfection

I found objectionable the remastering of Our Sweet Love for the 2009 comp. CD Summer Love Songs, since the quiet little percussion shake that nicely closed that sunflower song (I'd become so accustomed to) was (for all intents and purposes) excised.  WHY!?  FOR WHAT PURPOSE SERVED!?



The entire purpose of archival releases like this is to "tamper" with the recordings. There will likely be backing track, vocal only, and other alternate mixes included in the box, all created from the multitracks. When the box set releases, original copies of Sunflower and Surf's Up (which are everywhere, as they've been reissued dozens of times) will not disappear. What's the purpose of this mentality? The original mixes of both albums may appear on the box as the mono mix of Pet Sounds did in 1997, or they may not. What difference does it make if we all have the albums and have heard them plenty of times?
Logged
barsone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 135


View Profile
« Reply #3107 on: March 30, 2021, 04:35:55 PM »

for this upcoming Feel Flows box set I certainly hope none of the original master stereo mixes that Stephen desper meticulously engineered under carl Wilson approval are tampered with in the least.  you cannot improve on perfection

I found objectionable the remastering of Our Sweet Love for the 2009 comp. CD Summer Love Songs, since the quiet little percussion shake that nicely closed that sunflower song (I'd become so accustomed to) was (for all intents and purposes) excised.  WHY!?  FOR WHAT PURPOSE SERVED!?


Are you saying the original mixes should never be remastered? Or that the raw multi-tracks should never be remixed?

I mean, pretty much every archival release we've seen has involved new mixes of vintage multi-tracks, or new remasters of old mixes. None of this is "tampering."

Multiple different engineers have remastered "Sunflower" and "Surf's Up" material over the years, and I haven't really heard a *bad* remaster of that material. Some might be slightly more preferable than others.

The original mixes of those albums aren't going anywhere; there are 10 different ways to get them right now. In the meantime, I think the material will sound great and interesting in fully remixed form; a remix doesn't erase the original mixes, and is just *another* way to hear the material.

HJ,

I was a faithful everyday reader of the FF thread for the first 105 pages or so.  Staying up late every evening with a glass of red to see what new comments were posted in the thread.  With laughter and smiles, I read the days 'reasons' why the FF is coming soon...vs why its being delayed.  My question to you is this if your able to answer.  Obviously the sale of BRI was in the works but I seem to recall you saying there were other reasons why the FF release was being delayed.  Could the current Desper e-mail release above also a reason why FF did not show in 2020.  Meaning legal/copyright stuff ??

And thanks to you for your PATIENCE those first 95 pages !

Barsone
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 948


View Profile
« Reply #3108 on: March 30, 2021, 05:09:51 PM »

The entire purpose of archival releases like this is to "tamper" with the recordings. There will likely be backing track, vocal only, and other alternate mixes included in the box, all created from the multitracks. When the box set releases, original copies of Sunflower and Surf's Up (which are everywhere, as they've been reissued dozens of times) will not disappear. What's the purpose of this mentality? The original mixes of both albums may appear on the box as the mono mix of Pet Sounds did in 1997, or they may not. What difference does it make if we all have the albums and have heard them plenty of times?

To some extent, I'm sympathetic to both sides of this debate.  On the one hand, there is the concept of artistic integrity. The idea is that there was this creative process all those decades ago, and certain choices were made in the creative process, and those choices should be respected to the extent possible.  Geoff Emerick reportedly used the example of a cowbell on one of the tracks, saying that Lennon-McCartney had asked him to make it sound like something other than a cowbell, and he did, and they were happy with it... and then Giles Martin comes along 50 years later and makes it sound exactly.... like.... a cowbell.

On the other hand, where is really the harm?  The fans get something they'll enjoy; the musicians (or their estates) cash in; the record labels get a product they can sell during a period of great challenge for their industry.   The old mixes are available to those who want them. If you get over the notion that what these musicians did a half-century ago is somehow sacrosanct, it's a win-win-win.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 05:11:19 PM by juggler » Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1944



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3109 on: March 30, 2021, 07:01:18 PM »

The entire purpose of archival releases like this is to "tamper" with the recordings. There will likely be backing track, vocal only, and other alternate mixes included in the box, all created from the multitracks. When the box set releases, original copies of Sunflower and Surf's Up (which are everywhere, as they've been reissued dozens of times) will not disappear. What's the purpose of this mentality? The original mixes of both albums may appear on the box as the mono mix of Pet Sounds did in 1997, or they may not. What difference does it make if we all have the albums and have heard them plenty of times?

To some extent, I'm sympathetic to both sides of this debate.  On the one hand, there is the concept of artistic integrity. The idea is that there was this creative process all those decades ago, and certain choices were made in the creative process, and those choices should be respected to the extent possible.  Geoff Emerick reportedly used the example of a cowbell on one of the tracks, saying that Lennon-McCartney had asked him to make it sound like something other than a cowbell, and he did, and they were happy with it... and then Giles Martin comes along 50 years later and makes it sound exactly.... like.... a cowbell.

On the other hand, where is really the harm?  The fans get something they'll enjoy; the musicians (or their estates) cash in; the record labels get a product they can sell during a period of great challenge for their industry.   The old mixes are available to those who want them. If you get over the notion that what these musicians did a half-century ago is somehow sacrosanct, it's a win-win-win.



I think the modern remixes etc are interesting, but it depends on whether or not you consider the mix to be integral to be original performance- I personally do.

An analogy is the guitar solo on “Goin to the Beach”. This is a new performance on a vintage BB track. Modern remixes etc are comparable IMO. If someone added a second vocal to “You Still Believe In Me”, is this  “tampering”, or is this a cool new way to hear the song? Perhaps the best example I can think of is that more recent symphonic album, where the tracks were almost completely redone. To some, a remix is similar- so I think if you approach it from that standpoint, you might understand the position of people like myself as a fan and Desper as a creator. In Desper’s case, this area was one of his primary contributions.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 07:03:51 PM by DonnyL » Logged

Steve Latshaw
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 561


View Profile
« Reply #3110 on: March 31, 2021, 06:45:18 AM »

"I can think of is that more recent symphonic album, where the tracks were almost completely redone."

For me, one of the stunning blunders for the symphonic album was the decision not to use the stereo remixes.  They flew in the mono versions, then recorded new instrumentation to cover the rough spots, which accounts for the patchwork nature of the project.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9342



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3111 on: March 31, 2021, 07:10:58 AM »

Geez, I mean, at this point debating whether *anything* other than original mixes should be released is like debating whether movies should be remade, or whether Dylan should ever plug in an electric guitar. These things all happened a thousand years ago already, and we all survived.

Overdubbing *new* material onto old BB tracks 60 years later is kind of an extreme example, and different from simply remixing vintage tracks, although even in that case with the symphonic album it was presented as a new, updated project where it's patently obvious *new* overdubs have been added. That was the whole crux of the project, that new overdubs were added. They haven't reissued the original albums with those symphonic overdubbed versions subbed in or anything.

But backing up, is anybody still really apprehensive about *remixing* old tracks? The original mixes/versions are almost always still readily available. If you don't like remixes, you can pass.

Geoff Emerick's legacy is just fine; Apple has gone to great lengths to make sure the original mixes remain *the* main versions still out there, and that they remain available.

Similarly, Desper needn't worry. Like Emerick, the original work he did not only is still there on the raw multitracks even when they *do* remix the stuff. And, his final original mixes remain available.

Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9522


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3112 on: March 31, 2021, 08:09:47 AM »

I do think that there was more to the Emerick-Martin-Sgt Pepper box set situation bubbling under the public surface. Geoff was an integral part of those sessions and how that record sounded like it did, I don't think anyone would deny that. And for years I personally have read many accounts crediting George Martin with developing a certain sound or studio effect that was just as much an integral hook in a specific Beatles song, while the truth is that credit should have gone to Geoff who either dreamed up the effect/sound or had the creativity and know-how to make it happen.

So maybe some feathers were ruffled when Geoff started to give interviews and wrote his book where he detailed some of these famous sounds and production ideas on Beatles records and sort of challenged the longer-held notion that George Martin was the mastermind behind those sounds. Then when the Pepper deluxe 50th edition project gets underway, and George's son Giles is in the driver's seat...Well, maybe that explains why Geoff's role in the project was minimalized as it was.

There's politics in everything, so whatever is going on in Beach Boys Land right now has that element working too.

I can also see both sides in the issue of remixing tracks - Speaking as someone who actually prefers Mark's stereo mix of Pet Sounds over any of the original mono mixes, included the much-lauded Hoffman 24K DCC remaster which I own but rarely play anymore, both sides have valid points. Ultimately the original mixes and mastered versions of these old albums are still available, and remixed versions give listeners a chance to hear them from a fresh perspective. If we want to truly go all-in on preserving the integrity of the original mixes and masters, that would technically exclude any digital-only compressed format versions of the music, right? Because even that changes the original intent and texture of the mixes even if many listeners wouldn't notice.

And the same debate could be thrown back at something like Mike Love's remakes of Beach Boys classics on his last solo LP...why would someone like Mike basically do a carbon-copy of the instrumental backing tracks and arrangements, mix those backing tracks to sound like they did on the 60's originals, recreate backing vocal stacks using the same arrangements, then put his own autotuned lead vocal on top? I'd say the same people arguing against remixing Sunflower or Surf's Up remixes would say recreating original BB's classic hits and releasing them as a solo project with new lead vocals would be just as egregious in terms of preserving the original integrity of the works and avoiding the notion of touching up the Mona Lisa with modern colors.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1944



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3113 on: March 31, 2021, 11:20:03 AM »

Geez, I mean, at this point debating whether *anything* other than original mixes should be released is like debating whether movies should be remade, or whether Dylan should ever plug in an electric guitar. These things all happened a thousand years ago already, and we all survived.

Overdubbing *new* material onto old BB tracks 60 years later is kind of an extreme example, and different from simply remixing vintage tracks, although even in that case with the symphonic album it was presented as a new, updated project where it's patently obvious *new* overdubs have been added. That was the whole crux of the project, that new overdubs were added. They haven't reissued the original albums with those symphonic overdubbed versions subbed in or anything.

But backing up, is anybody still really apprehensive about *remixing* old tracks? The original mixes/versions are almost always still readily available. If you don't like remixes, you can pass.

Geoff Emerick's legacy is just fine; Apple has gone to great lengths to make sure the original mixes remain *the* main versions still out there, and that they remain available.

Similarly, Desper needn't worry. Like Emerick, the original work he did not only is still there on the raw multitracks even when they *do* remix the stuff. And, his final original mixes remain available.



Well, I'm personally not commenting on whether or not they should be done ... but there is certainly room for opinion/interpretation in what they are when they are done. Sorry, but to some people (including myself): applying a digital reverb in place of an original chamber, or replacing the performance of the original hand on the lead vocal fader during the final dubdown is very much akin to adding a new overdub. You could argue that the reverb in some original mixes is more noticeable in the final result than whether or not someone replaced a rhythm guitar, for example.

Though I'm not stating that remixes should not be done at all, I think there is validity in that concept as well. The Pet Sounds stereo mix, for example, has been on the market now for almost as long as the original mixes were prior to the stereo remix. And we now have plenty of examples of the stereo mix replacing the original mono mix- in fact, IME it's just as common (if not more common) to hear the Carl tag on "God Only Knows" or the Brian bridge on "Wouldn't It Be Nice" when these songs are played in public settings, etc.

The biggest miss I've found in archival releases is there's a noticeable lacking of vintage working or alternate mixes- a few have come out here and there, and to me- these are far more interesting than any remix.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 11:20:51 AM by DonnyL » Logged

Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3091


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #3114 on: March 31, 2021, 12:54:12 PM »

No art, once released into the world, stays static.  Every form of it has some form of revisitation.  The oft referenced Mona Lisa, for example, has, starkly in opposition to the arguments it has been used as support for, been radically altered over the years.  It has to be in order to remain in the public view.  Personally, I've never seen the version of the Mono Lisa in the Louvre -- the version that has had extensive repairs, has had the first layer of paint washed off in an overzealous attempt to clean it, that has been attacked and healed.  I wish that I could, because, despite the damage and despite the necessary maintenance, it's still Leonardo's work, and to be in the same room with that painting is surely different than being in the same room as a print of the same, or a copy in an art book -- which is the only way I've experienced that painting.  I have seen other Leonardos in person, at the MET here in New York, just as I've seen Rothkos in Detroit, Picassos in Ann Arbor, or Warhols in Chicago.  None of these works of art has remained unaltered over the years.  They are what they are now because of human intervention. 

Similarly, other forms of music require constant intervention and reimagination to remain in the public's sphere of awareness.  Every time a major orchestra performs Mahler's Fifth symphony, it presumably varies slightly from what Mahler had in mind when he committed the notes to paper in the late 19th century.  And the further in the past a composer is, the more deviation is possible.  This kind of conflict is evident in the wildly different ways musicians can interpret baroque and renaissance music -- either attempting to perform it in a way close to the composer's vision, or in a way that is more palatable to modern ears.

Popular recorded music is actually fairly unique in the way that it can remain.  Multitrack tape allows retrospective remixing in a way that can't be contemplated in the visual arts (digital art is different of course.). We can't strip away all the paint from a Leonardo without ruining the painting.  With recorded music, we can.  Of course, the question that people are asking here is, should we just because we can?  I think that it is possible to answer this question in both the affirmative and in the negative with wholly legitimate justification.  And I think it's traceable to the listeners values, which, again, are equally legitimate values to hold, even if they are fundamentally different.

The wonderful thing about art of all stripes is that it can hit every person in a different way.  For some art is emotional.  For some it's intellectual.  For most it's a mixture of those plus no shortage of other factors.  For those who value listening to recorded music as a more emotional enterprise, it's defensible to insist that remasters and remixes should be anathema to the purity of the art.  For those whose values tilt towards the intellectual side of the experience of art, not exploiting the non-destructive possibilities of deconstructing the music is, understandably, seen as almost offensive.

The biggest mistake here is to assume that the emotional listener has a more sensually rich experience than the intellectually-bent listener.    For each, I think the ultimate end is the same -- to be moved by the music, to feel something about it, to be made to feel something by it.

Unfortunately, this kind of discussion is all fine on a message board somewhere, but in practice, as we've seen, a commercial release is not a great platform for philosophical discussions about the aesthetics of the remix.  I think that the best we can do is, whether we are for remixes or against them, celebrate the fact that this 50 year old music is still here, and we can listen to it pretty close to the way it first appeared 50 years ago.  No italian anarchists have poked a hole in it, and no well meaning but hamfisted caretakers permanently removed a layer of it with no hope of ever getting it back.  It does not exist only as a dusty score in a music library, waiting for some ensemble to play it again.  It's here, and will always be here.
Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1944



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3115 on: March 31, 2021, 02:10:37 PM »

^ great post!
Logged

Mitchell
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 768



View Profile
« Reply #3116 on: March 31, 2021, 03:26:37 PM »

Funnily enough, there are a few examples of Mr. Desper doing that very thing:
- 'Til I Die (alternate mix) - a personal mix later officially issued
- finishing Loop De Loop with Al years later, also officially issued
- study video breakdowns of multitrack minutiae (most notably Cool, Cool Water)

Not to raise negative points but I think the "worst case" scenario we've seen is something like the revisited Sail Plane Song, but at least in that case we still have the "original".

I'm all for tastefully mixed alternative versions, and the sectional track/background vocals/a cappella mixes that came out for the '67 and '68 compilations give me great hope for more of the same!
Logged

Watch out for snakes!
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9522


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3117 on: March 31, 2021, 03:31:04 PM »

No art, once released into the world, stays static.  Every form of it has some form of revisitation.  The oft referenced Mona Lisa, for example, has, starkly in opposition to the arguments it has been used as support for, been radically altered over the years.  It has to be in order to remain in the public view.  Personally, I've never seen the version of the Mono Lisa in the Louvre -- the version that has had extensive repairs, has had the first layer of paint washed off in an overzealous attempt to clean it, that has been attacked and healed.  I wish that I could, because, despite the damage and despite the necessary maintenance, it's still Leonardo's work, and to be in the same room with that painting is surely different than being in the same room as a print of the same, or a copy in an art book -- which is the only way I've experienced that painting.  I have seen other Leonardos in person, at the MET here in New York, just as I've seen Rothkos in Detroit, Picassos in Ann Arbor, or Warhols in Chicago.  None of these works of art has remained unaltered over the years.  They are what they are now because of human intervention. 

Similarly, other forms of music require constant intervention and reimagination to remain in the public's sphere of awareness.  Every time a major orchestra performs Mahler's Fifth symphony, it presumably varies slightly from what Mahler had in mind when he committed the notes to paper in the late 19th century.  And the further in the past a composer is, the more deviation is possible.  This kind of conflict is evident in the wildly different ways musicians can interpret baroque and renaissance music -- either attempting to perform it in a way close to the composer's vision, or in a way that is more palatable to modern ears.

Popular recorded music is actually fairly unique in the way that it can remain.  Multitrack tape allows retrospective remixing in a way that can't be contemplated in the visual arts (digital art is different of course.). We can't strip away all the paint from a Leonardo without ruining the painting.  With recorded music, we can.  Of course, the question that people are asking here is, should we just because we can?  I think that it is possible to answer this question in both the affirmative and in the negative with wholly legitimate justification.  And I think it's traceable to the listeners values, which, again, are equally legitimate values to hold, even if they are fundamentally different.

The wonderful thing about art of all stripes is that it can hit every person in a different way.  For some art is emotional.  For some it's intellectual.  For most it's a mixture of those plus no shortage of other factors.  For those who value listening to recorded music as a more emotional enterprise, it's defensible to insist that remasters and remixes should be anathema to the purity of the art.  For those whose values tilt towards the intellectual side of the experience of art, not exploiting the non-destructive possibilities of deconstructing the music is, understandably, seen as almost offensive.

The biggest mistake here is to assume that the emotional listener has a more sensually rich experience than the intellectually-bent listener.    For each, I think the ultimate end is the same -- to be moved by the music, to feel something about it, to be made to feel something by it.

Unfortunately, this kind of discussion is all fine on a message board somewhere, but in practice, as we've seen, a commercial release is not a great platform for philosophical discussions about the aesthetics of the remix.  I think that the best we can do is, whether we are for remixes or against them, celebrate the fact that this 50 year old music is still here, and we can listen to it pretty close to the way it first appeared 50 years ago.  No italian anarchists have poked a hole in it, and no well meaning but hamfisted caretakers permanently removed a layer of it with no hope of ever getting it back.  It does not exist only as a dusty score in a music library, waiting for some ensemble to play it again.  It's here, and will always be here.

I agree on a lot of these points, again coming from someone whose go-to version of Pet Sounds is and has been Mark's stereo mix from the box set over 20 years ago! If I - or we collectively - enjoy something more on a purely aesthetic level, along with both the emotional and intellectual elements (present across the board in a work like Pet Sounds), are we to say in order to keep the work pure that we should *not* have remixes of that work to enjoy? Of course I say no, because it would deprive me of the version of Pet Sounds which I go to for aesthetic, sonic, intellectual, and emotional fulfillment through that work.

However, I will play devil's advocate and run the example of Geoff Emerick through the process. The examples of artists and their art which you cited were from deceased artists decades or even centuries after they created their art.

One of the most mind-blowing pieces of info came from an art history professor, a Phd no less, who enlightened us to the fact that so many of the "Old Masters" were often not the only hands and brushes to create many of their more famous works of art. They would have studios where sometimes students - interns in modern lingo - would be tasked with filling in backgrounds, adding peripheral objects to the surroundings of the main subject, under the direction of the master. So, I think all of us collectively had the question "Then this means Artist X didn't actually paint or complete that canvas, and we're not seeing his trees or his curtains in the background?".  It just seemed to blow the lid off the whole perception of viewing and enjoying art as a whole, as in someone who thinks DaVinci's trees are the best depictions of trees in a landscape background they had ever seen on a certain canvas, only it may have been some lowly intern at his studio who actually created those specific trees which triggered the emotional and aesthetic response. The same response came when another professor revealed how some of the more famous film composers, names like Elfman, Mancini, etc had similar studios of workers who would "fill in" the orchestrations and transitional material after the composer brought in a basic sketch for a melody. So in those cases, whose art are we responding to? And that creates a situation where even the identity of the artist is in question, never mind the art itself or the way it exists for future generations to enjoy and react to.

Anyway, the point in the Emerick example is how the artist whose hands, ears, and creativity went into the original art are or were still alive when the remixes and reworkings of the art were given new mixes and sonic textures by others. Yet, he was not involved in the process of remixing and reworking the same tracks he helped create when he was fully capable of doing so, or at least being in the studio consulting during the process. I think that is the point which separates the examples of centuries-old music which exists only on scores as to the original concept of the creators and composers from an example of the guy who actually did the mixing being shut out of any remixing process.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, just to be clear again, but I think there is some validity to the concerns of fans who saw Geoff Emerick in that Pepper remix process not only being sidelined for the game but basically being asked to buy a general admission ticket as the art which he played a key role in creating was being reworked using elements which he himself actually did originally and was still capable of doing.

And just as fascinating is how as late as the 1950's the ability to overdub and edit media like magnetic tape versus trying to capture a full, continuous, live performance forever changed the way music is both created and archived...and perceived. Music used to be captured like a still photograph, as a snapshot in time of a particular moment when a work was performed and recorded. After tape allowed editing and overdubbing, it became a more static form of art that was more about manipulating the media to enhance the song rather than capturing a full performance snapshot of the song itself.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5677



View Profile
« Reply #3118 on: March 31, 2021, 04:26:20 PM »

I genuinely love Mark and Alan's stereo remixes, and I too prefer listening to Pet Sounds in stereo compared to mono. That might be because I first deep dived this band circa 2000, so the stereo version is the one I fell in love with. To those who were in love with Pet Sounds from 1966 to 1997, they may feel that the stereo version craps on their memories... or they might also agree with my humble opinion that the stereo version has more ear candy to dive into and appreciate.

To each their own.

As long as the originals remain available, I think it's really not such a big deal. It becomes a problem when a rare case like George Lucas comes along and intentionally makes the originals unavailable. That will always be a ridiculous thing to do, yes it's Lucas' right as an artist I suppose, but it's messed up when a generation of people have a deep emotional attachment to the original.

I do understand and respect Stephen's point of view, and I am guessing he doesn't like the idea that a new version of the albums will become the "go-to" version in the new streaming universe for many new fans, thus undercutting his work as well as the approved-by-the-band-members-including-deceased-ones mixes from decades past. And yes, while the originals will always be available, I'm sure that plenty of new fans (and old ones too) will refer to new mixes as their preferred mixes, if only because maybe they'll sound more "modern" or accessible, although who knows how they'll sound, and it's always subject to interpretation.  So yeah, I get how that could irk someone. There's no way to get Carl or Dennis approval on a new stereo remix.

So even though I completely approve of skilled folks like Mark and Alan doing new mixes, and even though I disagree with the standpoint that mixes like that should not be done, I nevertheless empathize with those who are very much against tweaking old mixes.  But ultimately, there's no way to control the marketplace of what version people like/prefer to listen to. By the logic of trying to quash new mixes, we should also be mad at fans for doing their own fan mixes in case any of those mixes gain popularity as earworms, and get into new fans' heads and hearts more than the original mixes. And that's silly talk.

There's no stopping the inevitable. We're in the "roll your own" world these days, and people are ALWAYS going to find ways to tweak and fiddle with old classic recordings, and there will always be interesting experiments that come out of it. As long as the originals aren't made unavailable, I think it's not a big deal in my humble estimation, but of course, the mileage of those who were much closer to the proceedings back in the day may vary.

As was mentioned earlier, we have the very, very cool Desper alternate mix of Til I Die, and I'm very glad we have BOTH that version as well as the album version. The more the merrier! It's a new way to discover some of the magic contained in the original mixes. Some things will surely newly "pop out", and thus when going back to listen to the original Desper mixes, people can then also appreciate some subtle, hidden gems contained inside. It's not a bad thing, really it's not.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 04:37:49 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Toursiveu
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 99



View Profile
« Reply #3119 on: March 31, 2021, 05:30:05 PM »


It becomes a problem when a rare case like George Lucas comes along and intentionally makes the originals unavailable. That will always be a ridiculous thing to do, yes it's Lucas' right as an artist I suppose, but it's messed up when a generation of people have a deep emotional attachment to the original.


I sure hope no one ever adds more stormtroopers and dewbacks in Cool, Cool Water.
Logged
Dan Lega
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


View Profile
« Reply #3120 on: March 31, 2021, 10:29:14 PM »

Two points...

Number one:  The thing is, the original mixes of "Sunflower" and "Surf's Up" are NOT readily available for purchase.  You need to hunt for ORIGINAL pressings of the records to hear them.  And how easy is that to do?  Stephen Desper says every subsequent re-release of each album was not a copy of the original mix.  So, heck, I'm not sure I ever heard the original releases of those albums.  Now my guess is that I have, because I got into the Beach Boys shortly after the album "Surf's Up" came out, so the LP copies I have may be original -- but they're in storage right now, so I can't check them to make sure.  So, maybe I have heard them, and maybe I haven't?

Now, having said that, I'm all for well done remixes, which may upset Mr. Desper.  BUT... shouldn't we also have the right to hear Mr. Desper's and the Beach Boys' original mix, too?  The original mix should be as easy to buy as any remix.  Mr. Desper has been fighting for 50 years to get his original mixes back into the ears of the fans.  And when the company is spending money on putting out a box set, including a possible remix of the albums, then why not spend a little more money and try to restore the original mix while you're at it?  Seems like a no-brainer to me.  I mean, yeah, they did a stereo remix of "Pet Sounds", but they also restored the original mono mix.  So do both here, too!  Why not?  Especially as they were the first albums to have been run through an early version of the Spatializer!  That's pretty historic to me!

Number two:  With all this talk of the original mix being only available on the first pressing of the records I was wondering if there was a way to truly replicate that pressing?  Then I began to imagine some company doing a laser scan of an original disc -- couldn't that bring back the original mix?!  And with the laser scan, couldn't you then go in and look for the tiniest imperfections in the original printing of the disc and smooth out the occasional pops so that it would be near pristine?  And then you can do two things: converting/manufacturing that scan you could make a new pressing of the record, and, you can also make a digital version to play.  I wish I were a modern day Thomas Edison!

PS -- By the way, we don't have confirmation that remixes of the albums will be a part of the box set, do we?  I know it's probably a good guess that they will be, but I don't recall ever hearing that they would be.

Love and merci,   
Dan Lega

Logged
SaltyMarshmallow
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


View Profile
« Reply #3121 on: April 01, 2021, 12:30:27 AM »


Number one:  The thing is, the original mixes of "Sunflower" and "Surf's Up" are NOT readily available for purchase.  You need to hunt for ORIGINAL pressings of the records to hear them.  And how easy is that to do?  Stephen Desper says every subsequent re-release of each album was not a copy of the original mix.  So, heck, I'm not sure I ever heard the original releases of those albums.  Now my guess is that I have, because I got into the Beach Boys shortly after the album "Surf's Up" came out, so the LP copies I have may be original -- but they're in storage right now, so I can't check them to make sure.  So, maybe I have heard them, and maybe I haven't?

Now, having said that, I'm all for well done remixes, which may upset Mr. Desper.  BUT... shouldn't we also have the right to hear Mr. Desper's and the Beach Boys' original mix, too?  The original mix should be as easy to buy as any remix.  Mr. Desper has been fighting for 50 years to get his original mixes back into the ears of the fans.  And when the company is spending money on putting out a box set, including a possible remix of the albums, then why not spend a little more money and try to restore the original mix while you're at it?  Seems like a no-brainer to me.  I mean, yeah, they did a stereo remix of "Pet Sounds", but they also restored the original mono mix.  So do both here, too!  Why not?  Especially as they were the first albums to have been run through an early version of the Spatializer!  That's pretty historic to me!


This isn't true. The mixes available now are the same mixes that have been available since 1970 and 1971 - there are no others. Desper proposed a version run through his virtual surround tech (meaning, the original mixes that we already have but reprocessed, much the same way a mono mix might be given a rechanneled stereo effect, but obviously a more advanced system designed to psychoacoustically trick stereo into '3D' audio) and the label rejected it.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 12:36:04 AM by SaltyMarshmallow » Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11537


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3122 on: April 01, 2021, 03:31:01 AM »

Wouldn’t that make the versions on the boxed set truer to the original vision of the album compared to what Desper proposed? Note: I think both should be available, just making a point
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9522


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3123 on: April 01, 2021, 07:37:57 AM »

The truly original mixes and mastered versions of albums across the board and across genres - especially archival releases from 50+ years ago - have not been available for decades. Since everything has been rejiggered in some way for digital since the 80's, especially in terms of mastering and mastering levels, the only way to truly hear the original versions of these old albums would be to seek out the original pressings. Anything they do to transfer it to digital formats will change the texture of the original, but honestly it's something only diehard audiophiles would care about or notice. Even CD's released in the 80's sound radically different from reissues of the same albums from the past 10-15 years.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Mitchell
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 768



View Profile
« Reply #3124 on: April 01, 2021, 07:46:53 AM »

Yes, there are a few different things at play:
- the original intention/Spatializer mix (3D stereo) reflecting what the band heard in the studio - this was rejected by the label but encoded into...
- the master for the album as we all know it. The first pressing LP is based on the best available LP master tapes (and approved by Carl); subsequent reissues may have used later-generation copies (as happened with many albums of the era) OR, in the case of digital reissues, received different mastering. Any current issue of Sunflower would be based on the original LP MIX but may have a different mastering. The Spatializer would still be able to decode it, but it wouldn't be the exact same as the Carl-approved version unless it was the first pressing LP.
- 5.1 or quad mixes that have been released on various products over the years are not what was originally developed in the studio (enjoyable as they may be)
- any new stereo remix would not be what was originally developed in the studio (enjoyable as they may be). I don't know what will be on the set, but it's likely that there will be alternate or modern remixes of many tracks, if not a "remixed album" (a la Pet Sounds sessions).

I can't speak for Mr. Desper but from what I've seen, I get the impression that his frustration stems from the refusal/reluctance to release the "original intention", while other remixes (5.1, quad) with no Carl involvement have gotten the green light.


In movie terms it would be like:
- original Director's Cut (Spatializer) is unavailable
- theatrical version (original LP) is still available but with different colour timings depending on format/pressing
- various "Special Editions" with modern special effects have been made with no involvement from the original director

This box set represents another opportunity to "right the wrong" and get the "Director's Cut" out there but it seems that it may not be happening (I'm not following too closely).
Logged

Watch out for snakes!
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 120 121 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 129 130 ... 148 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.294 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!