|
|
Post by The Chief on Sept 1, 2024 6:49:29 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong but this may be a music nerd thing.
To me, the original version of a record, with it's imperfections and technological limitations of it's original release is the ultimate version. Usually, the artist was happy with it at the time and there's something just more... authentic about it. So, I never ever buy re-releases unless there's an actual perk that comes with it, IE Sawmills and Monnow Valley versions of Definitely Maybe.
I'm still less interested in the remastered record though. Not that I don't like it but it feels... different... it's kind of hard to explain. The DYKWIM NG 2016 rethink for example. I have it, I listen to it once in a while and I love hearing all the things that were lost in the original mix. But I bought that record on the day of its release. When I want to listen to Be Here Now, I do it with the original mix of DYKWIM, not the rethink, which I put in the end of my playlist with all the b-sides. Actually, I bought the single on the day of its release and in my MP3s I use that version instead of the one that starts with a plane that I always hated. But that's for another thread. When I bought the Beatles records in CD, I try to get the originals from the 80's and not the most recent remastered versions.
How do you guys see it? Is remastered always your preferred choice or do you keep the original versions? Or maybe both?
|
|
|
|
Post by carl80 on Sept 1, 2024 7:05:53 GMT -5
I prefer the originals compared to the remastered versions , All you have to do is listen to the Oasis remastered albums to sound how bad they are to the originals, regarding the Beatles, the ones everyone try’s to track down are the 2014 Mono Vinyl releases because they are all analogue cut from the original master tapes , so it’s the nearest thing you can get to a original 60’s pressing in mint condition, down side, they are expensive now they are all out of print.
|
|
|
|
Post by bringitondown77 on Sept 3, 2024 7:36:32 GMT -5
I think there is a difference between remastering and remixing. The DYKWIM NG 2016 rethink was more of a subtle remix, with the strings being more pronounced in the mix (which I love btw, I prefer it to the original mix). A remix will bring certain elements of the song more to the fore or hidden more in the background, which does fundamentally change the song. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
Remastering is a process of cleaning up and making an original recording sound a bit better, raising the volume a bit. Again, some remastering works very well, some don't.
If you listen to recent remastering and remixing of Beatles albums, they sound so much better than the originals. Giles Martin has done an excellent job. You can hear the instrumentation and the vocals so much more clearly now.
But there are some remastering jobs that either make no discernible difference or actually do a poor job and make it sound worse.
As for Oasis, I don't think remastering jobs have made too much difference, except the 2022 remaster of The Masterplan. I noticed enough of an improvement that I replaced it on Apple Music. Deleted my older copy and re-downloaded the remastered version.
|
|
|
|
Post by niftium on Sept 3, 2024 9:52:53 GMT -5
I've seen remasters fix issues in original recordings. But generally they'll just pump up the volume and call it a day.
The CTS remasters definitely fall in the latter category. DM probably benefited the most, but I still prefer the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingman11 on Sept 3, 2024 13:47:16 GMT -5
I think there is a difference between remastering and remixing. The DYKWIM NG 2016 rethink was more of a subtle remix, with the strings being more pronounced in the mix (which I love btw, I prefer it to the original mix). A remix will bring certain elements of the song more to the fore or hidden more in the background, which does fundamentally change the song. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Remastering is a process of cleaning up and making an original recording sound a bit better, raising the volume a bit. Again, some remastering works very well, some don't. If you listen to recent remastering and remixing of Beatles albums, they sound so much better than the originals. Giles Martin has done an excellent job. You can hear the instrumentation and the vocals so much more clearly now. But there are some remastering jobs that either make no discernible difference or actually do a poor job and make it sound worse. As for Oasis, I don't think remastering jobs have made too much difference, except the 2022 remaster of The Masterplan. I noticed enough of an improvement that I replaced it on Apple Music. Deleted my older copy and re-downloaded the remastered version. Is The Masterplan remaster using a new mix or is it the same ones as there is one the CTS b-sides disc (minus the edits on I Am The Walrus and Listen Up) ? |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Sept 4, 2024 2:26:38 GMT -5
Both ! I love alternate mixes, new remastering and stuff like that because it can shed a new light on a band. You will hear new bits, new sounds, buried instruments, buried mistakes. Its very interesting but i also enjoy coming back to old "original" mixes.
Let's also take into account that bands are limited by the gear (and budget) of their time and could have done things differently with modern gear. So its not "betraying" a band to do new mixes, it's more putting a new light. As long as there is no new recording added, the process is completely fine.
The DYKWIM NG 2016 rethink is the most interesting example. There is literally nothing added, yet the tune sounds completely different. Better ? Worse ?... none of those. Just different. DYKWIM from an alternate universe. Noel would have never thought to release that version in 1997. But should he do the whole record like that ? Hell Yes.
Original mixes are also not the "definitive" ones. Its just a deadline thing. The producer is given a day to finish it and has to no matter what. If he had 3 days, 3 weeks or 3 more months, would he have done those mixes ? Probably not. Those "original" mixes are the testimony of a time, a place, but that doesn't mean the rest shouldn't be explored.
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Sept 4, 2024 2:45:57 GMT -5
Always the original for me.
It’s the sound of a point in time when the music was commited to tape with the equipment and people they had at their disposal at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Chief on Sept 4, 2024 6:15:53 GMT -5
Both ! I love alternate mixes, new remastering and stuff like that because it can shed a new light on a band. You will hear new bits, new sounds, buried instruments, buried mistakes. Its very interesting but i also enjoy coming back to old "original" mixes. Let's also take into account that bands are limited by the gear (and budget) of their time and could have done things differently with modern gear. So its not "betraying" a band to do new mixes, it's more putting a new light. As long as there is no new recording added, the process is completely fine. The DYKWIM NG 2016 rethink is the most interesting example. There is literally nothing added, yet the tune sounds completely different. Better ? Worse ?... none of those. Just different. DYKWIM from an alternate universe. Noel would have never thought to release that version in 1997. But should he do the whole record like that ? Hell Yes. Original mixes are also not the "definitive" ones. Its just a deadline thing. The producer is given a day to finish it and has to no matter what. If he had 3 days, 3 weeks or 3 more months, would he have done those mixes ? Probably not. Those "original" mixes are the testimony of a time, a place, but that doesn't mean the rest shouldn't be explored. That is a very interesting point! I do enjoy hearing those new hidden parts. But I agree with globe, the originals capture a certain moment in time that become part of the artwork. Take BHN. Would I buy a whole NG Rethink version? Absolutely! But it kind of wouldn't be the same record in a sense. BHN was what it was at the time, including the cocaine induced deafness and the hundred thousand guitar tracks playing the same thing and the orchestra being hidden behind them. Same thing with the Beatles' recordingss. It's annoying to have to listen to it with both earphones but at the time stereo mix wasn't a standard. Or better yet, think of the drums. The tea towels are part of the Beatles drum sound. But that unique sound is gone on Now and Then and it just doesn't sound right to me. This is kind of a stretch but say we bring Picasso back to life and he decides to redo his paintings millimetre by millimetre but using software and a digital pen. They would probably be as beautiful to look at, probably even more beautiful. But they would be missing what made the originals what they were. Artists using the best technology available at the time of the recording is part of the recording, to me anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by bringitondown77 on Sept 4, 2024 6:58:39 GMT -5
I think there is a difference between remastering and remixing. The DYKWIM NG 2016 rethink was more of a subtle remix, with the strings being more pronounced in the mix (which I love btw, I prefer it to the original mix). A remix will bring certain elements of the song more to the fore or hidden more in the background, which does fundamentally change the song. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Remastering is a process of cleaning up and making an original recording sound a bit better, raising the volume a bit. Again, some remastering works very well, some don't. If you listen to recent remastering and remixing of Beatles albums, they sound so much better than the originals. Giles Martin has done an excellent job. You can hear the instrumentation and the vocals so much more clearly now. But there are some remastering jobs that either make no discernible difference or actually do a poor job and make it sound worse. As for Oasis, I don't think remastering jobs have made too much difference, except the 2022 remaster of The Masterplan. I noticed enough of an improvement that I replaced it on Apple Music. Deleted my older copy and re-downloaded the remastered version. Is The Masterplan remaster using a new mix or is it the same ones as there is one the CTS b-sides disc (minus the edits on I Am The Walrus and Listen Up) ? I'm not sure to be honest, I just thought the new remaster actually sounded better than the original. |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Sept 4, 2024 7:22:51 GMT -5
Both ! I love alternate mixes, new remastering and stuff like that because it can shed a new light on a band. You will hear new bits, new sounds, buried instruments, buried mistakes. Its very interesting but i also enjoy coming back to old "original" mixes. Let's also take into account that bands are limited by the gear (and budget) of their time and could have done things differently with modern gear. So its not "betraying" a band to do new mixes, it's more putting a new light. As long as there is no new recording added, the process is completely fine. The DYKWIM NG 2016 rethink is the most interesting example. There is literally nothing added, yet the tune sounds completely different. Better ? Worse ?... none of those. Just different. DYKWIM from an alternate universe. Noel would have never thought to release that version in 1997. But should he do the whole record like that ? Hell Yes. Original mixes are also not the "definitive" ones. Its just a deadline thing. The producer is given a day to finish it and has to no matter what. If he had 3 days, 3 weeks or 3 more months, would he have done those mixes ? Probably not. Those "original" mixes are the testimony of a time, a place, but that doesn't mean the rest shouldn't be explored. That is a very interesting point! I do enjoy hearing those new hidden parts. But I agree with globe, the originals capture a certain moment in time that become part of the artwork. Take BHN. Would I buy a whole NG Rethink version? Absolutely! But it kind of wouldn't be the same record in a sense. BHN was what it was at the time, including the cocaine induced deafness and the hundred thousand guitar tracks playing the same thing and the orchestra being hidden behind them. Same thing with the Beatles' recordingss. It's annoying to have to listen to it with both earphones but at the time stereo mix wasn't a standard. Or better yet, think of the drums. The tea towels are part of the Beatles drum sound. But that unique sound is gone on Now and Then and it just doesn't sound right to me. This is kind of a stretch but say we bring Picasso back to life and he decides to redo his paintings millimetre by millimetre but using software and a digital pen. They would probably be as beautiful to look at, probably even more beautiful. But they would be missing what made the originals what they were. Artists using the best technology available at the time of the recording is part of the recording, to me anyway. Totally. I still remember walking home from High School listening to MG and BHN, playing them to death since back then, a record meant something. Those mixes are a time and place. They belong to history. But new mixes belong to history too, they are the testimony of a choice made, and explain a certain era in music: why they pushed the guitar and buried the bass in DM, erasing the late 80s : early 90s indie sound to create britpop, lowered the reverb in MG and using more acoustic guitars, or in BHN case, moved away from the MG sound by hiding the softer parts or more adventurous elements. The DYKWIM NG 2016 released in 1997 as a full album, and Oasis probably wouldn't have had that backlash, and their career could have been a lot different. This is was is very interesting about music record. From the same recorded tracks, you can create thousands of different versions of the same song and they can all co-exist next to one another. Its pretty unique in art. IMHO if someone is not interested in hearing those stuff, they are missing out |
|
|
|
Post by bringitondown77 on Sept 4, 2024 7:49:09 GMT -5
It's not an either/or choice. We can have the originals, enjoy them for what they are , what they captured at the time they were recorded, and we can have new mixes and remastered versions that give a different perspective.
As I said above, some remasters do a poor job, but some do a very good job and allow us to hear the recording in higher fidelity, which is more enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by GlastoEls on Sept 4, 2024 7:59:04 GMT -5
This is the George Lucas argument isn’t it?
He has the right to edit his intellectual property - hence the Star Wars Special Editions - but the issue was he suppressed the original theatrical versions which people of a certain age grew up on and loved.
Both should be available!
|
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Sept 4, 2024 8:04:25 GMT -5
This is the George Lucas argument isn’t it? He has the right to edit his intellectual property - hence the Star Wars Special Editions - but the issue was he suppressed the original theatrical versions which people of a certain age grew up on and loved. Both should be available! Yeah let's add to the debate that sometimes, bands dont have the choice over the producer or the final mix, so this is also a good way to hear what they envisionned in the first place. Kinda like Let It Be Naked. Although for this one, Spector Version is miles ahead the Macca one. |
|
|
|
Post by rollagher on Sept 4, 2024 8:07:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsifters80 on Sept 4, 2024 9:19:18 GMT -5
Original I suppose.
I dont know what they did on BHN's 2016 remaster but that caused some serious ear damage.
Almost unlistenable if you ask me.
That rethink of dykwim is terrific though, as it points out the subtle differences throughout the 7 minutes of the song while still sounding epic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamond in The Dark on Sept 4, 2024 10:11:31 GMT -5
I believe that in some cases for Oasis a "remix" is more necessary than a "remaster"...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Sept 4, 2024 10:21:01 GMT -5
Be Here Now needs a proper remix.
Noel might not be the best man for the job, though; his distaste for the mistakes of the original pushes him past the successes it made, too. The rework of "D'You Know What I Mean?" brings out some great layers but also loses the apocalpytic waves of sound which made the original so unique. The best version of the song is still not with us. I'm not sure who I would chose for the role, though. Spike Stent? Let Owen Morris have another bash?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Chief on Sept 4, 2024 10:30:12 GMT -5
It's not an either/or choice. We can have the originals, enjoy them for what they are , what they captured at the time they were recorded, and we can have new mixes and remastered versions that give a different perspective. As I said above, some remasters do a poor job, but some do a very good job and allow us to hear the recording in higher fidelity, which is more enjoyable. Oh I'm not saying it's either/or, just asking people's preferences. This is the George Lucas argument isn’t it? He has the right to edit his intellectual property - hence the Star Wars Special Editions - but the issue was he suppressed the original theatrical versions which people of a certain age grew up on and loved. Both should be available! Oh yes both should be available! Again, I'm only asking for people's preferences, just for fun. This is the George Lucas argument isn’t it? He has the right to edit his intellectual property - hence the Star Wars Special Editions - but the issue was he suppressed the original theatrical versions which people of a certain age grew up on and loved. Both should be available! Yeah let's add to the debate that sometimes, bands dont have the choice over the producer or the final mix, so this is also a good way to hear what they envisionned in the first place. Kinda like Let It Be Naked. Although for this one, Spector Version is miles ahead the Macca one. That is an excellent point! I've seen other artists as well lament the fact that they were happy with the end result but it was out of their hands. Even Noel with the WTSMG sound. I guess a different mix which he controlled would be a better representation of how he would want it to sound. I hear a slight difference but I can't tell what it is. Original I suppose. I dont know what they did on BHN's 2016 remaster but that caused some serious ear damage. Almost unlistenable if you ask me. I'll have to give it a try. I never listened to any of the CTS remasters. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5