Old Albums, re-done?

When i went to the Roger Waters tour, they made some "changes" to the Dark Side set, and for me it was good.

Kotro wrote: I wish most modern albums could sound like the old ones.

With the loudness war which reigns actually, it would be really bad! I really think that the sound of these old albums are really a part of the music. Mike Oldfield is still surprised by the success of the badly recorded Tubular Bells and the failure of the new Tubular Bells albums well recorded.

It seems that today we think more about the production than the writing and composing, everything is so clean that nothing happens...

Dean wrote: BroSpence wrote: Toaster Mantis wrote: BaldJean wrote: I think the problem is a psychological one. those old recordings with their objectively imperfect sound quality sound better because in real life we never are in completely undisturbed surroundings; there is always some background noise, and be it only minimal. anything that we hear against that background sounds natural and "warm". remove that background sound by digitally recording all instruments directly into the console, and it sounds sterile, though objectively the sound is better. there is a lesson we can learn from that: "better" is not always better That's also why ProTools aren't what they're cracked up to be... they make the music sound like something nobody could actually play. Well no. ProTools is a recording/engineering program not a device that you put onto music. It has plug-ins (reverb, delay, compression, EQ, etc) that can be used on the recorded music, but considering most places that remaster things are big studios, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth in analog equipment that you can patch into. So instead of mixing a recording in the box (on the computer with only what the program offers + the plugins purchased), these well off studios can patch an API 512C into the console to EQ it, or whatever else is available, or depending on the quality of their console, they could just get a great sound through since they usually have a decent amount of needed options. Then you are easily able to make a great sounding recording. The problem is engineers that either suck, think mixing only through a computer sounds good, and more importantly the fact that many people that decide to "make it" can't actually play their instrument well and so the engineer is faced with the sh*tty job of covering that guys goofs and lack of skills.   It goes deeper than that (and I don't mean just using auto-tune) - even with talented and competent musicians the ability to tweak a track to  'perfection' is a temptation that is difficult to resist. A lot of musicians are perfectionists (and control freaks ) and are never happy with their performance and can always do a better take than the last one. So given a 'tool' that can move specific notes and replace (to them) duff notes with a good ones, it is inevitable that they will use it. There lies the problem - once you get 'perfection' you lose the human element - a sh!t-hot drummer becomes a mere drum machine, a slick keyboard player is just a sequencer and a mean guitarist is just an LP played at 45rpm... in effect by creating perfection the soul of the music is engineered out.

Tweaking a track to "perfection" isn't really a temptation that has every musician, producer and engineer by the balls (or other soft spot). They are able to do that if they have the necessary equipment, but a competent musician whether a perfectionist or not is not that likely to say "I missed the B in measure three, six, ten, and fifty-four, the C# in measure twelve, etc, could you just auto tune those?" They will more than likely RERECORD it, as a good musician knows they want to have their own playing on the album and not their playing plus corrections and exact duplications (duplicating a previous part and putting it in another section). Most musicians would be offended if they were asked to be heavily auto tuned as it is
1. silly to use seeing they can just replay the song with ease.
2. It sounds like sh*t and is very noticeable.

Perfecting the tracks by way of a computer program is usually not the answer for perfectionist who like to have perfection through themselves and not something-else. Do you really think Frank Zappa or Steely Dan, two notorious perfectionist artists would be/are tempted by auto-tune and the ability to rearrange entire performances by cutting a pasting? Two artists that are surrounded by incredible musicians and are known for spending hours in a studio for just one part? I highly doubt it.    Then there are creative types like Brian Eno and more recently Tool who use auto-tune in some parts as an effect (not a corrective tool. See: the intro of "The Pot", Eno's last album "Another Day on Earth").

I agree completely that making the recording "perfect" sounding can ruin it. However, that style of production is usually maintained by way of major labels and bigger recording acts.


On another note, some musicians that are competent or good at what they do, can become lazy when they become aware of what is possible with newer digital technology. Such as, a saxophonist that recorded an improvised 52-bar solo for some song and then asked the engineer (after finding about the new wonders of technology) "Now could you move bar 12 before 7, then move 4 after 33...." In that case the man may have been able to play his saxophone, but rather than say he is unhappy with the take he decided to give hell to the engineer and ask him to rearrange a long solo which probably wasn't good to begin with so that he could maybe see if it sounded any better. In a situation like that I would demote the man from competent musician to jackass. This guy was not a big league sax man though, and if he were someone like Joshua Redman or Kenny Garrett he probably would have just done it over again as most able musicians would.   The man also failed to realize a few things.
1. would be quicker to just rerecord
2. rearranging the solo would take a while
3. probably wouldn't sound good anyways

He had only heard that the ability to rearrange was possible, but did not realize what is involved, as if it was automatic magic when in fact it would be more similar to having to cut tape and reorganizing that (only there's an undo button).

Another example that comes to mind are the recordings of Muse and The Mars Volta. Both are great bands (and coincidentally use the same mixing engineer/producer for their recordings). Both groups have good musicians playing on the recordings. Both put out recordings (at least their more recent ones 2-5 years) that sound really good. Clean, "perfect" digital sounding, yet still have great energetic performances, and a few barely-off notes and sloppy performances. Neither have auto-tune (or at least nothing too noticeable) or horrendous "machine-like, soulless" replacement sounds.   Both used ProTools in combination with many pieces of analog equipment. Thats the way it should be used, and is used by good artists.

Toaster Mantis wrote: BroSpence wrote: The problem is engineers that either suck, think mixing only through a computer sounds good, and more importantly the fact that many people that decide to "make it" can't actually play their instrument well and so the engineer is faced with the sh*tty job of covering that guys goofs and lack of skills. So that's where the problem lies. I myself don't mind sloppily played music, I actually think that often adds a certain charm to it at least when he music is supposed to be raw and chaotic.

I don't mind sloppy music either, but it all depends on who it is and what they were going for. A Stooges album that sounds clean and well played and produced would be awful sounding where as, a Sting album with a lot of feedback from the equipment and minor tempo changes (as in slowing or speeding up a few bps accidentally) would probably sound bad. It would be interesting, but lets face it, Sting likes to be precise and clean.

WalterDigsTunes wrote: Absolutely not. It might sound spiffy and newfangled today, but in five years, it will sound dated and terribly 2008. Remember when Eloy re-did some of their early tunes for an early 90s compilation? Guess what those tunes sound like today? Besides, to re-record the music is to remove it from its original historical context and suddenly shove it somewhere it doesn't belong. To me, that's a pointless exercise that offends the craftsmanship, ingenuity and freshness of the initial project. That, and I find modern production techniques to be bloody awful

BroSpence wrote: Toaster Mantis wrote: BaldJean wrote: I think the problem is a psychological one. those old recordings with their objectively imperfect sound quality sound better because in real life we never are in completely undisturbed surroundings; there is always some background noise, and be it only minimal. anything that we hear against that background sounds natural and "warm". remove that background sound by digitally recording all instruments directly into the console, and it sounds sterile, though objectively the sound is better. there is a lesson we can learn from that: "better" is not always better That's also why ProTools aren't what they're cracked up to be... they make the music sound like something nobody could actually play. Well no. ProTools is a recording/engineering program not a device that you put onto music. It has plug-ins (reverb, delay, compression, EQ, etc) that can be used on the recorded music, but considering most places that remaster things are big studios, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth in analog equipment that you can patch into. So instead of mixing a recording in the box (on the computer with only what the program offers + the plugins purchased), these well off studios can patch an API 512C into the console to EQ it, or whatever else is available, or depending on the quality of their console, they could just get a great sound through since they usually have a decent amount of needed options. Then you are easily able to make a great sounding recording. The problem is engineers that either suck, think mixing only through a computer sounds good, and more importantly the fact that many people that decide to "make it" can't actually play their instrument well and so the engineer is faced with the sh*tty job of covering that guys goofs and lack of skills.

Edited by darqDean - June 28 2008 at 20:09

Kotro wrote: I wish most modern albums could sound like the old ones.

know what you mean, Wobbler's Hinterland has a wonderfully old sound and though a perfect production would've also been nice, the album benefits from it's creakiness.. Wakeman's Retro another interesting example where he used vintage equipment and analogue recording techniques to make the album   ..on the other hand I quite like my Darwin re-recording but that's probably cause I don't have the original 

BaldJean wrote: I think the problem is a psychological one. those old recordings with their objectively imperfect sound quality sound better because in real life we never are in completely undisturbed surroundings; there is always some background noise, and be it only minimal. anything that we hear against that background sounds natural and "warm". remove that background sound by digitally recording all instruments directly into the console, and it sounds sterile, though objectively the sound is better. there is a lesson we can learn from that: "better" is not always better

Yep, couldn't agree more and I am not sure if you are aware of this BaldJean, but your post outlines the exact rationale behind John Cage's infamous 4.33 piece (i.e his assertion that 'silence' is impossible)

Most audiophiles will have both i.e the remaster and the original, and will know the distinction and difference of the overall sound. Personally I would never trade the originals for a modern day version of Tubular Bells or Phaedra. In fact I have not gone out and bought either new ones. Even Nursery Cryme, warts and all is what makes the album less sterile and special. But when the LLDOB gets remastered, my curioisity will get the better of me....

BaldJean wrote: Hawkwind only recorded new versions of the odd old song and put it on a new album, but did not redo the albums completely. I actually like the newer versions of the songs too. they are different, but not necessarily bad

I don't think any of the re-recordings have been very successful except perhaps Paradox. There's a danger of ending up sounding like a cover band of yourself.

One band that did re-record an old album was The Enid - In the Region of the Summer Stars as they couldn't get access to the original tapes. I haven't heard the new version but the reviews on here seem to suggest the originals are a little better.