Pink Floyd The Early Years 1965-1972 -Anticip/ation

For someone with the box, is the KQED audio in sync with the video? Thanks.

Still waiting for Amazon.uk to dispatch.

 

I remember one of the box set trailers where the KQED version of 'Green is The Colour' is on that for a few seconds, and there was no sync issue. I hope that was just a livestream related problem.

 

It would be very hard to explain how a restored video would be as far out of sync as the video in the unboxing video was.

 

Maybe it's part of 'Seabirds'

 

I could imagine the shown content in the stream was coming from a promo disc, electronic press kit disc or a digital video file which maybe had a technical issue.

 

Also from what i gather here, the booted version is nothing but a dub of the film audio (ie includes the film dialogue) so it's not as if there is a "proper" version out there anyway.

 

Same with the alternative 'Cymbaline' version, so I heard.

 

Which would have made the inclusion in the set of a 'proper' version [which is what everyone obviously assumed from the tracklist] that much more exciting, which is what pissed everyone who cared off so much when it was revealed not be so.

 

But as you say it was only an assumption so there is no justification for being annoyed.

Was there ever any even a slight indication from the Floyd camp that a Seabirds with vocals existed or was going to be included in the set?

 

To answer your question seriously [at least AFAIK] it's probably one of the pieces recorded as a segue for Piper and later discarded. 'Sunshine' is not actually a definitive title for it [although a track/piece entitled Sunshine was apparently recorded around that time, we don't know whether this is actually it].
eta: So probably not part of 'John Latham' and probably not on the box [and I agree, it's a loss if it isn't, I'd like to hear more of it].

 

In order to avoid turning it into a five-page debate, I'll agree to disagree with you about that.

Personally, I was annoyed by it, but now I'm over it. There are plenty of other things in the set to occupy my ears with.

 

No, it was assumed that the track listed as Seabirds would be the version from the film with vocals and understandably so.

 

Huh? They could have added the word "instrumental", or "alternate" after the Seabirds listing and avoided a lot of confusion and annoyance. The fact that the vocal version on the soundtrack is commonly known as "Seabirds" should have been considered when listing the track.
edit: I'm over it now and have moved on. If they could have found the vocal version I'm convinced they would have included here. The extra instrumental is a nice find and helps.

 

Yes, that's what I'm hoping for! That would be awesome. In the meantime I've been using the pictures of the tshirts from their store and cropping the cover themes, but it's not ideal and the resolution is poor.

 

That was exactly the same way I had for the first artwork designs I posted few weeks ago.^^

[Edit:] Though I framed the cover themes with a black background and the campaign related white stripe behind it.

 

But they could have added it to the bonus volume that apparently contains more tracks with less-than-perfect quality...

 

Apparently it wasn't up to the standards of those tracks either.

 

It was assumed but no one knew whether it still existed and there was no concrete evidence that it did.

The fact that there was no booted version without the film dialogue weakened the case that it was still available intact.

It was just that and only that - an assumption.

 

Yes, a reasonable assumption based on the TOTALITY of the circumstances.

 

Man, I'm really uncertain about this mix of "In The Beechwoods". Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be tons of stereo processing on this. Both the keys and guitars seem to have some stereophonic slapback going on to give them the illusion of more space or even being double tracked. Don't get me wrong, it sounds great and I'm thankful to hear it finally, but it's really anachronistic when compared to anything else on Saucerful.

Anyone else hearing this?

 

And good for them (really), if they excluded tracks that really fell to that level of quality. "Half good" sounding tracks is one thing, but stuff that sounds noticeably subpar, several levels in quality even before that, has no business being comingled (on the same CD) as the "half good"-sounding stuff.

Maybe if there was a full 60-80 minutes worth of crap-sounding stuff, sure, if they wanted an entirely separate CD for that stuff (all by itself), then who cares. But tacking on a few extra tracks that sound like garbage, along with the "half good" stuff -- would practically ruin those extra CD's from the bonus sub-box.

Not every last thing deserves to be issued, far as I'm concerned -- especially where there's SO much that IS worth releasing (and, much to all of our great surprises, they in fact are releasing damn near all of it).

 

Do you have a link that you posted these on? I'd love to see them I must've missed them the first time around.

 

For those who got the box already: is Moonhead's sound quality significantly better than what has been booted for years?

 

Yes, I'm interested in knowing about the bonus content. How acceptable is the sound quality?

 

We'll none of us have heard it, so we can't be sure it is that bad. It may just be that the vocal is loud enough for you to tell there's a vocal there but not loud enough to for you not to think that there's something wrong. If there were no vocal at all it could pass as a Beechwoods instrumental kind of a track, perhaps, but a too quiet vocal on a studio track is probably not acceptable - I'm just speculating, of course. But, we know that it at least exists and maybe we'll get to hear it one day - a bit of a curio relating to a lost song.