Easy on the histrionics. No one said that nobody cared either. It was in comparison too... ...forget it. I can't teach reading comprehension.
I can read well enough to recognize back-pedaling, moving the goal posts, and an insult. We done here?
I love how you think you know my tastes better than I do. No, I would like a complete live box, because I don't like live mixed with studio, in the same way that the compilers have, hilariously, excluded ALL live tracks from the Re:call albums that come with said box. What bit of that aren't you quite grasping?
Man...getting testy in here. Anyone happy about this box set besides me? Any new info about who did the mastering?
Since I sold my vinyl collection 20 years ago the only pre Never Let Me Down Bowie I have is Sound + Vision and the 20 year Ziggy Stardust.These 3 boxes are made for me!Also impressive that they are getting them all out over a 1 year time span.Mr Young take note.
Now you're just making stuff up. What, pray tell, are all these live b-sides that Bowie released before 1974 that have now been sinisterly suppressed? Okay, whatever, the compilers of this set secretly agree with your idiosyncratic position but were so browbeaten that they could only express their displeasure for live recordings by removing from the historical record a bunch of live b-sides that never existed in the first place! I trust I'm not going to encounter a more florid conspiracy theory this week!
Sinister, suppressed, secretly, idiosyncratic, browbeaten, displeasure, conspiracy theory all used in one short paragraph. I really do think that you need to chill a little because your replies on this thread come across as extremely angry and unfriendly.
I have the recent Ziggy remaster on vinyl, its jolly good and if they do the job to the same standard on every disc in the boxset then I'l be having one.
Hey, you could at least answer my question instead of being so evasive. You've made several statements of fact over the course of this discussion and haven't backed them up. I'm not angry about anything, just curious to see if there's any substance here.
Is all I have actually said in this thread is that I would have preferred that the live albums were issued in a separate box. For that you tore into me like a pit bull. Sorry but there is really no need to be so downright rude and vicious. I have been a member of these forums for a couple of years now and you are the only really unpleasant person that I have come across. I really hope that our paths don't cross again, or until you have at least sorted your anger issues. Enjoy your weekend.
Maybe something to do with the same live albums that Bowie released before 1974 as well. Now tottle along now, Mrs Angry.
Yes, that's my feeling exactly. If they're done that well it's a no brainer for me. The problem is, we have no idea until it's actually here. The excitement and anticipation in the abscense of anything solid to go on is what fuels a thread like this. Without fail, things get a bit nasty arguing over something no one's even heard. Let's just see what it's like. Then we'll have it out.
In respect to the vinyl issues, and having carefully read all the posts as well as the official literature, let me put my finger on what hasn't been forthcoming from the official camp(s), and if it was, might soothe many concerns - to what standard are the vinyl Lp's being manufactured to? Are they being mastered to replicate the very first issued LP's, or to replicate the master tapes, or are they being mastered to have a "modern sound" ( whatever that might be)? It was well publicised for The Beatles mono box and I think also the Dylan that they would be like the original LP's, only better, due to better cutting techniques than what was available during the 1960's. They were of the highest quality, and everyone was happy. There has been no such statement about the Bowie LP's, and I think there needs to be. In the absence of such a statement, then there is no reason to believe that these reissues will be the pinnacle of quality. Sure, for first time buyers it's a relatively attractive way to garner all albums together at the one time in a consistent package. Possibly for all others though, it seems to be a question of what will they be like, as much of the previous reissues (even during the RCA years) varied a lot in quality. Recent examples of questionable practices: 40th Ziggy Lp though well received has some compression, not present on the first US or UK Lp's, and the reproduction of the original inner sleeve was a poor copy of an (original) RCA UK inner which in itself was a poor quality reproduction of the original US inner. The image on the inner gatefold was a CD quality image enlarged for LP, without consideration to increase the resolution at the same time. & Aladdin (CD only) the relative volume of the tracks has been altered substantially and the quiet tracks have been pushed up in volume (eg Lady Grinning Soul). When I look at the images I see revisionism - The Man Who Sold the World is presented in its 2nd design rather than the first - why not present the cover as originally presented, or better still, as designed (cartoon front, dress image in the inner gatefold). Hunky Dory appears to have the dropped black frame of the UK covers with printed title and artist info rather than the even frame of the US cover without the text. (On all RCA UK rear covers the US information is visible - the UK cover was copied from a US prepared cover). Significantly the official Bowie site show the correct first covers in the music section ( though with the second issue "sticker" on Hunky Dory). Finally, if the albums are being mastered to sound like the original first issue LP's - which are they choosing, and how careful is that choice being made? For the Philips LP it's easy - the UK was first. In the case of the Mercury album the tapes were first cut in the US, then months later in the UK, and then transferred to RCA New York in '72. The RCA period LPs are a different kettle of fish altogether - much comment is made on this forum of preferences for this or that pressing. In the US, RCA New York , to whom Bowie signed with, (despite being an English citizen at the time) used the same masters throughout the RCA years - the quality of the stampers varied which affected the noise and other sound quality considerations, but the basic tonal quality remained the same (and hence why the RCA US LP's and US (Jpn for US) CD's are generally in the same ball park with regards to tonal quality). In the UK RCA England remastered the LP's several times, each time quite differently, and hence there is a wide tonal variation on the the various UK RCA issues of the studio LP's that will appear in this box. First masterings (with stamped matrices (up to Aladdin)) all sound different to the mid 70's with scratched matrices. Later full price issues sound different again. The budget label of the early 80's issues were clean, but compressed somewhat. Research conducted on the "Illustrated David Bowie" forum suggests that for the RCA years that original (source) issues are all US issues, with the exception of Aladdin Sane (and Rare of course). Pinups seems prepared in both territories separately (the rear cover images of the UK and US do not align), though Kevin Cann's book "Any Day Now" clearly indicates the UK as the original design (with the smaller lettering). The evidence lies in the covers and inserts themselves - a side by side comparison of first issues from both US and UK will reveal the US origins. ****** A bit long perhaps, but hopefully to the point. "Please "official body", please state to what standard the records and covers will be manufactured - there are sufficient examples of questionable quality controls in recent times to warrant such a statement."
What are the chances of these new remasters improving on the better of the US/WG original RCA cd versions.
Well the sort of proves that however they look and sound , a bunch of folks won't be happy because there was no real set standard in the first place. Unlike the mono Beatles. But someone needs to make a decision and go with it. I'm sort of trusting that someone
Well ok if it was careful calculation. Seriously, do folks have high hopes these will be definitive digital versions or excited about bonus tracks?
YES! I just want to thank all the kind folks in this thread for reminding me that the world would stop spinning if it weren't for the Beatles and Stones and that analog vs digital is World War 3.
I'm very excited by the box as well. The Nothing Has Changed cd sounds great so I'm hopeing for a similar treatment to the rest of his catalogue.
My prediction: This is the first and last box in this series. So Five Years, and then nada. Like the on-again, off-again 30th/40th anniversary reissues, this box will be yet another false start in the land of Bowie repackaging. It's fashionable to dismiss the Ryko campaign now, 25 years later, but it remains the last thoughtful remaster/reissue campaign of Bowie's classic catalog (1969-1980) to date. And also the last time we heard anything totally new emerge from the vaults (e.g., "Sweet Head", "Candidate (Alternate Version)", "Some Are" - things that hadn't even been bootlegged before), even though we know there's plenty more in there (Bowie himself has said so, many times).
Could be but the official announcement and Rolling Stone article says this is the first box of several coming out.
Nah, you kept trying to bolster your opinion by positioning it as the 'artistic' option and citing nonexistent 'facts' in support (why are they including the live albums when they aren't including any live single tracks?). If you'd just stated an opinion there'd be nothing to critique. I was probably more sarcastic than necessary, but it was the culmination of the dozens of "this release isn't exactly what I wanted, therefore the compilers must be insane / incompetent / cynical sell outs" posts in this thread. There are more constructive ways to talk about a release than to construct a bogus 'art' (my ideal track list) vs 'commerce' ( what we're getting) dichotomy.
