Jimi Hendrix Both Sides of the Sky - new album coming March 9, 2018

Not enough bass? For you maybe Its there and noticeable. Hendrix wasn't for in your face bass so why apply it now?
Vocals are clear, very clear even on an mp3!

Not too inclined to think of "reggaefiying" Hendrix to be honest.

I have to agree that folk like Stanley and Godwin et al do a fine job, maybe just not for Hendrix.

Please, explain what frankensteining is and the difference between editing and this so called frankensteining process? Thanks.

For me frankensteining would be to apply totally unrelated audio to a basic track, even dare I say replace with overdubs and maybe even go further and say overdubs from musicians who were never part of the session!!! Of course, that would NEVER happen, would it

To edit is to apply cuts, overdubs [be they initially intended or applied or not] from a session or series of sessions from a group of musicians. Or at least that's the ethical application of the term! That Hendrix is not here to oversee this process is not relevant. If he were here the fact is, none of this would be sanctioned or authorised for release and we would be enjoying [or otherwise] his latest release.

 

As much as I love those box sets it has to said, because of them we get weaker stand alone sets issued, so far!

Those obscure B sides are a pain but it is industry standard practice and has been for a long time. Possibly because these recent times have seen a shift to vinyl only it grates more with listeners.

 

That's a valid point but on the question of B-sides, as I haven't got any of the "singles" released by EH over the years, what important tracks would I be missing? I have both the "purple box" and WCSB, obviously.

 

I use the term to describe the process of taking one take and inter-cutting it with another and / or "flying in" (an often used term in this forum) a vocal from an entirely different performance in order to create one complete take with vocal etc. There are many different ways of "frankenstein-ing" material today with modern digital technology so it's a term I'd use to cover a multiple of processes. Now, you will probably argue that this goes on all the time anyway in the process of an artist making a recording and this is true, but obviously Jimi isn't around to agree to this particular use of his unfinished recordings and perhaps more to the point, the manner in which EH markets these new albums is ever so slightly disingenuous.

"Editing" would be more about cutting a track down or indeed increasing its length by looping or possibly even re-arranging the order of verse / chorus / bridge / solo etc.

 

I agree. I've said before that when the catalog moved to Sony, all of the posthumous releases should have gone out-of-print. EH should have started over, with each release focused chronologically, based on the recording sessions.

 

Well you're not missing much as most of the tracks in question are from the purple box:
Taking Care Of No Business
Message To love
Lover Man
Somewhere
Stone Free (re-recording)
Peace In Mississippi (Valleys Of Neptune 7" b-side + purple box reissue)

Another good B-Side was "12 Bar With Horns" which with various other interesting jams in the boxes, I would have preferred to have seen collected together on albums put together like Nine To The Universe, Hear My Music and Burning Desire.

 

Understanding Frankenstein may well help understand the terminology.

Check out the story from Mary Shelley, ignoring the romantic aspect of course and does the term applied to the recording process by a group of musicians, in a single or multiple session really apply? Bit of a stretch really.

Yes, I agree that the term editing can simply be manipulating a piece of audio to increase / decrease its timing. Looping is no different to dropping in a piece from another take!

As I say, replacing musicians is what could be termed Frankensteining, overdubbing ones own parts years later could also be termed Frankensteining by some but the manipulation of various takes is simply the recording, mixing and editing of a single idea just as its always been in the recording industry. Having a live studio take to base the finished article on has not altered.

 

Yea I've never felt comfortable with mixing takes from sessions that seemed to have broken down at the time I feel bad for Jimi every time I hear sloppy vocal takes used & ragged loose stuff musically it just shouldn't be on major commercial releases, it's gone from stuff that should be geared to the diehards on dagger like releases to polishing turds for the masses.

 

Another use of the term Frankenstein could quite easily fit to the process of manipulation of audio by someone other than the artist and original producer / engineer.

Like enhancement or more so like added reverb / echo, added to a take to "enhance" the listening quality that is deemed suitable. Thereby adjusting the "real" sound from what the artist produced at that time.

 

Quite agree but there is a lot of snobbery from us die hard fans regard this. But that is the inherent nature of a "session".
The processes used by Kramer on behalf of EH is not inherently "to Frankenstein" because of it. My annoyance is the terminology used, it appears to promote ignorance more than anything else.

To also liken the processes used now to those from earlier custodians is, while fair in general, in itself misleading and the reactions of some would have us believe otherwise.

No, I'm not in favour of the material released by EH in some instances. I do applaud the attempts made even if I think some of the results are a little misguided. Over all I find them much more easy to live with than a lot of what has come before.

 

Frankenstein-ing does indeed go beyond editing. It is time-stretching and gluing takes of different keys/tempos and generally manipulating sound in the digital domain that was only a dream merely a couple of decades ago. Despite the inroads made, they still couldn't get the timing of the vocals on Crash Landing correct. That said, I am not inherently against it...in fact, I don't mind it, I just don't like the obfuscation that goes with it.

 

You will always get differences of key and tempo within any given session, after all these are real people in a real world setting, not a bedroom band!!

Tempo was something that could be manipulated pre digital btw. Time stretching and gluing were also available pre digital in the editing world.

As for any given song issues, perceived or otherwise is by the by. Getting something "wrong" does not make for a Frankensteined outcome!

Like I say, I get how frustrating this [process] comes across and I am by no means attempting to justify what is going on. My point is the terminology, especially when I hear it from folk who's opinion I appreciate and who's intelligence is without question, when its clear that if nothing else it [the work Frankenstein] is being used to over exaggerate a point of dislike.

 

Yes, I know about varispeed and other analogue techniques, but I mean, taking a 1969 Hit Factory take of VoN then muting the tape between every vocal phrase to make a composite vocal then stitching it (via time stretching - one time that EK admitted to it - even if it was a comparatively easy one) on top of an instrumental take from 1970 played by a completely different band. That type of thing was not available in the analogue days - hence the bringing together of constituent parts from different years with different groups is why some of us refer to it as Frankensteining. Mannish Boy - edit - same session, same musicians, same vibe, general vision/authorship can still be attributed to Jimi.

 

So what we have is a single instance of Frankensteining [maybe, it depends on definition but I go with it]. So why is everything termed Frankensteined?

Again, terminology. Where and when it applies is very limited as I have pointed out in earlier posts but it seems its a phrase used almost in every derogative post here regard something someone is unhappy with! It's then attempted to be justified by standing it up against someone else's work on Hendrix's back catalogue.

 

Title of the next EH release.

 

It's not just "Valleys of Neptune" itself. The same was done for "Ships Passing in the Night", which also had vocals flown in from a different recording.

 

Can you also post the detail, ta. It helps with some folk in understanding certain points and supports or otherwise the point being made.

 

Instead of Frankensteining it called also be referred to as a "mash-up" in the dance music terminology - bringing together parts that were never conceivably designed to go together. For example, EH releases off the top of my head - Stone Free (VoN album version), VoN itself, Somewhere (PH&A), Crash Landing - two of which were lead singles as promos...I may have left a couple out.

 

Are you sure about that? That was one take, there were two versions of Ships Passing in the Night - that one and the trumpet one, but they are different. I stand to be corrected though.

 

Yeah, I just checked. The vocal on the official release is from neither the trumpet nor the released backing track. In fact, there is at least one more version, a solo demo with an electric guitar arrangement very similar to the released one, and this is where the vocal comes from.

 

I can understand resistance and more to the method, but being as they are takes in the studio, arriving at a point of a 'best-sounding' or 'best performance' (arguably) via that method doesn't bother me fwiw, as a listener. Tragically the artist doesn't have a say in it so in that respect that is the most difficult part of the process, for this fan.

Re: the music itself (song, performance, mix...) it's the end result, of the released music, that matters to me most. Granted, sometimes I might not like a mix, or sound, but usually for me it just comes down to how effective or how much I like a particular performance or mix. Much more egregious, to me, would be calling something 'live' (concert release) but not fessing up or disclosing to having had to do a few overdubs or corrections here and there. It's all relative I guess, and preference. I've listened to "VON" dozens of times and it's given me some wonder and some joy when doing so and so I'm grateful it was released exactly as it was. That's just my opinion and face-value thoughts and selfish take on it, but now I can't imagine "Hendrix's music" without that take on "VON" and others. In general, defintiely not worth an argument from me, but always enjoy and learn from the discussion and conversations.

 

The trumpet version was recorded April 14. The Experience
recorded two takes on April 5. Jimi did some more work
on the track April 6. That is likely where the version on
Valleys of Neptune came from. Even though the liner
notes say it is from April 14 (trumpet version).

Do you have more info on the solo demo? Or where
someone can hear it.

 

+1 but doing the overdubs in the first place is the real crime.

 

It's listed as Night Bird Flying version (6), recorded April 24 69, according to Geldeart's Jimi Hendrix - from the Benjamin Franklin Studios.

 

Yes, exactly. It's on a boot called Talent and Feeling Vol.1. Not on youtube.