Captain Beefheart Safe As Milk from the MONO master on Sundazed!!

Or else face the crimson death.

 

And why did you presume that?

 

Your analogies leave something to be desired. The problem with this particular one is the product in question has been "restored" with parts from a different model.

 

This is what I don't understand - you have stated that this reissue is a "mono needledrop with stereo bits patched in" - no if's, buts or maybe's, it is beyond contestable. As a result you and many others believe that Sundazed has undertaken deceptive behavior in marketing this product. Others have also stated that Sundazed have been fraudulent and that the product is an outright fake.

You have also stated that Sundazed engage in this behavior on a regular basis with their releases.

YET, it seems no one who believes this feel there is any need to take any action on this other that to post their feelings about it on this thread (and other Sundazed threads).

Has anyone sent an email to Sundazed - is anyone going to send an email to Sundazed and give them a chance to respond - if no response is received will anyone write to the FTC - will anyone actually do anything?

 

Regarding "restoration" -- I know the film world a little better, and if one had taken on a restoration, using the original negative when possible, resorting to a print or other source to fill in damaged or missing sections, and employing digital tools here and there as needed -- then such an project, if the results were satisfactory, would be applauded as a heroic effort. It doesn't seem to me that Sundazed shortcutted anything here, rather they used a variety of available material and painstakingly put together a quite pleasing and affordable version of this LP. I haven't had access to an original, but of the various stereo reissues over the years, I never imagined this album could have the punch it does now. It would be interesting to see how this particular sausage was made, but I don't see any deception in the marketing terms Sundazed have used on a hype sticker or FB post.

 

To use the "restored car" analogy, it's more like this (and just talking about the Frankenstein mono/stereo fold down issue, which has been proven by Luke)

Let's say a car maker had two different versions of the same sports car, one done with a fibreglass body (which is much more common - stereo mix) and a rarer version with an aluminium body (more desirable to the collector - mono mix)

So you buy a restored aluminium body version, it looks great, runs well and is in A1 shape. You bought it from a reputable dealer and you enjoy your new purchase for a time.

Then your friend has a closer look and it turns out that the front fenders and doors are from the fibreglass version.

The aluminium body (mono mix) is what makes the car desirable, and it turns out that your "aluminium body" car is actually a "cut and shut" job, passed off as the real thing.

Sure, it looks great and drives great, but it isn't what it was purported to be.

THAT is why we're unhappy.

 

As I recall, not from anything Sundazed said. Understand too, I presume some reissues are cut from digital transfers which are made from some sort of tape. I may have presumed it was from that process as well. Needle drops for an LP reissue seem to be the minority and I frankly did not care that much. At $20 or whatever the thing cost, and being from Sundazed, I expected about what I got. A black disc that emits music on my system.

I know digital sourced LPs get people knickers in a bunch but me - not so much. I've bought a number of records transferred from crummy digital jobs and something about the lacquer cutting and LP production processes smoothes out the sharp edges and makes it more palatable. I'm good to go. I'm still very picky about the sources and mastering of some recordings however. I renew my nerd card now & then.

 

I dont think anyone wants to see Sundazed shut down or Bob taken away in cuffs as he burns his stack of Beefheart mono albums screaming "G-damned those picky ass fans! They could have had the quad Trout Mask Replica!! Damned them all to hell *click* " ..haha.

And no one has said this isnt a decent sounding disc. What people want is the simple courtesy to let people know what they are purchasing. Id rather know that history is revised and that maybe..just maybe there IS a mono tape out there and that maybe just maybe it can be done even better. Instead there is a bad taste in some peoples mouth, not for the cd maybe, but for the smarminess of it all.

Id have much more respect for a company to say "Hey, this is the best we could do. We worked hard on this sucker to make it sound as good as possible for now. Listen and decide before judging that its not good sounding"

I miss those days of ICE magazine and CD Watchdog. People seemed to appreciate those articles. Dont see why this being pointed out is any different.

 

I was about to reply to this but Laservampire just posted a rather excellent analogy just above here.

 

So if you are picky about sources and such of some recordings then Im not sure how thats different for those who are picky here.

 

The only thing I'd add to this: how were the cars advertised or described? That is the crux here. If the hybrid was advertised by its manufacturer as all aluminum - thats deception.

 

That's true, however, if the material that was inserted to fill up the gaps where there was lost material had been damaged, or was of a different hue, then digital technology would be used to get rid of this and make it as seamlessly as possible flow with the film.

I know that removing particular instruments from a single mono source (that has come from the probable fold-down of a stereo-source) is not as easy as that (not that restoring film is easy). Normally those kinds of releases have a little documentary or some info in the sleeve, too, stating that certain scenes have been restored from an inferior copy, and we've tried to make them as close to the original as possible for your viewing pleasure blah blah blah. But, if @lukpac is correct, then there are actually speed differences on the intro/outro of one track, which could have easily been rectified, and they've let fadeouts go on too long, and so on. Again, this doesn't seem like careful restoration, to me, it seems like a bit of a botched job.

 

Lest we forget..it is a great album ..

Captain Beefheart Safe As Milk mono - YouTube »

 

That's just it, Sundazed described it in their ad copy as "Perry's original mono mix", i.e. the original mono mix of the album, done by Richard Perry.

Thing is, for a reasonable percentage of the Sundazed disc (and "Autumn's Child" pretty much in it's entirety) it isn't Richard Perry's mono mix of the album, it's some other engineer's stereo mix of the album, folded to mono.

Needledrops, master tapes, whatever. That's beside the point.

The mix the crux of the argument.

 

Its not fundamentally different. Picky is fine. Its less about the state of the product and more about what is overtly promised, what is subjectively presumed, and what is being publicly claimed.

The reason I got sucked into this train wreck of a thread is it's fascinating how people perceive information and rely on it. So much of this music hobby is subjective. I'm still amazed that a reissue that sounded so good before no longer sounds so just because some folks are exposed to not-so-obvious information.

 

Definitely a point of contention. And of course it doesn't help there are dedicated and folded mono mixes. Both are mono. Yet at the same time 'not' -- depending on ones viewpoint.

 

Really! The use of words like fraudulent, deception, shafted, lied to, fake seems pretty hard core to me.

It would be interesting to know whether all the people who are really outraged on this thread actually bought the release (either vinyl or CD).

At the very least I would have thought someone (who feels outraged) could co-ordinate an email to Sundazed about this reissue with people adding their names by consent in order to elicit a response - if no one feels the need to do this - then that would be very strange.

 

Yes, the UK version used a folded stereo mix. But Richard Perry's mono mix is the only dedicated mono mix, which is the one Sundazed purported to use on their release. They were pretty specific about it.

I bought their Frankenstein mixes 4 times over, both RSD singles, the mono CD and the mono LP, all direct from Sundazed.

Hence the outrage.

 

I'm not going to bother contacting the Federal Trade Commission in a foreign country over this, though if someone else wants to, hey, have at it. As for expressing my concerns to Sundazed, I'm sure they've seen this thread.

 

So I assume you have sent an email (or will send an email) to Sundazed pointing out their fraudulent behavior and at the very least asking for a refund.

 

Understood. But even so, much of Perrys original mono was restored (to availability). Its not perfect - but it does sound great.

Ya lose me on the outrage part. I'd consider it a lesson in researching before I buy in the future.

As I mentioned it seems strange you liked what you heard - until Lukes liver oil was administered. Is there any way you can get back to that primal enjoyment of liking the album? You have pbthals rip I hope. Sell the bogus reissues. Consider the moderate loss your tuition in Trust 101.

 

Come on - at least send an email to Sundazed pointing out that you've been sold a fake - ask for a refund.

 

Didn't Experience Hendrix/Universal fake one of the Hendrix mono mixes??

 

Good God. I threw out the receipt years ago. My bank's not going to accept an American cheque anyhow.

You give this kind of interrogation to people who don't call the cops when their bag is stolen?

 

Folks should give their no longer enjoyable Sundazed mono Safe As Milk albums to young record/music fans. Create some new Beefheart fans. Soon, before they become audiophiles!