Chicago II Steven Wilson Remix Announced ! 01/27/2017

Indeed it was.

 

So I picked up the Gray/Wilson vinyl version yesterday at Barnes and Noble. My listening notes pretty much match @Headfone 's impressions.

I ended up widening the net to compare "Fancy Colours" and "Make Me Smile" among these masterings: new Gray/Wilson vinyl, the earlier Bellman vinyl, the CD (redbook) Wilson remix, the Mark Wilder "Group Portrait" mastering, the original CD mastering (two disc "fatboy" set). and the HD Tracks download of the DVD-A remix. These were limited comparisons and my first shootout of these sources using my new Cambridge CXR200 receiver.

The Bellman vinyl version is substantially louder than the new Gray/Wilson vinyl. It sounds to me like a large part of the difference lies in the original mix simply being more compressed than the Wilson remix. There's a basic tonality that's shared across all the original mix versions I compared, one that's especially hard to take at times during the Ballet, but peaky in the upper-mids most other times too. The Bellman cut has the resolution and sense of depth I associate with records made from original master tapes, with maybe a little EQ tweaking to make the rock, rock. It's not easy on the ears all the time, but it's exciting and musical. And yes, the wind chimes at the beginning of "Fancy Colours" are cut pretty hot, nearly to the point of unpleasant but not quite.

The Wilson remix sounds better on vinyl than on CD, but not by a huge amount, at least on a first listen. The vinyl sounds more dynamic and spacious, but the tonality seems to match. I like the horns on the Wilson remix, and the vocals also sound nice, but here a lack of compression (the good kind) dials down the energy and integration of the sound. Everything sounds a little subdued and a little less interesting, even when I match the volume. It's a smooth and lovely sound in many respects but it sounds a little denatured and it doesn't draw me in the way the Bellman vinyl does, even though the Bellman vinyl is aggressive-sounding at times.

Two more notes about both these vinyl versions. They both maintain the 30-second gap between "It Better End Soon" and "Where Do We Go From Here?"--an essential part of the experience, for me, and one that no CD version preserves. And they both include the original poster. Sadly, the Bellman preserves the nice brown tonality to the photos but plainly hasn't got the contrast right, and the pictures look scanned and blown-out in the whites. The new Gray/Wilson, by comparison, loses the nice brown tonality and looks kinda ordinary as a result. I have the original poster to compare them to. It's a small thing, but disappointing neither version gets it right.

For redbook versions of my favorite tracks from this album, I still really like Mark Wilder's mastering. It's the most musical sounding mastering of the original mix on CD, for me.

The HD Tracks download of the 2003 DVD-A remix polarizes folks here, and the more I analyze the mix, the more I can understand why. The horns really do kinda disappear in the Ballet, for one thing, especially toward the end. And I understand that the tonality may strike some people as overly EQ'd. That said, I still really enjoy this version. The remix is optimized for the rhythm section and the vocals, most of the time. The EQ brings out some great aspects of the playing and really locks in the rock energy. And for me, the tonality doesn't sound fake. The vocals are present but not edgy or bloated (hearing Terry's vocals on "Make Me Smile" is so satisfying in this mix). The higher resolution is also a plus--those wind chimes at the beginning of "Fancy Colours" have a dimensionality and depth on this remix that I don't hear elsewhere. Granted, I haven't heard the Wilson remix in hi-res yet, though I'm sure that's coming.

So, fwiw and YMMV and all. In the end, I'm happy to have all the versions I have and will likely end up buying more as/when they become available. The first step is to admit I have a problem. :-0

 

That's always been my problem with that remix. That is, to me, it doesn't sound like we finally got a "real" tonality after previous mixes screwed it up, it sounds like an attempt to extract a "real" tonality from what's an odd recording. Which ends up sounding odd in its own way. It seems like the Wilson remix also aims for that "real" tonality, but at the same time acknowledges there's only so much that can be done with the source material without sounding even more unnatural.

 

I think I understand, and it's probably the horns where I can imagine what you're hearing. They sound a little pinched, in a different way from the pinched sound of the original mix. (So much pinching, so little time). But the vocals sound fine to me, and the rhythm section (aside from the furious double-kick sound on "25 or 6 to 4") sounds fine. The bass guitar tonality sounds very much like the bass tonality on CTA. Same for the snare and toms, though maybe a little less so. The vocal tonality, to my ears, is somewhere between the relatively low-key Wilson remix and the original mix as it sounds on the Bellman vinyl mastering. These qualities keep me coming back to the 2003 remix (the full dynamic range version on HD Tracks, NOT the highly limited version on the DVD-A) for a refreshing and more "real" sounding version of this great album. Or maybe it's an alternate reality. Like everything, it's also system dependent.

I do agree that the original recording presents some nearly intractable problems, especially on the Ballet. The Wilder box does the best job of getting to "silk purse," to my ears, given the sow's ear Mark started with. And after all these years, it's STILL not clear why this record (and why oh why this record?) has these sonic problems.

 

The horns definitely bother me on the 2003 remix, but everything else sounds off to me to varying degrees as well. To me it sounds liked they *wanted* the drums to sound like they did on CTA, but the oddness of the original recording still comes through. Kind of like attempts to make the Stones' RCA recordings not sound so crummy. There's an initial "wow!" factor, but very quickly things just start to sound weird. You can only scoop out a peaky midrange so much.

But yeah, it's still unclear why the second was recorded the way it was.

 

Glad to say some of that "wow" hasn't worn off for me, even after years of careful listening.

 

The Bellman is definitely louder. I see myself reaching for the KG/SW more often, when I choose my vinyl setup, which comes and goes, when a quad option exists.

 

Just a heads up in case it hasn't already been mentioned, the CD is only $7.28 at Amazon right now. Grabbing it!

 

Down to $6.99!

 

The Wilson mix Chicago II vinyl is a steep price. Will get it eventually. CD will do for now.

 

A friend happened to notice this interview with Robert Lamm from last October:

"As you probably already know, the album “Chicago II” was remixed at the request of Rhino Records, which owns the master. It was done by Steven Wilson, who is a British producer. It’s not really a remix, because he was just really working with a stereo master. He was able to bring out certain aspects of what was really an 8-track recording."

Chicago’s Robert Lamm on revisiting ‘Chicago II’ and the band’s long and winding road

 

Huh? You believe that LP? Were we deliberately misled? Or just not fully informed?

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but Lamm is incorrect in his statements above.

 

Ok, that's a relief. I thought something was off. Why would he say that if it indeed was remixed from the multis?

 

Love this remix! Definitely a sound improvement, and I'm talking about the CD.
The vinyl release is still on my to-buy list. Should get that one sometime later this year.

 

Same here just so expensive as of now.

 

Really? Last time* I saw some good prizes for that. I'm just broke this moment.^^
*Well, when was that? Few months ago I suppose.

 

I'll check it out. Haven't checked price in awhile. I will later today. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Odd thing for him to say at first sight: a remaster of the stereo final master to make it sound more like the 8-track source recording? Why not, um, remix the source recording? I don't understand why Lamm would say this though ... why make a point of correcting the story if your correction is incorrect?

 

Didn't Steven Wilson post a picture of his computer screen with the multi-tracks of Chicago II on board? I seem to remember seeing that somewhere on this forum.

 

Yes.

Lamm is incorrect.

 

Robert Lamm calls it a "remix" twice in the phone interview, not a remaster.

 

Found where fredblue had posted it on the quadraphonic forum. You can barely see it at the top in the middle where it says "Ballet For A Girl In Buchannon"
Steven Wilson remixing Chicago II into 5.1 Surround...??

 

Musicians getting this type of information wrong is something I've been hearing, and reading, for decades now. A man out of his field is better off keeping his mouth shut.

 

And he also said this:

“It’s not really a remix, because he was just really working with a stereo master.”