Contrarian points of view

Which opinion do you guys have about music and remastering that really goes against the grain? One featured on this board extensively is the superiority of some 1980s CD masters to more recent remasters. Here are a few of mine:

1. I like the Spector mix of Long and Winding Road better than the unSpectorized versions I've heard this far, such as on Anthology and various boots. The pre-Spectors sound unfinished to me, and Paul has used the arrangement for Give My Regards to Broad Street, I believe. Perhaps my preference is because I'm so used to the hit version.

2. Most fake stereo is crap, but some isn't bad. I think specifically of the Mercury processing for groups like the Platters, nice echo and the sound isn't too tampered with. I also have a Cameo-Parkway related LP in which the processing adds some nice bass.

3. People I know hate hiss, but the recent Beach Boys twofers do prove that the NoNoised 1990 issues were inferior.

4. Stereo isn't always the best choice. The mono single version of the Beatles' Revolution blows the gutless stereo mix away. Same with Paperback Writer.

 

I prefer the Spector mix as well. I wonder what does Paul dislikes about it - the fact that he didn't come up with the arrangement himself perhaps?.....

 

More ignorant than contrarian, I don't have a problem with the state of Beatles catalog, as I didn't get into their complete catalog until the CD era. Therefore I'm unaware of all the sonic shortcomings that drive everyone else on the forum crazy . . .

I think the forum prefers the original remastering on only some catalogs: Led Zeppelin, Rod Stewart's Mercury albums, a few others. I think most of the catalog overhauls represent an improvement over the previous issues: Peter Gabriel, The Byrds, Simon & Garfunkel, The Ramones, etc. The occassional preferred old remasterings get more airtime, as it were, because we need to review how to identify them and why we like them better.

 

Re: Re: Contrarian points of view

1. He didn't like the idea of Spector touching those tapes at all; he was outvoted, plain and simple. Personally, I like the version as issued just fine, too. I think what might have bugged Paulie the most is the backing chorus, which he just felt wasn't appropriate for any Beatles record(does kinda sound like it was lifted from "You Can't Always Get What You Want"--the idea, anyway)and made sure we knew about it. On the other hand, "Yesterday" isn't exactly a Beatles record, so....

2. Sorry, but ALL FAKE STEREO IS CRAP. No exceptions. The Mercury jobs on the Platters did them no favors; the natural, flat mono has its own special dynamics; worse, they put songs in fake stereo that had true stereo masters. As for C/P, the Abkco reissue singles--in flat mono--have some bass from the original tapes that sometimes didn't make it to the original 45's. Even so, processing those doesn't make them sound better, just bassier.

3. There is nothing wrong with hiss; it's supposed to be there. When you hear it, you're usually getting the proper dynamic range, at least at the top; without it, you're being robbed.

4. No argument there, but if there are mono AND stereo master mixes of a song, it's well to have both. I usually find myself picking one or the other depending on mood, with some obvious exceptions. There's plenty of original mono that blows away the stereo versions, but not always for the obvious reasons, other than more time went into the hit mixes than the stereo Lp versions.

ED

 

Re: Re: Re: Contrarian points of view

What I never understood about that argument is that they used a choir on "Goodnight" in 1968 so he can't say it's not inkeeping with the Beatles style to use a big choir (if he did indeed say that ).

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Contrarian points of view

I remember the quote, something like this: "You never heard women on a Beatles record!" Probably an apocryphal quote, but even so, it has definitely stuck in his craw over the years. My guess is it's just not what he and George Martin would have done--which is true enough, I guess.
But Spector did nice work with LAWR and "Across The Universe" which he made positively majestic, not a replacement for John's original so much as another way of presenting it; very majestic. "Let It Be" I'm less fond of, as the 45 mix worked just fine; still, it ain't bad.

ED

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contrarian points of view

Ed,

listen to "Good Night" and you'll hear what George Martin did do in 1968 - use a female voice prominently in a choral arrangement .

I think Paul just doesn't like not being in control......

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contrarian points of view

I know "Good Night" fairly well and sure, you can hear that voice--can't miss it! I think you're right, Malc, Paulie wanted control but by then the film was ready, EMI needed the album, nobody could agree on anything, and Spector got it almost by default. Lennon was pleased with the result, anyway, and Paul had his 1st solo thing to do. And, too, Paul had a major hand in ABBEY ROAD and maybe felt a wee bit guilty the whole GET BACK thing had fallen apart, and nothing he could have done would make it right. Which was also true: still a difficult film to digest; not all that repeatable.

ED

 

I have always disliked the Spectorized "Long and Winding Road" because for 7 months prior to its release the local "underground" AM station played the "Cum Back" bootleg version over and over. The released version sounded too overproduced - you can barely hear any Beatle instrumentation on it. Least played original 45 in my collection.

 

A few non-Beatles (and decidedly non-audiophile) thoughts, followed by what I find to be my contrarian point of view:

The E Street Band is integral to Bruce Springsteen - I think some of his absolutely best work, including The Ghost of Tom Joad, Lucky Town, and Tunnel of Love, was done without the E Street Band. I think the E Street Band is symbolic to him at this point in his career, and that he is still capable of doing stellar work with them (e.g. The Rising), but I am neutral as to whether he does or doesn't work with them in the future. As long as he keeps advancing artistically, I don't care how or with whom he records.

Classic Soul is dead - I am a huge soul fan, and I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that classic soul is dead. I have gotten a lot of enjoyment from the new breed of "neo-soul" artists, and have faith that the India.Arie's and Jill Scott's of the world will eventually be given a strong and rightful place in the classic soul pantheon. Watching the new breed of soulsters has given me faith that R&B and soul will continue to expand and be a defining musical experience for a large audience.

Van Morrison somehow ceased to be important after 1974 - His early albums from Astral Weeks through St. Dominic's Preview and It's Too Late To Stop Now garner such a disproportionate share of attention for someone that has put out music at the pace of an album a year for over thirty-five years. I think his best music has been made in the last fifteen years, with Hymns to the Silence, Back on Top, Avalon Sunset, Enlightenment and the rest being just as relevant and important as his early work. In fact, the depth, maturity, and complex spirituality of his recent work has me believing he is actually a better artist now more than ever.

Elvis died when he went into the army - personally, I think he did his best work in the late 60's and early 70's, especially with the '68 comeback special and That's The Way It Is. I'll take the depth of his more mature interpretative work of this time period over the raw youth and discovery of his Sun days anytime.

Influence means something - it is occasionally fun to discuss "influence" of artists in the context of discussions about the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. Other than that, when I have music playing, it doesn't matter to me whether that artist influenced ten people or ten million people - all I care about is whether I am connecting emotionally with the music or not at the minute I am playing it. Influence be damned.

Who's Next, Sgt. Pepper's, Dark Side of the Moon are the greatest albums ever - while they may be, you won't hear it from me. I wish that Rhino's 6 CD "Can You Dig It? The 70's Soul Experience" would receive the attention of ten Who's Nexts, which is at least the value I place on it. I think I would faint if I saw it dissected anywhere to the same degree as these classics are.

This is all in good nature - I do not mean to offend anyone who I hold contrarian views to.

 

I love mono mixes...

 

Good evening, CM.

Offend? Here? Never!! Too many Gorts and Naugas hovering around for that

But, to take your post point by point:

E-STREET BAND: No argument here. NEBRASKA has no E-STREET, but it's still, for me, his most riveting, honest album, attempting to channel Hank Williams and the dark side of the soul--and succeeding. A real masterwork, and TUNNEL OF LOVE, among others, have great moments.

CLASSIC SOUL IS DEAD: Maybe not, but just a casual tour of '60s soul leaves any other period in the dust. A few names off the top of me head:

Otis/JB/Aretha/Sam Cooke/William Bell/Solomon Burke/Arthur Alexander/
Don Covay/James Carr/Irma Thomas/Percy Sledge/Wilson Pickett/Sam & Dave/Lowell Fulsom/Mack Rice/Ray Charles/Impressions/Booker T & MG's/
Carla/Rufus/Mar-Keys/Lou Rawls/Roy Orbison/Lorraine Ellison...

You couldn't make a list like that twenty years ago, let alone now...

VAN: Sorry, the 1965-74 period was an explosion of creativity he never matched again. But these are recordings of BIG pleasures; some of his best later music are recordings of SMALLER pleasures, more subtle, discreet, yet at times very deep and profound in delivery and intent. Being a major league Van The Man fan, I can't knock his later period, but there is nothing in it that has the pure pop appeal of "Brown-Eyed Girl," the wildness of "Mystic Eyes" or the serendipity of ASTRAL WEEKS or "Wild Night."

ELVIS: Fine period, though I would begin it with the Xmas Special and end it around "Burning Love." But Sun, the best '50s and early a'60s RCA Victor recordings, well.....hard to argue with them. Without the '50s stuff, I'm not sure a Forum like this--or the society we have--exists.

INFLUENCE: Agreed: overrated as a whole, but amazing what strange references and colorings will turn up in the most unexpected places.
The Velvet Underground and Beatles' influence is beyond question; others, hard to gauge.Love's FOREVER CHANGES is NOT an influential album by any means, just one of the very best ever made. SGT. PEPPER was influential, but a shame all the 2nd rate pretenders were, well, 2nd rate. The Stones were 1st rate but fell for it. Yet TSMR is still a quirky and fun listen. DSOTM has never seemed influential to me, except to the band itself: they've had to live it up and down all these years, to their financial benefit but(at times)musical albatross to bear. WHO'S NEXT, the same; hard to reference what it influenced.

GREATEST ALBUMS: Well....latter-day compilation comps like the Rhino set will never be dissected; few various artists comps ever are, even if some(NUGGETS)become semi-legendary. And why should they be? We tend to dissect unified works, not assemblages of old hits, except to bitch about mono/stereo, what's out, what's in, etc. FWIW, any label, any compilers, can assemble an exceptional compilation; if you know you're stuff, it's a no-brainer. One act, making a collection of great songs from sessions of work, and putting it together, is far, far harder. FOREVER CHANGES ranks as such an example; you don't need to know the band or the Lp's tempestuous history to enjoy its pleasures.

Just a few thoughts from a friend.

ED

 

Hey, CM Wolff, I don't even own DARK SIDE OF THE MOON or any Pink Floyd, for that matter. I mean, the sound effects are neat and all . . .

I agree with you also concerning Elvis Presley. The way some people tell it, you'd think he would have been better off if he disappeared after recording his Sun sessions instead of becoming the most famous man on the planet after Chairman Mao. Then he'd be an unsullied legend like Robert Johnson, instead of an overexposed icon reduced by familiarity. His "comeback" recordings would, on their own, mark a Hall of Fame career for any performer. You also don't hear that Elvis was one of the great soul singers by this point, despite his frequent covers of soul classics and preference for gospel music.

(For those curious, his comeback recordings on CD are contained on: TOMORROW IS A LONG TIME, TIGER MAN, SUSPICIOUS MINDS, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS EXPANDED EDITION, BURNING LOVE, and two volumes of the out-of-print ESSENTIALS series: RHYTHM & COUNTRY and A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contrarian points of view

'tis a pity he didn't take that attitude into his solo career.

As lovely a lady as she may have been, I was just thinking the other day that what really bugs me about the early McCartney and Wings albums is Linda's "nursery rhyme"-ish backing vocals. A far cry from Lennon's brilliant harmonies on many McCartney songs. Just try to sing them. They're not easy!

 

Hey Ron and Ed-

Thanks for commenting and agreeing at least on a couple. Makes me feel less contrarian. At least a little bit.

Ed - I won't rebut yours, but a couple clarifications. I never would disagree that soul hit its peak in the 60's. I am specifically getting at the frequent writing-off of everything done post-60's or 70's. India.Arie will not ever replace Stevie Wonder. All I ask is for someone to see the connection between the two of them. I am easy to please.

Re: Van Morrison, I will disagree to the hilt. Using your approach, material like "When Will I Ever Learn to Live in God" or "In the Garden" or "Youth of 1,000 Summers" are BIG pleasures. MAJESTIC pleasures. Pleasures NOT OF THIS EARTH. "I Wanna Roo You", most of Streetchoir, some of Moondance, half of Tupelo Honey are SMALL pleasures, enjoyable pleasures, earthy pleasures, but definitely no match for the depth of his later work.

 

Oh, I could go into the 70s with great soul music like Marvin Gaye, Bobby Womack, Isley Brothers, Joe Simon, Don Covay, Staple Singers, Curtis Mayfield, Lou Rawls, Temptations, Eddie Kendricks, David Ruffin, Earth, Wind & Fire, Ohio Players, Rufus, Bill Whithers, The Average White Band, Commodores, Johnnie Taylor, Stevie Wonder, Chairmen Of The Board, Natalie Cole, Peabo Bryson, Joe Tex, Ronnie Dyson, Teena Marie, Rick James, and Kool & The Gang!

It's hard to beat that list too, Ed! Ya just gotta keep your ears open!

 

And you can't argue about the influence Gordon Lightfoot has had on popular music either.

 

Grant, what about Al Green, Chic, Parliament/Funkadelic? We could go on and on, but that's my point. I used to think that the sixties were the apex of soul music, but as my music collection grew, I noticed the seventies were just as rich. I think the seventies soul gets short shrift because it took a back seat to disco for awhile, and because so many key performers -- Marvin Gaye, James Brown, Stevie Wonder --originally made their mark in the sixties.

I'm listening to the Isley Brother's GIVIN' IT BACK right now. By the way, I picked up The ESSENTIAL set from Earth Wind & Fire, and it's an ideal set for those who want more than a single-disc anthology. Sonics sound pretty good to me, too, although I have nothing to compare it with.

 

How about a couple more common observations and contrarian points of view?

Prince hasn't made worthwhile music since he changed his name to a symbol. I think the sprawl of Emancipation is up there with his greatest work. Admittedly, his output has been totally confused and inconsistent, but by writing it all off since becoming Weird Symbol Dude, people are going to miss out on a lot of complex, funky, and cool stuff. Hopefully time will be a fairer judge of what Prince was able to accomplish when he left behind his mass audience.

Clapton is God. I am a big (no, huge) fan, but definitely view him as a mortal. He seems to have been lucky in putting together a whole album that constitutes a major masterwork. Otherwise, his choice in material, producer, lifestyle, or some other intangible somehow sabotages him. Also, in my book, any divinity he might possess is not necessarily due to his guitar; instead, it is his very human and feeling voice and the constant improvement in his singing that I most closely identify with these days.

The details of an artist's life are relevant to evaluating his/her work. Once an artist has created something, in most cases, I am not interested in what he/she was thinking when producing that work, what his/her personal politics are, or what brand of beer he/she drinks. All that matters to me is whether I am connecting with the music at the moment I am listening to it. In that regard, I typically avoid straight biographies, personal interviews, or other forums or media that are about something other than the music. Similarly, I am a fervent believer in "trust the art, not the artist", and harbor no ill-will for (or interest in) the Dixie Chicks' politics, Pete Townshend's hobbies, or R. Kelly's taste in, um, women.

Diana Krall is a goddess. Well, um, ah, yes, I agree with that. No contrarian opinion to offer at all.

[Ron - thanks for the heads-up on the E,W& F set - I haven't picked it up, but will do so on your recommendation.]

 

Here's another:

Bonus cuts make a CD more valuable.

"Bonus" cuts were usually left off the album for a reason: they weren't as good as what was left on the album. For a few prolific artists, the outtakes can be worthwhile (see Bob Dylan's BOOTLEG SERIES or Van Morrison's PHILOSOPHER'S STONE, all sensibly collected on a separate album). And I don't mind appending unique single mixes to the end of an album, or the album entire in its mono/stereo configuration. But adding unpolished demos, false starts, alternate takes, rejected songs, or [teeth gritting] interview segments almost always ruin the CD for me, especially for shuffling five or six discs in a changer.

90% of bonus cuts are clutter. Most artists couldn't fill a thirty-some minute LP with four- or five-star material. They certainly aren't going to improve their chances by adding three rejects and a two-track demo to the reissue.

 

I love bonus cuts, but most of them arent that great. They often leave me wondering Out of all the unreleased stuff available, they picked that? Case in point with the Lennon remasters. A few of the cuts are ok, but the other stuff could have been much better.

Clapton IS God! Most of his producers, however, are the devil. Clapton is very much a live performer, sort of like McCartney only more so. Just pick up the Clapton Live at Hyde Park DVD or some of the bootleg 94 blues concert stuff or the D and D Fillmore shows or some of the other 70's concerts or the early 90's Japanese concerts. Even stuff from poorly/over produced 80's albums sound good live. HIs voice has gotten so much better over the years too. The amount of emotion in is voice is fabulous.

I have never been a big Van Morrison fan. I have a greatest hits album of his and it doesnt even have the right version of Brown Eyed Girl on it. One version says makin love in the green grass behind the stadium and the other does not. There may be some other differences too. Is this just the single and album differences or what? Morrison is just waaaaayyyy too preachy for me. About half of the greatest hits album is great, but I have to skip over some of the songs.

Pink Floyd was a great band. It took me about 10 or 12 listens to really like DSOTM. I like it along with the Wall and WYWH and some of the early material. The combined sound is better than the parts though. It is the cool synth and the keyboards and the slide guitar. I think preference for Floyd may also have to do with your drug of choice in high school. There is no denying that Gilmour is a great guitar player and a bit underrated. It's too bad he didnt write more after he left Floyd.

Mono is every bit as important as stereo. I like to have both.

 

Sure, Al Green too! But I don't consider Parliament/Funkadelic and Chic's 70s output straight-up soul.

...or gets confused with, or labled disco, or ignored because people don't like disco...

I just bought the new Legacy reissue of Bill Withers' 1972 album "Still Bill" on CD. The stuff is great! Too bad this stuff keeps getting ignored by the rock and soul crowd.

 

Well stated, Mr. Wolff. I thought I was the only one who thought this.

Here's a slightly different contrarian take on a subject already tackled in this thread:

Soul music died after Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered.

This theory is given great credence by many of those who have chronicled the rise of 60's soul. 1968 marked the beginning of the end for Stax, but that probably had more to do with business than music. That period of time also marks the beginning of the rise of the hugely influential Philly soul sound and the advent of artists gaining total artistic control over their work, beginning with Stevie Wonder's Music Of My Mind (and later Marvin's What's Going On.)

Just reading the list of all the great 70's soul already mentioned in this thread pretty much discredits this idea.

Chris

 

I'm afraid I must disagree. I think bonus tracks, particularly singles/B-sides from the same era, can be essential and most often add to the experience. I also enjoy unreleased tracks and alternate mixes. Of course their value is always on a case-by-case basis, but why not include these songs? It only takes a moment to program your CD player should you want to hear the album in its original configuration.

You're correct in saying that in many/most cases these songs were left off for a reason--but not always because they "weren't as good as what was on the record." In many cases songs were left off due to space limitations in the LP era. In others because they were released as singles. In still others, in-fighting among group members may have resulted in songs not having been included [Gene Clark's "She Don't Care About Time" comes to mind here]. In this era of the CD, my feeling has always been to give me the most bang for my buck. I'LL decide which songs I like and will listen to and will program my CD player or make a CD-R to reflect those preferences.