I have a feeling it won't be accepted. The reaction to the Maslin STS mix and the Ken Scott Ziggy mix has been underwhelming to say the least, and I don't think it was just because of the compression. People don't really like classics to be messed around with. For me it doesn't matter whether it's worse or better, and I really rate Lodger as an album, but after 38 years I'm just looking forward to hearing something a bit different. We're no longer getting tracks from the vault, so a few alternate takes mixed into a remix is about exciting as it's gonna get for me.
Really? LOL I certainly do make mistakes when typing onto a message board. I'm sorry they offend you. Perhaps I shouldn't just type comments, and click "post". Perhaps I should worry about such things, and that would please you. However, I'm more than happy that my points get made, and leave it at that. I have found "grammar nazi's" on message boards are usually tedious bores. Though of course, I'm sure that doesn't apply to you, and I wouldn't want to suggest it does. Sadly, there is a time limit of my being able to edit posts, so can't bring it up to your required standard now. And no, being perfect grammatically is no barrier to having books published. Fortunately, there are these people known as "copy editors" who do an awful lot of work. As for "the attitude". Did you perhaps forget the emoji? What's with YOUR attitude? Do you have anything to add to the topic? I'm sure it's not news to you that mistakes people make are corrected on this web site (especially given your post). It happens every day, and in many threads. So when KM talks nonsense about publishing - and I know for a fact it's nonsense - I corrected him. If such corrections aren't allowed on here, the board will surely become a very different place. Now - common sense would suggest I ignore your troll, but I hated to leave you hanging. You have a nice daaay. (Yeah, alright, that last one was deliberate.
Yeah - there really is this "written in stone" attitude out there. On the other hand, Steve Wilson's mixes of Tull's work, and also Yes, have been accepted. In fact, for me they're the ones I reach for when playing those titles these days. Yah never know (although speaking personally, I have a sneaky feeling I won't have my mind changed about which is the "real" Lodger).
I'm not trolling at all, just registering my objection to your attack on Karmaman. I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are to yours.
Indeed you are. Thank you for your comment, I read it, and gave it more than its due regard. However, you did rather more than register an objection, and instead attacked me in turn. Some - though of course not me - might consider that hypocritical. Hence my response. Still, no worries, I honestly found your post funny, so it's all good.
Who was it that said an album is all about sequencing? I have a feeling in the case of albums like Lodger that's a very pertinent observation. Part of the reason people never warmed to it is the tracks are sequenced in a very wearying and disjointed fashion, with all three (UK/US) singles on side 2?! This is how I prefer to listen to it: Side One 1. Look Back In Anger 2. Boys Keep Swinging 3. Repetition 4. DJ 5. Red Money Side Two 1. Red Sails 2. Fantastic Voyage 3. Yassassin 4. African Night Flight 5. Move On
Wow, that sequencing would not work for me at all. I personally don't think track sequencing is Lodger's problem, but of course, even good or bad sequencing is a subjective thing.
Yes, although general consensus is that "Abdulmajid" was heavily reworked/reassembled c. 1991 for the Rykodisc reissues, nearly a decade after Blade Runner came out. (The track may have used actual Heroes-era material, though).
If you are a fan of Jethro Tull's Aqualung and haven't purchased the remix 45th set, run, don't walk, to your computer and order it. Regarding Lodger's sound, it's not really substandard, just a bit muddy. IMHO, this album is one of the shining lights in the Bowie canon.
i have plenty of experience in publishing thank you very much but don't feel the need to use that to take the higher ground. secondly, i have communicated at length with Mr Pegg for more than a decade, covering numerous aspects of his book and am fully aware of the problems he faces each and every time it's updated, including budgetary constraints. so yes, the issue of an index has been raised and for the reasons stated, i know for a fact why he decided against one. unlike you, i accept and understand that decision. as a final point do you really think i'm going to reveal information about Mr Pegg's contracts on an open music forum just to win an argument with you? there is no argument to be had here. we're talking about an index. get some perspective and leave the personal grievances out of it.
I really liked Steven Wilson's remix of Relayer, and the Sgt. Pepper remix was so much more enjoyable than the original unbalanced stereo. Unfortunately it seems like a lot of the albums that get this remix treatment are ones that already sounded pretty good...they never end up getting to do Going For The One or Exile On Main Street or something. I'll be curious about this one, though.
Hi all, Just found out about this upcoming box. Do we know yet if this box is sourced from the master tapes, or...gasp..digital...? If it's all-analog, I'm sold! PS I know some of our forum members have very sensitive eyes, so sorry if this has already been asked/answered here..
First I've heard of it. Are you sure it wasn't just another remaster? And are you sure it wasn't the Sticky Fingers 2015 Edition people weren't talking about?
Yes, there's something fishy about a LOT of the Ryko bonus tracks (including the so-called demos), according to some experts.
And when I suggested an e-book, you were rather rude and curt, when the explanatory 2 sentences in the post of yours I'm replying to would have served as well to make your point.
your post: "E-book! E-book! E-book!" mine: "ugh! ugh! ugh!" see what i did there? rude and curt? no, just an obvious, admittedly lame joke. it has NOTHING to do with the big index dilemma.
There is no big index dilemma. The book doesn't have one. Some people think it would benefit from one, others don't. It's just opinions, not a dilemma. You insinuated earlier that an index wasn't included due to page count/cost issues. I pointed out that your conclusion was based on an assumption that one was a trade off for the other. That is not how publishers work. As long as you have an index included in the original proposal, then it's simply factored in with everything else. It is never a case where a publisher says: "You can have a 20 page index, but you must remove 20 pages from elsewhere" - UNLESS - an index was NOT included in the original proposal, and is in fact being added after the fact (the fact of writing a proposal, and signing contracts). If the latter - then the trade off is the authors fault, not the publishers. Page counts get locked in fairly early in the process, at the negotiation stage. There is a small amount of wiggle room, but it is small (don't know what Mr. Pegg's publisher allowed, but typically for me it was in the order of 20 pages across the entire manuscript. My original proposals all had to include an estimated page count for each section which became locked in when contracts were signed. ) Equally, publishers won't accept you writing less. So if you say you're going to write a 200 page book, and it comes in at 150 pages, they're not impressed. As I stated earlier - there could be several reasons the book doesn't have an index. Maybe Mr. Pegg doesn't think it needs one (I'd disagree with him, but that's par for the course). Maybe Mr. Pegg was busy writing the text he cared about (the main topic of the book) and having an index didn't occur to him. Maybe he tried to create an index, as I've done before, and found it to be a horror show of a task to get right. We don't know what his thinking is/was. Either way, the book is excellent. Whether it would benefit from an index is not a "right" or "wrong" question - it's just an opinion. Yours is no more, or less, valid than anyone elses. Generally, reference books benefit for a proper index. An index, by the way, is not simply an alphabetical list of the contents. Hence, an index really helps people navigate around reference works, where facts or information about a topic is scattered throughout a manuscript. What's more interesting for me is the question of whether a "final" version of the book will now appear. Also, is there a list of changes between editions of the book? What was taken out? Do people need BOTH editions (the current and the previous) to get all the information? What, specifically was added - other than the addition of coverage of new albums?
From the introductory section of Pegg's book: "Chapter 1 catalogues David Bowie's songs in alphabetical rather than chronological order, obviating the need for an additional index." So we know that the absence of an index is in part by design, along with possible space considerations. Tim
