Definite Maybe - Reply to Khorn's Poll

[Khorn asked whether a remastering engineer should do what it takes to recreate the original mix, or do what he can make the tapes sound as good as possible, including remixing.]

Well, I thought I was a purist who wanted the original document, including cheesy album art and thirty-minute running times. I usually dislike bonus cuts, which reach masochistic levels on jazz releases: three alternate takes of the last song, four false starts of the lead cut, booth chit-chat, etc. On the other hand, bonus cuts on country reissues will often include something like six extra sides cut at the same sessions that were eventually dispersed as singles, b-sides and vault fodder, merely because they didn't fit the ostensible album theme: travelling songs, Hank Williams tribute, the fishin' side of me. I want that stuff.

As for mastering, I used to think I wanted the original document as issued as well. I like the ping-pong stereo on Blue Note discs: it allows me to more easily concentrate on an individual player, or the interaction between the soloist and the rhythm section. I dislike the current Blue Note RVG remasterings, which present the musicians more naturally-spaced. Stick with the original mix!

But then I bought some of the Elvis anthologies, and I knew immediately I wanted a modern remix of most of the tracks. The SUSPICIOUS MINDS set utilizes the same ping-pong mix as the original releases, sometimes with drums on one side and Elvis and his backups on the other. Hmmm, I'd really like to get Elvis front-and-center, with a little more separation from the choir, and the drums spread. And isn't there a way to get all this stuff clearer? It sounds like there's a pillow over my ears.

So you have my definitive, uncompromising answer: it depends.

 

Suspicious Minds

I know I am going to be scorned here. Couldn't we fix the end of the song where it starts to fade out and then comes back? Its like they were going to do an early fade as a radio edit and then changed thier mind. Maybe it was done on purpose. I honestly don't know.

 

Re: Suspicious Minds

WHAT!!

 

eloquently stated.

Regards,
Metralla

 

Re: Suspicious Minds

It WAS intentional. It was a strange fad back then in the late 60s and early 70s. The single mix of Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" also has the fade out/back in.

 

Re: Re: Suspicious Minds

Ok. I have never read nor heard that it was done purposly. Since it was intentional, do you happen to know why? Was it supposed to be like a false ending? Waas there some other creative reason for it? This is the first I have heard of it.

Peter, forgive me man, like I said, "maybe, it was done on purpose."

Turns out it was. Leave it alone then.

 

False Fades

Get rid of false fades on reissues. One Chicago-based blues label, Cobra Records, used to false fade all their singles, I suppose as some sort of calling card. When Capricorn did their (excellent) box on the label, they went to the trouble of eliminating the false fades, which they knew even blues afficianados would not tolerate, cut after cut after cut.

I would argue the Cobra false fades were forced on the artists by the label, for the dumbest of reasons, as opposed to, say, the false fade at the end of Paul McCartney's "Let 'Em In," which the artist clearly intended and controlled.

As for false fades on Elvis or Marvin Gaye singles: singles by artists of that stature obviously had a life of their own, and they should be preserved on singles compilations of some sort, much as James Brown jams are preserved in whole and in single version (part one and part two) on his various comps.

BTW, is there an artist whose catalog has been better served than JB's? Before the CD era, you couldn't even buy a decent greatest hits from the man. Now there's a box, and another defacto box derived from several two-disc anthologies, previously unreleased live albums, the original releases...Maybe the Elvis catalog overhaul was equally enlightening, but at least you could buy some Elvis in the waning days of vinyl.

 

Yup, he also preferred his voice buried with the background singers.

At least with an artist of Elvis' stature, the label can go both ways, and issue the historical record and the contemporary remix/remaster; the single and the album edit; the edited and full-length recording. I just hate buying all that near-duplicate material to get the versions I prefer. They never seem to be on the same disc.

 

What'd I Say - Ray Charles

This always appeared as if the song were about to end (false fade), then they kick back IN again!

One of my favorites in the "FAUX - Fade" genre is The Gentrys - Keep On Dancing. I probably wore THAT (MGM) 45 out as a youngster.

 

Oooh! I forgot about that one!

For me, it makes the song. It's like an encore.

I like this as well. I really don't like the lead vocal all up front of everything else.

 

Yes, well described Grant. That's exactly how it feels to me too!

 

Whether it was studio knob-twisting or because the band actually played continually softer, the first song I know of all but fading out, then loudly (and excitedly) coming back to life was Glenn Miller's "In the Mood" (1939). No, I'm not old enough to remember when it was first popular; my mother isn't, either. But the first time I heard "In the Mood," in the 1970s, that's what made it stand out -- its "false fade," if you want to call it that.