Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Daniel Falaschi, Jun 7, 2017.
Mine too. Weird.
I originally stated my dvd was free of defects. After playing it with no issues, I inspected it again under better lighting, and and see the same thing. Definitely a manufacturing issue.
The original mix is the best I've ever heard it sound on the DVD.
Jethro Tull – Heavy Horses: New Shoes Edition
Together, Steven Wilson and Jakko Jakszyck haven’t just put new shoes on this heavy horse – they’ve fitted it with a V8 engine and go faster stripes.
This is just my 2p-worth on listening to the remix for the first time and comparing it with the 2003 remaster (which is the only version I have ever heard prior to today):
Volume-wise there's not much in it. The 2003 is slightly louder, but there isn't a huge difference. I have always thought the 2003 remaster a bit thin and 'toppy' with a real lack of bottom end. I always have to turn the bass up a notch or two on my amp every time I play it just to get some oomph and to make the thing sing. The remix is altogether better in the bass department and gives the overall sound a much better foundation. Mid-range is crisp and clear as a bell and the top end is very 'present' but nice and sweet. The level of clarity and separation is what really makes the remix stand out, though. Vocals have more detail, individual instruments have real definition and the whole soundscape really comes together and delivers a 3D, musical 'performance' rather than a flat image...
...can you tell I like it quite a lot? I only have a relatively modest hi-fi system, but all the improvements I had hoped for, having lived with the 2003 remaster for several years, are present in the remix. I'm off to pour myself a glass of wine play some more!
Good Grief! The mid range, low bass, top-end etc... How do you guys know this stuff? What software do ya'll use? lol
P.S. Compared to most of the Jethro Tull remasters over a decade ago, i thought Heavy Horses (2003) was the most decent sounding.
It’s damn cool. I love Stitch in time more than anything. Awesome track
Yup, me three. Although I have more of it than that scattered around plus some of it is more oblong shaped.
Thats true. If you compare that to the flat transfer its astonishing how equal the overall tonailty is. Especially compared to the brightness excess of Songs from the wood remaster
My copy hasn't arrived yet but when it does I hope I get oblong shaped scuffs or I am going to feel ripped off.
My DVD 2 has the scuffs but plays fine. To me, this is another reason these Tull sets should have gone blu ray at some point as King Crimson did. I own and have played hundreds of BDs and have never had a single disc that was scratched or scuffed. If Marillion can afford to do blu-ray, I would think Tull could as well.
Just got my copy and it does indeed have the scuffs (or whatever). Still listening to DVD 1. I hope disc 2 plays better than it looks.
As for Stormwatch, I hope they find and use the longer version of Stitch.
Botanic Man is a really beautiful song.
The start of the Horse Hoing Husbandry verses reminds me strongly of another JT song. At first i thought it was Dark Ages but after searching for the culprit i found it was And Further On.
I do too. If anyone here gets the RSD Moths EP, please check back in and let us know if it's the long version.
Of course, it's not really a question of "finding" the longer version - it's the same master recording, with a couple of bits that were edited out of the more common short version. Basically, the long version has a few more repeats of the chorus - one with just vocals and bass, and the others at the end in a slightly longer fade. Unless the multis are missing, Wilson would remix the track along with the other material, and he has tended to go long rather than cut out material from the original mixes. (The two exceptions that come to mind are inconsequential - the "yeah" at the end of Thick as a Brick, and the wobbly synth figure that marked the end of side 1 of A Passion Play.)
Regarding the use of Berne recordings on Bursting Out, the book says five track were used: “most of the Flute Solo, Cross-Eyed Mary, Too Old To Rock’n’Roll, Aqualung, and Locomotive Breath/The Dambusters March” (thanks to mshare for first posting this information). But as I listen to the Berne recordings, I'm identifying several more. "No Lullaby," "Skating Away...," and at least significant portions of "Thick as a Brick," "Quatrain" and "Conundrum." Ian's spoken introductions to "Skating..." and "...Brick" are quite definitely the same. There are slight musical differences here and there (like a bum note in the "Brick" intro), but those can be attributed to the post-production "sweetening" discussed at some length in the book.
After listening to Bursting Out for years I was surprised to hear the abrupt silence from Berne between No Lullaby and Sweet Dream. Also the beginning 'shout'of Cross Eyed Mary doesn't sound the same. Audio sweetening ?
I couldn't decide which one at first, decided it was a mix of the two. As this predates the two aforementioned tracks, It an interesting link to later stuff and a strong track in its own right.
To be clear, this was a mastering mistake.
That's what I was thinking; in fact, I replaced the Bursting Out discs with the Bern discs in the jewel case.
They should have used a different concert from that tour, instead of the Berne show. I don't need to hear "did you give it a good shake?" again...
This is Ian Anderson. I'm sure he used the same running gag, again and again and......during the tour. There would be no escape!
That’s true. I remember buying A Little Light Music before I saw them in 92 and basically saw the same show with the same banter.
Even in the early 1970s, Ian was criticized for using the same canned banter every night.
Not the only musician who did so. I guess if the previous poster doesn't care for the "good shake" joke he should avoid the Seattle 1975 recording where Ian discusses how his manhood compares with David Bowie's.
Separate names with a comma.