Jimi Hendrix Both Sides of the Sky - new album coming March 9, 2018

I'm in complete agreement with you!

 

That's about the biggest load of hyperbole I have read here in awhile. The ethics of releasing any material an artist never intended for public consumption is up for debate (but please, let's not do it here). To rant about an engineer or "pro-tools geek" who attempts to make a more complete song out of fragments and equate their work as "rape" is beyond the pale. It's fine to release the raw takes in whatever state the artist left them in, but "rape" should someone try to create something more from these fragments (with mixed results)? Wow. I am not a fan of the marketing behind these releases and would appreciate more candor and truthfulness from EH, but your position just blows my mind.

 

well it wasn't as easy to express the opinion that something was FRANKENSTEINED back then!!

Certainly the consumer has become less sophisticated it seems.

 

reposted just because I can...................

 

and reposted again, just because I can .......................

 

Okay, so your point was the overuse of the term.
Fair enough about "overuse", but me and others have explained why we use the term and made the disctinction when it is applicable over and over again. And I think it's valid and to the point. And I have read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (dreadful) and was one of the few poor fellows who started using the term on CT in...2010?

Part of the problem was always EH are not upfront about what they are doing, and the results are pretty bad. Remove those two factors and it would be a better situation. Don't trick the customer.

 

it's not an enjoyable listen

 

but back to OP.

looking forward without prejudice to the upcoming release.

Mannish boy. I'd have to dig out the hours of outs I have to check if this is a patch job and I really don't care to be honest so I wont!
I like the track and even tho' I have not ran it against the Blues take [no reason to] I think I'm going to enjoy this later addition more than I do the outing on Blues.
You can take that as a thumbs up for this bit of Kramer's work if you like!

 

They should release them as they are. It's no different than a room full of unfinished Da Vinci's paintings and the guy who controls them is finishing them himself by scraping the painting off one painting and reusing it to finish another.

 

Marketing and honesty don't really make for frankensteining. In its correct placement I find the work works well as a descriptive but the point is [for the umpteenth time] its the over use, the carte blanch attitude of users that is the issue. Hence my likening the term in respect of others work!!

Lets, set the boundries for the term and I bet we don't get past one or two, maybe three instances where it could be applied to work from EH ns maybe a dozen or two from Alan Douglas's era.

 

Your analogy is really tired and overused. Got anything new? Nobody is scraping paint off of an old painting and applying it to another one. And please, don't insert the botched DaVinci restoration! That card has been played to death too.

 

Tired but true. If you don't like what I said go find another post of mine from a different day and paste it in, i'm sure then you will have an enjoyable time

 

Why would I waste my time looking for your old posts? I already have your measure.

 

I did that myself: took the Message of Love from WCSB, grafted the solo from the purple box version into the "proper" place and it works...kind of.

I think there is a difference taking a couple of different takes from a session to put a song together to "Frankensteining", taking pieces from here and there to create a complete song (Heck how did Edgar Winter get a song with that name? Same thing-stitch together a song), even though the process of editing them together is exactly the same. I'd feel a lot better if they'd just say: "We took Takes 4 & 7 to come up with this" or our real world example: "We took the vocals from a September 1969 recording and put them on a June 1970 backing track". My guess is there is nothing resembling a 5 minute version of Mannish Boy, so anything we hear will be a composite.

 

The marketing thing was an added comment.
Yes, I don't like the overuse of the term either. It applies to select tracks from EH releases, not so much Douglas releases - except John Jansen's Captain Coconut concoction on Crash Landing. He was the pioneeer...gave Eddie a clue .

 

It hurts me to say it, but that fairly disastrous session is proof that Jimi was not a great band director.

 

Cutting and pasting is fine if the composite parts come from the same series of sessions - as was done for Cry Of Love, Rainbow Bridge, War Heroes,...
The problem is when Eddie composes songs using parts from unrelated sessions.

 

Why is this always a problem? I guess the tracks may not fit seamlessly as each session may have it's own unique sound, but the results can work well too sometimes, can't they?

 

As far as I'm concerned Kramer and EH may do all the protooling they wish to do, as long as they are honest about it. The cases we've heard so far are not really Kramer compositions, but composites of Jimi compositions. I think that's fine - I'd rather have the unaltered tracks, but I'm not complaining.

But really, by chance I'm listening to the Mannish Boy session as I type this, and it is tedious to listen to. The new composite is clearly better than listening to all those fragments, but I suppose the Blues version was good enough already. It's simply a boring song and not a very inspired performance, and no editing will change this.

 

No it sucks. You just don't take an artist's work and cut and paste it as you wish. Unrelated jams or takes of a song are fine as they are but not "completed" with another person's artistic vision and then passed off as if they really are "lost tracks" or "his new direction".
It's all about respect for the artist. You don't start colouring in Van Gogh or Picasso sketches and say, "hey, here's a new painting by the master". That would be judged as garbage even if some idiot liked the result.

 

It is tired and not really true. Even when Da Vinci alive other people worked on his paintings.

 

I dont know, why would anyone rape an unreleased Hendrix song?

 

Yes and even when Hendrix was alive other people worked on music...you know, like the engineers, the same engineers now destroying the historicity of their own work

 

In the case of ignorance is bliss, yes.

We know too much these days. We even watch blu ray extras to find out how they did the effect, or how the magician did his trick.

On the other hand, Thomas Edison would be totally giddy to work with the studio tools we have today.

 

You didn't answer my question. What differentiates taking tracks from the same session but not from different sessions to create a more complete song? I can't see any ethical reason to differentiate between the two approaches. I don't argue your point about the marketing of the effort -as I agree with you it's a dishonest approach. None of this music was intended for public release by Jimi, so I am at a loss as to why some find releasing fragments more ethically palatable than the efforts to make something more enjoyable out of the fragments. We can have an honest disagreement on how effective their efforts were, but equating these efforts as something unethical (again, outside the marketing) seems bizarre to me.