DCC Archive Mush and Gush and Modern Sound

This is just a thought that struck me while listening to some music DVD's and the "infamous" Live at Leeds Complete boot.

I was playing the Talking Heads "Stop Making Sense" DVD, and had the option of a "studio mix" and the "theatrical mix". Going back and forth between the two: the studio mix was much more detailed and crisp, while the theatrical mix was more muddy, less "discreet" and ... er .... "boomy". As an audiophile I SHOULD like the studio mix better, but I don't.

The studio mix doesn't sound like a rock concert. I compare this to Live at Leeds - Complete Boot vs. the '95 remix (I haven't heard the latest official release - I have no need for "Tommy" live - and Lukes comments have kept me away), if I put on my audiophile hat, the official release wins hands down. Every instrument is "well defined". If I want to "be there", feeling the music as it happened, I need that boot.

This reminds me of some comments Steve made on the old board concerning "mush and gush" on the tapes - and how you REALLY don't want to eliminate that. It also reminds me of The Beatles remixes on the "Songtrack" CD - I know technically they SOUND better - but I still can't stand them. Ditto for the "Layla" lp. The remix sounds clean - but dreadfully wrong.

I thought of all this while reading threads concerning The Kinks 60's catalog on this board. If someone really cleaned these tapes up to audiophile quality - don't you think an elusive SOMETHING would be lost?

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Uncle Al ]

 

Not to take anything away from the boot (I hold it dear to my heart), but some of that "nice" sound was added in the studio. There's a really beautiful echo on the boot (check it out when only Pete is playing), but it doesn't come from any ambient tracks - it comes from some echo added in the mix. Notice how in places Pete's guitar track will crackle, then you'll hear that same crackle a split-second later - that's the echo in the mix.

 

Hmmm - or could it be the natural echo of a faulty guitar cord (not chord) that was present in live amps, and as such echoed in the hall? I always associated the "crackle" that was present in the old Leeds to faulty amp and mic cords as opposed to recording anamolies. That type of distortion is consistent with faulty wires I remember from those days - both onstage and later as a sound mixer for live shows.

Edit for mispelling.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Uncle Al ]

 

Echo - No, the echo wasn't part of the hall. Having heard all of the different releases it's clear that the echo was added. There was only 1 track of ambience (it being an 8-track recording), and most of the sound picked up was simply audience noise, not the echo of the hall. On the original mix, for example, there are places where you can clearly hear the audience but you can't hear any (or at least much) echo. That echo was added in the studio for the boot...

Crackles - It was something to do with bad cords (I believe), but it was in the microphone cords going to the tape machine, not guitar cords. The crackles are on the guitar, bass, kick, and snare (rest of kit) tracks. As two sets of microphones were used, I'm quite certain they were not audible in the venue itself.

 

I think that you are dead on. That mush and gush is important and should not be removed. What upsets me is poor mastering where that just doesn’t come through.
I don’t want it cleaned up as much as I want music to sound “good”. I want a good mastering job that makes me feel like I am there. There is a lot of Rock and Roll that was recorded to feel gritty and dirty, and if you remix it, you lose that. Two examples are the remixed Who’s Next and the ZZ Top Six Pack. They suck! Sure, they are neat and clean, which takes everything away. It was suppose to sound gritty!! I don’t want Steve remastering the Kinks to “clean” them up; I want him to remaster them to present them in the best light. To bring out the punch, the grit, and the soul of the music. To me, audiophile doesn’t mean clean sound as much as it means that the music sounds the best that it can.
Steve once compared mastering music to showing of the Mona Lisa and I believe that he is right. Under the right conditions, the true beauty of the painting (or music) comes out. Under the wrong conditions it just plain ugly.

 

Well, Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "mush" and "gush" are pretty much there on the mixdowns - you can't really remove them with mastering. It's remixing where it starts to be a problem...

 

True enough, I guess.

Seems like what we thought we knew about "newer" and "remixed for compact disc" ain't always right.