New david bowie song / major compilation

I think it will happen if this new Best-Of sells strongly. There's a new owner attempting to market Bowie's entire back catalogue now, and they will be testing the waters with this release.

 

So if the artist and producer loves the compressed and loud mastering is that wrong?

 

Absolutely not. Thankfully, when it comes to the Ken Scott/Ziggy era, the producer has said he does NOT prefer that.

 

Understood but this is a different team. Visconti Bowie.

 

yes, but they know it'll sell regardless and won't care about the desires of the small audiophile market.

what ken scott prefers and what ken scott gets are different things. his new ziggy mixes were brickwalled on the 40th anniversary. on the pre-release sampler they were not.

 

Having lurked on this forum for sometime (although I am now a modestly contributing member) it seems that compression/limiting gets pretty bad press most of the time; no doubt justified in some cases where a recording has been robbed of any dynamic range and brick-walled within an inch of its life or boosted to the point of clipping etc. However, what I see less acknowledgment of is the fact that pop and rock music has generally had a narrower dynamic range anyway - think mono singles designed to sound in your face and punchy on AM radio. Similarly many classic rock recordings used compression and limiting as a part of the sound palette to create a particular effect: the artists, producers, engineers etc were not necessarily going for an "objective" naturalistic sound like one might if recording a string quartet or a jazz ensemble. Any familiarity with the
Beatles' recordings from Rubber Soul onwards reveals that Fairchild limiters and needle-pushing levels were used liberally and enthusiastically to paint an anything but naturalistic picture. Tony Visconti is on the record as loving to compress and even re-compress things at the recording stage to create a certain type of sound. Granted, it's not to everyone's taste and I certainly don't applaud the use of additional compression and limiting at the mastering stage just to compensate for peoples' inability to turn up the volume at home. More specifically, in the case of remasters, it seems dubious to further squeeze and boost recordings that have previously been released in versions that clearly demonstrate the presence of greater dynamic range even if that dynamic range may have been by design fairly narrow to start with.

 

don't think anyone's disagreeing with your basic points, but all the more reason to treat rock music with sensitivity during mastering. since the RCA CDs two decades ago, Bowie's catalogue has been subjected to either excessive EQ (Ryko first and then EMI in '99) or excessive peak limiting (virtually every new album since 1995 has been brickwalled), with compilations invariably subjected to both. even the much praised Ziggy 40th had additional compression applied, and the bonus material on that and the Station To Station Deluxe Edition was all unnecessarily brickwalled. there are exceptions (Deram Deluxe Edition, Space Oddity 40th and the remastered Station To Station album are the picks), but it's been the norm to slam this music and nobody needs another similarly treated compilation. there is very little new music being offered, so a new approach to mastering would at least give the buyer incentive to listen beyond the smattering of rarities.

 

A much more intellegent and detailed description of my point. It's a decision these artists have made. Good or bad.

 

It's on the 3 disc Black Tie White Noise reissue which came out about 10 years ago. Shame it's not on the new comp though, that and John I'm Only Dancing were the most glaring omissions.

 

Agreed on DD...with a nice, new vinyl pressing.

 

That's not the single remix. Compare with the versions on that Spotify EP.

 

Very kind! Perhaps not so much 'more intelligent' as long-winded... Cheers

 

I've never used Spotify but I just checked the digital EP on amazon and discovered that there's four mixes I've never heard before!

 

what is the difference on the "starman" single mix?

 

It's not really a single mix at all! The UK version (+some other countries) of the song on the single and the album had a much louder "Morse code" section where as the US (+some other countries) got the version we all know and love today for both single and album versions. Of these there are probably a few edits and maybe even the odd mono version from around the world, however, this loud "Morse code" version should probably be referred to at the UK mix rather than single mix. Interestingly Ken Scott has no recollection of there being two mixes or masters and was not aware of the difference till fairly recently so I don't think we'll ever know why or how this happened.

 

thanks. i wish there was a mix where the piano was a bit louder. i really like the piano work in that song but its a bit buried at times

 

the "loud mix" was also released on 7" in the US and Canada (mono and stereo edits respectively)...

 

I stand corrected! The north Americans should call it the single mix.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a deluxe 30th anniversary of Tonight instead...

 

It has to be said that it is difficult to have any sympathy for the dying record industry. The Bowie catalogue is a great example of how completely hopeless they are. Random anniversary releases, no two alike, key albums ignored.

 

When Bowie dropped Ken Scott, he lost one of the smartest men he's ever worked with.

 

Some would say Eno.
But Ken was involved with Bowie at his creative zeitgeist.

 

Ha ha!

At least that album has the amazing Loving the Alien. What does the following one have?!?

 

This! If they want profits, do the thing right in the first place. It isn't entirely the rise of file sharing that's killing music, but lazy & greedy moguls who are out of touch. Put the bare minimum of effort in and expect huge returns. Hope they're all keeping tabs on the Beatles vinyl releases. People want to own sets like this - pride of ownership, AND great sound. Release all his core catalogue with zero brickwalling (sadly I think it's part of the mastering on his later releases), analogue transfers for the LPs (if the master was analogue), high quality 24/96 downloads, and physical formats (bluray audio & CD). Consistant packaging. Preferably in the case of vinyl very close copies of the originals. Seperate collections for rare & unreleased materal. Concerts released in the same way as Dylan's Bootleg series. There's so much they could do with a catalogue & artist this diverse. The thought of seeing record shelves filled with a complete set of Bowie LPs & the wonderful cover designs is very enticing indeed!
Sadly, I don't think Bowie himself is all that concerned with audio quality or his back catalogue judging by the last 15 years or so...

 

I was disappointed in the sound quality on the CD version of The Next Day. The LP sounded excellent, but I was expecting them to put more care into the CD since they recorded the album in analogue AND because it was his first album in 10 years.