Remix vs. Remaster...

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by discreplayboss, Nov 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. discreplayboss

    discreplayboss Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Orland Park, IL
    I was reading some posts in the archives about members least favorite masterings and a criticism of the mastering recent Columbia Legacy release of Raw Power that Iggy Pop remixed vs. David Bowie's original mix. So, if you listen to a version of an album and feel it doesn't sound as good as another, how do you know if whatever set you off was the mixing or the mastering?

    Here's what Iggy said in the liner notes-

    "Everything's still in the red, it's a very violent mix. The bottom line is that this is a wonderful album but it's always sounded fragile and rickety, and that band was not fragile and not rickety. That band could kill any band at the time and frankly can just kill any of the bands that built on this work since, just eat any of those poodles"
    —Iggy

    and this is from Wikipedia with two quotes from other band members-

    In 1997 Columbia Records invited Iggy Pop to remaster the entire album for re-release on CD. Pop says in the liner notes that had he declined, the studio would have remastered it without his blessing. Pop cited longtime encouragement from fans and peers, the existence of Rough Power, his distaste for how the original 1989 CD release of Raw Power sounded, and the fact that Columbia were going to release the new mix on its sublabel Legacy Recordings as factors that led him to go through with the new master. On the other hand, some fans — guitarist Robert Quine among them — felt the new remaster was as unfaithful to the material as the original 1973 mix, and further criticized the audible digital distortion in the new mix[2]. In the reissued CD's liner notes, however, Pop points out that one of his intentions in doing the new mix was to keep audio levels in the red (which would deliberately cause such distortion) while at the same time making the music more "powerful and listenable". This new version is arguably the loudest album ever, reaching RMS of -4 dB, rare even by today's standards.

    James Williamson and Ron Asheton have both stated that they prefer Bowie's original mix of the album to Pop's remastered version.

    Williamson:
    “ I personally think [the remastered Raw Power] sucked. I gotta tell ya that I like the IDEA of what he tried to do, and I talked to him about it, and there's a lot of factors involved, but at the time, none of us liked Bowie's mix, but given everything, Iggy, when he went in to mix it, he found out that the guy who had recorded it originally had not gotten a lot of level on certain things, like the bass and drums, especially the bass, so he didn't have a lot to work with. Then Iggy, on his mix, he left a bunch of guitar stuff on there that probably shouldn't have been left in, and just odds and ends. Bowie's not my favorite guy, but I have to say that overall, I think he did a pretty good job. [1] ”

    Asheton:
    “ Don Fleming goes, "You know what? When Iggy's Raw Power mix comes out, I'll bet you're gonna go -- we always used to say how bad the original David Bowie mix of Raw Power was -- Fleming's going, "When you hear Iggy's mix, I guarantee you're gonna say, 'Man, remember that great mix that David Bowie did?'" So I heard it, I got the advance copy from his manager, and listened to it. Then I called Fleming and I'm going, "Gee, Don, I just listened to Iggy's mix of Raw Power. Man, I sure loved that old David Bowie mix. Was it ever great."...Basically, all that Iggy did was take all the smoothness and all the effects off James [Williamson]'s guitar, so his leads sound really abrupt and stilty and almost clumsy, and he just put back every single grunt, groan, and word he ever said on the whole freakin' soundtrack. He just totally restored everything that was cut out of him in the first mix, and I thought, Damn, I really did like the old mix better. [2]
     
  2. discreplayboss

    discreplayboss Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Orland Park, IL
    So anyway, I wonder if Iggy didn't have an axe to grind with Bowie. I want to ask some of the more knowledgable members what can remastering change vs. remixing? I know we've been down this road before, but I don't think we real came up with very definitive answers.
     
  3. JBStephens

    JBStephens I don't "like", "share", "tweet", or CARE. In Memoriam

    Location:
    South Mountain, NC
    Remastering is issuing a title anew with different definitions for equalization, compression, etc. using the original master source material.

    Remixing is done from the original multitrack tapes to create a new master.

    Many people use the two words interchangeably, but they are two separate and distinct operations.
     
  4. sudon't

    sudon't Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Cape Fear
    On this album, I'm pretty sure it was the recording. That's why no one has ever been able to do anything with it. This really could've been the greatest Rock and Roll album ever recorded, had it been recorded well. It almost is, in spite of it sonic defects.
    Kids, Quaaludes and sound engineering don't mix.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine