Remixed Classic Rock or anything

Although it is true that certain vintage mixes (particularly those in stereo) are deficient or unsatisfying, it is also true that many contemporary mixes are deficient or unsatisfying. Why is it automatically assumed that a remix would represent an improvement?

As for the concept of colorizing old movies--well, colorization is, in my view, far worse than remixing, or even the use of no-noise. But the underlying problem remains the same: such alterations distort the unique tonality of the original work of art. (And let me stress, yet again once more, that colorization was most certainly not used in the case of the Wizard of the Oz.)

 

This thread has taken a very surrealistic turn but let me say this... even though I am colorblind I too am happy the colorized the Wizard of Oz. Now when are they going to finish the job? They forgot to do the beginning and end.

 

This is not an example of remixing; this is an example of restoration, and is closely akin to what mastering engineers (such as Steve) do when they insist on using the original master tapes. The sepia tones in "The Wizard of Oz" seem clearly to have been part of the director's original intention; to restore them is not at all the same thing as asking a subsequent director to go in and do some sort of radical re-editing job. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the process of "colorizing" a film.

This being said, I want to stress that I do not consider colorization to be in any way an accurate parallel to remixing. Instead, I consider colorization to be a phenomenon that is closely akin to the various attempts, over the years, to produce fake stereo sound, or (worse yet) fake multichannel sound (though I would insist that colorization is even more destructive of artistic intention than either of these examples).

 

Me too! And, sadly, this is the very wrongheaded goal of the Motown/UMG bosses.

Problem is, most aren't. The buyer doesn't have a clue.

Thank you!

The argument of remixing to make things sound modern for young folks just doesn't hold water. Most times you find that even if they like the remixes, they, too, prefer the originals.

Another concept would be that the engineer of a remix may assume that a slight difference would be indetectable to others. Often that is not the case. What seems similar to one person may not to another. The digital reverb is a prime example of this. I'm guessing that when RS was remixed the power's to be figured nobody would realize that the reverb was totally different sounding. To some, it probably sounded close enough to pass, but not to most of us here.[/QUOTE]

Thank you! How many times have we read or heard some reissur producer claim that no one would notice a small change, only to later be bombarded with complaints and have heaps of criticism place on him for these "slight differences". One rule of reissue production should be to not insult the listener! They are more into the music than the producer is, so they would know.

You are kidding, aren't you?

 

The colourization analogy involving "The Wizard of Oz" is a bad one and probably should be abandoned since it's detracting from the discussion of the remixing issue.

However, just to set the facts straight one last time ...

The only time the Oz scenes were viewed in black and white is when someone watched the movie on a black and white television set. The Oz scenes were originally filmed in technicolour NOT black and white. The Oz scenes have never been changed to colour; they have always been in colour.

 

I don't think that. I just think there could be more open mindedness to it. There are places it would help and places it is senseless. Yet the "purist" wants to close the doors just because of some strange sense of values. I'm surprised some of them don't have a problem with Steve making Cd's of music that was recorded before the advent of compact disk. Certainly the engineer and artists meant for it to be heard from vinyl or tape. Where does the purist draw the line?
In 1970 I couldn't see a nebula. Today I can see one due to technology. In music today technology makes it possible to hear things the AVERAGE man couldn't hear before without putting high bucks for audiophile equipment. Equipment and media have changed and now the AVERAGE man is hearing better, clearer music. The technology is there to take 1960 music in the next century so I don't have to strain my ears to hear drums just like I don't have to imagine what a nebula looks like.
Dang, boy a comet is made to be viewed with the eyes, not some dang telescope.

"Because that's all they had available back then", is not justification for refusing to improve.
It's all opinions. Please let me draw an opinion on a remix of My Girl without making someone feel like the are destroying the foundation of recorded music by listening to it.

PS I love wild analogies.

 

I am not a purist. However, I do believe that mixing is as an art, and that the original mixes constitute an important part of the overall impact and tonality of the vintage recordings to which you are alluding.

It seems to me that, if people want a more contemporary sound, then they should listen to contemporary music that uses contemporary recording and mixing techniques. And I would add that there is nothing to stop contemporary artists from redoing older songs in a more contemporary fashion; in fact, this happens all the time. For that matter, I see nothing wrong with the judicious use of sampling as a means of casting fresh light on older material. Remixing, however, almost invariably strikes me as nothing more than a crude attempt to change history.

I find it interesting, by the way, that people regularly continue to prefer the original versions of classic songs to the remakes--just as people regularly continue to prefer the original versions of classic movies to the remakes. The sound of a 50s or 60s recording is a crucial part of its charm, just as, in an analogous way, the look of a 30s or 40s movie is a crucial part of its charm.

 

I'm enjoying this friendly debate very much. I mean no one hard feelings and have not meant to attack anyone. If I did it was unintentional and I apologize. Let's keep it friendly so it doesn't get closed.

I may change my opinion before it's over. It sure is tough debating you guys with all your knowledge on this stuff. I feel like David. I don't have the facts and figures to throw around like some of you but I'm standing my ground for right now and I'm not going to budge yet.

Two points I feel that are my strongest are...

Audiophiles shell out huge bucks to do something Steve could do for us on a $20 CD.

The music should be heard as it was preformed. Not how it was recorded.

 

This is the crux of the disagreement. Many people (myself included) believe that recording and mixing have themselves become an inextricable part of the art of music. And, certainly, there are numerous instances in which artists have consciously chosen to create a recorded sound that could never be accurately reproduced in the context of a live performance (just think of the Beatles).

Indeed, in the case of multitrack studio recordings, it is pointless to speak of the musical "performance" as if it somehow existed prior to what we hear on the master tape. The mix itself is part of what constitutes the performance.

 

This is my opinion as well. The mixed product is the performance. Some say the recorded product is flawed, but I say it is correct because it is deliberate. The way a mixed recording goes down on the commercial product is the final word.

A single mix, for an example, may also be the final word because it was released around the same time period. But, in 2006, to go back to the multis and try to "improve" on a historical document, and release it commercially, amounts to revisionism IF that recording is meant to, or winds up, replacing the origina, whch too often happens today, especially with radio.

There are very, very few cases where a remix replacing the original does no harm, such as with "Hang On Sloopy" by the McCoys.

Exactly!

 

Since everyone seems to have gotten caught up in the Wizard of Oz and skipped this, I'm repeating it:

I'm very curious to hear how everyone responds to this.

Jason

 

The recording is the performance. Unless it was live to two track it's all about the recording that was compiled and not the performance.

Pop records aren't meant to be exact reproductions of a live performance. Not since Phil Phillips' Sea of Love have we had to endure a live performance on the pop charts.

The recording studio is a place where people can create a fictitious moment of music. The Beatles taught us that.

If these same rules applied to movies they'd all have to be shot in real time without any editing, color correction, makeup or lighting! What a rule that says Sci-Fi and action movies should be done without special effects even when they were needed. Nope! Why put these same restrictions on music?

Pop music is supposed to be larger than life and twice as natural.

 

But, mastering is not the same as remixing.you get potentially better sonic results, but the balances are the same...unless the person in charge goes crazy with the EQ.


I hope those who are more interested in talking about the Wizard Of Oz start a thread in the visual section.

 

Interesting point.

A remix is a complete overhaul. You tear down the house leaving only the foundation standing. Where you reconstruct the walls, put the rooms and what color you paint the walls will be completely different than what you had before demolition. The only rule is you have to stay within the same space using the same pieces.

With mastering it's more like washing the dirty windows, cleaning the carpet and mowing the grass to make it more presentable. And if you apply NR it's like you tore up the lawn, shredded the curtains and didn't flush the toilets.

 

I think we're all glad for the colorized version. Unless they decide to finish the rest of the movie there's not much more to talk about. I guess they ran out of money but that's to be expected with such an obscure movie.

 

This pretty much sums it up, imo. I think that responsible remastering shouldn't alter the original mix of the recording, it only presents the original mix in as ideal a way as possible.

 

Counter...

I dont buy that. Some band was working on the song in a basement or garage or big room somewhere. They wrote the piece there. They figured out the music to go with the lyrics, they refined it and refined it until they said, "That's it!"
Others heard it, they liked it, they said, "record it". It was recorded. It sounded absolutely fantastic using 1962 common technology. They didn't know it could have sounded better. They didn't know people would still want to hear it 50 years later on equipment...they wished they had back then.

If they had any idea...they wouldn't have lost the master tapes.

And on a leap out of nowhere...no one will ever convince me that a writer or director would have chosen black and white if color was available to create a Civil War epic like Gone With The Wind.

 

I don't want us to get sidetracked again. Still, for the record, I want to make it clear that, contrary to what is being implied here, Gone with the Wind was originally filmed in color--Technicolor, to be exact.

This being said, I want to stress that I still believe that analogies between film and music (like analogies between literature and painting) tend to be misleading.

 

Then why did they colorize it when they did the Wizard of Oz?



( )

 

Although I do not currently have time for a long post, I do know that there are numerous examples of 1962 recordings that sound much better than anything that someone could have created--live--in a basement or a garage. Indeed, when it comes to electrically amplified rock music (which seems to be what you mostly have in mind), the sound quality of what emerged from the studio tended to be much better than what could be produced during live public performances, especially in large venues.

 

I don't understand where losing the master tapes comes into play here.

Anyway, some of us think a recording made using "1962 common technology" can sound every bit as good if not better than something recorded now. I'd much rather record and album and have it sound open and warm like my Die Beatles record than to have it sound cold and sterile like any Steely Dan album.

I think people expect things to be of the era. They've tried to remix music to fit modern styles and ultimately it comes away as lame.

Remember the reverb drenched remix of Carry On My Wayward Son from the 80s? Hideous to our ears now but back then it seemed pretty cool. I don't think anyone prefers that mix now. Should they remix that song every 7-10 years when our mix aesthetic changes? Heck no.

You have to understand that things like movies and music are time capsules from that era. It would be weird to watch the Little Rascals in color. I'm not saying if they were filmed today they would still be in B&W. They wouldn't. I'm saying they were done in the 1930s so they look like they were filmed in the 1930s. Nobody has a problem with that. I'd hate to see Legosi play Dracula in glorious color. It would lose its atmosphere.

 

I disagree, sorry. That's sort of like George Lucas "fixing" his Star Wars movies. Nobody should mess with our sacred mixes!

 

Right, like I said, I was just playing devil's advocate to try to dig a little deeper into the argument. I feel that remixes are fine and I sometimes prefer them to the originals, but I also think it's important to keep the originals available for reference, especially considering the inconsistency of remixes. Some are good, some are mediocre, some are awful.

Pet Sounds could be the poster child for this discussion, but some of the remixes on The Beatles Anthology DVDs are good examples too. The full stereo remix of "I Am The Walrus" is a REVELATION to me, while the AHDN-era remixes don't do a thing for me. For those songs, give me the original stereo mixes.

Jason

 

As was said earlier the Wizard of Oz was filmed in Technicolor.

 

I also wish they'd a better job colorizing Forbidden Planet. Seems to be a bit over done.