Remixing RAM to fix phasing issues

I’m not a child so don’t think in absolutes on a topic like this.

But I think by and large, remixes are an exercise in futility - they’re just delusions of grandeur for the obsessed zealots who believe they know what is good or bad and have a compulsive need to create order out of disorder. And by and large, at best, IMO the end result is nothing more than a different version of artistic imperfection.

Should bands go back and re-record albums that don’t meet certain audiophile standards as defined by a cadre of self-annointed experts? Where does it end?

 

In which case your answer is "Disagree", in which case we don't have a fundamental disagreement re: the issue I raised.

You get your originals, I get my remixes.

 

If you believe that, I’m happy for you.

I notice you demand that others answer your pointless, gotcha questions, but you choose to ignore questions posed to you...

 

That's kind of disingeuous and snotty, but whatever. I'm conversing in good faith here. We agree that you can have your originals, and I can have my remixes. We disagree on their merits. The first point is the one I was making, you seem to agree with it.

 

You can remix R.A.M. I have no problem with that.
I Will not listen to It I'm Very happy with My DCC disc.

 

No, he didn't have Eric Stewart's help until Tug of War...

 

I didn’t get it for a second...that’s funny.

 

We agree that you can have your originals, and I can have my remixes. We disagree on their merits. The first point is the one I was making, you seem to agree with it. We each agree we can have what we want, and I'm cool with that.

 

But you’re not conversing in good faith. You posted an inflammatory remark and then in response to the rebuttal, you started posing irrelevant non-sequitur questions and twisting the answers to believe what you wan to believe and pretend like you’re taking the high road.

I simply responded to your original post that clearly stated that those with an anti-remix bias (which I admittedly have) have control issues. It is this point where we fundamentally disagree. Go back and read it. Those with an anti-mix bias (or at least me, I can’t pretend to speak for the entire “anti-remix bias” community) are perfectly happy with imperfection and dislike remixes as a rule for the reasons I stated - which have nothing to do with “control”.

As I said, rather than re-mix why not just re-record albums while we’re at it?

 

First, please assume that I'm conversing in good faith (I am), or bail. If you feel that I'm not conversing in good faith, but want to stay in the conversation, then please ask me questions to clarify what it is you think is my position (as I have of you -questions that you're seeing as "irrelevant"). I can assure you, the rest of your first paragraph is a misrepresentation. I'm trying to get to agreement. Let's try to get to agreement.

What I've been referring to in this conversation, which I've tried to make clear, is what I said in my statement, here: "But some of these people go further and say it shouldn't be done at all". I stand by what I said, that I think this is a control issue, as it seeks to deny others, going beyond "I don't want it for myself". Nearly all of my comments with you were to clarify this point, not to obscure this point. I'm still trying. If you feel this is another irrelevant, non-sequitur, and anything other than me trying to be understood, you should bail. There's no point in going any further. Otherwise, I'm happy to discuss.

 

We don’t need to agree. To remix or not to remix...it’s a subjective question and nobody that matters really cares what we think.

I just think your characterization of anti-remix folks as controlling was, at best, inaccurate (for the reasons I stated) and, at worst, hypocritical (for the reasons I also stated).

I’ve beaten this horse enough and I’m ready to turn this back over to folks who want to talk about the Ram issue in question.

 

Car/ murkiness.
What d'ya mean ?

 

This has never been what *we* were discussing. *I* was discussing the issue of whether remixing should in principle, never be done - and those who hold that view.

I've tried to be clear - I am referring to those who believe remixing should never be done. Almost by definition, their interest is in what *others* hear. That I think, is about control - whether they know it consciously or not.

We are in agreement on the issue at hand: You get your originals, I get my remixes. Neither of us believe that remixing should never be done.

 

Not parting with my R A M ~DCC gold cd that's for sure.

 

It's an uninspiring, muddy mix that doesn't really do justice to the recording. I'd just like to hear a different approach to it, for fun.

 

Well, I completely disagree at least as it applies to Uncle Albert. That thing is a mass of comps...in my humble-wasn't-there-but-have-dissected-this-thing-to-death opinion. The elec guitar build riff at around 39 seconds.... which is repeated in a somewhat abbreviated form later, is a........masterful....just masterful.... comp. If you isolate just that six seconds or so and then REALLY listen to the notes, you can hear the added-on overdub notes that fill that riff out so beautifully. It can't be played in realtime in fact, because of the way some of the overdub low notes sustain against the building, somewhat shorter-sustain chords moving up the fretboard.

There are so many piano comps in there as well. And although it appears from the session discussions, that some of the brass/strings were added early, I fully believe they were most likely given several tracks, and then comped (reduced) on the same machine to open tracks up for the later keeper overdubs (final vocals etc).... which ALSO sound like massive comps to me.

I bet the vibes are a comp and the delay vibe effect... which I dunno is via an early eventide or Lexicon or just a long tape delay (it sounds too long for tape at what, 300ms?)... was also eventually comped with the dry vibes after maybe experimenting to figure just that part out over the course of 3-4 tracks as overdubs.... The vibes alone move in/out on the faders that screams to me of a comp....esp because everything was being compacted down into just those 16trks on the single machine.

In fact, I believe the drums were comped down as well after the basic drums and guide rhythm guitar were settled on for the arrangement. Comps and massive splices.

16 track was not enough by 1971. Certainly not for this track. I don't think A&R or Cbs were running synchronized machines, so my gut feel is all the comps were done on the single solitary 2".

I love that song for its engineering and ear candy rollercoaster ride. I don't really care about the final mix. I marvel at its components.

I gotta get my hands on the track sheet. Better yet, I gotta see that multitrack. I'm close now. Give me a year.

 

Something has to account for the increased fidelity on the Wings bootleg I owned!

 

With an oar.

 

Let me make this clear so there is no confusion. As hard as you keep trying to “control” and “remix” this conversation to suit your desires, I do not agree with you on ANYTHING you have written in this thread. PERIOD.

 

Anyone know when RAM was remixed?

 

1971.

 

Artists do re-record albums, as well as play them in their entirety live.

 

I never said that they're weren't overdubs. Of course there were.
Even though we don't have access to what is on each of the 16 tracks, I think that would have been enough even for a song like Uncle Albert.
Listening to the song now, I don't hear enough individual elements to justify needing more than 16 tracks.
Keep in mind that all of Paul's solo albums up to Band On the Run were recorded on 16 track. I don't think 24 track was used until V&M.

 

.. and in nearly all cases it can seem a bad idea. Though I guess artists like David Gates or Kenny Rogers or Squeeze or Journey due to ownership issues with the original masters just say to themselves... "I've been playing this song in concert for 35 years.. why not just put it on tape again..." and of course most times it just doesn't compare. Still I wish the Beatles had just gone in 1976 and done letter perfect rerecordings of everything just for the sake of it. Imagine if they'd made a good attempt to do everything exactly as it was and then picked a bunch they wanted to change and presented them alongside those. I think I asked this question before somewhere... but let's say in February of 1976, had McCartney not extended his Capitol contract and Ringo and George hadn't resolved to sign with other labels ... could the Beatles have created new master recordings of all their songs and owned those masters? If they'd just put them out as Beatles Vol 1 to 10 what issues contractually would they have faced from ATV and EMI?

More on topic though... although RAM might not sound as great as it might have... it does in fact have a cleaner sound than say much of Venus & Mars. I think records of an earlier time, if the job is meticulously handled can be remixed if one is honest about evaluating the sound of the original. I mean certain things were just impossible back then and unacceptable compromises had to be made. If today's technology can be used to create a better remix then why not do it?