Tug of War Remix

I've never actually played the original album, so after picking up the 2CD I heard it for the first time today. As a first time listener, I really enjoy it, and when I'm next hoe, I'll compare it to the original LP I've never played for some reason and let you know which I prefer after listening the other way around.

 

Well it was more to point out that Paul McCartney's official website says the primary reason for remixing was because it was limited to 16 bit.

 

Heard Tug of War for the first time. What's That You're Doing is a very funky song and fun to listen to. Take It Away is vintage early 80s pop. Dress Me Up As A Robber is very fun.

 

Just finishing my first run through of the remix. I can't say that I have very strong feeling on it either way. It does sound like the high end was taken up a bit, but I've have the treble up on my car stereo since my hearing started to slowly leaving the building, so I won't complain. Without A/B-ing, sounds to me like "Be What You See" and "Dress Me Up As a Robber" both benefit from the remix - greater clarity.

Overall, I have no complaints about it, but my life could have gone on without it.

 

We should talk about this, actually. Here's what I think, being no expert on these two because I kind of despise them:

The original Columbia US cover for Tug Of War says "Digitally Mastered Analog Recording," meaning they could go back to the analog tapes and create a new / upgraded digital mix as they did



The original Columbia US cover for Pipes of Peace says "Digital Recording," meaning either that they were locked in at 16/44.1 with no remix upgrade option because it was recorded that way, or that they had upgraded to recording at higher resolution by that time (again, I'm not an expert on when these tracks were recorded as opposed to when the TOW tracks were recorded because I don't care that much) and didn't need to remix to upgrade the resolution.



I don't even know if this difference is actual. I'd always assumed that the two albums were kind of recorded at the same time with the semi-crap tracks being released on TOW and the ultra-crap tracks being saved for POP, but the information from the covers seems to indicate they were recorded using different methods, unless that's a lie.

It looks like they were both released on CD in 1984 (maybe even at the same time?). Seems odd that they would make this specific distinction on the covers if it were untrue or inaccurate. I remember the AAD / ADD / DDD distinction being a pretty big deal in the early days of the CD.

 

I like the demos, Take it Away is so fully realized, fun to hear. Haven't heard the rest of album yet.

 

When they were recording "Tug of War", they used analog equipment to record the songs that they knew would make it onto the album, and then whenever they got to the tracks that they knew wouldn't make the cut they switched over to all digital. That's how "Pipes of Peace" was miraculously "digitally recorded" even though it has performances from analog sessions.

 

Looking at the spectral analysis with MusicScope, there is smooth content all the way up to 48kHz, so no question is is a Hi-Res source.

Interestingly, the fade outs (on Say Say Say, So Bad, Sweetest Little Show), the fade ins (on Average Person and Tug of Peace) and the 2:45-3:15 section of The Man only go up to 20.5kHz, not sure what to make of that other than they had a 16/44.1 fader or something?

Would make for an interesting test for your ears, can you hear the resolution drop in the center section of The Man or during the fade outs?

 

The original vinyl versions of both (which I got as new from my dad when they respectively came out) sound terrific. Especially Tug of Ware...I love "Somebody that Cares," "Wanderlust," "The Pound is Shrinking." Lots of air and space in these records....

 

So why deliberately mark ToW as an analog recording but also mark PoP as a digital recording? If the speculation is that all things "digital" were the rage back then and it was marketing, why not improperly mark them both as digital recordings?

Were they released by Columbia on CD at the same time?

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

 

It's sarcasm like this that gets taken as fact when quoted by reliable sources

 

I haven't heard Ebony and Ivory in about 25 years. It sounds nice on the remix.

 

They should've used the cover design originally suggested by Peter Christopherson of Hipgnosis for the remix cover.



McCartney apparently took a look at this mockup and dismissed it saying, "Not my image, mate!"

 

On a second listen, I initially thought there were some improvements - but that was with headphones listening to the high res files on my Pono. I then decided to compare the new 16 bit remaster of the original album via a CD player (analog outs) to running the new 24-96 files through my MacBook Pro and a MOTU 828 Mark II sound interface. Bottom line: the original was a great mix, 16 bit or not, and actually betters the remix.


Tug of War - What were they thinking? First of all, the strings and the winds DO sound lovely on the remix. Improved in comparison to the original. However, the acoustic guitar and the vocal have a lousy high EQ boost and the compression sucks the life out of what is a really nice performance by Paul. I was expecting warmer than the original and when I heard it did a double take. This was the remix with the greatest potential for sounding great and they blew it. It goes to show you - whether you have lovely vintage compressors or outboard gear if you make a BAD EQ or sonic decision it can ruin a mix. The 24 bit 96k file is better sounding than the 16.1 44.1 remix CD but not by much in terms of top end.

Take It Away - I have always loved the Ringo/Steve Gadd drum track and the remix doesn't alter that opinion. Still a bit too much 1 kHz on the backing vocals. The main vocal EQ sits better in this mix than the previous song. Horns are a little too thin. I am sure they had more to work with from the multis in terms of EQ. The bass guitar actually sounds fuller on the original but the keyboard shots on 2 and 4 in the first verse are much clearer in the remix. Still too much top end on everything here Did they think the original was that dead sounding?

Somebody Who Cares - A fairly balanced mix that to be honest, sounds very much like the original with a little sheen on top. Wider soundstage than the original, but the warmth of the original mix wins out - especially on the wind instruments

What's That You're Doing?: Actually, I like this remix. The hi hat is a little less annoying compared to the original, and the high mids have a little more oomph which it always needed. My favourite remix so far.

Here Today - Not much you can do to ruin this BUT...they did. It sounds to me like a different reverb than the original - I am guessing it is not an EMT but probably a digital reverb. The strings get lost. Too much DAMN compression on the voice and guitar. The best way for me to compare this would be - imagine Phil Spector deciding what reverb setting the remix gets, and then imagine what George Martin would do. The original's reverb fits the sound of a chamber ensemble - which is musically tasteful and appropriate. The remix is flooded in ugly reverb. LEAST favourite remix - and WHAT happened to all of the low end on the strings? Compressed to oblivion, that's what. If someone asked you to show what an "unmusical" mix sounds like, this would be it. Listen to the vocal line on "what about the time we met?"....YIKES!

Ballroom Dancing - TOOOOOOOOOBRIGHHHHHHHTTTTTT.....the middle instrumental section, one of my favourites on the record, is obliterated by nasty insect killing EQ...

The Pound is Sinking - The remix does highlight some textures that did get lost in the original mix and we get to hear Paul's Epiphone with a bit more clarity. Even though I prefer the sound of the electric guitars, I prefer the original mix in terms of the overall affect. The bass guitar in the original sounds punchier - seems they shaved off the bottom end and you lose that fullness.

Wanderlust - too much reverb trails on the voice (which is always emphasized when you emphasize certain higher frequencies)....however the vocal in the remix is sitting in the right spot (I found the original to be a little softer than I would like it to be dynamically). Still the whole track is too bright. Shame as I like the openness of the brass on the new mix.

Get It - There is a third guitar part that comes out more in the remix. Like how the guitars sound on the remix actually. Wider stereo images. Second favourite mix. Nice to hear Carl Perkins whose vocal I always thought sounded superior to Paul's vocal take.

Link - meh...nothing to mess up here....like the sound of the guitar more in the original...richer

Dress Me Up as A Robber - The percussion sound in the remix sounds like wasps surrounding my head. In the original the highs were not as hot so it fit better in the mix. Bass guitar sounds much better on original, as well as the nylon string guitar solo before the "dressing me up" middle 8. The original mix grooves more.

Ebony and Ivory - The original charm is lost with the new EQ settings...they stayed pretty close to the original here in terms of balancing, but the highs are too hot.

I am so disappointed. I was hoping for a real sonic improvement with 24 bit as well as some "vintage" gear warming things up. All the remix did was give me a headache and is near impossible to turn up loud. It just goes to show you that not all early digital recordings sounded bright and thin. A lost opportunity.

I would love to hear your comparisons. I would tell people to stick to the original CD or vinyl pressing.

LOVE the booklet and photos in the Deluxe edition and happy to have them.

 

Really, never assume the SPARS code is correct. It was more often false than not. It was a marketing tool when digital was the rage, nothing more.

Higher than 16bit/44.1kHz resolution did not exist until the early 90s.

TOW was recorded analog, mixed digitally on the first digital console and printed on digital in 1982.
As for POP, it was apparently all analog except for that weird digital stage in the faces that Steve mentioned.

 

*fades

 

If that was their goal at first, they have failed on all points. The remix is less airy, more compressed and more centered than the original.
I'd bet the remix sounded like the original but with better depth, resolution and tonality before they started trying to "improve" on it.

 

I wasn't trying to jump to conclusion too soon at first, but now listened to some songs a bit more and woah, something like 'Here Today' is horrendous.

 

Have you heard the non-remixed reissue version yet? Does it sound better than the 1993 version?

 

IMO yes.

 

Thanks for making the effort to write such a detailed opinion of the remix; you should post it on the big thread just to add something useful amidst all the shipping updates

 

Thanks pdenny...I have posted a link there too.

I WANTED to like the remix...you have no idea. "Here Today" was the deal breaker for me.

 

Same for me. I expected a remix along the lines of what Steven Wilson would do...

 

I listened to it a couple of time via Spotify and came to almost exactly your same opinion on the tracks, especially vis-a-vis treatment of vocals. Agree that "Get It" is a real keeper, though, but not enough for me to shell out for the reissue. I played my Japan-for-US Columbia disc last night and let that (imo) superb original mix wash over me again

 

I did, since it's the one I always listened to, the original CD. (And will keep listening to.) Wouldn't touch anything 1993 with a ten foot pole, so yes, it does sound a lot better, haha. Also see the samples I posted more than 2 months ago now, in which I already concluded they stuffed things up (for 'Here Today' at least): http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/tug-of-war-remix.452078/page-2#post-12756633