Black Sabbath "Past Lives" 2016 reissue

I've searched the forum but haven't been able to find many opinions on this Sabbath reissue?
Opinions?
Thanks,
Scott

 

All releases of Past Lives are terrible. Disc 1 is a brick walled version of the 1996 Live at Last CD and the 2nd disc is just a few tracks from shows which are widely available elsewhere complete and in better quality. The 1970 show is available on the Paranoid 4CD Super Deluxe (and on video on bootleg) and the 1975 tracks are one of the most widely available Sabbath bootlegs. Asbury, NJ '75. It's a 2CD of a King Biscuit Flower Hour recorded show. Past Lives is the worst way to hear all the material it contains. I'd suggest getting the 1996 CD of Live at Last, the Paranoid Super Deluxe and if you're into that sort of thing, track down the 2CD NJ '75 bootleg. Some other masterings of Live at Last are fine as well, but I particularly like the 1996 and it should be easy to find.

 

I should have specified vinyl reissue ...so I assume this applies to that too.

 

It does. The vinyl was even 44khz sourced. It's exactly what is on the CDs.

 

Thanks...saved some $$!

 

Yo,

It's not that bad IMO...Disc-1 is cleaned-up for sure, & a little louder than the original "Live at Last", but it's not a dramatic improvement over the original release IMO.( I played them one after the other ).

Disc-2 is strange in that it goes from 1975 recordings back into 1970.

The liner notes indicate that the band is finally happy to release the "Live at Last" set with their blessing, so it has that going for it lol !

The 2-disc set isn't expensive by any stretch, & is reasonably presented too.

There's no doubt that "Reunion" from 1996 is superior in sound quality, but there's a raw edge to the band in the 1970's too that needs to be appreciated & heard too IMO.

Cheers,

Gregster

 

I agree. And Past Lives is better then no Past Lives if you don’t already own any of the material.

 

Here I side with rnranimal. Sure, Past Lives is not "that bad" if you don't listen to the alternatives (and I am not talking about Reunion, but about recordings from the same live shows that are included in Past Lives). But if you do listen to the alternatives, it is hard to defend:

Side 1 is not just "a little louder" - it is simply compressed to death:
Album list - Dynamic Range Database
Album list - Dynamic Range Database
We're not talking about "a little" compression here, we're talking DR7 vs. DR13! Maybe that's fine when you listen at very low volume. When listening at higher volume, my ears choke.
And I am not sure if and how this was "cleaned-up". You mean: denoised? To me, Past Lives disc 1 simply sounds much louder than Live at Last, that's all.

Side 2, well, rnranimal already said it: it contains just parts of two shows that both are available on other releases in superior quality and complete.

Again, if you haven't listened to the alternative releases, I fully understand that you like this one. I just happen to believe that ANY fan of this band who doesn't hate live releases in general should definitely check out Live at Last, the complete Live in Brussels 1970, and some bootleg version or other of the complete Live in Asbury Park 1975. It's not like those releases are hard to find. You can very easily get used copies of Live at Last:
Black Sabbath - Live At Last (CD, UK, 1996) For Sale | Discogs
And the complete bootleg version of Asbury Park 1975 is so widely circulated, it is hard NOT to find it.

 

Yo,

What I meant by cleaned-up, is less original master-tape-noise, & you can hear definition in Geezers bass notes, not just a wall of sometimes fuzzed-out & out-of-tune drone...

We have to also remember here, that the band was not in great shape to play a top-notch show, & pretty much every single tune is introduced with a wail-of-feedback from Iommi's guitar...All that feed-back doesn't leave a lot of room for dynamics, since his amps are on 10...

This also means everyone else has to try & keep up volume wise...

Should you choose a computer program to tell you about the Dynamic Range found on a release, so be it. I just use my ears, & if it sounds reasonable, that's good enough for me !

The original liner notes to "Live at Last" suggest that the show is quite a poor performance from the band, & is also a poor recording. They suggest to think of it as an above average boot-leg, & not much more than that...And it was all you could "officially" get from the original band live, for near 20-years since its release in 1980, & that was 7-years after the recording took place...

Any improvement that I hear in clarity with my ears, remains just that.

Thanks for the tips on the other shows, appreciated.

Ciao,

Gregster

 

To which copy of the original Live at Last album have you listened? I am fully aware of the deficiencies of this recording, but I don't remember much tape noise to begin with, and I certainly didn't notice any improvements when I compared Past Lives to the Castle 1996 Live at Last. Just wondering if your copy of Live at Last might simply be an inferior release. Anyway, we'll probably have to agree to disagree regarding our evaluation of the sound of both. No problem with that.

At the same time, there are more objective aspects of the matter, including dynamic range. First, again, I am aware of the deficiencies of the original recording (though I obviously don't find them as disturbing as you do), I just don't see how they affect the issue of whether Past Lives is an upgrade (as you claim) or a downgrade (as I claim) when compared to earlier versions. Now your claim seems to be that the recording wasn't exactly dynamic to begin with. Even if that is true, it doesn't exactly justify introducing a further, significant reduction of dynamics via remastering (now I am talking about Past Lives). Quite the opposite, I would say: whoever did the remaster, should have tried to preserve as much dynamics as possibly rather than even reduce them further. And no, I don't use a computer program to tell me about dynamic range, I use my ears. But when someone tells me a mastering hasn't been compressed, or significantly compressed, and my ears tell that's wrong, then I sometimes use a computer program to (a) double-check my own subjective impression and (b) get a more objective measure of the dynamics of the recording in question into the discussion. I don't know how much you know about the Dynamic Range Meter, but there is simply no way that a recording that's gone from DR13 to DR7 hasn't been compressed to a significant extent. If it doesn't bother somebody or if they even like it, that's of course totally fine - it simply means that they either like compressed sound (many people do - there's a reason why the Loudness War was started and never really stopped), or they simply don't notice compression (totally fine too), or they do notice it but it doesn't bother them.

Your post seems to suggest that dynamic range is a purely or mostly subjective feature that is best assessed by hearing, and hearing only. However, all definitions I have seen of dynamic range point to objective facts rather than subjective factors. E.g. the general definition of DR given on Wikipedia says that DR "is the ratio between the largest and smallest values that a certain quantity can assume." And the definition given more specifically for dynamic range in audio suggests that it is "the ratio of the amplitude of the loudest possible undistorted signal to the noise floor, say of a microphone or loudspeaker. Dynamic range is therefore the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the case where the signal is the loudest possible for the system". I fail to see why a computer software would be any less capable of measuring these properties of an audio recording than the human ear. Quite the contrary: given how much human hearing depends on brain processes, emotions, and many other potentially distorting factors, and given that the human ear has no idea of what e.g. "SNR" even is, let alone how to measure it, it is very likely that a well-designed computer program gives us a much more reliable measure of dynamic range than anyone's hearing. Again, of course this doesn't imply that you have to LIKE a certain copy of an audio recording simply because it is more dynamic, as defined by the physical characteristics mentioned on Wikipedia and elsewhere, than some other copy. It does, however, mean that DR is an objective feature of an audio signal that can, accordingly, be measured objectively when the proper method is used.

Now, as a person rather familiar with Sabbath music and live performances (actually i have literally listened to at least parts of every single wider-circulated Black Sabbath live bootleg recorded from 1969 through 1995), I really don't need any liner notes to tell me whether a certain Sabbath live performance is good or bad or mediocre or whatever. IMO, their performance on these shows (Manchester 1973 and London 1973) included in Live at Last/Past Lives is just fine, with some very strong moments. They do struggle with technical difficulties though (like Tony's guitar getting out of tune).

Does LaL sound like "an above average bootleg"? From 1971 to 1973, the only Black Sabbath live recordings available are audience recordings, none of which comes anywhere even close to Live at Last in terms of sound quality. From 1974, the best-sounding, and the only professional, Sabbath recordings are from the California Jam show, and still none of the available bootleg copies sounds nearly as good as LaL. From 1969 through 1970, the best available recordings are Brussels 1970 and Montreux 1970, but in terms of sound quality I don't think any one of them beats LaL. The only Sabbath live recording from the 1969 to 1975 period that does beat LaL in terms of sound quality is Asbury Park 1975 (the complete version), which is absolutely stunning and was originally intended to be used for an official release. After all, LaL is most definitely the best-sounding Black Sabbath live recording from 1971 through 1974 (and quite likely from 1969 to 1974, but I would have never directly compared Montreux or Brussels 1970 directly to LaL, so I am less sure about that). " So I just don't think it is very helpful to think of it as "an above average bootleg". Compared to other live recordings of this band during that era, it simply sounds EXTREMELY much better than any bootleg in circulation.

Past Lives, though... Just imagine that Sabbath released a very strange 2xCD set, containing a brick-walled copy of the Paranoid album on disc 1, and a compilation of songs taken from Vol4 and Sabotage on disc 2. Would I love that 2xCD set if I hadn't heard the original Paranoid, Vol4 and and Sabotage albums? Certainly yes, because it contains fantastic music. Would I keep listening to that compilation after purchasing and listening to the original albums? I don't think so.

Peace!
Linda

 

IMO it is worth owning just for the live tracks from Sabotage, don’t get me wrong the rest of the cuts are great as well.

Black Sabbath - Past Lives
2 LP

 

I`d get an original NEMS Live At Last vinyl or the `86 Castle cd.
The complete Asbury Park`75 has been around the internet in perfect quality.That other 70 show has been in the best quality ever for a while compared to all of the older versions out there.
It would be great if they just put it out mastered better than Past Lives or paranoid deluxe.

 

I just ordered the 2016 reissue edition, thinking that I didn't own any of this live material-- and then, just after placing the order, I learned that it has many of the very same Brussels tracks which I already bought, years ago, on the Paranoid Super Deluxe edition... oh well, at least I will soon have some live Sabbath that I didn't previously have, which is better than none!

 

Just enjoy the music!

 

That Asbury Park concert is incredible! I simply can't understand why it hasn't been released as an official Black Sabbath catalogue title. It would be their best live release, by far, period-- and I write that as a fan of all eras of the band who loved and played Live Evil incessantly when it was released in 1982!

 

I listen to the’75 show often,so much fun to hear!.I used to play an old cassette in my care of Live At Last before getting the record years later.There is also a good audience recording on YouTube from Providence ‘75 of a similar show.Also Pittsburgh ‘76 &’78 recorded for a radio show.
Asbury 75 is definitely my favorite.