Elvis 24 Karat Hits

Elvis

Very well said Bob!!

Not only is it a "Profit at all costs mentality", but its also a "MOST Profit at all costs mentality".

All the majors have titles and cataloges that they own which they dont release.

Why?

Because the Sales dept tells them that the profit projections on it are smaller than OTHER things they could release.

Thats why Sony wont issue any of the Mainstream Records catalog, why artists like Jackie and Gayle cant even be LICENSED to a small label for reissue....theres not enough profit to be made.

It stinks, but my hope is that with digital downloading, that the majors will make some of this stuff available via digital download, since it costs them very very little to do. But, somehow, I think that the boneheads that run the major labels wont see it that way and will release the Beatles and other cash cows instead.

Mikey

 

I agree again Bob. In time, as with all things, the truth will come out. Hopefully, sound recordings will someday get the same "recent" public awareness as with films...

Todd

 

A Final Thought!

Todd,

Let me put this on the table...a premise...

"The more greedy corporations get, the less profit they will ultimately make."

Food for all our thoughts!

Bob

 

Bob, stop making too much sense! I'm getting tired of feeling like I need to agree (which I do again). Yes, I think in time that becomes true. When the customer becomes aware of the slip in quality or value then they move onto the competetion or if there isn't any (which BMG seems to want/I wonder why) then something new. It's the rule of the land and perhaps the universe.

I think a big, big mistake BMG has done to the longevity of their cash-cow, Elvis is the over-saturation of product and the genral public confusion. Gosh, how many BMG Elvis titles are out there now? Hundreds?. All these different collections in differents forms with a lot of the same songs just endlessly repackaged. Sooner or later the elastic string is going to snap. How many casual Elvis listeners even know what was an orginal album, single, decade/period, etc. I wouldn't know where to start if I was just delveloping an interest in his music. The cow will eventually run out of milk and whatever is left will expire past it's experation date. I'm glad that the Beatles camp haven't followed that train of thought. We may not be amused with the quality of the CD's but at least it seems pretty clear what their catalog (and history) is all about. Poor, Elvis. If he were alive today, maybe he would sometimes browse in a local Tower at his section and have a dumb-founded expression on his face...

Todd

 

Elvis....

Todd,

Good observations. Sadly, Elvis continues to be a pawn for profiteers as he was during his lifetime (Col. Parker). Elvis would probably be appalled by what BMG has done with his recordings just as he eventually became unsatisfied with how Col. Parker managed his career when he was alive. Some things never change!

Bob

 

I have the DCC versions on LP as well as everything that RCA has ever released on Elvis (I even have the complete '50's and '60's boxes on LP).

The DCC versions are vastly superior in terms of every aspect of their sound to the RCA/BMG versions. I don't understand what jiggering RCA did when they mastered these boxes. Fake digital echo? I don't know.

BTW: Jorgensen was NOT the engineer on the RCA releases. I believe he's simply the producer and tape archivist. Also, I think he mis-construed the DCC propaganda on their Elvis issues as that "DCC had better tapes than RCA used". From what other posters have stated, that was never DCC's claim. I have written Mr. Jorgensen in order to clear up this question as well as to find out the mastering details of RCA's "Elvis Is Back" stuff from the '60's box.

The only problem with the DCC collections is that they're not complete.

 

Not complete?

It is my understanding that the DCC Elvis Is Back track selection is true to the track selection on the original LP. The current BMG Elvis Is Back has added bonus tracks (a good thing). 24K Hits is a compilation unique to DCC. I am glad to hear that you find the DCC re-masters to be of superior sound quality to the BMG releases.

Bob

 

I would be very surprised if somebody couldn't tell the difference in quality in the first 30 seconds on each track. I've had a lot of friends (romans & countrymen) who were shocked at the difference (even some with almost tin-ears). As I've said before, IMO, it is very clear that the same BMG tracks in the 50's and 60's boxsets as the DCC ones are obviously very sub-par. This isn't one of those case where one can really hear a dramitic difference mostly on a very high-end system. I don't know what the engineers did at BMG (meaning their exact process) but the end result suffers heavily. The fact is (again in my opinion and some others) Elvis and the music sounds like crap. It's not enjoyable to listen to. It also does a disservice to other music from that time period. Why? Elvis is a good starting point to open the door to 50's music for people who've never really been exposed to it (you know what I mean) and if they think all music of this and earlier time periods sound this bad then they move on and miss out. It's like people only being exposed to old films on TV (with very old/worn prints) and thinking B&W stuff is "old" and of course "inferior" (in other words, no interest because of past exsposure). Show them a beautiful DVD from a camera-negative source and views change quickly (the picture speaks for itself). I'm not bad-mouthing anyone personally I'm just being honest in a critique of the work I've listened to and sadly paid money for (at discounted prices luckily). I do hold Mr. Jorgensen accountable for my waste of money (nothing personal again but a dissatified customer) and other gripes because as producer and a pro-claimed expert on the Elvis material, he did give his seal of approval on these projects (unless there is more to this story that we don't know of). To make thing's worse (as we've been discussing) he has attempted to throw a negative light on a superior product and continues to proudly put his name on inferior ones. Those boxsets should have been recalled, re-worked (and re-thought) in the mastering and replacements should be available. I know that's not how the real world works but that's would have been the right thing to do (respectful to public). Also, it is so wrong for those same masters to be used on other recycled releases. It's just plain wrong. It's also wrong (yes, I'm over-using this word) that other companies (like DCC) are being almost "banned" because of un-realistic license costs. I don't think this really has anything to do with Ole Nipper, do you? I know I'm a bit huffy-puffy about this subject but I was also looking forward to the DCC 24kt Hits 2 and also other releases. BMG rained on the parade, took the Eggo's, kicked some sand and shot the dog (poor ole Nipper)!!

Todd

 

Hey guys, thanks for all your comments

Thanks again. Its been very informative!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ron,

Thanks for contributing your thread--it was a great one!

Bob

 

After rereading this entire thread, I must say, I don't really understand something.

Steve Hoffman can thread up the RCA "Dash 1" master mix of "Elvis Is Back" on a tape machine and hear an amazing sounding master tape just waiting to be "polished". BMG and Mr. Jorgensen cue up the same tape and panic because it sounds so bad that they have to "no-noise" it, and generally wreck it, sound wise (IMO).

How can that be?

Steve Hoffman can thread up the "Aqualung" master tape and coax out of it an amazing sounding CD, whereas the 25th Anniv. release using the same tape sounds dreadful (IMO).

How can that be?

Steve Hoffman can thread up the "Highway 61 Revisited" tape and coax out of it an amazing sounding CD, whereas Sony can't seem to get it to sound right.

How can that be?

I could go on with a hundred more titles.

Why can't everything sound like an SH version? I'm tired of spending my money on bad sound!

Is this "worshiping at the alter of Steve"? Yeah, I guess so, but as Mr. Einstein states:

"The DCC Elvis versions are vastly superior in terms of every aspect of their sound to the RCA/BMG versions. I don't understand what jiggering RCA did when they mastered these boxes. Fake digital echo? I don't know."

All I can say is: Thank you Steve. I know that at this very moment you and your co-workers are trying to make nice with BMG so you can't comment here, but we truly do appreciate the efforts you have made to bring us good sound.

Thanks!

 

John,

See my posting on ego and arrogance...

Bob

 

John,

An excellent point (several actually). Steve is very talented and experienced in what he does. It's like us expecting tons of guitarists to sound like Page and as great. There is only one Page but there are also other guitarists out there who are great for their own touch and we love it. What is good, bad, great or nothing? I think, like you, what gets annoying is that there are a lot of really "badly" mastered stuff out there and it's shocking that it's selling and being called "acceptable". Standards are sinking fast. We know that this should be the opposite but it isn't. Imagine what the Elvis 50's/60's boxes could have sounded like or the potential based on what Steve was able to carve out of those tapes. I'm not saying Steve is the only person out there who could've made them sound great but the people who did work on those boxes had the opposite effect (sadly). It's just a shame...

Todd

P.S. I'll cool it on this thread, it's just making me too huffy-puffy...

 

John,

Steve once posted (on the very first DCC Forum) that he likes things to sound a certain way, and that it was his good luck that most people agree. But I can tell you that most mastering engineers out there DON'T agree or even like the natural, warm, open sound that Steve gets from the tapes. (Hard to believe, but true).

So, on one hand, you have Audiophiles and music lovers who rave about Steve's work, and on the other hand, you have the powerful "studio" engineers who collect tidy paychecks from the majors and control the sound of 90% of all releases.

It ain't fair!

 

Elvis

I have to agree that Elvis gold sounded great

 

Edge, now lets listen to the other three sides!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Elvis

lol mabey someother time

 

You guys sure know how to whet an appetite. I hope someday i'll get a chance to listen to this one...

 

Hi Pat,

Listened last night...you are right! No question a 45 was used...and yes it does skip.

I'll post an expanded response over on the worst recordings thread.

 

OR, they simply don't know how to go about getting that sound. I love the sound on the majority of Steve's work, but if I had to get that sound myself I probably couldn't, even though I'd like to. Of course, my mastering experience is pretty limited anyway, but...

 

Luke,

I agree, agree and agree. Steve is most likely the only one who can get that "sound" the way he does. That's his talent and also his experience, etc. The other food for thought is why are there so few other people out there who can get at least a good or higher quality sound with their own flavor? It's like we enjoy the cooking at Steve's restaurant but it doesn't mean that all the other restaurants in the city have to serve sub-par food. There should be a lot of other styles of cooking out there that are tasty but there isn't. The music business has a lot of bad cooks ruining vats of soup and that's really sad...


Todd

 

Mastering...a few thoughts

A few historical thoughts about mastering from my listening experience....

There was a time years ago when the "majors" really prided themselves on producing a high quality product. I hear this "pride" when I listen to LPs and 45s mastered and pressed in the 1950's and even into the 60's and 70's depending on the pressings and recordings. There was a time, in my opinion, when most records were "audiophile". Somewhere, along the way, this changed. Masterings and pressings became more "let's just get the product out the door". This mentality carried over into CDs and created the market for "audiophile" CDs. What I respect about Steve's work so much is that he, to my ear, masters all his work to be "audiophile". Hence, our affection and appreciation for his labors. What I have never understood is why all record pressings and CD masterings are not "audiophile". Certainly, the technology is present to produce a high quality product every time out.

For me, this is what I find to be so frustrating. I have often wondered if the "majors" really do not want us, as consumers, to possess an ultra high quality copy of the recordings we purchase regardless of the medium.

Bob