ICE Mag Watchdog Answers Stones SACD Questions

I just received the new ICE today (Joe Jackson on the cover) Jan 2003 issue and they have two entire pages addressing the Stones SACD issues and there are quite a few. Luke, you seemed to have the most questions. ABKCO answered all the questions and addressed all the issues. Basically the tone was "get over it. What you have is what you're gonna get." They did specifically mention the SCB issue on GYYYO and said that was an error that was fixed early in the production run.

I cannot type two entire pages nor will I scan this stuff and post it here due to copyright issues BUT if someone wants me to scan and email the pages and they post them on their own website...so be it, I guess.

The info is not on the current ICE homepage.

mud-

 

What's done is done. I thought so.

 

Heh...I don't even remember what I wrote them at this point. Nevertheless, that type of response is pretty much what I expected. I guess I'm too cynical to expect that they would go back and change/fix things...

 

Gee whiz, Luke, they did fix YA-YAs, didn't they? What do you want? All the artifacts and NR gone, too? More stereo? Jewel cases? Boy, some people....

ED

 

I'm glad that at least ICE asked 'em the questions.

I didn't see any topic in ICE that hasn't been mentioned here.

mud-

 

Did they specifically address Aftermath?

 

In what sense, Paul?

They did address the NR and narrowing of stereo and why they did those things.

mud-

 

Yes, basically NR.

 

Seems NR was applied where they thought necessary ie intros and then "back off" after intros but also applied at points in songs where they felt the song needed.

mud-

 

I think they heard the obvious hiss on the tape and got nervous. I'm sure they heard it without that tad of NR and thought "Hmm, people would complain about this in the mainstream, so we better help it out".

 

Sckott, I think you're correct. They used the same reasoning for narrowing some of the stereo mixes. They said they had to meet the needs of the headphone listeners which they didn't have to worried about before the Walkman. Basically, that's crapola. They just did what they wanted to satisfy the mass market. And that's what they did.

mud-

 

It's a miracle we even got the SACD's. Considering the past track record.

 

Very OT, but what's the article about Joe Jackson concerning?

 

Me Too!

 

Is this thread-hijacking????

It's about how his new LP reunites his original band.

mud-

 

I'd love a scan of the article, so I can have something more concrete to be depressed about.

-D

 

David, I'm sure once you and Luke have the article we'll get a better grasp of what the ABKCO folks are saying.

mud-

 

The funny thing is, it's usually *headphone* listeners that want the widest versions.

Thanks to mudbone, I've seen the article. I'm actually surprised many of my questions/comments made it to print. Usually ICE really edits stuff down, but it doesn't seem as if they did this time (I'll have to check my e-mail to be sure). Here are a few parts of the article:

(re: lack of various stereo mixes - my specific examples are given)

Of course, Klein totally ignored my question about using the mono mixes in some places and stereo mixes in others. Pretty lame...

(re: narrowed down songs)

Note that all three tracks I mentioned to ICE - I Am Waiting, Dandelion, and Honky Tonk Women - were *not* 3-track recordings, and the earliest (I Am Waiting) wasn't issued as a single.

(continued)

I guess I'll have to send Bob a copy of the London Aftermath CD, since if you compare the two the narrowing is quite apparent.

He goes on to talk about hiss (again in response to a question I posed), but it's not really anything we haven't heard before.

But, yeah, in general the response from ABKCO is answering the questions without really answering the questions...

 

I agree. Another non-answer to that by ABKCO. I think they just want things "in the middle" and used that as an "excuse".

mud-

 

I understand where you're coming from, Gary, but that's a bit like saying the current Elvis CDs are a major improvement over the original reprocessed stereo versions. Just about *anything* would be a major improvement. It's more fair to compare the SACDs to the London CDs, which varied from "decent" to "really great".

 

Exactly. And at the most basic level, it isn't about comparing the SACDs to anything. Let's examine this. They had ~15 years to *make this right*. And they didn't. What they *did* do is generally pretty decent, but "15 years" and "generally pretty decent" don't really go together.

I love that December's Children sounds better. I wonder why it's still "December's Children," though. I wonder why "Look What You've Done" is the only stereo track. There are 12 tracks on the album. Could they have given us a straight mono mix and a remixed stereo version (possibly missing some tracks?) Yep. They could've.

Could've they given us an Aftermath that doesn't sound as unbelievably patchy? Yep.

Could they have fixed the tape-wobble on a few tracks? Probably. Nobody probably noticed it.

It sounds like they were on the lookout for "obvious" problems (the click at the beginning of "Going Home" which is now gone, or too wide stereo, or hiss) on a select few tracks. Because it simply doesn't make sense, otherwise.

-D

 

OK, I just got through reading this. A few thoughts:

a) ABKCO comes off sounding like the freakin' Church of Scientology. They just avoid issues entirely, or give stock answers. Bob Ludwig *kinda* gives an answer about the narrowing issue, but it isn't a spectacularly good one (I've said it once, and I say it again: if you're going to use "faithfulness to the original albums" as an excuse for ripping off the consumer, you better stick with it the entire goddam way). Bob's odd comment about noise-reduction "revealing" flaws in the source tape is just bizarre (and, frankly, reminds me of Jon Astley's assertion that NR "reveals" more of the tape), as it simply isn't true. At. All.

Nobody, it seemed, brought up the Metamorphosis issue either, which is a) pressing b) real and c) a big, big, irritating problem.

But whatever. This is what we get.

-D

 

I usually get my copy of ICE before now. I'm really looking forward to reading Watchdog now that I've seen this thread. Does ABKCO address the Ruby Tuesday issue? Why DID they use that weird mix which, to me, sounds like an early mix before they finished it with Mick's harmony vocal overdub?

 

"They just did what they wanted to satisfy the mass market. And that's what they did."

Say what? Imagine that: a CD company wanting to appeal to the greatest number of potential buyers!

Don't get me wrong- I greatly enjoy reading this board and learn a lot from you all. However, to me, the bottom line here is that the ABKCO reissues, while not perfect (what in life really is?), are a VAST improvement over what we had before. For example- Beggars Banquet. That release alone makes the entire exercise worthwhile for me. Anybody notice that, unlike some other recent SACD reissues of 60s rock titles, ABKCO reasonably priced the Stones stuff? Notwithstanding quibbles, much work obviously went into this series. I appreciate the fact that ABKCO chose not to force us to pay through the nose although it could have done so. How much do you think we all would have paid for, say, a deluxe box of Hot Rocks, complete with a snappy booklet, rather than the no-frills issue that came out?

I suspect that ABKCO is neither tone deaf nor dedicated to screwing the audiophiles, nor are Pete Howard and ICE part of a vast binaural conspiracy to dupe the public and deliver it into the greedy hands of the monolithic labels that advertise over the pages of ICE. So, have a little egg nog, enjoy the music and chill out until January, when the releases begin again and we can start bitching about, say, the DVD-A of Pet Sounds because it has no surface noise "like Brian originally cut it." What were they thinking?