I think they are, simply more dramatic and arresting. For the most part they enhance the listening pleasure but I think there's little in it between the original Benefit and the modern one (save for the flawless pressing).
Then you should listen to "Too old..." again. They are completely different recordings from a session nearly half a year after the original album sessions
Yes, I am aware of the re-recording for the TV special. For this title, only about half of the original album tracks were remixed because the multis were unavailable for the entire album. This is why we got the original mix for the entire album in the 2nd CD. What you are referencing is a completely different set of performances.
And what is the vinyl? NOT the original mix? All I am asking about is the sound of the original LP mixes vs. the Steven Wilson stereo remixes. Simple.
I just listened to the RSD release of Ring Out Solstice Bells (Steve Wilson remix) not sure I heard much difference on the title track, it didn't sound great to me (keep in mind this is a 7" sample at 33/3 speed) Christmas song wasn't remixed but it is just such a perfect song I love hearing everytime, it represents really why Ian is one of my favorite writers Another Chrsitmas Song has got to be the best later day Jethro Tull songs, not remixed but another great great listen, I love that period of Tull by the way lastly Magic Bells, so great to hear these different versions coming out, production is missing lyrics different more guitar, I prefer the finished product get this release, it may be the only version of Magic Bells on vinyl ever released
Barring Too Old..., I'd have to say this is my impression as well. Wilson has basically taken the original album mix and applied modern techniques to give better instrument separation and sound-stage. No complaints whatsoever and some of the 24-Bit versions included are the next best thing to a time machine and a reserved seat in the control room while these takes were being put on tape to begin with!
These threads make my head spin. I sometimes wonder how many people don't know the difference between mixing and mastering?
I'm going to display my ignorance and say that I have Googled this several times. As I recall, re-mixing is a more comprehensive adjustment of the different components of the recording. But a re-mix/re-master for dummies explanation from somewhere, would be of benefit to me.
A remix is where you go back to the original multi tracks and can change the levels and apply different processing to 'each track'. This can result in a hugely different sound. This is then printed as a stereo master. This has only 2 tracks (left and right) A remaster is where you take an existing 2 track master and can apply extra processing but 'only to the mix as a whole'. For example - you could move a sound from the centre to the left channel only in a remix but not in a remaster.
The LP version of the Wilson remix of Stand Up just arrived this afternoon. I haven't had a chance to play it yet but the packaging itself was a pleasant surprise. I didn't expect a gatefold at this price, didn't expect it to include a booklet, and when I opened the cover I was shocked that they bothered to do the pop up inner. Pretty cool for $21.99. The LP looks beautiful too.
I can't wait to pick it up; nearly all the LP versions of the Wilson Tull remixes come with nice packages; the Lp-sized booklets are especially nice. The one and only bit of a disappointment was that of the Thick As A Brick cover; rather than come as a fold out newspaper like the original, it was a single album sleeve with a booklet style replication of the newspaper.
Got mine today also. You're right packaging is first rate. Also gave the vinyl a spin nice quiet surfaces,nice flat vinyl, oh yeah, sounds great too.
I listened to the Steven Wilson Aqualung remix last night and was amazed at the depth I was hearing. My original copy is flat, flat,flat in comparison. Aqualung is one of those albums I listened to repeatedly back in high school (71-71). It's not though a cd though, I listened to much over the years. After listening to the SW version, I may listen a little more now. Also got SW remixed copy of Stand Up but haven't had a chance to listen yet. Looking forward to this as I haven't heard this album since 71.
Got the new copy of Stand Up. There was a notch/chunk out of the vinyl at the edge... but the record itself played flawlessly. Don't care about aesthetics... not risking returning when the music is unimpacted. Sounds great.
As excited as we are all probably are with Songs from the Wood and the live concerts, one cannot avoid thinking forwards. It has been suggested that heavy Horses is next, while there has been rumour for This Was. For HH, I would love the inclusion of one full show of the Bursting Out tapes, while for This Was I fear there won´t be anything to add. I really doubt it will receive the SR remix treatment - the 2008 edition is probably teh definitive one. As for Stormwatch, I was wondering if the Watchers of the Storm bootleg is sourced from a surviving soundboard that could be included. Just hoping...
Yes of course it was not multitracked, but Stockholm 69 wasn´t either and they used it for teh Stand Up release.
\ Shad, I think the to understanding these terms for the unschooled, is to first understand, when you're talking about a "track", we could be talking about a different thing depending on, "a track from what...?" And when we're talking about a "master" we're calling whatever came out of each stage of building the album, is a "master", but not in the same stage of development. Ya play a CD, you can skip ahead or behind and land on a "track", which in effect means "the whole song". When a band is in the studio laying down music "track-by-track", that "track" was where a musician recorded the bass part, or the background singers, or the snare. All happily sitting side-by-side, running along the same master tape. From that tape, you mix the recordings onto another kind of master, arranging and assigning the pieces onto what in its' finished form, is usually an audio "painting" of all the musicians playing together in front of you on a hypothetical "soundstage", created by assigning each "track" a place in the stereo mix...which exists on only two "tracks" here: the right and the left. You walk outta the studio, hand the master tape off to the boss, ya go out for sushi. This "master" has still gotta be "re-mastered" if there's any last-minute corrections to keep your home speakers from blowing out when you crank a bass note, or a set of standards like "the RIAA curve" is in place to keep a recording with too much dynamic information on it, from making the needle jump off the turntable (this is a real thing!). Or, years later, a "re-mastering engineer" may go back to the tape they made BEFORE they tweaked the album to standards that just aren't a problem today, maybe to get better dynamics out of it, etc, then that "remaster" can sound better that the one they had back in 1972, because your home system can show off more of what was on the tape. In Steven Wilson's case, one of his jobs with the "re-master" is also to "re-mix" the music so, instead of the original "soundstage" in your head, sounds can come from different directions and all around you, because he has "re-mixed" it for a multichannel recording. Like 5.1, or 4.0. I know, this is pretty basic for lot of us here, and my explanation is long-winded; but in my defense, I'm on my third cup...
