Sinatra / Reprise Sound Quality and General Discussion: "Sinatra and Swingin' Brass" - 1962*

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by SinatraFan, Oct 21, 2014.

  1. Simon A

    Simon A Arrr!

    Don't be too hard on yourself Matt. I think we sometimes wish so badly that a new release will at last be "the one" that we go through the same song and dance as you did. I doubt anyone's esteem of your work and opinions will have changed because of this. It simply proves that like us, you are as passionate in this music and only want to hear it in all its beauty.

    As always, thanks for sharing you thoughts and making all these clips for us to listen to! :)
     
    Bob Belvedere and MLutthans like this.
  2. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    Nah, it's all good. It's like carpentry, no? "Measure twice, cut once." I just need to be more careful about really giving something a good, focused head-to-head listen before making any sort of comparative statements. On its own, with no head-to-head point of reference? The new LP is fine, but it has some legitimate shortcomings that become apparent, yada yada, blah, blah, blah, words, words, I think we all get the point. :agree: Glad you like the clips; I truly encourage others to listen. (See the links within post #22, above.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
    CBackley, Bob Belvedere and Simon A like this.
  3. paulmock

    paulmock Forum Resident

    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    I suggested to you to put it away for awhile and not do this....not only to yourself but to the rest of us. You should have just said this from the start and it would have all been fine:

    The new LP is fine, but it has some legitimate shortcomings that become apparent, yada yada, blah, blah, blah, words, words, I think we all get the point.

    (Boy! Did I ever edit a ton of stuff from this post before I hit "reply")
     
    CBackley and Simon A like this.
  4. aoxomoxoa

    aoxomoxoa Play that fast thing one more time

    Location:
    Dayton Ohio
    Matt. On first listen I liked what I heard too but comparing it to what I have, it seems like they trimmed the mids too much to give it a "modern" mastering feel. I remember Steve Hoffman saying that when he remixed the Reprise catalogue the folks in charge did not like that "flat" mater tape sound.

    Now, the later Reprise LP I have is by no means perfect. In fact it kinda stinks too. But I enjoy it more than the new one. In fact I was really hoping that this new one would be an improvement, but something just isn't right.
     
    MLutthans likes this.
  5. bferr1

    bferr1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    MA
    I'm working on a needledrop of Brass at the moment, using the suitcase tracks as a reference for declicking. To my untrained ears, the suitcase flat out sucks. If I ever feel the burning desire to hear what Brass sounds like over a telephone, I'll play the suitcase.

    I don't think anyone here would have been happy if this new LP was just the suitcase tracks pressed on vinyl.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
  6. MMM

    MMM Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Lodi, New Jersey
    If my hair ever stops growing in well, I will look like that. No comb over for me.

    I don't think Bob will ever have to worry about that. ;)
     
    Bob F and Simon A like this.
  7. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    Went out this morning and picked up the EOTC disc of Swingin' Brass. Not impressed.

    I like the new Swingin' Brass LP. It's not some sort of audio nirvana from a "purist" viewpoint, but it's got a dry vocal and doesn't sound hollow. Just finished playing it straight through while I got some housework done, and fully enjoyed it, and words like soup, hollow, telephone, cave, and thin never came to mind, making this LP unique and uniquely enjoyable among the versions I have.

    Until/unless we get to a full-on "Sinatra / Reprise Sound Quality" thread about this album at some point down the road, I'm just going to enjoy the new LP for the positive changes -- which are pronounced, overdue, and noteworthy, even if flawed -- it brings to the table, and I'm going to be happy with it. I don't like any of my other versions -- that much I know. The new version was refreshingly different to my ears yesterday, and is so again today. That's worth a lot! If the old versions bug the crud out of you as much as they do me, give this LP a shot.

    No more dancing pineapples from me ever, but I will offer this: :thumbsup: Enjoy.

    The point of trying different versions is to find one that helps you to enjoy the music. The other versions I have don't work for me. The new one is not perfect, but I'm enjoying it. Chalk one up for a step in a good direction. :agree: And thanks @paulmock.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
  8. David m bond

    David m bond Forum Resident

    Location:
    London
    Interesting listen. I haven't bought any of them yet.
    Swingin Brass sounds like it has good bass and lacking in mid range, as pointed out above. I wonder in order to get the bass to an acceptable level some thing had to go in the mix to make room for it?
    Most of the tracks sound very smiley face, but there is something weird with Beginning To See The Light just before the bridge, the whole thing sounds like it is being played out of a vacuum cleaner very odd.

    With the mastering as weird as it is on these no one has really commented on the HDness of it all. Is there more coming out of the song, can you pick up little intricacies more?

    I ask because I may wait for a standard cd version of each. As pointed out so many times a HD version means diddly if the mastering is all caffooie.

    Matt if you like the new sound but miss the mid range, stating the obvious... you could notch it up a bit with eq on the computer to see f that gives you a middle ground that works for you, but like I said above you may need to drop the bass a bit to bring the mid range back,

    Another way to look at it with all these versions sounding all so different is that it gives you a variety. think of them all as apples of different types, they all sort of resemble an apple but they each have their own flavour depending on your taste on any particular day.

    I would be stunned if we ever reach a day where all Capitol and Reprise albums all get top marks on the mastering scale but I don't think it will happen.

    Another way is to think of the albums as clothes, I can get the best shoes, trousers (pants), shirt, jacket, tie, hat and scarf that I can afford but am I likely to get them all in one shop, not a chance.

    The best we have is to work out the best of each, that is why your work Matt on the albums is so crucial to the historical recording of the work of Frank Sinatra. Your essays will be the bible of cherry picking the best of the releases of his work.

    I have no idea what the next few releases will sound like. What if Watertown lost all the mud, would we be happy or sad, gives you something to think about...
     
    CBackley likes this.
  9. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    315443_1256056914376_full.jpg
    Could I BE wearing any more clothes?!

    SinatraBrassLabel.jpg
    Could my catalog number BE any more obnoxiously huge?!
     
  10. rxcory

    rxcory proud marching band parent

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Very obnoxiously large.

    And am I the only one who hates it when a catalogue number is a computer-generated alphanumeric concoction or a UPC code? How un-romantic is that?
     
    McLover and Simon A like this.
  11. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    Something like FS 1005-3 would be way, way too confusing. (R9-1005 is on the cover, if that's any comfort, but that humongo number runs down the spine, which looks kinda goofy.)
     
    CBackley and rxcory like this.
  12. David m bond

    David m bond Forum Resident

    Location:
    London
    Do you think they've seen the future and that long number is the release they're gonna get right!
     
  13. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    I was noticing things that I had never noticed before, but I suspect that's more a result of the mix being dry than it being HD. (I mentioned the buzzing of a mic diaphragm back a few posts, and one of the songs had a pretty active piano bit that I had never noticed before. I think it was at the end of side one.)

    There may be something to that. Haven't really thought of doing it yet. Problem is, it would likely affect both the band and the vocals, so may lead to trouble -- but I won't rule it out. The goings-on are so incredibly inconsistent from track to track -- on this versions AND other versions -- that it's really pretty mind blowing. For instance, the vocal on THEY CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME has a completely different tonality than on other tracks. Some tracks have lots of bass. Some tracks just have "some bass." (These types of discrepancies are all over other versions, too. TANGERINE in mono, for instance, is downright comical, as there's obvious knob-twiddling going on during the track.)
    That's always the danger once somebody starts tinkering with remixes. Different can be better. Different can be worse. Different can just be different!
     
    Bob Belvedere likes this.
  14. aoxomoxoa

    aoxomoxoa Play that fast thing one more time

    Location:
    Dayton Ohio
    So Matt, do you think this title was remixed? I notice that the new one seems dryer too, which may be why it didn't sound "right" to me.
     
  15. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    I don't have every version out there, but I've heard no other versions that sound like this one, so I've worked on the assumption that it's newly remixed (and this album NEEDS a remix, IMO). So yes, I think so.
     
    Simon A likes this.
  16. bferr1

    bferr1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    MA
    But there may not be a standard CD reissue, at least not for this title. It's already been reissued twice earlier this year, as a standalone disc and as part of a 5-CD classic albums budget box. To my knowledge, neither was sourced from this new remaster.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
  17. aoxomoxoa

    aoxomoxoa Play that fast thing one more time

    Location:
    Dayton Ohio
    Anyone have a mono copy of Swingin' Brass? I would love to hear some samples from that.
     
  18. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    Yes, I've got it. That mix is awful. Just horrid. I'll get some clips up later. (My versions, IIRC, is an R version. It may have been overhauled in an F version a year or two later.)
     
  19. Bob F

    Bob F Senior Member

    No argument, but in way of explanation:

    The top number (B0020302-01) is the format for UMe North American issues. ["-01" indicates LP; a CD would be "-02"] The second number (0602537761425) is the European UPC/EAN (bar code), which is always used as the cat. no. for EU issues.

    Apparently, including both numbers is how Universal is able to release the identical product on both sides of the Atlantic.
     
  20. aoxomoxoa

    aoxomoxoa Play that fast thing one more time

    Location:
    Dayton Ohio
    They may as well put a bar code right on the label.
     
    bozburn, rxcory and MLutthans like this.
  21. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    Seems to me like they could just put the whole darned thing in small print along the rim along the bottom or something. Subtlety can be a good thing.
     
    Bob F likes this.
  22. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    Any ideas about the machine stamped number? Anybody?
     
  23. Bob F

    Bob F Senior Member

    See —> this post above.
     
    bferr1 likes this.
  24. bferr1

    bferr1 Forum Resident

    Location:
    MA
    Actually... the B0020302-01 number is already part of the fine print, so it's on there twice!

    Maybe the people working the production line at the record plant are blind. :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
    Bob F likes this.
  25. Bob F

    Bob F Senior Member

    They did put the first (US/Canada-style) number at the bottom. It looks to me like they wanted to replicate the original Reprise LP label as close as possible, but they couldn't use the Reprise cat. no. So some misguided art director decided to show the UMG number(s) in its place at the same font size.
     
    aoxomoxoa likes this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine