Jump to content

Remix as historic revionism


Hard Truth

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I read that the Doors are remixing some of their records. George Martin remixed some Beatles songs for the Rock 'n Roll album. Many other remixes and significantly remastered versions of classic albums have been released. These developments disturb me.

 

For me, a good record usually captures the spirit of the times with the choice of instruments, recording equipment and techniques. To go back and change the mix using modern equipment and sensibilities seems all wrong to me.

 

I do not object to remixes that place music in new contexts such as the use of old Blue note label recordings for Trip Hop remixes. Most suck, and some are good, but at least they are not trying to change the sound of history by removing the original recordings from their catalog.

 

But I think it would be tragic if only the "new and improved" mixes of the Doors were available to the public. (for one thing I think the original versions are just fine) New listeners would lose the opportunity to hear the same recordings that made the Doors a legendary band. I also suspect that the new mixes will sound dated in a few years.

 

I think revisiting a mix might be OK if the original artist was never happy with the original mix and wants to fix it. But even in that case, the new mixes should be packaged and sold with the original mix so the listener has a choice.

 

In the Neville Brothers thread someone wished that one of their albums from the eighties could be revised to replace the cheesy synth parts with piano and B3 organ. Unless a third party added the synth parts after the album was recorded without the band's permission, "fixing" the album would be very wrong. The album was recorded inthe 80's and synths were a part of the musical landscape at that time. It would be the wost kind of historic revionism to remove the synth parts, because it would present a false picture of their music from that period. And don't forget, in a few more years we will probably start appreciating those synth parts as a charmingly rustic artifact of its time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was actually joking about replacing the synths on Yellow Moon but I probably should have made that more clear. ;)

 

I feel exactly as you do about remixes. As long as they're clearly marked as remixed -- or remastered -- and the originals are still available, I'm fine with them. But I'm not going to be inclined to seek them out and I'll almost always go for the original.*

 

A great example might be, say, the Derek and the Dominoes album... it's got its share of what we can probably consider flaws -- but I don't want to hear some spiffed-up, gated, compressed, redo... I want to hear the album I fell in love with.

 

 

* Now... in the case of stuff like 80 year old Library of Congress recordings, I probably will go for (and did, actually) the cleaned up, denoised Robert Johnson stuff. Ditto some of the Ellington recordings from the 20s... Still, I think those original recording should absolutely be preserved like the extraordinarily rare gems they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well...

 

A friend brought over ZZ Top's 1st Album. I always loved that album but hadn't heard it in years. It had this cool, dry, little amp vibe to it. Very real, very intimate, very groovy and raw.

 

We crank it up and... Oh my God!!! Digital reverb slapped on the drums, voice and guitars. Just demo quality mixing. Complete trash. Devastating. Apparently the original mixer wasn't invited to the party. Total crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree that purely technical judicious cleanup/restoration-such as denoising, click removal, restoration of bandwidth etc. of pre-mid nineteen fifties recordings is OK. After the mid-fifties most recordings are good enough that they should not be messed with. (with some exceptions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well...


A friend brought over ZZ Top's 1st Album. I always loved that album but hadn't heard it in years. It had this cool, dry, little amp vibe to it. Very real, very intimate, very groovy and raw.


We crank it up and... Oh my God!!! Digital reverb slapped on the drums, voice and guitars. Just demo quality mixing. Complete trash. Devastating. Apparently the original mixer wasn't invited to the party. Total crime.

 

 

I was thinking of the crime that was perpetrated on the remixed version of "Lagrange." I think Billy Gibbons was involved in that remix (someone correct me because "I might be mistaken" ;) ). I loved the dry sound of the original version but Billy (or whoever did the remix) wanted to make it sound "modern." :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well...


A friend brought over ZZ Top's 1st Album. I always loved that album but hadn't heard it in years. It had this cool, dry, little amp vibe to it. Very real, very intimate, very groovy and raw.


We crank it up and... Oh my God!!! Digital reverb slapped on the drums, voice and guitars. Just demo quality mixing. Complete trash. Devastating. Apparently the original mixer wasn't invited to the party. Total crime.

 

 

I've heard two "remasterings" of ZZ's "Blue Jean Blues" (one of my favorite slow blues of all times) and one is very bad and the other is just hideous. Both are overcompressed as hell but the latter is crazy. And it sounds very different... without going back and listening I couldn't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if it had additional FX added in, to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The latest "remixes" I've heard of the old Motown hits are pretty lousy. They add nothing new or exciting to the old records.

 

And the modern, ultra-hip remixes of famous 1940's Big Band recordings are an abomination unto the Lord. They've given a flippant new kind of pomo, Melrose Avenue, "cocaine chic" to those records made when America was waging a world war and used those records as poignant tonics to the public spirit.

 

That said, the new remix of Seals & Crofts' "Summer Breeze" is very clever and succeeds very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, I sometimes don't have a problem with remixes of the sort that you are talking about if it's sort of like what Led Zeppelin are doing with their remixes. You got the bandmembers, especially Page, overseeing the remixes, Kevin Shirley twiddling knobs. What's interesting is that they already remixed the CDs once already, and those sound really good, so my only guess is that, emboldened by the DVD and "How The West Was Won", they decided to apply this to their catalog. I don't know. But I figureif I don't like the remixes, I can always listen to the old mixes!!

 

Anyone interested in just how much "How The West Was Won", the DVD, the BBC Sessions, etc. were truly altered from their original source tapes should look here:

http://www.thegardentapes.co.uk/

 

At any rate, I think most of us agree that coming back and hypercompressing the mixes should be punished by public flogging. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't really have any problem with alternative mixes -- as long as the classic remains available. And, of course, I always loved the notion of dub and dance mixes.

 

But I fear we may lose some of the originals as we've lost some original cuts of classic movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What about the notorious Zappa re-releases of the early Mothers stuff with totally new rhythm section tracks?
:eek:
There
was some controversy.

 

Didn't Ozzy replace the the drum & bass tracks on some of his hits ("Crazy Train"???) when his early albums were released on CD? I think he didn't want ot pay royalties to his former band members and he cut a more favorable deal with the musicians who replaced them on the new recordings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...