Thread: Vinyl Reissues - From Analog Planet

Originally Posted by still-one

New music doesn't suck any more than some of the drivel the Beetles fed us. most of it sucked when I was a kid and it still is inane now.

Jim-You obviously don't like the Beatles so we can just leave it at that. Read the article that Myles provided the link to and maybe you will understand how much processing goes on to make some of the *talent* presentable now days. Tons of *artists* are singing through auto-tune because they couldn't sing on key in the shower with nobody listening. They simply have no real talent other than the talent to look good on stage.

I will further argue that not only did digital kill the music business in that no artist can survive today from selling albums and they all have to hit the road in order to make a living, digital also killed the sound quality that was taken for granted in the late 1950s up through digital's introduction into the recording studio in the 1980s. The suck in sound quality was compounded by all of the digital effects that came later to the recording studios so they could further muck with the sound. Hell, even someone as talented as Adele found her music butchered at the hands of the digital recordings she suffered through.

So now you have the double-whammy, lots of no talent bands recorded hideously in digital. No wonder people are flocking to reissues of seriously talented musicians, singers, and bands recorded in glorious analog by people who had good ears and knew how to let the gear get out of the way.

Originally Posted by still-one

In general the only people flocking to reissues are old farts like us. Sure you can find examples of a young kid here and there buying old stuff but that will not keep that music viable in the long run. The people who made the Big Band and Frank Sinatra era viable are dying off. Already the oldies music/doo wop is dying a slow death. When we are gone Elvis, The Beetles and The Beach Boys will be next.

Actually I really worry very little about the quality of a recording. I care more about the performance. The quality of the performance is what makes me listen not the dynamic range or las of tape noise etc. In general everything sounds good on my system.

I know that is the approved audiophile thing to say, but I'm not buying it from you for one minute. If you actually did "worry very little about the quality of a recording," you would have never invested the serious money that you have invested in your system so please lets stop kidding each other about that. What genre of music do you listen to primarily?

Hmm, of course I think the 60s and early 70s were the quintessential great time for music, but I like me some 80's as well, a little anyway. For me, the 90s was a dead zone, it all ran together, seems like every artist or band was a carbon copy of the one before. 2000 and beyond are meh, a sparce few little gems, but nothing overwhelming.
Of course, this is all subjective.

Originally Posted by mep

Jim-You obviously don't like the Beatles so we can just leave it at that. Read the article that Myles provided the link to and maybe you will understand how much processing goes on to make some of the *talent* presentable now days. Tons of *artists* are singing through auto-tune because they couldn't sing on key in the shower with nobody listening. They simply have no real talent other than the talent to look good on stage.

I will further argue that not only did digital kill the music business in that no artist can survive today from selling albums and they all have to hit the road in order to make a living, digital also killed the sound quality that was taken for granted in the late 1950s up through digital's introduction into the recording studio in the 1980s. The suck in sound quality was compounded by all of the digital effects that came later to the recording studios so they could further muck with the sound. Hell, even someone as talented as Adele found her music butchered at the hands of the digital recordings she suffered through.

So now you have the double-whammy, lots of no talent bands recorded hideously in digital. No wonder people are flocking to reissues of seriously talented musicians, singers, and bands recorded in glorious analog by people who had good ears and knew how to let the gear get out of the way.

Really good point and the truth!

Yeah, a downin on The Beatles? I'm not the biggest Beatles fan around and much of their stuff I can take it or leave it, but I still have my favorites from them. You have to admit, there were some good ones. My favorites are Rubber Soul and Revolver, hands down. Rubber Soul is just delightful on vinyl and almost a "must-have" in my opinion. I also like Magical Mystery Tour and a track here or there from the rest of the discography.

Originally Posted by MusicDirector

Really good point and the truth!

Yeah, a downin on The Beatles? I'm not the biggest Beatles fan around and much of their stuff I can take it or leave it, but I still have my favorites from them. You have to admit, there were some good ones. My favorites are Rubber Soul and Revolver, hands down. Rubber Soul is just delightful on vinyl and almost a "must-have" in my opinion. I also like Magical Mystery Tour and a track here or there from the rest of the discography.

"Some good ones???" Someone please tell me who has a deeper catalog of music that has been covered by more musicians than the Beatles catalog. Someone please tell me that 100 years from now if there is still human life left on this planet, which band will still have people listening to them and rediscovering them? Which band single-handidly put Brian Wilson in a bed in a deep depression and caused him to gain 300 lbs because he knew he could never compete with them? Oh yeah, it was the Beatles with Sgt. Peppers. They turned the world upside down and caused a mania that has never been seen before or since and I predict it will never happen again for a number of reasons.

Originally Posted by mep

"Some good ones???" Someone please tell me who has a deeper catalog of music that has been covered by more musicians than the Beatles catalog. Someone please tell me that 100 years from now if there is still human life left on this planet, which band will still have people listening to them and rediscovering them? Which band single-handidly put Brian Wilson in a bed in a deep depression and caused him to gain 300 lbs because he knew he could never compete with them? Oh yeah, it was the Beatles with Sgt. Peppers. They turned the world upside down and caused a mania that has never been seen before or since and I predict it will never happen again for a number of reasons.

Ok, calm down, no need to get your knickers in a twist, I'm on your side. I'm just talking about for me personally there, my favs and not so favs, that's all. I'm not downing them out-right. I never said I did not like The Beatles, I just don't listen to them 24/7/365. I do have some Beatles albums and I do play them.
We owe much to The Beatles and only a fool would believe otherwise.

Originally Posted by still-one

There are those that consider Sgt Peppers the death of Rock and Roll. Now rock was supposed to take itself too seriously and everyone thought it should be an art form. Sgt. Pepper was ground braking alright. From that point on we had to live with overdubs, loopback, gibberish lyrics, reverb, etc

I would say you have to be kidding, but I know you're not. I had no idea that reverb wasn't invented and used until Sgt. Peppers. Ditto for overdubs (I assume you mean double tracking). By the way, Les Paul invented that and it was used by Buddy Holly long before the Beatles used it. Also, the Beatles used double tracking long before Sgt. Peppers, but hey, don't let a few facts get in the way of your dislike for the Beatles.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

Can you say Capitol Studios?

I know. I think reverb was in use in recording studios when the Beatles were still in diapers.

Originally Posted by still-one

Who said they invented any of those techniques? Their overuse on the album was noted my some of the reviewers of the time. But don't let those facts get in your way.

I never said all Beatles music is bad, just that their catalog is filled with some tracks that are as trite as anything by no talents like Britney Spears. Tell me how great the writing is on " I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You" or "I am A Walrus" are.

Tell me how exciting those songs sounded and how much energy they portrayed both live and on record? Of course the lyrics were far more innocent than later songs, but they were infectious and people loved the first two songs you mentioned. There was a reason 70 million people tuned into Ed Sullivan to watch the shows when the Beatles performed.

Originally Posted by still-one

Hey I watched it too. That doesn't mean they were good songs. People tuned into Ed Sullivan to hear "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window" too. That doesn't make it good music.

Whatever dude. Your views can't change history.

Originally Posted by still-one

Who said they invented any of those techniques? Their overuse on the album was noted my some of the reviewers of the time. But don't let those facts get in your way.

I never said all Beatles music is bad, just that their catalog is filled with some tracks that are as trite as anything by no talents like Britney Spears. Tell me how great the writing is on " I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You" or "I am A Walrus". Almost pure bubble gum.

I didn't want to pour fuel on what is turning into a Beatles war thread, but it is starting to get absurd. Sure, maybe "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" were/are considered Pop or filler or "trite" for their time, but "I Am The Walrus" bubble gum? Oh please! Even that song is far more sophisticated than the Britney, Gaga, whatever crap making everyone's ears bleed these days.
Not nit-picking here or anything, but I've also noticed that your spelling "Beetles" incorrectly and you have mis-titled "I Am A Walrus", it's "I Am The Walrus" Just letting you know.

Originally Posted by mep

Whatever dude. Your views can't change history.

I haven't ordered my mono beatles box yet (I know, shame on me) but some are reporting scratched or scuffed records and having to send them back for replacements. i wouldn't wait till christmas day to find out if you needed to, better to be safe than sorry.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

Few more caveats:

Original releases:

1) Often done on inferior, sometimes even reground vinyl.
2) Limited by the cutting amplifiers of the day and few mastering engineers could achieve a dynamic cut. (See George Piros.)
3) Do you have the right stamper (or pressing) since the sound can vary dramatically from stamper to stamper (pressing)? In other words often-but not always-the earlier the stamper, the better the sound.

Or where was the record pressed eg. Philips pressed Deccas are inferior to UK pressed Deccas? It's kinda like tubes. The label on the tube means nothing: you need to know where and when is was manufactured by the internal code. When it comes to Deccas, you need to know the Buckingham code. And each label had its own code to identify when and where the record was pressed.

Current reissues:

1) What shape is the original master tape in? Even the best have lost something over the years.
2) The sound of the reissue vs. original is really meaningless. If it were't for the reissue business, turntables would be dead. Moreso, most people don't want to be bothered like us nut jobs with hunting down records!
3) Better than, all things being equal, than the commensurate CD.

Good additional points Myles, but are you sure you don't have #1 under "Original Releases" reversed? I thought that was a problem with non-audiophile re-issues and original pressings of today, not yesteryear. (I'm sticking with my belief on that one whether to my detriment or not. So far, so good though). Anyway, I'm only just asking.

Yes, the shape of the original masters are paramount. A good example I'm told are the Neil Young re-issues. I don't have any myself as I was able to find mostly originals, but I hear from those who do have them that while they think they are pretty good, you can hear the degradation of some of the master tapes on some songs and such. Personally, I don't know that I would mind that so much if I knew that the pressings were straight from the tapes and no digital enhancements were attempted.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

Few more caveats:

Original releases:

1) Often done on inferior, sometimes even reground vinyl.
2) Limited by the cutting amplifiers of the day and few mastering engineers could achieve a dynamic cut. (See George Piros.)
3) Do you have the right stamper (or pressing) since the sound can vary dramatically from stamper to stamper (pressing)? In other words often-but not always-the earlier the stamper, the better the sound.

Or where was the record pressed eg. Philips pressed Deccas are inferior to UK pressed Deccas? It's kinda like tubes. The label on the tube means nothing: you need to know where and when is was manufactured by the internal code. When it comes to Deccas, you need to know the Buckingham code. And each label had its own code to identify when and where the record was pressed.

Current reissues:

1) What shape is the original master tape in? Even the best have lost something over the years.
2) The sound of the reissue vs. original is really meaningless. If it were't for the reissue business, turntables would be dead. Moreso, most people don't want to be bothered like us nut jobs with hunting down records!
3) Better than, all things being equal, than the commensurate CD.

So with all of this in mid, how do you keep track of all of this when you're record hunting? Do you only buy based on known good pressings or educated guesses? I would imagine you could keep some notes on a smart phone or something but where would you find this information to get started?

Originally Posted by Matt715

So with all of this in mid, how do you keep track of all of this when you're record hunting? Do you only buy based on known good pressings or educated guesses? I would imagine you could keep some notes on a smart phone or something but where would you find this information to get started?

With a little research (or a lot, depending) you can find out what are normally considered good pressings and decipher the codes etched into the lead out tracks if any, but I could not begin to know how to find exactly what cutting amps and stampers were used and all that. (I'm not sure I want to).
Some folks do only buy known good pressings with notes kept on their smart phones and such and I think that's pretty neat.

Personally though, I have no such device (not that it would not be handy, but I can't afford one and more importantly couldn't see the screen or even work it anyway). I also get lost and mixed up with the different pressings and such and I just want to purchase a copy I can clean up real good resulting in very tiny to no noise at all to listen to it. I'm not into any other aspect.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

Photographic memory. Seriously.

Buying. Well that's complicated but suffice it to say buy recordings that I want-depending on the price- and look for better pressings, better condition down the road.

See some earlier posts. I'm lucky to have been collecting since 1980 and over the years have run into other collectors who share their knowledge. Plus one of my best friends, Sid Marks, is an encyclopedia of music.

Photographic memory! Now that there is genepool cheatin that is! I'm just kidding you. That is quite rare and very fortunate. Oh what I could do with a photographic memory!
Me: Really bad short term memory, seriously. (Had a TIA a few years ago and it effected my memory a little bit and made me mildly dyslexic. I am actually quite fortunate that is all that happened).
Good to have resources like your friend too. Not mention of course being at it for a while as with anything helps too.

Originally Posted by puroagave

I haven't ordered my mono beatles box yet (I know, shame on me) but some are reporting scratched or scuffed records and having to send them back for replacements. i wouldn't wait till christmas day to find out if you needed to, better to be safe than sorry.

Tell my wife that. She has them tucked away surrounded by 4 hungry pit bulls. I think my Karma is good.

Originally Posted by MusicDirector

I didn't want to pour fuel on what is turning into a Beatles war thread, but it is starting to get absurd. Sure, maybe "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" were/are considered Pop or filler or "trite" for their time, but "I Am The Walrus" bubble gum? Oh please! Even that song is far more sophisticated than the Britney, Gaga, whatever crap making everyone's ears bleed these days.
Not nit-picking here or anything, but I've also noticed that your spelling "Beetles" incorrectly and you have mis-titled "I Am A Walrus", it's "I Am The Walrus" Just letting you know.

They were both #1 hits both here and in Britain so that is what you would call them. You damn sure wouldn't call those songs "trite." Of course, people are free to say whatever they want even if it makes no sense. Lots of bands past and present would love to have "filler" songs that reached #1 in the charts both here and in Britain. My guess is that outside of newly discovered indigenous tribes living in a jungle somewhere, you could go pretty much anywhere in the world and start singing either of those two songs and people would join in because they would know the words.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

How about some Debbie Gibson?!?!

Or Ohio Express singing "Yummy Yummy Yummy." Or Mannhiem Steamblower doing Christmas songs at their concert while spinning around their guitars in imitation of ZZ Top?

Originally Posted by mep

They were both #1 hits both here and in Britain so that is what you would call them. You damn sure wouldn't call those songs "trite." Of course, people are free to say whatever they want even if it makes no sense. Lots of bands past and present would love to have "filler" songs that reached #1 in the charts both here and in Britain. My guess is that outside of newly discovered indigenous tribes living in a jungle somewhere, you could go pretty much anywhere in the world and start singing either of those two songs and people would join in because they would know the words.

No, I wouldn't call them "trite" myself personally. I was just trying to make a point in defense of The Beatles and indeed any other band that happen to have even a top ten entry with a "filler" song. However, who says those were fillers, officially? Looking at the time they were written and everything, I think they were done with purpose and not just slapped together per se' to fill an album. Even if they were for the sake of devil's advocate, that is one hell of an accomplishment to have a filler song go #1 on ya.
Hell, they even did "She Loves You" in German for crying out loud.

Originally Posted by mep

Or Ohio Express singing "Yummy Yummy Yummy." Or Mannhiem Steamblower doing Christmas songs at their concert while spinning around their guitars in imitation of ZZ Top?

LOL! Have you heard Julie London singing "Yummy Yummy Yummy"? I have, it's pretty weird, but interesting.

Originally Posted by Mike

Julie London has a great voice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, indeed she does. I've heard her to lots of other songs. Her voice is perfect for the style she does. Of course before I ever heard her sing I knew her as Dixie McCall on TV. Quite a talent to be able to sing and act as well as she did. She really did do a good job playing that role. Then I learned Bobby Troupe is the other half of the duo in every way and he did a good job too being in both roles as TV Dr. and musician. Not bad, not bad at all both of them.
It's just kind of weird hearing her do a song like that, but the way she does it is interesting enough to make you listen to the whole thing.

Originally Posted by MusicDirector

No, I wouldn't call them "trite" myself personally. I was just trying to make a point in defense of The Beatles and indeed any other band that happen to have even a top ten entry with a "filler" song. However, who says those were fillers, officially? Looking at the time they were written and everything, I think they were done with purpose and not just slapped together per se' to fill an album. Even if they were for the sake of devil's advocate, that is one hell of an accomplishment to have a filler song go #1 on ya.
Hell, they even did "She Loves You" in German for crying out loud.

I don't know about officially, but you called them filler. Read your previous post.

Originally Posted by mep

I don't know about officially, but you called them filler. Read your previous post.

Wrong again. I did not call them "filler" myself. I was only repeating what Jim called them in my point and repeating what you called them in the same fashion and reason. In fact, neither you or I called them "filler". You need to re-read my post in proper context and not take snippets out of context. Read what I said after the part you took out of context please, thank you.