Quote
FreeBird
Well, that's a fair warning... It seems likely that they'd mess up Exile as well, unless someone (Mick?) decides to stop them from doing so. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess...

I recall reading somewhere recently, it may have been Jag's recent RS interview, that Jag's (and maybe Keef too), were in studio for the remastering process. I consider that Royal Assent.

Quote
skipstone
Anyone have any ideas or links about how long UMG worked on the Stones? Based on what little I read there wasn't any real care expressed in the project since it was done so quickly.

mastering an album doesn´t take very long.

easily 1 or 2 records a day if you want and still have best quality.

Quote
studiorambo

Quote
FreeBird
Well, that's a fair warning... It seems likely that they'd mess up Exile as well, unless someone (Mick?) decides to stop them from doing so. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess...

I recall reading somewhere recently, it may have been Jag's recent RS interview, that Jag's (and maybe Keef too), were in studio for the remastering process. I consider that Royal Assent.

For all the UMGs or just for Exile? If it was for all of them, that doesn't bode well for Exile. If it's just for Exile, it could be they heard the complaints about how the other UNGs were remastered and wanted to make sure the same thing (harsh-sounding compression) didn't happen to Exile.

I've not seen it reported anywhere else, but the UMG reissue of BRIDGES features a longer version of "How Can I Stop" clocking in about 1 minute longer than the Virgin release.

Even longer? What's in that extra minute?

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I've not seen it reported anywhere else, but the UMG reissue of BRIDGES features a longer version of "How Can I Stop" clocking in about 1 minute longer than the Virgin release.

The fact that no one is even aware of this should tell you something about how well these CDs are selling.

What's in the extra minute? - music and vocals.

The fact that no one has mentioned it also tells me that everyone who said the UMG of BRIDGES sounds no different than the Virgin release didn't really listen to it.

I think what ive heard of the new UMG remasters , that they sound great, a little better than Virgin. I think why they are not selling well is because of no new bonus tracks....
How many times can you remaster something and expect it to sell??...Even if it is the Stones.....Ive only bought 2 thus far, but i do plan to buy more..money permitting in these hard economic times.....

Quote
skipstone
Where the hell did you find Stones CDs for $7 US?

They were all $7.99 at Best Buy when the 2nd batch came out.

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
skipstone
Anyone have any ideas or links about how long UMG worked on the Stones? Based on what little I read there wasn't any real care expressed in the project since it was done so quickly.

mastering an album doesn´t take very long.

easily 1 or 2 records a day if you want and still have best quality.

What would make you say such a thing? Have you ever been involved with mastering? Maybe with Garage Band but mastering takes more than one or two days. Goddamn.

Quote
Rochdale3

Quote
skipstone
Where the hell did you find Stones CDs for $7 US?

They were all $7.99 at Best Buy when the 2nd batch came out.

Where I saw them at the nearest Best Buy to me they were all Black And Blue was $14.99 and the rest were higher, $16.99 for most of them. Higher still at Barnes & Noble. And with the wrong stickers even.

That's beyond STOOOOOPID.

So why bother. Too much money. Don't need them. I'd rather buy something new and support an act on the rise than an act on the fall. I even lost my Virgin Goats Head Soup (eventually I figured out that I loaned it to a drummer in a band I was in and he fukcing ruined it - careless bastard! Why is it so difficult to take care of a CD? I will never lend a CD to a drummer again!) and considered getting the UMG one but when I saw the mistake on the back, hell no. I will find a used Virgin instead.

"How Can I Stop" clocking in about 1 minute longer than the Virgin release.


Hey WOW that's interesting Rocky ....... must only be on US pressings???



ROCKMAN

"How Can I Stop" on the original Virgin release is 5:53 while on my UMG its 6:54. Not a misprint on the CD either. Same situation as when Virgin extended "Luxury" and "Slave" (UMG kept those extended versions, surprisingly). Not sure if Aussie edition is different or if it was earlier pressings only as the UMG releases of GOATS HEAD SOUP have contained the old US censored mix from the seventies as well as the common uncensored version. There's no way to tell from barcodes on the differences between UMG GHS remasters its just luck of the draw. May be the same thing with BRIDGES. Ask around.

Hi Rocky ...tried ta slip ya an email but came roaring back ...
Please can ya slip me one so I know where ya livin' etc nowdays ....



ROCKMAN

Just sent you an email from my yahoo account, Terry.

.......Thanks Bill



ROCKMAN

"How Can I Stop" on the original Virgin release is 5:53 while on my UMG its 6:54.

Ahhh I was thinking the US UMG was something like 7.53 but
the Virgin was actually a minute short at 5.53 ....Hmmmmmm interesting



ROCKMAN

Quote
skipstone

Quote
stoneswashed77

Quote
skipstone
Anyone have any ideas or links about how long UMG worked on the Stones? Based on what little I read there wasn't any real care expressed in the project since it was done so quickly.

mastering an album doesn´t take very long.

easily 1 or 2 records a day if you want and still have best quality.

What would make you say such a thing? Have you ever been involved with mastering? Maybe with Garage Band but mastering takes more than one or two days. Goddamn.

yes i have been involved. you obviously haven´t.

what you say is complete rubbish. the whole industry masters very very fast.

also the mixing is often done quite fast.

even successful acts often don´t even book recording studios or mixing studios for weeks or months anymore. they record at home. let someone mix it in the box without being even present to the session. leave alone mastering which is a very fast job. there is only so much you can do in mastering anyway.

you better only talk when you know what you are talking about.

bob ludwig does a record within 6-8 hours. i know this for a fact.

i could also tell you how much it is if you are interested. and yes he is the most expensive of all of them.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
"How Can I Stop" on the original Virgin release is 5:53

Please one more time, are you consulting the CD back cover notes or/and the CD display?

ABB was mastered in just one day, as far as I recall.

Indeed, it appears the 5:53 indication was a misprint. The actual track on CD is 6:54 long, at least on my copy. In all likelihood, UMG only fixed the misprint.

That could very well be, but I only noticed because I thought I heard a few bits I didn't recall. Now I'll have to actually verify this statement. Sorry if I misled anyone. I know I'm getting old, but I usually have a good memory for stuff like that and really thought I heard stuff I hadn't heard before.

have a good memory for stuff like that and really thought I heard stuff I hadn't heard before.

Don't worry Rocky ... I thought I was dying once so I went in the living room...



ROCKMAN

Quote
skipstone
The UMGs were done so fast it's almost as if Marcussen just uploaded the Virgin CDs to some program and clicked on MAKE LOUDER in some audio program.

Meanwhile, The Beatles remasters took FIVE years...

Quote
stoneswashed77
the whole industry masters very very fast.
also the mixing is often done quite fast.

Quote
Gazza
ABB was mastered in just one day, as far as I recall.

Regarding the Beatles Remasters as an example for a time consuming (re)mastering process, I guess you have to discern between tape research and restoration on one hand and the actual remastering job on the other. I'm pretty sure that tape research and restoration are the stages where most of the time was spent, not mastering. Likewise with new recordings I reckon that the mixing stage takes much more time than the more "managable" mastering process - it might take days but not months and certainly not years.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-03 17:18 by Greenblues.

Quote
stoneswashed77
yes i have been involved. you obviously haven´t.

Dude. You don't know me and what I've done. I know plenty.

Quote
stoneswashed77
what you say is complete rubbish. the whole industry masters very very fast.

That is bullshit. The "whole industry"? So you know EVERYONE? Right. Right now you're talking because you "know" what you're talking about. You're 100% right. Ha ha. That's funny.

When you see someone building a house, do they do it really fast because they've done it before? Not always, not all the time. Sometimes yes. But it's not a consistent thing. It can't be. There's always something.

I do know that not all records take forever to mix yet alone master. But do not assume such a thing across the board. I don't think Billboard would have made up what they said if it wasn't true. To assume that the remastering Ludwig did took a couple of days is stupendous. Maybe with the ABKCOs because he had the experience of the Virgins. Just mastering an album can take more than a few days. Have you ever heard of something called "listening"? I've listened to different masters. Of course, perhaps the time line you are referring to is that the work can be done in a day or two, whatever, instead of it taking 6 months. The total time of work, sans listening and notes, might be a total of 2 or 3 or 4 days, but it also could/might take longer when addressing problems/issues. Hell, just the sequencing can be screwed up to have it have to be done again. It's not just a slam dunk thing.

Quote
stoneswashed77
also the mixing is often done quite fast.

What is 'quite fast'? 3 hours? Once again, that depends on what it is. You're very daft to assume such things. It takes hours to get details down for what the final mix should/could sound like. And even then that's not always the way it ends up. Some do multiple mixes and edit them together. I wouldn't call that 'quick'.

Quote
stoneswashed77
even successful acts often don´t even book recording studios or mixing studios for weeks or months anymore. they record at home. let someone mix it in the box without being even present to the session.

I've worked in various studios, whether it's Chicago and Evanston, IL; Franklin, TN or New Orleans, LA (I also got to work on the eighth made, literally, Les Paul 2 inch 8 track recorder, which was about the size of a somewhat small refriderator). And also whatever the 'studio' may be - an old house, an old post office or an actual studio that was built for that very purpose. Regardless of the recording and rough mixes done at various places, for every album I've ever worked on, a studio (with the proper gear brought along) with the good board and speakers etc was rented for a number of days for mixing so it will sound like a proper record. Certainly the quicker the better when one is working on a very small budget, but sometimes it takes a little longer, if not additional sessions. Any kind of rough mix work will come into play for the master mix due to notes taken, etc. But it's not something one just shits out in 10 minutes or 2 hours. Sometimes it is - based on the song. But I would not call that a normal occurrence.

Quote
stoneswashed77
leave alone mastering which is a very fast job. there is only so much you can do in mastering anyway.

That depends, doesn't it.

Quote
stoneswashed77
you better only talk when you know what you are talking about.

I wish you could hear me laughing. Read what all I just typed above.

Quote
stoneswashed77
bob ludwig does a record within 6-8 hours. i know this for a fact.

Does WHAT. All records? Mastering? Remastering? WHICH record. Any record? What did he do leading up to it? What mistakes, if any, were fixed and how long did it take. Did he have to go back and do it over because it sounded strange - like what happened with the Virgins. Blah blah blah - you're making hugely assumptive statements. Let Ludwig make such statements.

Quote
stoneswashed77
i could also tell you how much it is if you are interested. and yes he is the most expensive of all of them.

I have an idea of how expensive it is to master but that's never been the same. As far as how much Ludwig is, ha ha, well, he should be - he's excellent.

i don´t know what you problem is skippy.

you have no clue that´s obvious, what you say is rubbish.



regarding Bob Ludwig, he gets payed per hour. you can let him master 1000 hours of course if you want and pay for it.

but he does it within 6-8 hours on releases of all the big names.
and of course he listens while working.
it takes about the same time in other major mastering studios too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-03-03 20:43 by stoneswashed77.

Quote
stoneswashed77
you have no clue that´s obvious, what you say is rubbish.

OK man. You know all, I know nothing, what I say is rubbish, what you say is gold. Congratulations. So far you are the one of the year. Nevermind.

now you got it!

Quote
skipstone

Quote
stoneswashed77
you have no clue that´s obvious, what you say is rubbish.

OK man. You know all, I know nothing, what I say is rubbish, what you say is gold. Congratulations. So far you are the one of the year. Nevermind.

you haven't even been called an ass-hole, yet, skippy - that's when you know you've made the grade...

Don't worry - I won't forget. Of course, it's only March. You could very well have competition.