Tell Me :
Talk
I kind of see both of you stating something similar. Yes, technology is better these days, but seems like the "sound of the day" is "push all frequencies as high as they'll go" so when compressed they'll sound good.
Which is a shame. They should just make them sound as close to the master tapes as possible.
yep...as Universal own Decca, that unifies the entire catalog.
However, that doesnt apply in the US, as ABKCO still own the distribution rights to the pre-1971 material
I don't follow others opinions, I form my own. And IMO, sound quality standards are better than ever these days.
My iPod sounds great.
One man's trash is another's treasure. I love today's sound.
Agreed. That's why I wrote, "Remastering -- when done correctly -- ...".
True again, but there are many MORE examples of remasters that sound much better than the original issues.
Drew
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-11 14:57 by drewmaster.
That says it all, pal.
If your iPod "sounds great" through those freakin' earbuds, it means you don't have ears for quality sound.
40 years ago, you would have been the guy who would rave about the stereo system you bought for $99 at Radio Shack.
If we were talking about food quality, you'd be raving about the Big Mac you just ate at Mickey D's.
To each his own, I guess.
For some reason, Black and Blue sells out fast at my local music stores and the really good stuff like Sticky Fingers just sits there on the shelf. I've only met one guy in my whole life in my town that knows what Exile on Main Street is and he's in his forties I think. Black and Blue is great too, but still...
I HATE the South...
Finally, a well-informed and qualified post on the sound quality issue. I agree with everything you say.
I agree with him, too, but don't understand why he had to be such an ass when someone (Drew) disagreed with him. The Rolling Stones have never really been what you would call an audiophile's band. Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of classical music forums for audiophile snobs to hurl insults at one another's hearing and stereo components.
Tatters--
Thank you! You hit the nail on the head.
Drew
drew, if you acknowledge not being an audiophile, what's your motivation for being so vocal in favor of remastering? Your enthusiasm starts to seem odd when even your user name cheers remastering...
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: April 10, 2009 17:12
Definately sounds like no extra tracks. Maybe some type of fancy packaging? If that's all they're going to give us they have some nerve. For the first time I'm seriously considering to stop buying anymore Stones releases, aside from new music. Damn this is sad!
Re: Rolling Stones Reissues Coming
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: April 10, 2009 17:14
Quote
highanddryQuote
drewmaster
The reality is that remastering (when done properly) just means bringing the sound quality up to modern standards, which are constantly evolving.
Wow, this is a naive and uninformed viewpoint.
Candidly, anyone who follows the Steve Hoffman Music Forum understands that "modern standards" for sonic quality have generally been dumbed down, not raised, over the last decade.
For instance, we have mp3-based iPods delivering poor sonic quality as the most popular music medium.
The overwhelming majority of recordings, both remasters and new releases, are issued sonically harsh, highly limited and compressed, with brutal use of noise reduction. Modern techniques result in recordings that are very loud, and are virtually unlistenable, they are so "brickwalled" sonically.
The studio equipment available today for remastering might be more sophisticated than that which existed 15 years ago or 30 years ago, but it doesn't mean the end result is superior.
I don't know what these latest reissues might contain sonically, but we actually ought to be grateful, in some respects, if Universal didn't do anything new, and left them alone. There are countless examples of other artists getting "remastered", and the new remasters are dramatically poorer quality than the original issues.
I kind of see both of you stating something similar. Yes, technology is better these days, but seems like the "sound of the day" is "push all frequencies as high as they'll go" so when compressed they'll sound good.
Which is a shame. They should just make them sound as close to the master tapes as possible.
Re: Rolling Stones Reissues Coming
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: April 10, 2009 17:18
Quote
jlowe
Thanks Deltics.
Presumably , the post 1971 material is 100% owned by The Stones -and they can just negotiate who distributes - and for how long?
yep...as Universal own Decca, that unifies the entire catalog.
However, that doesnt apply in the US, as ABKCO still own the distribution rights to the pre-1971 material
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
DrPete
()
Date: April 10, 2009 17:18
If they are released as SHM cds I will get them YET AGAIN. The Stones do have an amazing ability to get us fans to repurchase the same material OVER and OVER again. I wonder if this speaks to our dedication to the Stones OR our intellect, LOL
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 10, 2009 17:34
You have intellect?
Re: Rolling Stones Reissues Coming
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: April 11, 2009 00:40
Quote
highanddry
Candidly, anyone who follows the Steve Hoffman Music Forum understands that "modern standards" for sonic quality have generally been dumbed down, not raised, over the last decade.
I don't follow others opinions, I form my own. And IMO, sound quality standards are better than ever these days.
Quote
highanddry
For instance, we have mp3-based iPods delivering poor sonic quality as the most popular music medium.
My iPod sounds great.
Quote
highanddry
The overwhelming majority of recordings, both remasters and new releases, are issued sonically harsh, highly limited and compressed, with brutal use of noise reduction. Modern techniques result in recordings that are very loud, and are virtually unlistenable, they are so "brickwalled" sonically.
One man's trash is another's treasure. I love today's sound.
Quote
highanddry
The studio equipment available today for remastering might be more sophisticated than that which existed 15 years ago or 30 years ago, but it doesn't mean the end result is superior.
Agreed. That's why I wrote, "Remastering -- when done correctly -- ...".
Quote
highanddry
There are countless examples of other artists getting "remastered", and the new remasters are dramatically poorer quality than the original issues.
True again, but there are many MORE examples of remasters that sound much better than the original issues.
Drew
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-11 14:57 by drewmaster.
Re: Rolling Stones Reissues Coming
Posted by:
highanddry
()
Date: April 11, 2009 01:04
Quote
drewmaster
My iPod sounds great.
That says it all, pal.
If your iPod "sounds great" through those freakin' earbuds, it means you don't have ears for quality sound.
40 years ago, you would have been the guy who would rave about the stereo system you bought for $99 at Radio Shack.
If we were talking about food quality, you'd be raving about the Big Mac you just ate at Mickey D's.
To each his own, I guess.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
Jack Knife
()
Date: April 11, 2009 05:22
Nobody will buy any any of these. Maybe a few of 'Sticky Fingers,''Exile On Main St,' 'Some Girls,' and 'Tattoo You.' The rest will end up in the remainder bin where they have been at my local shop for years. Still don't sell there either.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 11, 2009 05:36
REVIEWS! From reliable sources, like Mix. THAT is where you will find out - people who are paid to notice the difference - if these remasters are worth a shit. Until then, it's Virgin all the way.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
squando
()
Date: April 11, 2009 08:45
Just leave them as they are.
For example The Who completely cocked up Who's Next by adding a bunch of outakes that were originally outakes for good reason.
Start adding half arsed ideas and roughly recorded outakes to Exile, Sticky and so on and you may as well paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
With the exception of the shitty production on most of Goat's and Dirty Work they all sound fine the way they are to me. And remastering cannot fix crap production.
And how different can ABB be? I already bought the second bastard to score the dvd. Do an Anthology set similar to the Beatles and be done with it me sez....
For example The Who completely cocked up Who's Next by adding a bunch of outakes that were originally outakes for good reason.
Start adding half arsed ideas and roughly recorded outakes to Exile, Sticky and so on and you may as well paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
With the exception of the shitty production on most of Goat's and Dirty Work they all sound fine the way they are to me. And remastering cannot fix crap production.
And how different can ABB be? I already bought the second bastard to score the dvd. Do an Anthology set similar to the Beatles and be done with it me sez....
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
akgameboy
()
Date: April 11, 2009 10:59
Quote
Jack Knife
Nobody will buy any any of these. Maybe a few of 'Sticky Fingers,''Exile On Main St,' 'Some Girls,' and 'Tattoo You.' The rest will end up in the remainder bin where they have been at my local shop for years. Still don't sell there either.
For some reason, Black and Blue sells out fast at my local music stores and the really good stuff like Sticky Fingers just sits there on the shelf. I've only met one guy in my whole life in my town that knows what Exile on Main Street is and he's in his forties I think. Black and Blue is great too, but still...
I HATE the South...
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
adotulipson
()
Date: April 11, 2009 11:17
So now we know, nothing new, I just took a look at my copies of these classics and must admit they all look a bit tired, most are CBS ,so I might just buy a couple of them to see what difference there really is.
Re: Rolling Stones Reissues Coming
Posted by:
Tornandfrayed
()
Date: April 11, 2009 13:18
Quote
highanddry
Wow, this is a naive and uninformed viewpoint.
Candidly, anyone who follows the Steve Hoffman Music Forum understands that "modern standards" for sonic quality have generally been dumbed down, not raised, over the last decade.
For instance, we have mp3-based iPods delivering poor sonic quality as the most popular music medium.
The overwhelming majority of recordings, both remasters and new releases, are issued sonically harsh, highly limited and compressed, with brutal use of noise reduction. Modern techniques result in recordings that are very loud, and are virtually unlistenable, they are so "brickwalled" sonically.
The studio equipment available today for remastering might be more sophisticated than that which existed 15 years ago or 30 years ago, but it doesn't mean the end result is superior.
I don't know what these latest reissues might contain sonically, but we actually ought to be grateful, in some respects, if Universal didn't do anything new, and left them alone. There are countless examples of other artists getting "remastered", and the new remasters are dramatically poorer quality than the original issues.
Finally, a well-informed and qualified post on the sound quality issue. I agree with everything you say.
Re: Rolling Stones Reissues Coming
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: April 11, 2009 16:23
Quote
TornandfrayedQuote
highanddry
Wow, this is a naive and uninformed viewpoint.
Candidly, anyone who follows the Steve Hoffman Music Forum understands that "modern standards" for sonic quality have generally been dumbed down, not raised, over the last decade.
For instance, we have mp3-based iPods delivering poor sonic quality as the most popular music medium.
The overwhelming majority of recordings, both remasters and new releases, are issued sonically harsh, highly limited and compressed, with brutal use of noise reduction. Modern techniques result in recordings that are very loud, and are virtually unlistenable, they are so "brickwalled" sonically.
The studio equipment available today for remastering might be more sophisticated than that which existed 15 years ago or 30 years ago, but it doesn't mean the end result is superior.
I don't know what these latest reissues might contain sonically, but we actually ought to be grateful, in some respects, if Universal didn't do anything new, and left them alone. There are countless examples of other artists getting "remastered", and the new remasters are dramatically poorer quality than the original issues.
Finally, a well-informed and qualified post on the sound quality issue. I agree with everything you say.
I agree with him, too, but don't understand why he had to be such an ass when someone (Drew) disagreed with him. The Rolling Stones have never really been what you would call an audiophile's band. Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of classical music forums for audiophile snobs to hurl insults at one another's hearing and stereo components.
Re: Rolling Stones Reissues Coming
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: April 11, 2009 16:30
Quote
tatters
I agree with him, too, but don't understand why he had to be such an ass when someone (Drew) disagreed with him. The Rolling Stones have never really been what you would call an audiophile's band. Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of classical music forums for audiophile snobs to hurl insults at one another's hearing and stereo components.
Tatters--
Thank you! You hit the nail on the head.
Drew
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: April 11, 2009 16:38
Quote
squando
Start adding half arsed ideas and roughly recorded outakes to Exile, Sticky and so on and you may as well paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
/quote]
No, an expanded Sticky or Exile would be like having the Mona Lisa PLUS an early, unfinished rough sketch of the Mona Lisa. Most expanded or deluxe releases include the original album, "retaining the essence of the original track listing" with the bonus material kept separate. One exception to this, which I didn't care for, was the expanded LIVE AT LEEDS, where the bonus tracks were interspersed among the tracks that had been on the original album, so the original album was, in effect, "lost". I think Lou's ROCK AND ROLL ANIMAL is like that, too. I guess they wanted to present the tracks in the same order in which they were performed in concert, but I would rather if they had preserved "the essence" of the original album and kept the extra tracks separate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-04-11 16:43 by tatters.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
mr edward
()
Date: April 11, 2009 16:42
There are only two thing that would interest me: new music (Stones or solo) or soemthing from the vault. To hell with the mediocre live albums, compilations and re-issues. Do something 'fresh' already! Even releasing music from the past would generate some new interest in this Vegas-incarnation of a band that once was great.
Happy Easter to all of you!
Happy Easter to all of you!
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 11, 2009 18:29
Nooooo - we want MORE compilations! We want them ALL! Shade, 70s, Time, Rewind, Jump Back, 36 Licks, Rarities!
Actually, I think it would work if, for example, Sticky Fingers was issued 3 ways - 1. the original - with nothing extra at all
2. the original plus a second disc of whatever extra
3. if it would fit, perhaps how they had a possible sequencing of tracks before they had to leave off whatever, Sweet Virginia and the other 3, to make it fit to vinyl. I would find THAT interesting. I do that anyway on my media player.
Actually, I think it would work if, for example, Sticky Fingers was issued 3 ways - 1. the original - with nothing extra at all
2. the original plus a second disc of whatever extra
3. if it would fit, perhaps how they had a possible sequencing of tracks before they had to leave off whatever, Sweet Virginia and the other 3, to make it fit to vinyl. I would find THAT interesting. I do that anyway on my media player.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
tmccool
()
Date: April 14, 2009 00:03
With all the live stuff that has never been released, why not release single disc editions at a special 9.99 price to snag tourists, and selected 2-disc Deluxe Editions with one disc containing the original release, and a second disc of a live performance from the same time period. This was done very well with Clapton's 461 Ocean Blvd. Just a few exceptions where a tour didn't follow the album, like ER, Undercover and Dirty Work. For those that had an official live album released, the bonus disc could include stuff that was left off. Still Life is just a single disc anyway. I'm not really a big fan of studio outtakes anyway unless they are in a near finished state, and there is a lot of that but not enough for a full second disc in most cases.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
Valeswood
()
Date: April 14, 2009 11:59
I for one will not be buying any of these re-issues, I am quite happy to stick with my vinyl copies upto Steel Wheels and CD's thereafter.
Rolling Stones plc really need to get a new marketing director if they seriously expect to make any significant sums of money out of these re-releases. I think we all accept that it is all about money now and if they do want more they have to offer something new such as extra tracks, similar to the Bowie re-issues in the 90s'. Most of us would have paid out for the re-issue of ABB, a mere couple of years after the original release, because it offered something new. Most casual fans would not have bothered buying it again, so this particular re-release was targeted at us.
Sorry if this is a repeat of anyone else's comments above.
Rolling Stones plc really need to get a new marketing director if they seriously expect to make any significant sums of money out of these re-releases. I think we all accept that it is all about money now and if they do want more they have to offer something new such as extra tracks, similar to the Bowie re-issues in the 90s'. Most of us would have paid out for the re-issue of ABB, a mere couple of years after the original release, because it offered something new. Most casual fans would not have bothered buying it again, so this particular re-release was targeted at us.
Sorry if this is a repeat of anyone else's comments above.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 14, 2009 17:44
I'm still leaning towards the IF - if Fingers, Exile, Soup, IORR and B&B sound better than the Virgins then I'll get them. I just don't think anything after that will sound any better. And I'm doubtful the UMGs will sound better than the Virgins as it is.
And since I have all the Virgins (except GHS, which I lost during Hurricane Gustav somehow) I have no need to get the UMGs. The Stones aren't going to make any money off the reissues - UMG is - until all that money is paid back, the amount it took to remaster and repackage etc...
And since I have all the Virgins (except GHS, which I lost during Hurricane Gustav somehow) I have no need to get the UMGs. The Stones aren't going to make any money off the reissues - UMG is - until all that money is paid back, the amount it took to remaster and repackage etc...
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: April 15, 2009 15:29
Record labels will do what they've done for the last 10 years : market their "products" to the 10-18 y.o. market, people who "listen" to music on Ipod.
Hence the hot/compressed mastering nonsense that's plagued countless bands.
Hence the hot/compressed mastering nonsense that's plagued countless bands.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 15, 2009 18:21
Hold on to your Virgins!!!
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
marquess
()
Date: April 15, 2009 18:32
Well,
so far it looks very disapointing.
Bu wait and see; maybe there will be some nice surprises after all...
so far it looks very disapointing.
Bu wait and see; maybe there will be some nice surprises after all...
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 15, 2009 20:56
Maybe they'll get this 14 out of the way and then do...all the live albums and then do...the comps, whatever they actually do and then do...Rarities - without fixing any of the details that are wrong.
And that leaves us with exactly what we already have with Virgin. So they're gonna have to do something interesting. SOMETHING. A box set, some anthologies. They reissued all the damn comps for ABKCO plus the box set. I don't see why they won't for the 1971 on catalogue. Eventually, that is.
And that leaves us with exactly what we already have with Virgin. So they're gonna have to do something interesting. SOMETHING. A box set, some anthologies. They reissued all the damn comps for ABKCO plus the box set. I don't see why they won't for the 1971 on catalogue. Eventually, that is.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
cirrhosis
()
Date: April 15, 2009 23:14
I still say a compilation album of the compilation albums is an idea that sells itself. Surely Universal will not drop the ball on this the way Virgin did?
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
drewmaster
()
Date: April 16, 2009 00:07
I love it ... this is the thread that will not die!!!
Drew
Drew
Re: Rolling Stones Reissues Coming
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: April 16, 2009 01:21
Quote
drewmasterQuote
tatters
I agree with him, too, but don't understand why he had to be such an ass when someone (Drew) disagreed with him. The Rolling Stones have never really been what you would call an audiophile's band. Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of classical music forums for audiophile snobs to hurl insults at one another's hearing and stereo components.
Tatters--
Thank you! You hit the nail on the head.
Drew
drew, if you acknowledge not being an audiophile, what's your motivation for being so vocal in favor of remastering? Your enthusiasm starts to seem odd when even your user name cheers remastering...
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 16, 2009 01:26
A compilation of compilation albums? What the hell are you talking about? Please explain.
Re: Universal Records are to give 19 Rolling Stones albums a makeover "deluxe versions"
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: April 16, 2009 01:36
Maybe they could spit out a CD single of all the CD singles ....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
daspyknows , Hound Dog , Irix , mgmiller , NICOS , OnlyKeef , RaahenTiikeri , StonedRambler , StonyRoad , The Sicilian , tumblinbrian , voodoodrew , wupperstein
Guests:
1865
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10