Are You Onboard With Changing The Original Music Mix?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- With so many remixed and reimagined classic albums being released, Chief Product Officer Andrew Welker wonders how are we all feeling about this. The two recent reissues that sparked this thought are Pink Floyd's Animals and Revolver by the Beatles.
When it's a remaster that takes advantage of modern technology that results in a better sounding recording, that's one thing. However, what about when instruments or vocals from the original are pushed up or down in the mix, or even edited, removed, or re-recorded, then what do you think? Are we crossing into the land of tampering with a great piece of art, or is it all just a matter of renaming the album for clarity when it has been “reimagined”?
Curious to see how you all will respond in the comments on this one, and if the musicians among you have thoughts and feelings about this.
Free Download: Four Sound Improvements That Don't Cost a Dime! www.axiomaudio....
Fall in love with your music🎵 all over again❤️
Get speakers you’ll listen to at any volume for hours on end.🎚
Questions? Contact Axiom's Friendly, Helpful Audio Experts: www.axiomaudio...
-
Subscribe to Axiom: / axiomhom. .
Facebook: / axiomaudio
Instagram: / axiomair
Twitter: / axiomaudio
Blog: www.axiomaudio...
Forums: www.axiomaudio...
I'm about to turn 64 years old so I grew up with The Beatles music. I've heard it so much at this point that the only interest I have is the remixed/reimagined versions. I want a fresh version. I'm spinning Beatles records again because of the remixes, it had been 30 years since I really spent any time listening to The Beatles. It feels like I'm rediscovering them. I also happen to have the best sounding audio system I've ever owned, that helps. Think about what the average turntable was like in the 60's. I love modern pressings.
That's a really different take on the subject, thanks for sharing it! I'm sure there are others who agree, they want something fresh to their ears.
One's love of music must always win out. I think having a great amp and speakers can really push an original recording to the next level. You can have a remastered album but if you never heard the original recordings on your own system then why should it matter? I remember years ago a good friend asked me to listen to his SACD disc's and to let him know if it actually sounded better than ordinary cd's. I told him that I could hear a difference between his SACD disc's and the original cd's. I didn't want to hurt his feelings as he was really excited about the new format. In truth, I couldn't tell a difference.
1st press with all its imperfections has always taken me closer to the artist as is
Feeling closer to the artist is what it's all about.
When I first listened to the new 2018 remix of Animals, I disliked it. But I realized that after 40 years of listening to the original (followed by ten years of the 2011 remaster) it would take some time for my ears to get over the shock of the new mix and the way it sounds. Right off the bat with Pigs On The Wing you can hear the stripped-down mix. Gone is the heavy (overdone IMO) reverb on Roger’s voice that made it sound like he was in a cave. And enter a more raw, up front and realistic vocal that conveys the emotion of the lyric more clearly. Same with the acoustic guitar. It’s a stripped-down simple mix that makes everything seem more natural and perhaps real. Listening on a good system makes the differences all the more apparent and and if you have good gear it will sound like the band is in the room with you. It does seem to me that the disc itself comes across at a slightly lower overall volume compared to the 2011 remaster, however.
After multiple listens (dozens) and A-B comparisons of both whole tracks and parts at home, with headphones and on my car system, I now vastly prefer the new remix. It’s been like discovering the album all over again.
As for Revolver, I'm still discovering the new release and so far, I like it. However, I have mixed feelings about the 50th anniversary edition of Abbey Road. While I appreciate the clarity and (arguably) improved sound, parts of the remix leave me unsatisfied.
As far as being for or against, I'm neither. I generally enjoy having access to newly imagined/remixed versions of music I know and love. It brings back some of the excitement I experienced hearing the originals for the first time and as long as the originals are still available, I have no issue with it. Cheers!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and detailing your own impressions of these recent reissues! I also find that giving a new remastering some time to sink in will often change your initial opinion. I'm also not a fan of the Abbey Road 50th.
Why for or against? It's just a choice. The previous recordings are not recorded over. They are still available. In fact, the new versions are probably for a niche audience being so expensive. And which versions will appear on Spotify and other streaming services? Probably the older ones will still be the most popular. So, you can buy it. Or not. It's at least interesting!
Hopefully Spotify (and others) would carry both versions so we have the option to compare and decide for ourselves.
I love both Animals albums
Thanks for sharing you enjoy them both.
I'm not opposed to remixes or alternate mixes, but I have found that I don't like remixes as they never measure up to the original. My worst example was a Chicago Transit Authority remix that sounded extremely harsh. Alternate mixes on the other hand can be fun. I think of them as I would an alternate take on the original album; so the concept doesn't offend me. In short, improving the original is a no-go for me, but a completely different arrangement can be interesting. I'm more likely to engage if at least one of the original artists was involved in the remix.
Thanks for sharing that you're more up for an alternate mix rather than a remix as an improvement, interesting take!
My feelings are, if the album has been re-mastered from the original studio tapes, I generally like the result because as you say Andrew, modern recording equipment can enhance the sound of a beloved album. What I have a problem with, is when companies reproduce albums, call them "re-mastered" but they're really just recorded from a CD and re-released, or worse yet, recorded from an LP and sold on CD as re-mastered. I look for a lot of older CDs on Ebay, because I can get CD quality for a cheaper price (generally speaking) that I can then rip to flac. You run into this a lot when looking for used CDs. Is it the original CD, is it the re-issue, is it the re-master or is it the re-imagined? It starts to become tedious to try and find the version you really want. An example is Pat Travers, Makin' Magic. From reading through reviews, etc., Majestic Records has re-released this out of print album but from what I understand, it's a CD release that was recorded from an LP, not the master tapes. So, I've been looking for the "original" recording on CD (which, by the way is a lot more expensive). Anyway, just another tangent on this topic...
I like listening to remastered CDs. Some of the remixed and remastered CDs sounds better and some not as good as the original. For example the 50th anniversary edition of Ten Years After CD A Space in Time. The remix is interesting to hear but I prefer the remaster of the original. The edition has both versions so it’s easy to compare. What I don’t like is when a band Re-records an old song or album. They sound terrible in my opinion. Still buying CDs and glad companies like Rhino are putting out new versions of old classics. Love the recent Little Feat CDs of Sailing Shoes, Dixie Chicken and Waiting for Columbus. Love when additional concerts are included like the Rush reissues. Good discussion. Thanks for sharing.
I think for me, when I got into streaming, I lost some level of interest. There was something about buying physical media, opening it, spinning it for the first time...felt different....and this shift over to streaming was in fact when I was in my early 30s
Case-by-case I suppose. The new Pink Floyd Animals (vinyl) sounds better than the original. Sentimentality doesn't enter into the equation for me.
Good to know the new vinyl sounds good, thanks for saying so!
My feelings on remixes and re-imagines can be summarized: what’s the harm? As the originals generally remain available and, with streaming, the is little or no cost to auditioning them, remixes seem benign at worst. That said, I’ve been happiest for some like “Animals” that feel to me more like a correction of previous faults than new artistic content.
Remixes or Remastering is may be a different story, I am talking more about remastering, and it is ok as long it is claimed because in most cases I do not like it. For example, I'm looking online for a song by the Rolling Stones. Let's say I'm looking for "Wild Horses“. I search, for example, the first recording from 1971. Then the result is all (and many) remastering for at least 25 years. One worse than the other. It is a torture and a plague. In the meantime I have become patient in searching. Sometimes no original mix is offered. Then I look for the original recording on old compilations. Sometimes I have success only on this way of my search.
I am not an expert but I have a suspicion. When remastering they listen to every single track. Then they do "full work" on every single track. An acoustic Martin guitar becomes even more silvery. The singer gets more expression. The drums become more impulsive and crisp. The bass becomes drier and deeper. Then they are satisfied with every single track and go to lunch. After that they mix everything together. And that's the problem. Many original records have a magic of togetherness. Most remastered issues have no feeling for the band, it's a dead juxtaposition of individual instruments trying to outdo each other. Maybe I am alone with this impression. But I would go so far as to say that digital is criticized because you often hear the wrong editions. Old original digital record versions are much closer to vinyl.
Not crazy about the remix trend of today, though I accept it. One thing that does bother me is the quality of the new pressings which is not as good as in the 60's and 70's plus the 180g vinyl is a sales gimmick. All in my opinion.
When CD's were first released, they were { In my opinion } provided more depth than vinyl. Complex music scores came through cleaner and I loved it. However, No one changed anything, the CD sounded just like the album { Overall } . That's how it should be. If a band wants to re -release an { Altered Version } It should be billed as Exactly That. Not Original, Altered, Something fair and honest. I don't have a problem with them doing it. Personally, if I love or even like a song. Its highly unlikely I'll embrace a new version.
You're not alone there, many people are saying the same thing, they're unlikely to enjoy the remix. Thanks for sharing.
That's a tough question. I feel that the original release of an album is what the artist(s) wanted it to sound like. My understanding with early Beatles albums is that the effort went into the mono mix and that the stereo mix was really an after thought. So with them, the re-imagining started a long time ago. I haven't heard the new Revolver album so I can't comment on what they've done to it, but if it's as different as you say it is, is it still a 1960's work of art? Would John, and George to some extent, have agreed with the changes? Or is it Paul trying to be the leader of John's band? I guess it's up to each listener to decide what they like.
Interesting point about the mono & stereo versions, thanks for pointing that out, and sharing your thoughts on this.
I like original
Thanks for sharing your preferring the original cut.
I think Jerry Garcia once said "great rock is never perfect and perfect rock is never great." If you put 10 sound engineers in a studio and ask them all to improve Jumpin Jack Flash they will come up with 10 different mixes and I guarantee every one of them will irritate me if they show up in my Spotify stream
Great quote, and so very true, cheers for sharing that one.
Remixing: Nope. Not. Never. What's the point...increasing sales?
Could be in some cases, in others it might be the artists want to revisit and redo.
the whole point of records are sales, there is no other reason for them to make them
I’m against changes being made in most mixes, especially if the original members or artists do not give consent or in some cases where the artist no longer owns the music. With regards to a classic album or a song track however, think of it as art work that sits upon a wall. It was designated to be a classic for a reason and should not be changed or altered ... even with its original imperfections.
That's an excellent point, especially as so many musicians have sold their back catalog. Thanks for pointing that out.
On the other hand, if an artist has sold their catalog, they have relinquished their rights to that music. It's now the property of someone else. Now of course one hopes that the rights were relinquished willingly, and that the artist was not forced or coerced in any way to do so. But that's a different conversation. Not sure what you mean by "designated to be a classic". Music was written and recorded and either the world loves it and holds it in high regard, or it doesn't. Nobody (person, organization, governing entity) "designates" anything to be a classic.
@@Cuzin_Ken great thoughts. I think looking back in hindsight, we do have a tendency to say 'destined for greatness', although unknown at time of release.
@@AxiomHomeTheaters Love these discussions! Another thing that occurred to me is that sometimes technological limitations at the time of the original recording limited the ability of the engineers to convey to the listener exactly what the artist wanted. And now 20, 30, 40 or 50 or more years later these recordings can be revisited, and we can now get exactly what the artist envisioned in the first place. I find much joy in the endless possibilities of remixing and reimagining music. Cheers once again!
NO REMIXING/REIMAGINING! MARKETING SAD
Thanks for your definite answer!
I like original better. Remixes tend to me turn off and come across as a cover of the original.
Thanks for sharing, interesting take on calling it a cover.
Hate it. Opeth did this and the remixed album sounded sharp and shallow. What the hell.
Ouch, sounds like a fail.
Have zero interest in remixes of records as most I’ve heard sound botched
Same with the more popular trend of “Remastering” of records. Vast majority of these wreck what are often recordings that were just fine. These “remastered” generally sound compressed (brickwalled) with poor dynamic range and typically sound like the bass and treble are jacked up by someone who doesn’t know how to use an EQ.
There are exceptions of course…….notably remasters done by folks like Steve Hoffman who treat the music with respect and maintain what he feels is the artist’s original intent and usually just fixes the sonic trouble spots. I’ve yet to hear a remaster by him that wasn’t an improvement over the original release
You make a very good point! Many remasters go with a common theme these days and compress the heck out of the original recording, or remove every vestige of tape hiss, etc., resulting in a lifeless rendition with bad EQ. I'm a big fan of Mr. Hoffman's work and it proves that remastering can be sympathetic to the original recording AND improve on it, in some cases.