[TheSonicTruth]

The other dirty little secret is that the first release may have been done
under time and budgetary constraints that don't exist decades later.

Well guess what... Those constraints, at the time of the release of that 1964 oldie or 1978 gem, resulted in those songs or albums sounding the way they did the first time most of us heard them. And, for 'better' or for worse, that is what, not just a few of us, prefer.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

Yesterday:

But I'm not debating original Vs remaster on a 'which sounds better' basis.

I'm generally opposed to remastered reissues of classic pop genre(rock, rap, country, etc) because the sound of the reissued music has been changed from either what I'm used to it sounding like, or what I remember it sounding like, etc etc. It's not whether the remastered version sounds better or worse, but rather that it sounds different. I'm sorry to anyone whom I might have previously and unintentionally misled, on this point, in the past.

Today:

I'm not concerned about me - I'm concerned about newer generations coming up exploring music from my time and before. They won't have access to that 'original' sound because those sources are off the shelves in stores! Therefore, they're forced to buy(or download) the 'remastered' or remixed version because that's all that is available.

Please pick one: (you or the kids). Or perhaps we can expect another reason you dislike remasters tomorrow?

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Yesterday:

Today:

Please pick one: (you or the kids). Or perhaps we can expect another reason you don't remasters tomorrow?

Go back and re-read #5565: I edited that comment.

 

[bigshot]

Well guess what... Those constraints, at the time of the release of that 1964 oldie or 1978 gem, resulted in those songs or albums sounding the way they did the first time most of us heard them. And, for 'better' or for worse, that is what, not just a few of us, prefer.

That's fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with audio fidelity, and it's purely subjective. I guess when you listen to new music, you're free to choose the best sounding release. Just buy older used CDs of music you know and new ones for music you are just discovering.

 

[bigshot]

IE: The 2017 Sgt. Pepper 50th Anniv. remixes. Young Beatle fans will buy or listen to those and just assume they're the canonical, authoritative versions. They might not know, or care, that there are more authentic versions of Sgt. Pepper, and other albums, out there.

Didn't the Beatles make something like 17 different versions of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"? Is the one you're familiar with more "authentic" than the other 16? The Beatles didn't like what Phil Spector did with the "Let It Be" album. Since the Spector mix is the one you are familiar with, does that mean that Let It Be (Naked) or the Get Back sessions aren't canonical? Is "You Can't Always Get What You Want" supposed to have a boys' choir or not? It was originally released both ways. If an artist goes back and remixes his music and announces that the remix is what he intended to do when he originally released the album, but he just didn't have the resources to do it at the time; does that mean that your memory is a better guide for what young listeners should listen to than the performer himself?

I really don't think there is a black and white answer here. Dogma doesn't work. You have to take it on a case by case basis and judge with your own ears and tastes.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

That's fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with audio fidelity,
and it's purely subjective. I guess when you listen to new music, you're free
to choose the best sounding release. Just buy older used CDs of music you
know and new ones for music you are just discovering.

But, at the risk of repeating myself-sk of repeating myself-sk of repeating myself-sk of repeating myse - Hey honey will you lift the tonearm, please!!

Anywho, I'll say yet a dozenth time: It's not (always) about fidelity. It's about how you remember it sounding the first time you heard it.

As far as canon goes - in your second reply you mentioned that Stones song, 'Can't Always Get..'. The choir version is all the radio has played around these parts, for as long as I have been alive to hear the song. Conversely, I have heard stations alternate betweem the single and album version of the Beatles' 'Let It Be' for years, also. Or Elvis, 'Suspicious Minds' without those soaring trumpets? Sounds like all the air let out of the tires. lol!

 

[SoundAndMotion]

Go back and re-read #5565: I edited that comment.

I read the changes; you still seem to contradict yourself. How would the newer generation know about how you remember the earlier versions?

I would have a lot more respect for you if you simply, honestly said that you prefer the versions that you first got used to, rather than contort yourself trying to make that perspective seem objectively true.

If you did, I'd comment that I'm also like that sometimes.
For me, Sean Connery is James Bond. Although Roger Moore, Daniel Craig and the others play (Sean Connery) well, they are not real to me.
For me, the late 60's Porsche 911 is the 911. The modern 911 is a bloated, power-steered copy.
More relevant to music: the first Ramones album should sound like one take, with Joey and Tommy right in the middle, Dee Dee hard panned left and Johnny hard panned right. The CD I have with a "normal" mix just sounds wrong to me.
These subjective preferences aren't wrong, but they can't be argued into being "right" for everyone.

Every time you argue about the creative choices made in producing some version of a song, I can't help but imagine you telling Monet to paint less blurry or Hemingway to write longer sentences.

 

[bfreedma]

But, at the risk of repeating myself-sk of repeating myself-sk of repeating myself-sk of repeating myse - Hey honey will you lift the tonearm, please!!

Anywho, I'll say yet a dozenth time: It's not (always) about fidelity. It's about how you remember it sounding the first time you heard it.

As far as canon goes - in your second reply you mentioned that Stones song, 'Can't Always Get..'. The choir version is all the radio has played around these parts, for as long as I have been alive to hear the song. Conversely, I have heard stations alternate betweem the single and album version of the Beatles' 'Let It Be' for years, also. Or Elvis, 'Suspicious Minds' without those soaring trumpets? Sounds like all the air let out of the tires. lol!

When did the first version of a song YOU heard become the defacto artist approved standard?

This entire discussion is about your preferences, not audio fidelity or preservation of artist intent. I get that you're passionate about this, but please, move on.

 

[GearMe]

I'm not concerned about me - EDIT: I already possess most of what I want in some original form. END OF EDIT. I'm concerned about newer generations coming up, exploring music from my time and before. They won't have access to that 'original' sound because those sources are off the shelves in stores! Therefore, they're forced to buy(or download) the 'remastered' or remixed version because that's all that is available.

IE: The 2017 Sgt. Pepper 50th Anniv. remixes. Young Beatle fans will buy or listen to those and just assume they're the canonical, authoritative versions. They might not know, or care, that there are more authentic versions of Sgt. Pepper, and other albums, out there.

First off...for their own good, young Beatle fans should be summarily redirected to The Stones, The Who, The Grateful Dead, The Allman Brothers, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, and The Clapton
(The Doors, The Doobie Brothers, The Byrds, The Animals, The Kinks, The Moody Blues...OK, the last one was a stretch!)

That aside, honestly who cares if the version they hear is canonical/authoritative/etc? I just hope they're enjoying whatever version they're hearing -- you know...if they're into that sort of music

Seriously though, think of all the different versions of great songs by great groups out there! Do we really need to agonize over stuff like this or just Listen to the Music?

Who knows, with a Little Help from their Friends, maybe they'll get a whole new appreciation for the variety of music genres, song versions, covers!!!
(thank goodness for covers...or I'd never listen to any Beatles songs)

 

[TheSonicTruth]

the first Ramones album should sound like one take, with Joey
and Tommy right in the middle, Dee Dee hard panned left and
Johnny hard panned right. The CD I have with a "normal" mix just
sounds wrong to me.

Doesn't that just bust your bubble?

You finally take home a CD issue of your absolute favorite album by your favorite artist, put it in your machine, and come to find they done some messed-up schitt in the mastering dept, or, as you mentioned, some weird new mix y'don't remember, makes you wanna yank it off your machine, open your window, and hurl that sucker up on your neighbor's roof across the street!!

 

[71 dB]

I'm not concerned about me - EDIT: I already possess most of what I want in some original form. END OF EDIT. I'm concerned about newer generations coming up, exploring music from my time and before. They won't have access to that 'original' sound because those sources are off the shelves in stores! Therefore, they're forced to buy(or download) the 'remastered' or remixed version because that's all that is available.

IE: The 2017 Sgt. Pepper 50th Anniv. remixes. Young Beatle fans will buy or listen to those and just assume they're the canonical, authoritative versions. They might not know, or care, that there are more authentic versions of Sgt. Pepper, and other albums, out there.

Newer generations are not interested of the music of your time and before, remastered or not. You think they are into Sgt. Pepper? Hah! They are into Mabel's "God Is A Dancer". If you want the millenials to discover your favorite old music, the quality of the remaster is least of your problems. Rock music "died" in 2010. We have been living the age of dancepop for the last decade. Commercially that is.

Old used CDs are of course available in second hand shops and places such as Amazon marketplace. A few years ago I purchased some CD albums from the 80's (such as Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel) and used Amazon marketplace to get the original CD releases instead of newer remasters. Those CDs were very cheap.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

First off...for their own good, young Beatle fans should be summarily
redirected to The Stones, The Who, The Grateful Dead, The Allman
Brothers, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, and The Clapton

Yeah, sure, we know. You're one of those strange Yankees who likes every classic rock act except for the Beatles. I have personally met a few weirdos who like all classic rock except by Joel or Springsteen.

What are the demographics behind that phenomenon?

By the way, this thread was supposed to be about 16bit vs 24bit from a consumer perspective, right? Well at least enough of us know that there isn't really a difference, so we can just discuss the music itself, lol! BTW, I do enjoy material from everyone on your list, and also the Beatles, Joel, and Bruce!

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1) Newer generations are not interested of the music of your time and
before, remastered or not. You think they are into Sgt. Pepper? Hah! They
are into Mabel's "God Is A Dancer". If you want the millenials to discover your
favorite old music, the quality of the remaster is least of your problems. Rock
music "died" in 2010. We have been living the age of dancepop for the last
decade. Commercially that is.

2) Old used CDs are of course available in second hand shops and places such as
Amazon marketplace. A few years ago I purchased some CD albums from the 80's
(such as Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel) and used Amazon marketplace to get the
original CD releases instead of newer remasters. Those CDs were very cheap.

1) I do come across post-Millennials with actual musical taste, occasionally, in my place of work. They inherited their parents turntable or CD deck and want to know I have any Beatles or Allmans material in the back room. The only ones who pi$$ me off are the college-age buffoons who buy LPs for the sole purpose of decorating their frickn' DORM ROOMS. They want to just hang the discs on the walls from their spindle holes, or better yet, paint them different colors. I almost feel like telling them "don't even bother buying my vinyl. If you want something for your dorm wall, try an antique payphone or a lithograph of an advertisment for Cunard." I admonish them: "Records are meant to be PLAYED and LISTENED TO, not destroyed by Sherwin-Williams", and the kiddies get all red-faced and embarassed, lol!

2) How do you think I've amassed my personal collection? Between Goodwills, Discogs, Library sales, and used yellow tags(when FYE was still around). But now the pickens are gett'n slim...!

 

[bigshot]

Welp! I think I'll watch an episode of Hoarders or Honey Boo Boo now.

 

[pinnahertz]

Newer generations are not interested of the music of your time and before, remastered or not. You think they are into Sgt. Pepper? Hah! They are into Mabel's "God Is A Dancer". If you want the millenials to discover your favorite old music, the quality of the remaster is least of your problems. Rock music "died" in 2010. We have been living the age of dancepop for the last decade. Commercially that is.

The high school in our town has an FM station. Their "format" is fundamentally "classic rock". They've done features on Hendrix, Zeppelin, Janis Joplin and Greatful Dead. The do play contemporary, indy, etc. too, but it's heavily classic rock. These are high school kids picking their favorite music.