Again on Steven Wilson's remixes

[strawberrybrick]

What is your freakin problem that people like 5.1 remixes from SW. I would question what system and environment you have to listen to a 5.1 on. On my system, a stereo recording can be expanded to use all 5.1 channels. The extra degrees of freedom cancel room acoustics and let one really get immersed in the sound in a great way.

A 5.1 mix is not a stereo mix.... it's different, can't be faked from a two channel source...

[bob_32_116]

I know there have been many discussions on Steven Wilson's remixes many times before, but now I want to adress a specific matter. I see the point of remastering & remixing albums that originally were badly produced or mixed -for instance, Trespass or Born Again-, but I don't understand WHY ON EARTH one would remix albums that sounded perfect in the first place??? For instance: Thick as a brick, In the land of grey and pink or Fragile. I admit that in most cases I am eagerly waiting those re-releases of classic prog albums, but in most cases it's not because of the remix, it's just because of the bonus material (unreleased songs, alternate versions, video content, etc.). And I'm getting tired as I have the impression that these remixes (by Wilson or Jakko) keep coming and coming with no justification at all. In conclusion, I'm sorry, maybe SW does his best, but I've come to the sad conclusion that this is not about the music anymore, it's just about trying to make more money out of classic prog bands.

For the most part, I agree. Still, obviously there are people who think the original mixes had shortcomings, I suspect that it's more a matter of the artist hiring Steven to do the remix than of Steven saying, "Hey, the original mix of that album was quite poor, can I redo it?"

I look on the bright side. We know his tours often lose money, and I'm sure he is not making a fortune out of his solo releases. His work as producer and engineer is probably what keeps the wokf from his door so that he can go on making music of his own.

[Facelift]

I know there have been many discussions on Steven Wilson's remixes many times before, but now I want to adress a specific matter. I see the point of remastering & remixing albums that originally were badly produced or mixed -for instance, Trespass or Born Again-, but I don't understand WHY ON EARTH one would remix albums that sounded perfect in the first place???

Why? Because there are enough people out there who are buying them.

That's the only reason why any of them are getting done - these decisions are commercial, not artistic.

[Facelift]

Clearly not true. Many people have home theatres with surround sound (though I don't), so it's becoming increasingly prevalent. I think you are underestimating folks like myself who listen to music at home on a good system, so for me the carrot of Wilson's remixes is to get the albums in high res. And that, alone, makes them well worth it, imo.

Nobody can tell the difference between a hi-res file and a regular one.

Not that this will impact whether or not people buy them. People buy all kinds of audio equipment that has no perceptible effect on sound.

[Troopers For Sound]

I didn't particularly get anything from the Yes stereo remixes so far, although I'm looking forward to hearing Tales , but I did really enjoy a lot of the Crimson and Tull ones. It's also nice to have a version of Tarkus with Greg Lake's voice auto tuned

[Steve F.]

I thought the Steve Wilson stereo mix of "Close To the Edge" was excellent, personally.

was it 'better'? I don't know. Hard to compare stuff when you've heard one for 40 years and one for the 1st time 4 months ago. But it was excellent. imo.

[Facelift]

Does anybody here have the Hoffman Gold CTTE CD? I found one sealed for only $10 at a store a few weeks ago, but haven't played it yet because I'm in the process of moving and don't have a stereo set up. If you prefer a 2-channel set-up (which I do), how would one rate it compared to the playback quality of the others available that would be go through that kind of system?

[bondegezou]

Does anybody here have the Hoffman Gold CTTE CD? I found one sealed for only $10 at a store a few weeks ago, but haven't played it yet because I'm in the process of moving and don't have a stereo set up. If you prefer a 2-channel set-up (which I do), how would one rate it compared to the playback quality of the others available that would be go through that kind of system?

Hoffman is remastering. Wilson is remixing having gone back a tape generation to the multi-tracks. This, to my ears, makes Wilson's new stereo mixes significantly different and better to any remastering... but I haven't heard Hoffman's.

However, different people like different things. Do you like Hoffman's work, or do you like being able to hear what the instruments are doing? (Note how I carefully constructed that sentence to be entirely neutral and not give away that I find Hoffman's comments on Wilson's remixes ridiculous.)

Henry

[Facelift]

Hoffman is remastering. Wilson is remixing having gone back a tape generation to the multi-tracks. This, to my ears, makes Wilson's new stereo mixes significantly different and better to any remastering... but I haven't heard Hoffman's.

However, different people like different things. Do you like Hoffman's work, or do you like being able to hear what the instruments are doing? (Note how I carefully constructed that sentence to be entirely neutral and not give away that I find Hoffman's comments on Wilson's remixes ridiculous.)

Henry

I'm aware that Hoffman remasters and Wilson re-mixes. However, there are many versions of CTTE out there, and I was just wondering how people thought that the Hoffman gold CD compared to them, when played through 2-channel.

Most of Wilson's work, in 2-channel, range from being interesting as a novelty to utter purposelessness. If you want 5.1 (and I most definitely don't) there aren't really any other options, so that's why I wouldn't consider it an apples to apples comparison - if you want 5.1, you want the SW remix.

[Steve F.]

Most of Wilson's work, in 2-channel, range from being interesting as a novelty to utter purposelessness IN MY OPINION.

Fixed it for you.

[Phlakaton]

Fixed it for you.

OMG... I am cracking up a lot at your posts on this one.

[Facelift]

Fixed it for you.

It didn't require fixing, as it was a fact.

But thanks for butting in with... the usual.

[Steve F.]

you're welcome, he who is afraid to reveal himself!

[Facelift]

you're welcome, he who is afraid to reveal himself!

Internet anonymity... what a concept! What benefit could possibly be realized from that?

At any rate, all I'm seeking here is someone's opinion of the Hoffman CTTE. I've not yet heard the CD, so it couldn't even be possible for me to disagree with the opinion, no matter how praiseworthy or damning. I'm just wondering what people think. I've read elsewhere that it's not one of his better ones, but I was genuinely wondering what anybody in here thought.

[marblesmike]

It didn't require fixing, as it was a fact.

But thanks for butting in with... the usual.

Definitely not true. Benefit and Aqualung are two where a remix was sorely needed, at least to my ears. I'd say some of the other ones are novelties. But I'm glad you hold your opinion in such high regard like it's absolute truth.

As for the Hoffman CTTE, I'm sure it sounds good. I've never heard anything remastered by SH that doesn't sound good.

Usually the rule for stuff like this is that if you're someone who doesn't like stereo remixes, seek out a version mastered by SH.

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

I agree with the original poster 100%, and I don't really see why his point of view should cause such caustic reactions. He's not attacking anyone or trying to hinder people from buying whatever they want, he's just asking some questions about the motivation and necessity of these products.

My personal opinion is that a recording is just that - a record of an event at a point in history. From that perspective I am opposed to remixes on principle, which I know that a lot of folks here will find silly, but that's my personal take on it. Good or bad, an album is a snapshot of that band, in that studio, with that engineer, at that time. To change that seems to me pointless in the extreme. The only reason I can see for going back to the original multitrack tapes is either for a "making of"-type documentation, or for a complete reinterpretation of the work using original recordings. That might make some sense. But to basically second-guess and one-up the original process - no thanks.

I'm also opposed to the increasing trend of doing this. As has been said before in the thread, this is a money-cow for the labels, and my fear is that remixes are going to steal focus from discovering, developing and releasing new talent on certain labels. Especially in prog the tendency for labels to play it safe by "revisiting" old glories in one way or another is disheartening.

For re-releases I'm interested in two selling points: A) Something previously unavailable has been made available again, or B) Someone has been able to make a master closer to the original than previous releases, i.e. with less generational loss between original master and current reproduction.

As for 5.1., it's another thing that seems pointless to me, but again I'm sure 90% of the posters here disagree. To take a stereo recording and turn it into 5.1. seems as artificial and superfluous as when they used to make "stereo versions" - notice the quotation marks - of mono Beatles and Beach Boys recordings. Why would you want to try to turn something into something it's not?

Steve - you can hit me with your best shot now

[Steve F.]

Jacob



You're welcome to dislike them in a reasoned manner, which you have given.

I just think saying "it's wrong" or "it's evil" or "they were perfect and they are being ruined", as the OP did, without making it clear that this is your opinion and these aren't holy texts being desecrated is just lazy, fanboy bullshit.

IMO.

p.s. wise words to live by - it's amazing what a huge multitude of divergences of opinions can be expressed nicely as long as you make clear it's imo or ymmv.'

p.s.s.

My personal opinion is that a recording is just that - a record of an event at a point in history. From that perspective I am opposed to remixes on principle, which I know that a lot of folks here will find silly, but that's my personal take on it. Good or bad, an album is a snapshot of that band, in that studio, with that engineer, at that time. To change that seems to me pointless in the extreme.

I would be very interested in your explanation / justification for the various 'remasters' you've done to your very own catalog of releases, without allowing the original version to still be available, since you apparently feel so strongly this way...

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

amazing what a huge multitude of divergences of opinions can be expressed nicely as long as you make clear it's imo or ymmv.

True to a tee.

[Frankk]

Thanks Jacob! Moderate people are always welcome!

I think it's understood that, facts aside, everything we say in this forum is our opinion, so it's unnecessary to place the "IMO" phrase each time one says something. Maybe some folks here are easily offended; that would be the only reason to repeat "IMO" ad nauseam.

I said and repeat that SW is the right guy, when required, and, even, that some of his remixes are wonderful (KC) and some deluxe editions, because of the concept, bonus material & packaging (JT), are essential. My only worry is that, lately, I have the impression that the whole deluxe editions thing has gone a bit out of control (unnecesary remixes, multiple deluxe editions of the same album, etc.), which makes me suspect that labels are just trying to make money out of classic prog albums. Furthermore, as other posters have pointed out, this can lead to people ignoring new bands or, even, new albums of old bands.

In another thread, someone quoted Steve Howe saying (talking about the ABWH deluxe edition):

There were some very sad edits, particularly on that lovely ABWH song “Take the Water to the Mountain” that ended up on Union. That song was phenomenal. Tony Levin and I played great stuff on it and it all got edited out. Those are the kinds of things that happened. I hope the new ABWH reissue is better than what came out originally, but I wish they would have asked me before they did it, because I am a master of tapes. For instance, I have a 28-minute version of Tales from Topographic Oceans side one. You can imagine how we had to edit that down to fit on the record, which was 22 minutes long. We edited it before we overdubbed, so it doesn’t have much on it. It’s a backing track to “The Revealing Science of God.” You would only hear guitar, drums and guide vocal if I played it for you. It’s a fact of life that I have things like this. But they didn’t ask me for anything when they put out the 2003 Topographic Oceans remaster. I have a considerable amount of unreleased ABWH stuff as well. But there are so many re-releases. Yes has done that too much and it’s time to stop. But labels keep on wanting to do it.

It's the artist who is saying that, so I don't think my original post was BS.

[Firth]

A 5.1 mix is not a stereo mix.... it's different, can't be faked from a two channel source...

No shit. You didn't get my post and never will.

[trurl]

I

My personal opinion is that a recording is just that - a record of an event at a point in history. From that perspective I am opposed to remixes on principle, which I know that a lot of folks here will find silly, but that's my personal take on it. Good or bad, an album is a snapshot of that band, in that studio, with that engineer, at that time. To change that seems to me pointless in the extreme. The only reason I can see for going back to the original multitrack tapes is either for a "making of"-type documentation, or for a complete reinterpretation of the work using original recordings.

Dammit, you beat me to it! I love the idea of really remixing these classic albums in a way that would give a new perspective on them. That's what we did with the special edition of Inconsolable Secret; it wasn't to say oh, we made a mistake, it should have sounded like this! Screw the original mix! It was more about oh, it could have sounded like this- what do you think? Either version is valid. My problem with the SW mixes generally is that they don't go far enough, but they do provide some interesting perspective here and there. Generally I would always stick with the originals but I really like Relayer, I though War Child was nice and I would be quite interested in Tales. The big thing is not to be like George Lucas and try and act like the originals should be wiped from history. Stuff like thr Zappa releases though where the new mixes just supplant the old ones on cd without any attempt to let the buyer know- that's shitty.

[trurl]

BTW there are albums that are great but just sound like utter ass that I'd love to hear someone remix- Todd's Wizard/A True Star comes to mind but he printed all those sounds to tape so we're stuck. Todd was smart *lol*

[Facelift]

Definitely not true.

In your opinion.

[Frankk]

BTW there are albums that are great but just sound like utter ass that I'd love to hear someone remix- Todd's Wizard/A True Star comes to mind but he printed all those sounds to tape so we're stuck. Todd was smart *lol*

I feel the same way about some early Pink Floyd albums. A saucerful of secrets, More, Ummagumma and Atom heart mother sound horrible IMO. The Why Pink Floyd campaign was a missed opportunity because the 2011 remasters of those albums still sound crappy. It would be interesting to see if SW could make a decent mix out of those. I don't think that is likely to happen though.

[bondegezou]

In another thread, someone quoted Steve Howe saying (talking about the ABWH deluxe edition):

There were some very sad edits, particularly on that lovely ABWH song “Take the Water to the Mountain” that ended up on Union. That song was phenomenal. Tony Levin and I played great stuff on it and it all got edited out. Those are the kinds of things that happened. I hope the new ABWH reissue is better than what came out originally, but I wish they would have asked me before they did it, because I am a master of tapes. For instance, I have a 28-minute version of Tales from Topographic Oceans side one. You can imagine how we had to edit that down to fit on the record, which was 22 minutes long. We edited it before we overdubbed, so it doesn’t have much on it. It’s a backing track to “The Revealing Science of God.” You would only hear guitar, drums and guide vocal if I played it for you. It’s a fact of life that I have things like this. But they didn’t ask me for anything when they put out the 2003 Topographic Oceans remaster. I have a considerable amount of unreleased ABWH stuff as well. But there are so many re-releases. Yes has done that too much and it’s time to stop. But labels keep on wanting to do it.

It's the artist who is saying that, so I don't think my original post was BS.

I think we all agree that there are some well-done re-releases and some badly done re-releases. Like, duh. That edition of ABWH was done by Voiceprint/Gonzo and, like much of their stuff, was pretty compromised and, in that case, probably illegal. That ABWH release didn't involve Steven Wilson, it didn't involve any remixing, it had nothing to do with the current Yes re-release series, it is not the same as the sorts of releases you began talking about with this thread.

Henry