Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nimrod]

It is indeed. And it can hinge on such subtle things. I recall two recorded versions of Buffalo Soldier by Bob Marley. On one I loved his vocal and it made the song. The second there were subtle differences in his delivery and it was like... Meh

Yeah actually, that reminds me, I love Long & Winding Road on Let It Be, but I don't like it where he re-records it, is it on Broadstreet ?

anyway his inflection on the words is different with emphasis in different places, it doesn't grab me the same.

[Moogmodule]

Yeah actually, that reminds me, I love Long & Winding Road on Let It Be, but I don't like it where he re-records it, is it on Broadstreet ?

anyway his inflection on the words is different with emphasis in different places, it doesn't grab me the same.

Pretty sure on Broadstreet. Paul seems to have developed a crooners inflection. I noticed when he did the acoustic version of Eleanor Rigby on Anthology. He sounds more like a lounge club singer in the way he delivered it. It's amazing the difference it makes. And not in a good way imo. Although I dot always notice it on his new stuff.

[nimrod]

Pretty sure on Broadstreet. Paul seems to have developed a crooners inflection. I noticed when he did the acoustic version of Eleanor Rigby on Anthology. He sounds more like a lounge club singer in the way he delivered it. It's amazing the difference it makes. And not in a good way imo. Although I dot always notice it on his new stuff.

Crooner ? Paul ? Kisses On The Bottom ?   surely not 

[Moogmodule]

Crooner ? Paul ? Kisses On The Bottom ?   surely not 

I have the utmost respect for Paul. But I've never wanted to listen to that record.

[oldbrownshoe]

Me neither. I've avoided Frank Sinatra all my life and I'm not going to start to listen to crooning now.....even by Paul!

The prime consideration for me is WHEN a song was recorded. The production of recorded sound was so much better in the mid-60s than the 1980s, is it any wonder that a version of 'Eleanor Rigby' from 1984 (urgh!) is going to pale alongside the one from 1966?

I'm listening to a Chuck Berry compilation at the moment that covers 1955-61, and, as ramshackle and ragged as much of the instrumentation and vocals are, it has an immediacy and punch that I simply don't hear on modern recordings.
That's the principle reason why this music has endured over the years.

[Hello Goodbye]

Pretty sure on Broadstreet. Paul seems to have developed a crooners inflection. I noticed when he did the acoustic version of Eleanor Rigby on Anthology. He sounds more like a lounge club singer in the way he delivered it. It's amazing the difference it makes. And not in a good way imo. Although I dot always notice it on his new stuff.

The prime consideration for me is WHEN a song was recorded. The production of recorded sound was so much better in the mid-60s than the 1980s, is it any wonder that a version of 'Eleanor Rigby' from 1984 (urgh!) is going to pale alongside the one from 1966?

Paul sounded OK to me.  So did the string quartet...

Paul McCartney - Eleanor Rigby [O.S.T.] 1984

[nimrod]

Me neither. I've avoided Frank Sinatra all my life and I'm not going to start to listen to crooning now.....even by Paul!

The prime consideration for me is WHEN a song was recorded. The production of recorded sound was so much better in the mid-60s than the 1980s, is it any wonder that a version of 'Eleanor Rigby' from 1984 (urgh!) is going to pale alongside the one from 1966?

I err disagree with you there obs, I have tons of early/mid sixties records and most of them to me sound like sh*t, tinny, hardly any bass, too much reverb on the vocals, they were made to sound ok on a little record player with a 5" speaker (like 90% of the population had in those days) the exception to this seems to be The Beatles, which makes me wonder at how good George Martin was ! (Abbey Rd still sounds very fresh and new !)
Recording as they did on 4 track means tracks were bounced together to free up more tracks, that means a lot of instrumentation was 2nd generation as it had been bounced from its own track to a track together with the bass and or piano, 4 tracks is very limiting for a band, you always end up with compromise, I think Abbey Rd is so good and clean because they suddenly had 8 track

I think the best ever recorded album (imo anyway) WAS from the 80's, Alan Parsons 'Eye In The Sky'........he obviously made the transition from Engineer (he was engineer on Dark Side Of The Moon) to artist and made sure HIS records sounded absolutely superb. Upon saying that you have to have some good gear to appreciate it.

Its fair enough if you prefer the 60's sound though mate, we all like different things.... just giving my opinion 

I think the early/mid sixties Stones records for example sound crappy

[Hello Goodbye]

I think the best ever recorded album (imo anyway) WAS from the 80's, Alan Parsons 'Eye In The Sky'........he obviously made the transition from Engineer (he was engineer on Dark Side Of The Moon) to artist and made sure HIS records sounded absolutely superb. Upon saying that you have to have some good gear to appreciate it.

Oooh!  That was a good one wasn't it, Kev.  Recorded in Abbey Road Studios too.

[Moogmodule]

I err disagree with you there obs, I have tons of early/mid sixties records and most of them to me sound like sh*t, tinny, hardly any bass, too much reverb on the vocals, they were made to sound ok on a little record player with a 5" speaker (like 90% of the population had in those days) the exception to this seems to be The Beatles, which makes me wonder at how good George Martin was ! (Abbey Rd still sounds very fresh and new !)
Recording as they did on 4 track means tracks were bounced together to free up more tracks, that means a lot of instrumentation was 2nd generation as it had been bounced from its own track to a track together with the bass and or piano, 4 tracks is very limiting for a band, you always end up with compromise, I think Abbey Rd is so good and clean because they suddenly had 8 track

I think the best ever recorded album (imo anyway) WAS from the 80's, Alan Parsons 'Eye In The Sky'........he obviously made the transition from Engineer (he was engineer on Dark Side Of The Moon) to artist and made sure HIS records sounded absolutely superb. Upon saying that you have to have some good gear to appreciate it.

Its fair enough if you prefer the 60's sound though mate, we all like different things.... just giving my opinion 

I think the early/mid sixties Stones records for example sound crappy

I think the stuff about a lot of the sixties stuff like the Beatles and Beach Boys was how good it sounds despite all the limitations you mention Nim. Revolver for instance when they were still using four track sounds great to me.

But fact is I can get better overall sound than recordings from 40 to 50 years ago on my computer at home. You can even make it sound like a crappy sixties recording if you want to go low-fi. Doesn't mean the songs are better of course.

I remember the crappy transistor radio speaker test from when bands I was in used to do demos in the 80s. I suppose now the test is to convert it to MP3 and listen through cheap ear buds.

[nimrod]

Oooh!  That was a good one wasn't it, Kev.  Recorded in Abbey Road Studios too.

I love to listen to that on my expensive headphones Baz, the sound is so pure, I remember buying the vinyl in 81 I think and being a bit amazed at the sound.

[Hello Goodbye]

My expensive headphones are the Audio-Technica ATH-M50S Professional Studio Monitor Headphones, Kev...








They were $120   What do you have?

[Mairi]

That was Phil Spector's goal when he produced his Wall of Sound stuff, incidentally. He was marketing his music towards teenagers who owned crappy transistor radios or cheap plastic record players.

[oldbrownshoe]

Well, all I can say that it was via the medium of 'crappy transistor radios' and 'tinny' recordings that the greatest era for popular music flourished, the 50s and 60s, NOT in the sickly sheen of the decades afterwards.
And the greatest way to hear those records was via a jukebox in a steamy and noisy coffee bar.

Perhaps the message is not to go the way of the audiophile i.e. to listen to music as it was listened to in the 60s.
I knew a guy at University who had a fantastic hi-fi, it took up so much of his 10ft by 10ft student room that he barely had anywhere to sleep. One problem, and something he freely admitted to.....the records he had were dire.

The great 60s producer Joe Boyd (early Floyd, Nick Drake, early Fairport) swears that the greatest era for recorded sound was actually the 1930s, and specifically the blues records made in that decade, an opinion I have a great respect for.
In other words, one black guy, one guitar, one room, one microphone above his head.
Less is more, and in 2014 artists like Robert Johnson are far more marketable, influential and famous than the Alan Parsons Project. 

[nimrod]

My expensive headphones are the Audio-Technica ATH-M50S Professional Studio Monitor Headphones, Kev...




They were $120   What do you have?

I have some Seinhousers (can never spell that  ) and some Dr Dre Studio's

[nimrod]

The great 60s producer Joe Boyd (early Floyd, Nick Drake, early Fairport) swears that the greatest era for recorded sound was actually the 1930s, and specifically the blues records made in that decade, an opinion I have a great respect for.
In other words, one black guy, one guitar, one room, one microphone above his head.
Less is more, and in 2014 artists like Robert Johnson are far more marketable, influential and famous than the Alan Parsons Project.
[/quote

look at it another way though, if we were all like you and only wanted stuff from the 30's & 60's there would be no record companies, record shops, artists or anything now because we would all just buy stuff that was made in the fabulous sixties.....no market for anything else !

It would be an extinct industry.

Im glad you love your Robert Johnson records but to me he sounds as boring as batsh*t, in fact, he sounds in some pain, sitting through an album of that would seriously give me a migraine............give me Alan Parsons Project any day. 

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A</a>

[oldbrownshoe]

In that case, Nimrod, you must find it tough to relate to The Beatles' era.

It's actually the reissue market that has kept the Record Industry going all these years.
Whilst kids can download singles for 50p or whatever it might be, the industry are busily shifting Beatles'/Dylan/Stones' box sets and the likes for three figure sums (see Record Store Day).

I'd prefer to be sitting on the profits of 0.1% of the Beatles' back catalogue than 50% of the back catalogue of whoever is currently at No. 1.

[Ovi]

The fact that 'he sounds in some pain' is exactly what makes his music great. But I agree that it's hard to sit through an entire album, I have the Complete Collection CD and I almost never listen to it from start to finish.

[nimrod]

In that case, Nimrod, you must find it tough to relate to The Beatles' era.

It's actually the reissue market that has kept the Record Industry going all these years.

So you dont accept that some 70's albums were the biggest sellers of all time ?

Dark Side Of The Moon, Rumours, Thriller, Back In Black, Fragile etc



I have no idea what kind of insult you are trying to concoct with your 'you cant relate to the Beatles era' comment, I grew up listening to The Beatles, I got the albums when they came out. I played them hundreds of times, I disected them and tried to understand them..... I actually find that remark pretty offensive to be honest

Since you joined this forum you just keep telling us over and over again how you hate anything post 60's, its like a record thats stuck and keeps repeating the same thing over and over....and over, I think we get it, you dont have to keep harping on about how crappy it all is since the 60's, Pink Floyd are NOT Pink Floyd, they are THE Pink Floyd according to you because thats what they were called in 1966 etc etc etc etc

Some of us like post 60's music, some of us love it in fact, I dont want to be told over and over and over again how rubbish it is

I love Aussie rock from the early 80's, The Divinyls, Cold Chisel, Dragon, The Angels, Billy Thorpe......I love a lot of Manchester bands that made records in the 90's, Joy Division, Stone Roses, The Smiths but I suppose I have to hear how rubbish it all is as its not 60's, oh and none of it sold much.

Some modern music is just as important to my 20 year old son as The Beatles were to me, but I suppose you would tell him how its erm....rubbish

Change the record mate, its getting very tedious 

[Dcazz]

Bang, bang...

[nimrod]

The fact that 'he sounds in some pain' is exactly what makes his music great. But I agree that it's hard to sit through an entire album, I have the Complete Collection CD and I almost never listen to it from start to finish.

ok I get it, he's a blues singer singing about his woman leaving and missing the train bla bla, and he has to sound depressed and in pain

well, guess what, he succeeded 

Blues became great for me when these guys took it on

 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OLK_HSyy1U" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OLK_HSyy1U</a>