Things Jon Astley Didn't Do

[Ron]

While Astley's mastering leaves a lot to be desired, his worst offense to date--IMO--is using a few rechanneled tapes for the 2-CD Them compilation of several years back. That is simply inexcusable, the moreso because I have an import vinyl(Germany)from the early '80s that has everything in flat mono. Someone didn't do their tape research very well....on the plus side, that comp also gathers together plenty of stereo, some of it scattered on various vinyl over the years....you win a few, you lose a few.

We've discussed that comp before, Ed. Do you get the feeling that the songs have been compressed/maxed a bit as compared to the earlier London/Polygram issues? Oh. And do you think the Seeds SACD will ever *really* see the light of day? Oops. Answered elsewhere. Please ignore the Seeds bit.

[Rspaight]

I'm sorry, I don't know what came over me. There I was, happily reading the forum, my houseboy was fetching me a fresh Gerolsteiner, the 49ers were losing on the telly, and all was right with the universe.

Then Mr. McGoodwin's post uncovered a deep well of nasty sarcasm. Why did I give in to the base, animalistic urge to post it? I wish I knew. Part of me thought it was funny, if well-worn by now. (God knows we've gotten more than enough mileage out of mocking that particular worldview.) Part of me was desperately seeking approval from all you other guys -- I was cruelly mocked and shunned as a child, and the damage to my self-esteem still rears its ugly head to this day in the form of such unseemly, attention-grabbing stunts as the post in question.

Then again, perhaps I was just trying to make myself feel big and important by mocking others. The very thing that caused me such pain originally.

Dear God, what has this forum turned me into? Thank you for your concern, Dr. Ron. You've given me much think about.

Ryan

PS - I still think "slavish devotion" is a stupid phrase.

[Ron]

Part of me was desperately seeking approval from all you other guys . . .

Speaking for all the guys here at Luke.org.com.pac.members.genitory apparatuses.org com, YOU ALREADY HAVE OUR APPROVAL and needn't seek it any further.

Then again, perhaps I was just trying to make myself feel big and important by mocking others.

Yes! That's certainly why *I* do it.

PS - I still think "slavish devotion" is a stupid phrase.

Here we still disagree. I don't necessarily see "devotion" as a *good* thing. It's kind of a shallow/mindless form of "love." "Slavish," as a quantifier, seems to fit in that context [as in: "Don't beat me any more and I will perform all duties expected of me completely, to the letter, and to your satisfaction" maybe all the while thinking: "One day, *pal*, you're gonna get *yours*."]

[Ed Bishop]

While Astley's mastering leaves a lot to be desired, his worst offense to date--IMO--is using a few rechanneled tapes for the 2-CD Them compilation of several years back. That is simply inexcusable, the moreso because I have an import vinyl(Germany)from the early '80s that has everything in flat mono. Someone didn't do their tape research very well....on the plus side, that comp also gathers together plenty of stereo, some of it scattered on various vinyl over the years....you win a few, you lose a few.

We've discussed that comp before, Ed. Do you get the feeling that the songs have been compressed/maxed a bit as compared to the earlier London/Polygram issues? Oh. And do you think the Seeds SACD will ever *really* see the light of day? Oops. Answered elsewhere. Please ignore the Seeds bit.

Okay, I posted another Seeds response. While you go read that one, Ron, I'll finish this one off.

OF COURSE THEY BEEN FUCKED WITH!! It's the only thing Astley understands....not everything he's done is 'bad' but nothing he's done that I've heard makes me jump for joy...the ear-burning work on the ABBA remasters....Good God...and the ruination of sound on the DVD of the videos, Jesus.....

To my ears, the compression and maxing of mono is a far worse crime than anything generally done to vintage stereo tapes. Fact is, mono doesn't need much anything....at worst, he should have done a little NR, if he felt he had to, but no more. Truth is, it's a spotty collection and, as noted, the only saving grace of Them is the stereo....the rest of it sucks, plain and simple. What the 5.1 TOMMY will sound like is a horrifying prospect....but, to be fair, allowances for that kind of remix must be made, whereas a needless stereo remix is just bullshit. I don't care what anybody says, Lambert's original 1969 mix is just fine.

As for Astley...while I like the extra stuff on SELL OUT, I would only suggest this for comparison purposes: listen to "Tattoo" on the Astley remaster, then the old MCA CD with the original mix. The sound on the redo is all wrong; the life has been taken out of the recording...it's something easier to hear than to explain. The fact is, Steve has always had a fair point about remixes: the 'fairy dust' usually(my word and emphasis) happens the first time; after that, something has changed, usually not for the better aesthetically, even if more clarity is evident(5.1 is a different animal and must be judged with a different set of criteria). There is much to be said at times for the natural murk or limitations of many older recordings. My belief has always been that the original stereo tape, unless it's so fucked it's beyond help, should be left as is, unless it's so screwy a mix something should be done to make sense of it(Dobie Gray comes to mind--that DOES need help!)


ED

[Rspaight]

Here we still disagree. I don't necessarily see "devotion" as a *good* thing. It's kind of a shallow/mindless form of "love." "Slavish," as a quantifier, seems to fit in that context [as in: "Don't beat me any more and I will perform all duties expected of me completely, to the letter, and to your satisfaction" maybe all the while thinking: "One day, *pal*, you're gonna get *yours*."]

Oh, I see. I could agree with that if "slavish devotion" was commonly taken to mean "shallow/mindless obedience," but that's not the usual connotation. At least as I've always parsed it, it means "blind/unquestioning allegiance" or something to that effect. It certainly is used in a negative fashion, but not for the reasons you suggest.

I do agree, though, that "devotion" itself isn't really a positive thing at all -- whenever I see it used in that way (such as calling somebody a "devoted husband" in an obituary) it always strikes me as somehow oddly inappropriate.

Of course, the word devotion's origins are strongly religious in nature, which is probably why it rubs me the wrong way.

In other words, I'd like to know where you got the notion. Our love is like a ship on the ocean. We've been sailing with a cargo full of love and devotion. (Don't rock the boat, baby. Don't tip the boat over.)

BTW, as you've no doubt noticed, I've sent the Random Quote of the Week out for retooling. It will return soon in a less gratiutously nasty form.

Ryan

[lukpac]

As for Astley...while I like the extra stuff on SELL OUT, I would only suggest this for comparison purposes: listen to "Tattoo" on the Astley remaster, then the old MCA CD with the original mix.

Refresher: Astley didn't remix Sell Out. Nor did he remaster it.

As for Tattoo, other than the fact that the remix is a lot more "toppy", I wouldn't say they are all *that* different. I Can't Reach You would be a better example, for better or worse. The original has a lot more going on in the echo department.

[Ron]

Here we still disagree. I don't necessarily see "devotion" as a *good* thing. It's kind of a shallow/mindless form of "love." "Slavish," as a quantifier, seems to fit in that context [as in: "Don't beat me any more and I will perform all duties expected of me completely, to the letter, and to your satisfaction" maybe all the while thinking: "One day, *pal*, you're gonna get *yours*."]

Oh, I see. I could agree with that if "slavish devotion" was commonly taken to mean "shallow/mindless obedience," but that's not the usual connotation.

You misquoted me, Ryan. I didn't say "shallow/mindless *obedience*" but rather "shallow/mindless *love*" and in that context I think the "slavish" bit fits the "devotion" bit. Your comment about the "devoted husband" is appropriate as it makes him sound like a dog. And *that* illustrates my point as "slavish devotion" is rather pet-like. [Or does it illustrate *your* point as you never really know whether or not that golden retriever's gonna go for your throat, do ya?]

BTW, as you've no doubt noticed, I've sent the Random Quote of the Week out for retooling. It will return soon in a less gratiutously nasty form.

NO! NO! Gratiutous, nasty quotes--especially when randomly presented--help make life here at dot.Luke.org.com.pac.members.genitory apparatuses.org com a cut above life elsewhere. In fact, life here is many times a cut above life itself.

[Rspaight]

You misquoted me, Ryan. I didn't say "shallow/mindless *obedience*" but rather "shallow/mindless *love*" and in that context I think the "slavish" bit fits the "devotion" bit. Your comment about the "devoted husband" is appropriate as it makes him sound like a dog. And *that* illustrates my point as "slavish devotion" is rather pet-like. [Or does it illustrate *your* point as you never really know whether or not that golden retriever's gonna go for your throat, do ya?]

Hmmmmm. If it wasn't for that last glass of wine, I'd have a cogent response to that. (Or at least another disco song.) But as it is, I do see your point. The "slavish" just reinforces the shallow/mindless nature of the "devotion." Hmmmm again.

NO! NO! Gratiutous, nasty quotes--especially when randomly presented--help make life here at dot.Luke.org.com.pac.members.genitory apparatuses.org com a cut above life elsewhere. In fact, life here is many times a cut above life itself.

Yeah, but picking on Michael just seemed wrong, for some reason, unlike picking on Dave. But that quote was just so *funny*. Maybe that question requires *another* glass of wine to properly work out.

Ryan

[lukpac]

Yeah, but picking on Michael just seemed wrong

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

[Ron]

Yeah, but picking on Michael just seemed wrong, for some reason, unlike picking on Dave.

Ya know, the more I think about it, I see your point. Michael seems like the real deal--well-meaning and all that. But we're just funnin' here in a more-or-less harmless sort of way. [Fawning Luke ditty:] I think it's great that Luke--whose knowledge, insight and patience remain unparalleled on the Net--has provided the likes of us the opportunity to goof around while, on rare occasion, at the same time actually discuss things of a musical nature. Luke is good. No. *Better* than good. He's boss.

As regards the "slavish devotion" issue, like you, Ryan, the more wine I drink the more my point[s] make sense and the more I become convinced I'm right. That's why I drink alcohol during the day--so that the correctness of my position will be clear in my mind and I lose the inhibition to so inform my colleagues. I am not loved so much as feared. Life is good.

[Rspaight]

OK, the Michael quote returns for the remainder of the week. Just because it's even more hilarious than the run-of-the-mill Michael quote, and its selection was more due to its "what-the-heck-was-that" nature rather than any serious hostility toward its sentiment. (And what a sentimental sentiment it is.)

Any complaints should be directed to anyone listed in the memberlist with zero posts. Just to wake 'em up.

Ryan

[Ed Bishop]

As for Astley...while I like the extra stuff on SELL OUT, I would only suggest this for comparison purposes: listen to "Tattoo" on the Astley remaster, then the old MCA CD with the original mix.

Refresher: Astley didn't remix Sell Out. Nor did he remaster it.

But he did oversee it...as he's overseen all the more recent Who remasters. He still gets the blame for letting it happen. He apparently suffers from the same hearing damage as his boss.

As for Tattoo, other than the fact that the remix is a lot more "toppy", I wouldn't say they are all *that* different. I Can't Reach You would be a better example, for better or worse. The original has a lot more going on in the echo department.

That I will concede. Even so, therein is the problem: nothing wrong with the original stereo master...so why fuck with it? That's what is so confounding...it didn't suck in '67, it doesn't suck now. 5.1 is one thing, but stereo? You got a good tape and fair mix, stick with it. Leave well enough alone.

ED

[lukpac]

But he did oversee it...as he's overseen all the more recent Who remasters. He still gets the blame for letting it happen. He apparently suffers from the same hearing damage as his boss.

Well, the thing is, in some cases "oversee" meant "here are some tapes, do something with them".

That I will concede. Even so, therein is the problem: nothing wrong with the original stereo master...so why fuck with it? That's what is so confounding...it didn't suck in '67, it doesn't suck now. 5.1 is one thing, but stereo? You got a good tape and fair mix, stick with it. Leave well enough alone.

Why? How about "because we can make it sound better"? Like it or not, there's a clarity on the remix not present everywhere on the original mix. Well, at least not present on my CD copy, which is supposedly good. I mean, I can see what they were thinking..."there's not much high end on the original mix, but...wow, these multis sound amazing, let's use them!"

Of course, that logic doesn't apply to many of the other albums, which sounded fine in their original mixes, but...

[Ron]

OK, the Michael quote returns for the remainder of the week. Just because it's even more hilarious than the run-of-the-mill Michael quote, and its selection was more due to its "what-the-heck-was-that" nature rather than any serious hostility toward its sentiment. (And what a sentimental sentiment it is.)

It would appear that Luke and Ed are being quite persistent about posting on topic. Ryan, we are not [yet] out numbered, so I say we ignore them [I mean, who gives a shit about Astley anyways?] and go along our merry way. Hmmm. Too bad the "slavish devotion" thing ended so abruptly [with my correctness (natch) having been agreed upon, albeit all on account of heaps of wine]. Got any more whimsical Michael quotes? We could do a search. He posts on every thread, so I suggest I take all threads beginning with a vowel and you take the consonants. Whaddaya say? The alternative is walking away from a thread that we have come damned close to hijacking and leaving it to a couple of dunderheads who want to discuss music.

[Rspaight]

Too bad the "slavish devotion" thing ended so abruptly [with my correctness (natch) having been agreed upon, albeit all on account of heaps of wine].

Not so fast. While I concede your argument is interesting, now that I'm sober, I still maintain that a slave is not the proper amplification for the notion of devotion. "Slavish obedience" makes perfect sense, "slavish devotion" doesn't. "Pet-like devotion" makes sense, though -- an unthinking, instinctual sort of thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't consider a slave and a pet to embody quite the same qualities of devotion...

Got any more whimsical Michael quotes? We could do a search. He posts on every thread, so I suggest I take all threads beginning with a vowel and you take the consonants. Whaddaya say? The alternative is walking away from a thread that we have come damned close to hijacking and leaving it to a couple of dunderheads who want to discuss music.

Oh, fun! Here's my first one from the "Wisdom of invading Iraq" thread (dated 9-8-02):

Backfire, smakfire!...-Force- is the only thing that will save us. Look what they did to us on our soil! We should get rid of them asap! The only thing that will backfire is our procrastination. Take no prisoners. America was and still is the strongest when we are respected and feared. I don't like living in fear. That never was the case before and shouldn't be the case in the future! Remember they want us -dead- period! We can't wait for another 9/11 now can we?

And a bonus, same day, same thread:

Just heard the latest about The "Whosinsane" he's trying to get his paws on some nukes, chemicals, & all those deadly goodies with the -USA-stamped on em. PLeeze erase him before it's too late. I don't want to be glowing and pissing green! or worse.

Your turn.

It would appear that Luke and Ed are being quite persistent about posting on topic.

Oh, we're on topic. As far as I know, Jon Astley has never posted as Michael. (Although that's a fantastic rumor to start, now that I think about it.)

Ryan