Tyrannosaurus Rex Expanded Editions

[lukpac]

Wow, iDisk really sucks.

And that's a stupid edit.

I hear a "blip" loud and clear (around 0:01), but that doesn't seem to be from the edit. Assuming the edit is when the 2004 version starts, I don't hear anything.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

Wow, iDisk really sucks.

And that's a stupid edit.

I hear a "blip" loud and clear (around 0:01), but that doesn't seem to be from the edit. Assuming the edit is when the 2004 version starts, I don't hear anything.

My edit is slightly before where the 2004 version begins. I spent a long time matching the volume and getting it lined up correctly. The "blip" you hear is on the recording itself.

Yeah, iDisk is one big disappointment. The .mac email is no great shakes either. I don't think I'll be renewing next year.

[Xenu]

I finally grabbed some MP3s of these (I swear, I'll buy the originals...once the fucking dollar regains some balls. Anyway...).

I will reiterate: why why WHY don't all 60s recordings from the UK sound this good? Some of those outtakes sound really stellar. I can't help but think of how tinny some contemporary EMI UK, etc. stuff was at the same.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

The answer is simple: independent production company (Straight Ahead) and independent producer (Tony Visconti).

Revisionist history -- due to boomer Beatle/George Martin worship -- tells that Abbey Road was the cutting edge studio of its time and place, and that the British majors were on top of things. Nothing could be further from the truth.

EMI was the most conservative and backwards -- both technically and aesthetically -- recording company in the UK. Among musicians and engineers, the Abbey Road studios were considered to be the biggest joke of all. Decca even managed to edge out EMI in the incompetency sweepstakes; Decca was notorious for having cutting engineers who removed all semblance of power from master tapes.

There are great detailed accounts of the British recording biz of the 1960s in John Repsch's Joe Meek biography.

[lukpac]

The answer is simple: independent production company (Straight Ahead) and independent producer (Tony Visconti).

That didn't help Impact Sound/Andrew Oldham...

Revisionist history -- due to boomer Beatle/George Martin worship -- tells that Abbey Road was the cutting edge studio of its time and place, and that the British majors were on top of things. Nothing could be further from the truth.

EMI was the most conservative and backwards -- both technically and aesthetically -- recording company in the UK. Among musicians and engineers, the Abbey Road studios were considered to be the biggest joke of all. Decca even managed to edge out EMI in the incompetency sweepstakes; Decca was notorious for having cutting engineers who removed all semblance of power from master tapes.

I think the Beatles recordings sound really good, but I actually thought it was known for years that the major studios in the UK were somewhat behind the times. George Martin said how behind Abbey Road was compared to Capitol in the late '50/early '60s. The Stones always said how much better of a sound they got early on in the US studios (although I don't know why they loved RCA so). Hell, the Beatles went to Trident because Abbey Road still didn't have 8-track.

I guess I'm just not aware of this "revisionist history" you speak of.

[Xenu]

I guess I'm just not aware of this "revisionist history" you speak of.

Neither am I, actually. I had always heard the trope pretty much the way you told it: UK studios were generally behind the times, and the US studios--even some of the smaller ones!--routinely managed to kick their asses. EMI UK, Impact (ick!), Decca...all were somewhat questionable.

Whereas half of the bands of no-import on Sundazed remixed "Psychedelic Microdots" series have tracks in unbelievably high fidelity for the time. I mean, fuck, the freakin' *E-Types* are recorded better than the Small Faces.

One part of the trope I do agree with, though, is the idea that George Martin (through his engineers) was particularly good at getting what he could out of EMI studios. There's also a clear implication that EMI went out of its way to provide the best of the best for the Beatles. Case in point: Compare the recording quality of Pepper, Piper, and SF Sorrow. Pepper sounds...well, pretty good. Piper doesn't sound universally awful or anything ("The Gnome" is pretty crisp), but some tracks--Lucifer Sam, for example--aren't wonderfully recorded, and the whole thing almost has an RCA-Studios-like quality to it. And S. F. Sorrow? Think of Piper, but one step further down.

Yes, there are exceptions. As Nuggets adequately shows, for every Remains or E-Types who were well-recorded despite their relative obscurity, there's a Blues Magoos eager to jump out of the gate with something tinny. Curiously, I also feel like that squalor of UK studios aside, the Stones' 1967 albums are actually recorded fairly well, although the final mixes don't reflect that fact as much as they should. In particular, the instrumental-only mixes of the Buttons material sound perfectly adequate, and the "Satanic Sessions" stuff is pretty good as well. What was that, Trident?

[lukpac]

Abbey Road certainly had great tape *machines* (better than most in the US at the time), but often they weren't used to their full potential, at least for pop recordings. I'm thinking a lack of bass, lots of midrange, etc. Must have been that "pop/classical" switch or something.

Satanic and Beggars were done at Olympic. It's unclear exactly where BTB was done - some books say RCA with a bit of added work at Olympic, while others say just the opposite (well, a little at RCA with most at Olympic). If tracks *were* put down at RCA for BTB, that would seem to implicate the mixing process there, vs. the recording process.

[Xenu]

Would that, then, imply that Aftermath could sound....STELLAR?

We haven't seen too many out-takes from those sessions, really.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

Well, you two know what you're talking about. I was thinking more of the SHites. You know, the ones who kiss the ground that Beatle boots have trod upon.

As for Oldham, well, I like his productions.

The real mystery, however, is what the hell happened to the recording of A Saucerful of Secrets? EMI must have allocated the bathroom to PF for those sessions. That's truly a crappy recording.

Also, the sound of Tony Sheridan/Beatles Hamburg recordings blows anything they did at EMI out of the water. Weren't those Hamburg recordings supposedly done on a stage in an empty school or something? Why are those sonically superior to any of the early Abbey Road recordings?

[lukpac]

Would that, then, imply that Aftermath could sound....STELLAR?

We haven't seen too many out-takes from those sessions, really.

I haven't seen *any*, I don't think.

I don't know. The early takes of Have You Seen Your Mother sound pretty good, I guess, but they are all in mono.

[lukpac]

As for Oldham, well, I like his productions.

Most of that pre-Chess material is pretty rough. Some tracks are decent, but a track like Money is just bad.

Also, the sound of Tony Sheridan/Beatles Hamburg recordings blows anything they did at EMI out of the water. Weren't those Hamburg recordings supposedly done on a stage in an empty school or something? Why are those sonically superior to any of the early Abbey Road recordings?

Yeah, those do sound great, Cry for a Shadow in particular. My guess is it's the EQ and compression (not) used. Although I do think the PPM tracks sound pretty good. I've always been a sucker for that delayed echo. From Me To You too.

[Xenu]

I haven't seen *any*, I don't think.

I don't know. The early takes of Have You Seen Your Mother sound pretty good, I guess, but they are all in mono.

There's an instrumental outtake of Paint It, Black (in mono...genuine, I think) and a similarly out-take of Lady Jane (which, given that you can hear Mick's voice, is probably just OOPSed) on Black Box. Other than that...I think that's it.

-D

[lukpac]

I've figured all of those backing tracks were just OOPSed, although I could be wrong. Although, isn't there some studio noise or something before the start of Paint It Black?

[Xenu]

Right. Except it's a *piano*, which always gave me a bit of a "huh?" moment. It seems as if that might imply that Brian's electric sitar is being tuned to the piano, though.

[Tom Stroud]

I've never read this anywhere but my theory is that things like Paint It, Black, Mother etc were instrumental mixes prepared for use on TV?

They're on Ed Sullivan in 66 with backing tracks and live vocals. I wonder where that reel of tape with the instrumental backing on ended up?

I know this doesn't neccesarily follow with all the Buttons tracks. Weren't some started in the US and got their vocals at Olympic - so perhaps they're rough "work in progress" mixes.

I'm a bit dubious about Yesterday's Papers though... that keyboard sound just doesn't feel authentic.