The ShadowMusic Web Community

Uncleboko wrote:

Fenderman wrote:It's amazing what can be done these days but i prefer old recordings to be left alone.
A prime example is the 50th anniversary of The Beatles White Album - why remix what George and the boys sweated over for 6 months to get sounding the way they wanted it? It's as if they're trying to change history. I also heard a couple of mellotron parts were actually re-recorded due to problems during the remix. This is nothing short of sacrilege

I can't agree, I think the mere fact that Paul gave the OK for release is good enough for me. I would love to hear some of the Burns era recordings with Burns replaced by Strat!!!

No, no, no!!!! Leave things well alone!

Re. Paul - he also thought it OK to change the composer credits (on one of his live albums) from Lennon & McCartney to McCartney and Lennon! Talk about rewriting history! But then, if it makes him more money, he'll OK anything! Sorry Macca! But we all know it's true.

It's also true that we can't have known how bad the 'Live at Kingston' album would have sounded without 21st century restoration, Maybe in 1962 it just wouldn't have sounded good enough. Whilst I don't agree with adding things, too much by way of remixing, a bit of cleaning up is more than acceptable.

There may be many reasons why certain tracks were left on the shelf - it doesn't necessarily mean that they were not considered up to par. I think we are mainly talking about finished studio recordings here and not demos or whatever. For example, the full length version of 'Don't Cry For Me Argentina' was perfect, it was just felt that they needed to make it sound a bit more 'commercial'. Hence the added applause, removed middle section and substituting electric for acoustic guitar. Both versions are perfectly acceptable but I guess that once the decision had been made and the edited version had been a huge hit, the original longer version was of no use. But is it below par? I don't believe so. Similarly, several tracks recorded for 'Specs Appeal' were left off due to the inclusion of the Eurovision songs, which were added at the 11th hour. Nowadays before a band has recorded anything, they know exactly what it's for and where it will be used. But in those days I get the impression that bands would often record the material before knowing for sure what they were going to do with it. I mean, 'Love is falling in Love' and 'We'll Believe in Lovin' (both recorded circa 1976) didn't surface until the 1990s! What did they plan to do with them? Anything? A single maybe?

Whilst I can see where Bruce is coming from, I do tend to think that if we are talking about finished, professional studio recordings, then there's no harm in them finding their way into our hands. I imagine that both Hank and Brian have similar high standards and if they were happy... etc...

The most interesting thing to come out of this thread is the revelation that there seems to exist some live recordings from Japan, 1967. Now THESE would make a great live album!

"No, no, no!!!! Leave things well alone!"

Everyone has to disagree about something -the Shadows track I would most like replacement with Fender Strat is Guitar Tango!!

Uncleboko wrote:"No, no, no!!!! Leave things well alone!"

Everyone has to disagree about something -the Shadows track I would most like replacement with Fender Strat is Guitar Tango!!

Like this...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogqM2XwdGQM

Yes, that's great, many thanks!

That's my favourite version of Guitar Tango

Regards

Stuart

While you have to respect the wishes of the artist, the fact remains that to issue this material now won't hurt tge Shads reputation at all, if anything it enhances it. Only the hardcore fans who already have everything that has been issued countless times (that, in my opinion, damages a band's reputation more) are interested and it would not hurt to make this material available if not on record then for official download. Nothing new will be forthcoming and nobody will think the 'substandard' material is representative of the Shadows. Better also to have the material presented in best quality than on x-generation bootleg cassette surely?

As regards the Kingston LP. I believe that it was largely Norrie Paramor's decision not to release the live Kingston LP. For whatever reason /reasons -back in 1962 it was deemed not to be good for commercial release.

As regards Bruce. Yes, he is indeed fiercely protective of the Shadows' heritage. But I do find this puzzling....there have been spells when Hank / Bruce / Brian all had an equal say in all Shadows - related matters. So, there were times when 2 out of 3 Shadows (a majority) were happy to see certain tracks released...but the minority decision prevailed. I believe that Brian subsequently sold out his part of the Shadows' ownership - leaving just Hank and Bruce. So, it's just those two now. Hank is away in Australia and has effectively 'retired' from the Shadows. Bruce is no longer performing as such...but he is residing here in the UK....so his opinion carries the most weight. As to what actual legal rights The Shadows have over their EMI material.....I do not know.

Maybe Malcom Addy could shed some light as to why it wasn't released. Or even the Shads/Cliff themselves?

To be honest (and brutally so), I don't think anything could damage the Shadows reputation more than some of the stuff they released in the 1980s. Yes those albums sold quite well, but they did nothing for the band's credibility. Releasing a slightly rough around the edges version of, let's say, Spider Juice, would probably do them a fair amount of good!

Arpeggio wrote:I believe that Brian subsequently sold out his part of the Shadows' ownership - leaving just Hank and Bruce.

I am surprised to hear that. Brian became an equal partner with Hank and Bruce in 1977 at the time of the "20 Golden Greats" album and the "20 Golden Dates" tour, I think. Why did he sell out his part of The Shadows' ownership and when did it happen?