The ShadowMusic Web Community

I agree with nearly all of that. (Personally I think Charlie Watts was right for the Stones, just as Ringo was right for the Beatles. But you’re a drummer and I’m not.)
You make an interesting point about “remastering”. I’ve often wondered what was the point of doing that. Is it an acknowledgement that the original master was not good enough? Or is it to introduce deliberate contrast with the original, in which case what and why?

content deleted

Although I haven't heard them, I have been led to believe that the remastered Beatles albums sound incredible. I am not in favour of re-mixing, but certainly I'd say that some older CDs sound a bit 'muddy' compared with the more recent ones. It's a delicate subject, but if a little bit of technical jiggery-pokery brings things out that you've maybe not heard before, or if they just sound 'better' than the original CD issues, then for me, that's fine. That's what I was alluding to. I've got loads of Shads CDs here and, without going and comparing them all, some do sound better than others. Maybe a 2020 remaster, using all the latest tech, 'might' sound better than a 2000 remaster, or even a 2010. Who knows? But I'd certainly like to see, for example, Specs Appeal, Tasty, String of Hits, remastered and re-released, as I don't think these have ever really been done justice.

As for Charlie Watts... no disrespect to the guy, but I have never heard him do anything that I couldn't do... but I often sit and listen to Brian and Tony and think "If only!" I think when a band goes on stage under the influence of various substances, their performance is rarely if ever improved! And if that standard becomes the norm then, hey, that's what people come to expect and that's what they demand. It's only Rock n' Roll, right...?

Oh and I'd like to see a really good CD reissue of 'The Hank Marvin Guitar Syndicate' album. Yes, I know it was done many years ago by either BGO or See For Miles, but I bet it could be improved upon. By the way, as a footnote, I recently bought the new remaster of Brian's album 'Voyage' and it sounds incredible... much better than the previous CD issue, which is my point entirely. I don't know how they do it, but it seems that improvement in sound quality is always possible.

drakula63 wrote:Although I haven't heard them, I have been led to believe that the remastered Beatles albums sound incredible. I am not in favour of re-mixing, but certainly I'd say that some older CDs sound a bit 'muddy' compared with the more recent ones. It's a delicate subject, but if a little bit of technical jiggery-pokery brings things out that you've maybe not heard before, or if they just sound 'better' than the original CD issues, then for me, that's fine. That's what I was alluding to. I've got loads of Shads CDs here and, without going and comparing them all, some do sound better than others. Maybe a 2020 remaster, using all the latest tech, 'might' sound better than a 2000 remaster, or even a 2010. Who knows? But I'd certainly like to see, for example, Specs Appeal, Tasty, String of Hits, remastered and re-released, as I don't think these have ever really been done justice.

As for Charlie Watts... no disrespect to the guy, but I have never heard him do anything that I couldn't do... but I often sit and listen to Brian and Tony and think "If only!" I think when a band goes on stage under the influence of various substances, their performance is rarely if ever improved! And if that standard becomes the norm then, hey, that's what people come to expect and that's what they demand. It's only Rock n' Roll, right...?

Oh and I'd like to see a really good CD reissue of 'The Hank Marvin Guitar Syndicate' album. Yes, I know it was done many years ago by either BGO or See For Miles, but I bet it could be improved upon. By the way, as a footnote, I recently bought the new remaster of Brian's album 'Voyage' and it sounds incredible... much better than the previous CD issue, which is my point entirely. I don't know how they do it, but it seems that improvement in sound quality is always possible.

"The Hank Marvin Guitar Syndicate" was issued on CD in 1990 on the See For Miles Records label. "Specs Appeal", "Live At The Paris Oympia", "Tasty" and "String Of Hits" have never received the same remastering process for the entire albums, like the first nine studio albums (up till "Rockin' With Curly Leads"). "Specs Appeal" and "Tasty" have been reissued by Magic Records in 2004 and those were somewhat remastered, but have echo applied to a couple of tracks, especially audible on "Spider Juice", which wasn't on the original release. "Live At The Paris Olympia" was also reissued and reconstructed by Magic Records in 2002. Tracks from "Specs Appeal", "Tasty" and "String Of Hits", which were also released on singles have been remastered for the 2004 4 CD box "Complete Singles As & Bs 1959-1980 - The First 21 Years At The Top": "Honourable Puff-Puff", "Let Me Be The One", "Like Strangers", "Stand Up Like A Man", "Cricket Bat Boogie", "Return To The Alamo", "Another Night", "Montezuma's Revenge", "Bermuda Triangle", "Theme From The Deer Hunter (Cavatina)", "Heart Of Glass", "Don't Cry For Me Argentina", "Song For Duke" and "Rodrigo's Guitar Concerto De Aranjuez". Some of these, as well as other tracks from "Specs Appeal" and "Tasty" have been remastered for the 1989 CD "Listen To The Shadows", the sound of which is better than the first editions of the parent CD's.

...it is indeed strange how an album can both increase and decrease in quality over the course of various CD issues/reissues. I have no idea why but, as I say, it would be nice to finally have the 'ultimate' CD version of every album, on which everything sounds perfect. And I'd include Marvin, Welch and Farrar in that.

Funnily enough, 'Listen to the Shadows' was the first Shads CD that I ever bought, not surprisingly, perhaps - in 1989 in Leeds. I have heard some CDs which have literally been recorded off a scratched record and retain the jumps!

To be fair, there won't be much touring anywhere for a little while...

You will just have to accept what Hank has said .
My mum is 82 and can not do a lot . Dont ask any of the others im sure they will say the same as hank .

None of our Shadows are anywhere near their eighties. The last time I spent time with Licorice I watched him hop on one foot whilst he put his shoes on. When I saw Bruce a few months ago I thought to myself that he looks better than ever, the handsome sod. All recent footage I've seen of Hank makes me believe he could slide back onto stage at any point with all the energy he had in 2002. They've all kept their enthusiasm.

It' a mindset. Music keeps you young.

MeBHank wrote:None of our Shadows are anywhere near their eighties...

Brian was 80 in February; Hank and Bruce are both 80 next year...seems frighteningly near to me! Seems funny to think...they were in their mid-30s when I first became interested in them - and my schoolfriends told me they were 'has-beens' then...

I agree music keeps you young - and I'm sure Hank could walk onstage and give us Apache, FBI etc. if he wanted to. But he doesn't want to (to quote a Hank joke!). And it was great to see Bruce and Brian at Abbey Road recently on the Shadows at 60 doc...but I would have thought the prospect of playing a two-hour concert in one place would terrify them now - let alone a tour!

They have given us some great music over the years, which we all still enjoy, but if you are approaching 80 how would you feel if your employer said he wanted you to come back to work!. I suspect that even after they die some would be clamouring for the "Resurrection Tour" let them enjoy their retirement.