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!