Remixes: Why They Bother Me

[Rudy]

It didn't occur to me until yesterday why some remixes bother me. In an A&M-related situation, I'm a proponent of all original Carpenters albums.

This is what happened. With the new DVD-A/SACD player I bought, I popped in Fleetwood Mac's Rumours on DVD-A. Right away I noticed something didn't sound "right". The more I listened, the more I noticed that the balances between the instruments were different, vocal parts were slightly off, there was some added instrumentation (including some extremely distracting added guitar and snare drum in "Never Goin' Back Again".

It then occured to me: these "remixes" are distracting! When you listen to an album dozens of times and know every little note and detail, hearing it remixed is a distraction. You wind up listening to all the little added or changed details rather than the music. I realized that the same thing happens with Carpenters CDs or songs that have been remixed: "I don't remember this being here" or "That piano part sounds too new"....or "I'm sure Karen didn't sing it that way last time!" I can't enjoy something I've heard dozens of times in its original form and expect to "retrain" my ear to something new.

I can tell Rumours won't get played very much around here...maybe to hear it in the surround mix, but that's it. I'll stay with my original vinyl on this one.

Don't get me wrong: I have at least a hundred dance remixes on 12"...but that's something totally different. You expect to hear something different. I'm talking of original albums or songs that have been tampered with.

 

[Mike Blakesley]

You're right. "Distracting" is a good word. I remember the first time I heard the Carpenters' "Yesterday Once More" with those little electric-guitar riffs in the chorus....it bugged me to no end every time I heard it!

Same way when something's missing...I still cringe when I hear Herb Alpert's "Brasilia" without the trombone part at the beginning.

 

[W.B.]

You're right. "Distracting" is a good word. I remember the first time I heard the Carpenters' "Yesterday Once More" with those little electric-guitar riffs in the chorus....it bugged me to no end every time I heard it!

Same way when something's missing...I still cringe when I hear Herb Alpert's "Brasilia" without the trombone part at the beginning.

I happened to notice this too in different lacquers of the same LP, in some extreme cases. The stereo of Bob Dylan's "I Want You" as on his Blonde on Blonde double LP was mixed differently on lacquers with a "2x" identification (i.e. -2A, 2C) than on those with a "3x" identification. And early lacquers of side two of the mono issue of Simon & Garfunkel's Sounds of Silence album had a slightly different vocal opening for "I Am a Rock" than on later lacquers (and the 45 version).

 

[snapcrotch]

When you buy a complete album -- especially an established 'classic' -- you have every right to expect the ORIGINAL MIX, unless there's a sticker or label that says 'Remixed'. (And I don't mean 'Remastered'.)
If there's no 'remix' labeling on the package and it's been altered, then it's NOT ORIGINAL. I'd return it to the store for a refund if I didn't like it. If the store refused, I'd call the State Attorney General's office and some local TV news directors and see what happens. (Don't book publishers print right after the title page (and the dust jacket) to inform you the copy in your hands is a 'Revised Edition'?)

 

[jimac51]

It's impossible to know just what the original version of a current song would be. There are different mixes for different radio formats(Lonestar's "Amazed" is one from a couple of years ago,but it is a good one because the album version had the country twang version but pop radio played a version with the twang removed-not sure what the new hits album is using);there may be a different version for a music video; and there may be edited versios of these doctored by the station broadcasting the song. Billboard finally listed the Kid Rock duet,"Picture", under both duet partners:Sheryl Crow or Alison Moorer-both versions count toward the Hot 100 list. The version with Crow is what is on the album-which is the right one? Many listeners are not aware of a different version being played on different formats. Many of these tricks have been going on for decades but they are rampant today. As long as the owner of the copyright complies,they have the right to alter at will(and I'm sure that Will is not happy about this either). Mac

 

[snapcrotch]

With some current singles, there can be many remixes for various formats that, yes, there may be no 'original' version. But when Rudy buys a copy of an established classic album, such as Fleetwood Mac's 'Rumors' -- if it's got added instrumentation and shifted voicings without any sort of stickered caveat that the new 'version' has been remixed, then he's been cheated.
The product, a copyrighted work of art, has been altered without any notice to the consumer. A form of deception has occurred in the re-manufacture, even if the copyright holder has given initial approval.

 

[Rudy]

In a way, I could have expected a 'remix' because it was also mixed for surround. But if you consider how many millions of copies of Rumours were sold in the original configuration, it's a little strange to hear it changed.

There is one case I know of where a remix or, better yet, a "reprodution" mix is used. The Led Zeppelin 4-CD box set (and its 2-CD companion) were actually mixed down anew from the original multitracks, to get the best possible sound. Some sharp-eared Led Zep fans did notice that the guitars were mixed just a little more "forward" than the original albums, but since I only owned two albums, the box sets sound so similar to the albums that I really can't even hear a difference.

Another famous rock album, Who's Next, was supposedly recently remixed from the original multitracks because the two-track master could not be located. (It was actually found later, unmarked, in a file drawer.) To me, the mix on the CD is clean and punchy, just sounding like a much better version of what I originally had (the weak, washed-out MCA original from the mid 80's). Again, I did not notice any real difference in mix between the two versions...but rabid Who fans probably notice it.

If they go out of their way to recreate the original mix, I don't have a problem with it. But deliberate remixing to "improve" (and I use that term loosely) just doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Harry]

In a way, I could have expected a 'remix' because it was also mixed for surround.

That's the proper way to look at this particular example. You've listened for ages to something that was prepared for a two-channel format. The sound was 'burned' into your brain and now that a new multi-channel mix comes along, it HAS to sound different, especially if it's a proper multi-channel mix.

If they go out of their way to recreate the original mix, I don't have a problem with it. But deliberate remixing to "improve" (and I use that term loosely) just doesn't cut it for me.

If a particular guitar part, or any part, really, is more emphasized in a newer multi-channel mix, that's fine. I would expect that. Even if a particular instrument was recorded on the original tape, and got buried in the two-channel mix, it's still fine if it now sounds more prevalent. But if someone ADDS any instrumentation years later to an old recording, THAT's tampering, and should be labelled as a re-mix.

I think back to the first quad album I ever owned (and only one of two), Carpenters' Singles 1969-1973. We all know that "Ticket To Ride" was re-recorded for that album, but on the quad version, "Superstar" also got an uncredited remix - the first instance of that song with the changed descending horn line that would become so prevalent in the '80s and beyond after wide release on Yesterday Once More. Of course, Richard Carpenter is widely known for his remixes -- we EXPECT them.

Harry
NP: Corrs, Unplugged

 

[Harry]

Billboard finally listed the Kid Rock duet,"Picture", under both duet partners:Sheryl Crow or Alison Moorer-both versions count toward the Hot 100 list. The version with Crow is what is on the album-which is the right one?

It's really frustrating with modern music. You'll hear a song on the radio, rush out to buy the album (isn't that what we're supposed to do, RIAA?), only to be disppointed that the album version of the song is different from the single version being played on the radio. It would be all well and good if I could still go to a record store to buy the single, but that's a near impossibility in this country - THEY MOSTLY DON'T MAKE SINGLES FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION IN THIS COUNTRY! (Sorry for shouting, it's a hot button issue.)

No, instead, if I want a single version of a song I hear on the radio, I have to go to some importer to find a UK or Australian version of the single (assuming it's an international hit), or go to eBay and buy a promo copy (NO PROCEEDS TO THE RECORD COMPANY OR ARTIST! - HEAR THAT, RIAA?) Sorry, I'm shouting again.

I think I'll go take a stress pill.

Harry
NP: Fleetwood Mac, "Peacekeeper" (single version - unavailable for sale)

 

[jimac51]

To show how much of non-issue singles are to an industry treading water,look at what is happening as we speak. The usual total weekly sales numbers for the current #1 song on the Billboard chart is 5,000-6,000 copies. This week,ending today Sunday June 16,2003,Soundscan/Neilsen will probably tally up about 250,000 seperately for those two Idle American clowns, Ruben and Clay...er,that's American Idol. All of that hype,all of those sales for two guys who couldn't rub two nickels together last January. What would happen with an established artist who needed a kick in the career? Or,what if there were reasons for potential record buyers to come into a store every week to see what was new-what a concept! Those 500,000+ combined sales of those two singles will not come from file sharing or website sales and, at the end,if they are doing this right,will leave the consumer thirsty for the full length albums due in the fall. Even with a longer delay,the gimmick worked for Kelly Clarkson to the tune of around 1.5 million full length copies sold and a #1 single-and she is just starting out(and,yes,it could be over when that Kelly & Justin movie comes out). Hmm,excitement,sales,repeat buyers,interest in pop music-can this be a new trend? Mac

 

[Rudy]

In a way, I could have expected a 'remix' because it was also mixed for surround.

That's the proper way to look at this particular example. You've listened for ages to something that was prepared for a two-channel format. The sound was 'burned' into your brain and now that a new multi-channel mix comes along, it HAS to sound different, especially if it's a proper multi-channel mix.

I think if the two-channel mix was left as the original, I wouldn't have had a problem...but it almost seems as though they did a fold-down from the surround mix to make the two-channel. 5.1 channel? Yes, I'd expect some difference. 2 channel? Errrr....well...

BTW, I may try to listen to the two DVD-A discs in the other new DVD player in the house. Picked up a VHS/DVD combo unit (Panasonic), and got a new Pioneer VSX-D511 receiver for $127, which has all the different surround modes on it. Just ordered in a new batch of cables, including Toslink optical digital...will finally get to try the multichannel mode.

 

[Jay Maynes/Juan Oskar]

In my short time at doing CDz, I have to say that mixing is one of the toughest chalanges of the project. You can mix a tune 10 different ways and come up with 10 different songs. The problem with many of these old tapes is that they are rotting. So if the master 2tr is gone or broken then a remix from the multi-track Master.

 

[Rudy]

Specifically, Ampex tape from certain years has a severe problem with oxide shedding. I actually have a couple of reels of Ampex 456 around here, which was supposedly close to their top of the line (it was used a lot in studios), but heck, you can't even play it back in the deck for more than 5-10 minutes without losing the high end from the tape head getting clogged up. There is a proper method for baking the tapes before playback (don't try it at home, in other words).

In that case, a label may try to use a backup copy, which usually sounds worse (or suffers the same shedding oxide fate), but hopefully will go back to the multitrack if that is still good.

It's changed so much now--everyone's using something like Pro Tools to record right to a hard drive.

 

[Tim Neely]

With some current singles, there can be many remixes for various formats that, yes, there may be no 'original' version. But when Rudy buys a copy of an established classic album, such as Fleetwood Mac's 'Rumors' -- if it's got added instrumentation and shifted voicings without any sort of stickered caveat that the new 'version' has been remixed, then he's been cheated.

Not to play devil's advocate (I basically agree with the point being raised), but did you know that there are two different versions of the vinyl Rumours LP on Warner Bros.? One of them has a version of "Never Going Back Again" that lasts 2:02, the other has a version that lasts 2:16. The difference is in the instrumental break between verses; the 2:02 version doesn't repeat the first four bars of the instrumental, the 2:16 does.

The first time I became aware of this is when the song "Don't Stop" was issued as a 45. The B-side was "Never Going Back Again." By this time, I knew the LP pretty much by heart, and I liked the flip side, so I flipped my 45. And was I surprised to hear that extra 14 seconds of music on it!

So which version is the "true" version? The 2:02 version was issued first (I won the LP from a radio station the weekend it came out), but the 2:16 version was already part of the LP by the time the "Don't Stop" single was issued. Hmmmm....

 

[Ed Bishop]

Rumours has been futzed with from the beginning: two vinyl variants, and two redbook CD variants, the one you're hearing on DVD-A, Rudy, is the remix WB put out in the late '80s. If you think that's radical, wait'll you hear the 5.1 DVD-A hi rez.

I find I have greater tolerance for 5.1 remixes, since it's inevitable that they're not gonna sound the same no matter how close you try to get to the intent of the original stereo. But the stereo mix should be the original one(and often is)l, just for posterity, but that' doesn't always happen. RUMOURS is an instance where someone thought the original mix wasn't quite good enough, went back and redid it, and that's what's currently available. The old WB 'target" silver CD label has the original mix, as do some regular aluminum label pressings, but not easy to find.

ED

 

[Rudy]

Ed: I lucked out in that I have the "aluminum" WB original album version of Rumours on CD. It's a shame that later CDs would have this inferior "new" mix...it just ruins the experience for me. 5.1...yes, I do expect to hear something new and different.

Yesterday, I listened to the surround mix of Steely Dan's Two Against Nature. Interesting, but no big deal...surround music I have not much use for. I didn't think it was all that radical or surprising. Everything Must Go came today on DVD-A, and I'm listening to it in high-res 2 channel right now...VERY nice. I don't hear much compression on the redbook version, but this one improves on it even further. Might try it in surround, but no rush.

 

[Ed Bishop]

As long as "Gold Dust Woman" has the fade-up intro, you have the right pressing. All other CD and DVD-A editions have the cold intro, and that's the dead giveaway you have the remix CD. On the remix, several songs also run a bit longer than they did on the original vinyl and CD pressings.
I have to think it was likely Lindsey's idea to remix RUMOURS; can't imagine who else would care. I agree, the stereo mix was fine just the way it was.

ED

 

[Rudy]

IIRC, though, "Second Hand News" still has that sloppy edit at the end, repeating Lindsey's final solo. Local classic rock station plays that one all the time....really bugs me.

Are the remixed tracks on the Mac box set that way also?

 

[Ed Bishop]

I do believe they are, as the box was issued after the remixed RUMOURS replaced the old pressing. That's a good box otherwise, and has the full-length "Sara" as well.

I'll have to check the box to verify the RUMOURS tracks tomorrow. Loaded with goodies, and went out of print fairly quickly. I'll never forget coming across a load of them with sawcuts in a mall store way back when. Thirty bucks! Figures, paid full price for mine....

That was back when you could still find DCC and MFSL gold discs in mainstream mall outlets. Who knew those were the days?

ED