Heartland

robertzombie wrote:
Pre-order now live

And pre ordered, that was a rather nice post to come home to after a s**t day at work

A bit dissappointed with this. Have been getting all the Velvets deluxe boxsets over the last few Christmass & would have hoped for more. The album and the ep's is just a missed opportunity. Why not throw in a few demo's/out-takes alternate mixes, and maybe Tiffanies or the RAH?
As someone said, if they didn't let Mr Zombie at the helm, they missed a trick - I'd have happily shelled out for his version on this!:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/s ... et.442017/

Hopefully, if Rhino use a good source and mastering engineer, it'll sound better then what's come before. Let's face it, the original '85 LP (pressed in Germany) is a fairly lacklustre affair, the USA pressing is slightly better. Rhino have contracted some top draw engineers in the past and have also cut some all analogue reissues (Black Sabbath, Tom Waits, John Coltrane). They can still do this right.

#11 in Amazon UK's vinyl chart.

The description for the FALAA collection seems like it was meant for the boxed set release from a few years ago: 16 tracks? Long Train flexi?

Does this recording sound as fresh now that Rhino UK has issued it in this manner with six bonus cuts (four are single B-sides; one, "Long Train," was originally issued as a free flexi-disc; and one is an unreleased outtake of the album's closer, "Some Kind of Stranger").

Also, the US iTunes store doesn't have the Body and Soul EP yet.

Here are the US store links for those of us on this side of the pond:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/first ... 1002377527

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/first ... 1002376675

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/walk- ... 1002376716

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/no-ti ... 1002380990

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/body- ... 1002381164

Rather than spend £43 on this Warner's cash cow, why not win one of these "thirtieth anniversary" box sets directly from the label and help Tao reduce their profits http://www.warnermusic.de/gewinnspiele/ ... he-sisters

You have to subscribe to one of the newsletters though

Thank god for google translate as it's all deutsche to me.

I apologise for the bad pun, I'll get me coat

I do like Klassikers.

Some news on the mastering. THIS IS HUGE:

I have received the following information from our A&R department:


Cut from Analog flats by Sean McGee @ Abbey Road


Dr. Rhino

This is very encouraging, thanks for passing the news on. Sounds like they may be taking some care over this release after all.

Sean McGee is basically the best vinyl mastering engineer in the country. He cut the recent all analogue Beatles in Mono releases.

robertzombie wrote:Sean McGee is basically the best vinyl mastering engineer in the country. He cut the recent all analogue Beatles in Mono releases.

Sounds promising!

Philosophical question. Ahem. If the band has nothing to do with the re-release and it's other people without permission presumably changing the original release sound levels etc (even if it makes it better) isn't it a bit like someone messing around with a Picasso long after the artist has finished with the work. This brings up questions of authorship and authenticity. Is it really still a Sisters work?

I don't think I understand your point. The band didn't master the original record.

robertzombie wrote:I don't think I understand your point. The band didn't master the original record.

Sorry, what I mean is that the band or presumably signed off on the original product so to speak so any new version without their input is a creation of the engineer or record company rather than the Sisters. Even if its a much better sound it's not technically a Sisters creation anymore as they haven't given permission for the alteration. If it's restoration or maximising quality with the permission of the artist that's one thing but if it's done without it raises (probably just philosophical) issues about authenticity in terms of authorship. There's been a lot of discussion about this in the visual arts world in which old installations have been created both in a gallery space and online using modern equipment and software rather than the original, particularly when the artist is dead or not involved. I don't know anything about the whys and wherefores of music production but it's an interesting debate I think. Or maybe it's just me!

I view it as more a case of restoring the original.

To take the art analogy a bit further, say over a period of 100 years or so, the Mona Lisa had become caked in dust and dirt, etc.

Then one day somebody has the bright idea to take a high-res digital photo of it, touch it up in Photoshop, boost the contrast levels, and display that instead.

That's pretty much what we have today in terms of Sisters records.

Some time later somebody else goes back to the original, cleans it off, restores it, and displays it in all it's glory.

That's pretty much what we're getting - a flat transfer from the original analog masters.

So not only would these be potentially the best-sounding versions of these records, but they're also going to be the nearest to the band's original intentions.

Assuming the record company don't screw it up, of course.

abridged wrote:

robertzombie wrote:I don't think I understand your point. The band didn't master the original record.

Sorry, what I mean is that the band or presumably signed off on the original product so to speak so any new version without their input is a creation of the engineer or record company rather than the Sisters. Even if its a much better sound it's not technically a Sisters creation anymore as they haven't given permission for the alteration. If it's restoration or maximising quality with the permission of the artist that's one thing but if it's done without it raises (probably just philosophical) issues about authenticity in terms of authorship. There's been a lot of discussion about this in the visual arts world in which old installations have been created both in a gallery space and online using modern equipment and software rather than the original, particularly when the artist is dead or not involved. I don't know anything about the whys and wherefores of music production but it's an interesting debate I think. Or maybe it's just me!

I don't think it quite works that way when it comes to music mastering. Yes, the band probably would have had some say/sign off on the original mixes, however, once the tapes are sent to the mastering lab it pretty much becomes part of the physical manufacturing process and the band is no longer involved. Off the top of my head, in 1985, the following masterings were created for F&L&A: UK (promo), Germany x3, Spain, Italy, USA x2, Canada, Brazil, Australia. There's no way the band would have signed off on those various pressings.

Each one is slightly different and, yes, it does bring into play questions of authenticity but I think if you apply that concept to music recordings then you'd end up with either everything or nothing!

I'd say it brings the question of consistency into play.
Why on earth would they be mastered differently?
Or is that just another ploy to shift a few extra units?

Pista wrote:I'd say it brings the question of consistency into play.
Why on earth would they be mastered differently?
Or is that just another ploy to shift a few extra units?

They're mastered differently because in each instance they are mastered by a different person and mastering for vinyl is a physical act with the lathe. The difference between the USA and German mastering is striking. The USA is my favourite.

robertzombie wrote: They're mastered differently because in each instance they are mastered by a different person and mastering for vinyl is a physical act with the lathe. The difference between the USA and German mastering is striking. The USA is my favourite.

But surely that's automated. It's not like there's a little bloke with a hand held tool cutting the grooves into the acetate. It has to be controlled to make sure the grooves all fit & not all wobbly & rough.
Or maybe I'm missing something.
Just seems a bit shoddy to have that sort of variance in what should be the same product from region to region.

robertzombie wrote:Sean McGee is basically the best vinyl mastering engineer in the country. He cut the recent all analogue Beatles in Mono releases.

Well Frank Arkwright would have been top of my wish list - but I do agree this all points a positive outcome!

Flagg

Pista wrote:

robertzombie wrote: They're mastered differently because in each instance they are mastered by a different person and mastering for vinyl is a physical act with the lathe. The difference between the USA and German mastering is striking. The USA is my favourite.

But surely that's automated. It's not like there's a little bloke with a hand held tool cutting the grooves into the acetate. It has to be controlled to make sure the grooves all fit & not all wobbly & rough.
Or maybe I'm missing something.
Just seems a bit shoddy to have that sort of variance in what should be the same product from region to region.

The cutting act is done by a machine that responds to the engineer's real time EQ moves. It's possible to duplicate moves across regions by using written instructions or an EQ'd cutting tape (or the same stampers), however in many cases this doesn't happen.

Even the stampers deteriorate uniquely as a run is completed, causing a drop in quality in the final product.

Indeed. Two records pressed from the same stamper can sound different.