[c627627]

When Ozzy's remastered recordings came out more than ten years ago, I thought there was something strange on the first two albums. Something just didn't sound right...

So sure enough, wouldn't you know it, Sharon Osbourne decided to screw original drummer and bass player out of royalties so she had those parts re-recorded by new guys for a flat fee so she can keep all the royalties for Ozzy's first two albums from then on.


So the only way to get original recording of the legendary 'Blizzard of Ozz' album is to get the old used CDs or get the Australia-only double pack release. That b... agh.


Any-ways.

Check this out and tell me if you think there is a difference between two samples of a few seconds of two versions of REO Speedwagon songs.

http://www.c627627.com/Various/kp1.mp3
http://www.c627627.com/Various/kp2.mp3

Files start with a remastered sample, then unknown, then remastered again, then unknown again.

Obviously there is some difference in volume levels between remastered and unknown but pay attention to background guitar only, it's as if there's more electric vs. acoustic Punch on the unknown vs. remastered.

I posted this on REO message board but I want to hear what you guys think as well.

Word is REO Speedwagon did not do what Sharon did so it may be that it's just the standard way remastered recordings sound, it may be just the way samples were ripped and one had some sort of distortion on it but post what you think...

In case web site is down, same samples are attached:

[shard]

Yeah a difference there, and also with the tone of the drum almost too. Pretty pathetic of sharon if you ask me....

[c627627]

Well I got first confirmation from REO Fans board that something's not right.

The lady who's running the place over there is comparing full samples now, I hope they get to the bottom of who butchered that song on the remastered version of The Hits if it turns out that it was.

[c627627]

I just got a hold of the original CD. I can confirm that the unknown sample is the original "unmastered" version.

This means that future generations will not be hearing the original version as the only CDs in stores have Keep Pushin' "remastered."

I say "remastered" with quotes because it is not a remastered version but a new, different and imho worse version that's deprived of the original punch.

Interestingly, other songs seem to have the usual remastering enhancements that don't change the actual recording.

[Rattle]

sharon is a POS for doing that what a disgrace to the late great randy roads and the bass player who was bob daisley i believe, before the blasphemous re-recording there was a sony remaster that was not re-recorded i believe it was from 1995 its the ones that had all the wavy shapes on the outside of the album cover. I got the JET records versions also though on cd.

[drenader]

Damn her for being a business women, who says she is allowed to maximize her profits. Oh wait I forgot about Capitalism.

[Malpine Walis]

Well, re-mastering is always going to change the sound of a recording even if only slightly. If for no other reason than there are a new set of hands at the mixing console or the equipment is physically different. So yah, I can hear the difference in the recordings.

That being said, it really bugs me when original recording are messed with in major ways. Consider the new Beatles album that came out last year. It is obviously the original tapes (although some of them sound different enough to me that I suspect that they may have substituted some material from different takes) but the songs all sound over produced for what they are. Basically, they sound not like they were made in the 60's but as if they were made today.

Not much greed in there as far as I can tell but in my book, they did change the music in bad ways.

Another example would be the Pink Floyd album “Dark side of the Moon”. When it was originally recorded, the mix was done by Alan Parson and mixed first for the old Quadraphonic systems and then mixed down to stereo for those who did not have quad systems. However, the more recent release for 5.1 systems was mixed by James Guthrie, who made significant changes to the sound of the album.

[c627627]

Really? I own the LP record as well as the original CD when it came out in the 1980's.

I also own the Digital Remaster © 2003 that contains the 5.1 SACD. Are you saying I can only notice what you are saying if I own a Super Audio CD player or can I hear the differences on a standard (good) CD player?

Please post details on DSOTM so I can confirm.


Regarding "re-mastering always changing the sound of a recording" look, all other songs on the REO album "sound different" but that's missing the point of other songs being essentially the same if somewhat enhanced.

This is not about that but about changing the essence of the song by having different sounding instruments (not enhanced original instruments) and some people on the REO board were saying the tempo itself on Keep Pushin' was messed with.

Originally Posted by drenader

Damn her for being a business women, who says she is allowed to maximize her profits. Oh wait I forgot about Capitalism.

Yes, Legality vs. Art.

When someone takes the paint and changes the colors on the Mona Lisa and adds new lines to the painting...

Even if that someone owns it... it still sucks that they did it...

[Malpine Walis]

Well, you would really need to have a quad set-up to compare against the 5.1 version. But Parsons spent extensive time cross fading the four channels to make the sounds move around in the quad field. Guthrie decided against that and gave quite a few effects specific positions or moved them by much smaller amounts.

[c627627]

I have four speakers

So you are talking about needing to have an SACD player in order to notice?

[Andyman902042]

in the remastered version of those reo songs i think the rhythm electric is totally missing while the acoustic and electric were both used on the origional

[c627627]

Yeah. Good call, Andyman902042. A variation of that was going through my mind also...

[TommyHolly]

I like the very first version of "Keep pushing on" in both samples... the others have some of the sound 'flattened' and the instruments are harder to hear?

That sucks to hear about Sharon messing with Blizzard of Oz...ugh

[Malpine Walis]

Originally Posted by c627627

I have four speakers

So you are talking about needing to have an SACD player in order to notice?

Well, I am happy for you.

However, it was released during the format war for surround (a largely forgotten bit of history). You need the vinyl to be pressed in SQ format, an SQ turntable with an SQ cartridge and an SQ amp to listen to the original. either that or you need the Q8 8-track tape and a Q8 player with an amp that can accept the inputs.

If you don't have that very special hardware, then you have a stereo release and you can never recover the original Parsons version.

[c627627]

I think it's important we're clear then that there is no difference between The Dark Side of the Moon CD available in the stores now vs. the same CD from 20-25 years ago.

[speed bump]

Yeah they pretty much dropped the distortion out of the rhythm electric guitar part. They probably did it becuase it sounds like droppings. I bet they obsessed about the remasters so they could fix that.

[c627627]

Originally Posted by speed bump

They probably did it because it sounds like droppings.

Here's a lesson they taught me in a Mechanical Engineering class. It's not applicable everywhere but it gives you a perspective on how things can work in real life against you:

Imagine you're an old time farmer in a tractor on rough farm land, and you're going up and down in your seat as you're farming.

So then... the tractor company got a bunch of high felutin' engineers to redesign the tractor seat to absorb the shock and make it more comfortable... and they did it.


And then what happened? Sales went down. Why?

Farmers said when they're on their damn tractor, they want it to feel like a tractor...


Think about that.

[>HyperlogiK<]

Originally Posted by Malpine Walis

That being said, it really bugs me when original recording are messed with in major ways.

Yes, and even for major releases the production quality can be quite patchy, a lot seem to have had the high frequencies clipped to remove hiss and then the upper mids boosted to make up for it, but so much so that the recording sounds badly distorted.

IMHO any work music or movie that is considered a classic should only be seriously altered with great caution. Too often they are spoiled either by a moron who wants to update or 'do something really cool' with it, or a studio/label that just wants to differentiate it enough from the last release 6 months ago that people will buy it.

The albums that really are ripe for significant changes are near classics that didn't quite make the grade, or those where there was label pressure on the producer or group. A good example is The Zombies 'Oddessy and Oracle', it was recorded on a shoestring and was very hastily produce and recorded.

[FudgeNuggets]

This isn't all that uncommon and often it's not just for royalties. Prince had to rerecord all of his anthology just to retain the rights to his own material that he wrote because the lawyers missed some clause that stated after a certain time and if he changed labels then the songs become property of the record company and Prince no longer had rights to them. People think all these greatest hits albums are just money-grabs or attempts to fulfill a contract. Sometimes they are but sometimes they're not.

[speed bump]

Originally Posted by c627627

Here's a lesson they taught me in a Mechanical Engineering class. It's not applicable everywhere but it gives you a perspective on how things can work in real life against you:

Imagine you're an old time farmer in a tractor on rough farm land, and you're going up and down in your seat as you're farming.

So then... the tractor company got a bunch of high felutin' engineers to redesign the tractor seat to absorb the shock and make it more comfortable... and they did it.


And then what happened? Sales went down. Why?

Farmers said when they're on their damn tractor, they want it to feel like a tractor...


Think about that.

Yes that is true however somethings are redone and loved for the redesign. Take for instance this song. I have been in and around radio for years and the remastered version gets a whole lot more airplay than the original becuase it sounds better.

Also this is called the remastered edition. If you look at why anyone remasters something its becuase it didn't sound as good as it could of the first time(and/or they want to make more money). I remember Dave Mustaine talking about Megadeth remasters and saying that he wanted to go and fix all the record company demands and haze of drugs that covered up problems on the originals.