Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:44 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 5062
Spaceresearcher wrote:
Sometimes for nostalgia it's nice to have those interfering sounds because they take us back.

I don't consider overtones to be interfering sounds. Goddamn. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. I'm not old enough. I'm talking about what an instrument sounds like in the room at it's source and how close that sound is captured on the recording.
Spaceresearcher wrote:
I'm just glad that Frank Zappa didn't decide that any cheap sound recorder will do and that everyone's ears are different so what does it matter what I use to record my music or we wouldn't have the awesome sounding works we do today.

Any cheap recorder won't do. I made that clear. All Zappa recordings are not equal. The early 80s recordings sound shitty to me compared to, say, OSFA. It's not about the playback equipment. It's the source.

You're trying to be Mr superior sound engineer now. Your premise is fuzzy. Or not fuzzy enough. It is well known that sound comes not from an absolute but from a range. Your preference for noise is just that. A preference. On a scale of zero to one, with one being perfect sound and zero being silence, most of us can agree on a result that is neither one nor zero. The problem here is your ego. I've been through it before. You sound like a wine salesman. You taste "notes" of fruit or honey but somehow your advanced palate misses the fertilizer.

Our ears interpret and prioritize sound differently. Now... I will take my own advice about arguing with you and let you carry on pretending your ears are the only ears that can sort out the difference between nostalgia for sound and actual sound.

There's no day without night.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
downer mydnyte wrote:
Spaceresearcher wrote:
Sometimes for nostalgia it's nice to have those interfering sounds because they take us back.

I don't consider overtones to be interfering sounds. Goddamn. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. I'm not old enough. I'm talking about what an instrument sounds like in the room at it's source and how close that sound is captured on the recording.
Spaceresearcher wrote:
I'm just glad that Frank Zappa didn't decide that any cheap sound recorder will do and that everyone's ears are different so what does it matter what I use to record my music or we wouldn't have the awesome sounding works we do today.

Any cheap recorder won't do. I made that clear. All Zappa recordings are not equal. The early 80s recordings sound shitty to me compared to, say, OSFA. It's not about the playback equipment. It's the source.

You're trying to be Mr superior sound engineer now. Your premise is fuzzy. Or not fuzzy enough. It is well known that sound comes not from an absolute but from a range. Your preference for noise is just that. A preference. On a scale of zero to one, with one being perfect sound and zero being silence, most of us can agree on a result that is neither one nor zero. The problem here is your ego. I've been through it before. You sound like a wine salesman. You taste "notes" of fruit or honey but somehow your advanced palate misses the fertilizer.

Our ears interpret and prioritize sound differently. Now... I will take my own advice about arguing with you and let you carry on pretending your ears are the only ears that can sort out the difference between nostalgia for sound and actual sound.

There's no day without night.



Actually your saying I'm a Mr superior, not me. I have not mentioned my ears are superior. Your statement is actually agreeing with me now which is confusing. That is that a good quality source can not be denied. So thank you for finally agreeing with me. :) What I was getting at is that the ultimate source for the majority of Frank Zappa recordings would be the master reel to reel tapes. The final source(the ultimate point from which the duplication onto the media will come from) is going to be the digital transfer of the fragile tapes. The better that digital transfer sampling is, the better the source is going to be. All I've mentioned is factual information here, I've no idea why your going on about wine but if you can recommend some nice red varieties that would be appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 6103
Location: Between the Badges
Spaceresearcher wrote:
...Surely you remember when you were a kid and had one of those crappy mono tape recorders and perhaps a budget microphone to go with it or an inbuilt one in the device. Compare recording with that to recording with studio quality recording gear and that's what I'm talking about with low definition versus high definition recordings my fellow fans. It's like a cassette tape recording versus one of Frank's studio quality scotch reel to reel tapes. A mind blowing difference that can not be ignored or pushed under the rug by the all ears different chestnut. Because all ears no matter what the personal taste can hear distortion and hiss versus clarity and sound devoid of interferance...

I'm tempted to do some kinda multi-nested clarification post, but I'm gonna hold back. There are many topics being smooshed into some kinda Cliff's Notes on Audio, so I started with just the above quote.

The comparison of old cassette recorders and studio-quality equipment with low and hi-def is colorful, but wrong.
I have to assume that you have heard the Beat the Boots series? No re-formatting of any kind is going to make Unmitigated Audacity into an awesome recording. Making it 24-bit doesn't get rid of hiss or distortion. There are programs that can do those things to a degree, but not by changing the bit-rate or sampling rate.
I gotta ask... did you listen to the mp3s of the Halloween 77 showz? I'm feeling compelled to side-by-side them with the candy bar. I'm predicting negligable differences that would only be significant under ideal listening conditions.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Spaceresearcher wrote:
...Surely you remember when you were a kid and had one of those crappy mono tape recorders and perhaps a budget microphone to go with it or an inbuilt one in the device. Compare recording with that to recording with studio quality recording gear and that's what I'm talking about with low definition versus high definition recordings my fellow fans. It's like a cassette tape recording versus one of Frank's studio quality scotch reel to reel tapes. A mind blowing difference that can not be ignored or pushed under the rug by the all ears different chestnut. Because all ears no matter what the personal taste can hear distortion and hiss versus clarity and sound devoid of interferance...

I'm tempted to do some kinda multi-nested clarification post, but I'm gonna hold back. There are many topics being smooshed into some kinda Cliff's Notes on Audio, so I started with just the above quote.

The comparison of old cassette recorders and studio-quality equipment with low and hi-def is colorful, but wrong.
I have to assume that you have heard the Beat the Boots series? No re-formatting of any kind is going to make Unmitigated Audacity into an awesome recording. Making it 24-bit doesn't get rid of hiss or distortion. There are programs that can do those things to a degree, but not by changing the bit-rate or sampling rate.
I gotta ask... did you listen to the mp3s of the Halloween 77 showz? I'm feeling compelled to side-by-side them with the candy bar. I'm predicting negligable differences that would only be significant under ideal listening conditions.


My point is that a higher sample rate, gives you a better source from which to work with for an ultimate master. Yes a crap master tape is going to be a crap master tape, but is there anything wrong with wanting the best possible quality sample of that crap master tape?

You see, what I'm hoping for is that there's other recordings of shows at the time where it might be possible to substitute a different recording. OK, that would not be exactly the same album but that's what I'm hoping for. Also technology may now allow as you've put there the ability to correct some of the audio a bit. Something similar to the Road Tapes series might now be a possibility. Hey just look what they did for Roxy the movie. (ok that was more of a video synch issue than a sound issue but still they had to get speeds right to co-incide with the video and it sounded like a pain staking process.)

I hear what your saying which is: 'You can't polish a turd.' So if the original source tape is garbage, no amount of hi-def sampling is going to improve it. What I'm getting at is that for Volume 2 on CD and Volume 3 on MP3, there would be improvements as your not listening to the best possible sample there, your listening to the down converted and compressed audio. I for one would like to hear the uncompressed versions and decide for myself. There would also be dynamic range improvements for Volume 1 on vinyl.

Anyway, with a USB stick style delivery of these recordings, you could have the original release and the 'upgraded' release for the purists, making it more interesting to long time collectors as well as new enthusiasts. I'm sure other fans who have never been able to obtain these recordings would also.

For the record(sad pun), unmitigated audacity isn't that bad, I've heard far worse recordings in boot leg material. A few of those 'unauthorised' recordings releases that came out in the early 90's for a time (for numerous bands) until a legal ban was placed upon them spring to mind. Now there's proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that a crappy cheap cassette recorder can not out perform a mobile studio setup as is only logical to expect.

The point here would be 'bootleg.' Anyone purchasing any bootleg recording has to automatically accept that quality is not going to be that of a studio or mobile studio recorded release. Frank's equipment at the time was surely superior to the cassette tape recorder folks so surely there might exist better examples of those recordings somewhere in the vault. Fingers crossed. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 6103
Location: Between the Badges
Purists... ugh. Whether its Blues Purists, Audio Purists or FZ Purists... not my thing.

You can polish a turd. But, why bother? There is no benefit to having a high-res version of a low-fi recording. This makes me wonder about what is up with your wanting the BTB on a stick. You use alot of qualifying words... Maybe if you could describe your experience with words other than "better".

As in many situations, this is blurred because sometimes you are right about hi-quality formats making for a better experience. But, this is not an absolute truth and especially not true when we are talking about the Beat the Boots series.

Spaceresearcher wrote:
...
Beat The Boots Volume 1 - Hi-Def 24bit 48KHz or higher USB stick wav delivery would surely be possible (remaster perhaps from original source tapes though)
Beat The Boots Volume 2 - Came out on CD so higher sample rates must already be available (same as above)
Beat The Boots Volume 3 - Only came out in crappy MP3 so higher quality samples would without doubt be available and make this release seamless as well.(same as above)


The above makes no sense. You may call it polishing a turd, I'd say for all the polishing you want to apply, its still the same turd, albeit in a new box.
I should probably mention that these old BTB recordings should sound like old recordings cuz that's what they are. Your ideas of alternate versions is fine, but doesn't change the fact that hi-definition boots are a waste of time, energy and file size.

Let's try to think of what could actually benefit from a more hi-res recording. People like to talk about large dynamic ranges. A hi-res recording will never have a wider dynamic than the original without including expansion processing or otherwise modifying the recording. If you can hear the noise floor on a cd, you won't have less of it on a higher res recording. A wide dynamic range can make for an exhilarating experience. But, it also means that maybe you can't hear shit when you are in a car with the windows open. Personally, I like a bit of compression and every audio Engineer worth his salt uses it at times. People also talk about the tone, timbre, or brittleness. Of course, any 128 kbps or lower bit rate is going to get brittle. But, we're not talking about that are we? We are talking about benefits to hi-res, not the extreme lossy formats. Imo, the best thing any recording can do is sound the same as whatever is input. You don't need hi-res to do that with a boot.
When the Rolling Stones re-released their catalog, I read that you could now hear Charlie Watt's kick-drum pedal squeak when he pressed it. Who wants to hear that? Thousands of bands have spent hundreds of thousands of hours in the studio trying to shut up kick drum squeaks and now I'm supposed to be happy because we have recordings that feature them?
The payoff is what you want it to be, not absolutes like "better" because of format.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Purists... ugh. Whether its Blues Purists, Audio Purists or FZ Purists... not my thing.

You can polish a turd. But, why bother? There is no benefit to having a high-res version of a low-fi recording. This makes me wonder about what is up with your wanting the BTB on a stick. You use alot of qualifying words... Maybe if you could describe your experience with words other than "better".

As in many situations, this is blurred because sometimes you are right about hi-quality formats making for a better experience. But, this is not an absolute truth and especially not true when we are talking about the Beat the Boots series.

Spaceresearcher wrote:
...
Beat The Boots Volume 1 - Hi-Def 24bit 48KHz or higher USB stick wav delivery would surely be possible (remaster perhaps from original source tapes though)
Beat The Boots Volume 2 - Came out on CD so higher sample rates must already be available (same as above)
Beat The Boots Volume 3 - Only came out in crappy MP3 so higher quality samples would without doubt be available and make this release seamless as well.(same as above)


The above makes no sense. You may call it polishing a turd, I'd say for all the polishing you want to apply, its still the same turd, albeit in a new box.
I should probably mention that these old BTB recordings should sound like old recordings cuz that's what they are. Your ideas of alternate versions is fine, but doesn't change the fact that hi-definition boots are a waste of time, energy and file size.

Let's try to think of what could actually benefit from a more hi-res recording. People like to talk about large dynamic ranges. A hi-res recording will never have a wider dynamic than the original without including expansion processing or otherwise modifying the recording. If you can hear the noise floor on a cd, you won't have less of it on a higher res recording. A wide dynamic range can make for an exhilarating experience. But, it also means that maybe you can't hear shit when you are in a car with the windows open. Personally, I like a bit of compression and every audio Engineer worth his salt uses it at times. People also talk about the tone, timbre, or brittleness. Of course, any 128 kbps or lower bit rate is going to get brittle. But, we're not talking about that are we? We are talking about benefits to hi-res, not the extreme lossy formats. Imo, the best thing any recording can do is sound the same as whatever is input. You don't need hi-res to do that with a boot.
When the Rolling Stones re-released their catalog, I read that you could now hear Charlie Watt's kick-drum pedal squeak when he pressed it. Who wants to hear that? Thousands of bands have spent hundreds of thousands of hours in the studio trying to shut up kick drum squeaks and now I'm supposed to be happy because we have recordings that feature them?
The payoff is what you want it to be, not absolutes like "better" because of format.


I hear you. For me, I like hearing the extra details that a hi-res recording provides. Yes it's not for everyone but that's were having both side by side, fixes both fences so to speak. You mention the click. With classical recordings I can hear the slides on strings in violin solo's that I couldn't hear before hi-res. That to me is welcome as some players are so amazing I enjoy that to remind me there actually human. I am suggesting the USB stick as it's the most economical way to provide said recordings without having to do a costly media print run. (Everything on a single USB stick versus multiple CD's or Vinyl's, large boxes and printed media etc. What I'm getting at in terms of wider dynamic range is that even if the original was not up to par, if you receive it in a down sampled MP3 or CD, you will not be getting it's full potential. Yes maybe that original isn't that great but the quality of the sampling of that recording will aid in a better medium delivered to the listener. What I'm getting at is that thanks to the times we no longer require down converted recordings, we practically have the original sample but in digital form.

You are correct though, the better the original source, the better the sampled output will be. I'm not denying that, I'd still like to obtain the best possible sample of these recordings. I've got the Vinyl version of BTB Vol 1 for example and that beat the boots all over the MP3's I heard from someone who had downloaded them from somewhere(no doubt illegally). The difference was MASSIVE. So much so I played them the vinyl version so they could hear it for themselves. So on a good note, Frank's original release is still beating illegal bootleg copies out there even today.
I'd like a 24bit 48KHz sampling or higher version of them just to have the best possible version. With that I would look into doing my own doctoring on them to clear things up. But a crappy MP3 for example, I wouldn't even bother.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 6103
Location: Between the Badges
Spaceresearcher wrote:
... I've got the Vinyl version of BTB Vol 1 for example and that beat the boots all over the MP3's I heard from someone who had downloaded them from somewhere(no doubt illegally). The difference was MASSIVE...


Is it one of the versions on this page?:
https://www.discogs.com/Frank-Zappa-As-An-Am/release/6010723

Also, I'm still hoping you A/B at least some of the Halloween 77 recordings candy bar vs. mp3. I ordered through amazon and the mp3s I d/l'd were very high quality.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 5062
The squashing of music to mp3 format does not handle overtones very well at all. Distorted electric guitar music on mp3 is neutered music. Play the lossless, play the mp3. If you don't hear it that's cool with me. I hear it. Sucks for me when listening to distorted guitar music on mp3. Good for you. You'll have more room on your hard drive for more mp3s.

Mp3s actually help to make certain music less threatening and that might be helpful for some people.

Overtones are like sparks. You can manipulate 'em but you can't have total control over 'em as they fly. That's why they are beautiful. They're alive. Those strings are vibrating. It's that random thing FZ seemed to love. It's the "magic". On Osaka Black Napkins, he'll never get that exact tone again. Even if he wanted it. Not exactly. Nothing captures the overtones of, say, a distorted guitar with a cry baby set in a fixed position near the middle like that old high quality 2 inch analog tape. Digital can't handle those sparks as well. The way it sounds coming out of the amp during the performance is captured closer on a damn tape! Mic placement, quality of recording gear etc all taken into account. Digital is better in many ways but it's certainly not "undeniably" always better to every set of ears and for every type of music. Still, it's not as if I'm going back to tape. I prefer it imprecise and flawed over perfection though. More human. Technology is a trash heap strewn out behind us. There comes a point where progress is not improving anything but instead it's just fucking it up. Where does it end? In Zappa's case, with the official releases from his lifetime, some of those 2012 cd's, to my ears, were the best it's gonna get with the exception of certain vinyl.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 16832
Location: Behind a ultra-avant laminated, simulated replica-mahogany desk
How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality? - Take a test...
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
Mr_Green_Genes wrote:


Fascinating. 5 out of 6. The one I got wrong was Suzanne Vega's voice and perhaps that's because I like Suzanne Vega's voice on many sources (radio, albums, live etc). I could still tell the crappy 128Kbps MP3 though. The 320Kbps was almost identical to the wav. When I re-listened I picked it up only after listening to both samples the entire way through.

The others, especially the piano music stood out like neon signs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
downer mydnyte wrote:
The squashing of music to mp3 format does not handle overtones very well at all. Distorted electric guitar music on mp3 is neutered music. Play the lossless, play the mp3. If you don't hear it that's cool with me. I hear it. Sucks for me when listening to distorted guitar music on mp3. Good for you. You'll have more room on your hard drive for more mp3s.

Mp3s actually help to make certain music less threatening and that might be helpful for some people.

Overtones are like sparks. You can manipulate 'em but you can't have total control over 'em as they fly. That's why they are beautiful. They're alive. Those strings are vibrating. It's that random thing FZ seemed to love. It's the "magic". On Osaka Black Napkins, he'll never get that exact tone again. Even if he wanted it. Not exactly. Nothing captures the overtones of, say, a distorted guitar with a cry baby set in a fixed position near the middle like that old high quality 2 inch analog tape. Digital can't handle those sparks as well. The way it sounds coming out of the amp during the performance is captured closer on a damn tape! Mic placement, quality of recording gear etc all taken into account. Digital is better in many ways but it's certainly not "undeniably" always better to every set of ears and for every type of music. Still, it's not as if I'm going back to tape. I prefer it imprecise and flawed over perfection though. More human. Technology is a trash heap strewn out behind us. There comes a point where progress is not improving anything but instead it's just fucking it up. Where does it end? In Zappa's case, with the official releases from his lifetime, some of those 2012 cd's, to my ears, were the best it's gonna get with the exception of certain vinyl.


Well then you will be mind blown with a hi-def 24bit 96KHz or higher sample of said tape. You can have your sparks and overtones in digital form. Seriously. I used to think CD and Vinyl was as good as it was going to get until I heard Super Audio CD's and hi-def recordings. Seriously mind blowing. It's the main reason many orchestra's are able to bring recording costs down instead of using expensive metal tape traditional methods. The point were digital is finally able to duplicate tape to absolute perfection is here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Spaceresearcher wrote:
... I've got the Vinyl version of BTB Vol 1 for example and that beat the boots all over the MP3's I heard from someone who had downloaded them from somewhere(no doubt illegally). The difference was MASSIVE...


Is it one of the versions on this page?:
https://www.discogs.com/Frank-Zappa-As-An-Am/release/6010723

Also, I'm still hoping you A/B at least some of the Halloween 77 recordings candy bar vs. mp3. I ordered through amazon and the mp3s I d/l'd were very high quality.


It's the limited edition Ryko records 1991 release with the Foo-EE records hog on the spine. I for one liked it. Especially Piquantique which contains a Sydney 1973 performance. The only other recording from Frank's Australian performances that I've heard is the 1976 OZ release from Dweezil which is also nice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:40 am
Posts: 181
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Piquantique is from Stockholm, Sweden on August 21, 1973. There are much better quality and more complete recordings of this show easily downloadable elsewhere on the net. Excellent video exists also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
TwentySmallCigars wrote:
Piquantique is from Stockholm, Sweden on August 21, 1973. There are much better quality and more complete recordings of this show easily downloadable elsewhere on the net. Excellent video exists also.


Yes you are correct that most of that material is from Stockholm, but take a look at the blurb on the back of the album which states:

'RECORDDED In STOCKHOLM AT SKANSEN ON THE 21TH OF AUGUST, 1973 (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF T'MERSHI DUWEEN, WHICH WAS TWEEZED OUT IN SYDNEY, ONLY 32 DAYS BEFORE)'

Please note the uppercase is only because that's exactly how it is on the back of the album cover to recap for you with complete accuracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 16832
Location: Behind a ultra-avant laminated, simulated replica-mahogany desk
Talking about sound quality, Mr Neil Young has just made publicly available ALL his output in top notch quality, for a while here:
http://www.neilyoungarchives.com
Enjoy.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 175
Spaceresearcher wrote:
TwentySmallCigars wrote:
Piquantique is from Stockholm, Sweden on August 21, 1973. There are much better quality and more complete recordings of this show easily downloadable elsewhere on the net. Excellent video exists also.


Yes you are correct that most of that material is from Stockholm, but take a look at the blurb on the back of the album which states:

'RECORDDED In STOCKHOLM AT SKANSEN ON THE 21TH OF AUGUST, 1973 (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF T'MERSHI DUWEEN, WHICH WAS TWEEZED OUT IN SYDNEY, ONLY 32 DAYS BEFORE)'

Please note the uppercase is only because that's exactly how it is on the back of the album cover to recap for you with complete accuracy.


and I suspect that T'Mershi Duween is actually from The Roxy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:40 am
Posts: 181
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Max Lobster wrote:
Spaceresearcher wrote:
TwentySmallCigars wrote:
Piquantique is from Stockholm, Sweden on August 21, 1973. There are much better quality and more complete recordings of this show easily downloadable elsewhere on the net. Excellent video exists also.


Yes you are correct that most of that material is from Stockholm, but take a look at the blurb on the back of the album which states:

'RECORDDED In STOCKHOLM AT SKANSEN ON THE 21TH OF AUGUST, 1973 (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF T'MERSHI DUWEEN, WHICH WAS TWEEZED OUT IN SYDNEY, ONLY 32 DAYS BEFORE)'

Please note the uppercase is only because that's exactly how it is on the back of the album cover to recap for you with complete accuracy.


and I suspect that T'Mershi Duween is actually from The Roxy


Yes, all 1:55 of T'mershi Duween is definitely from the Roxy and NOT from Sydney. The first known live appearance was in Brussels on September 8, well after the Australian tour.

I have read the blurb on the back of the album many times. Don't believe anything you read on bootleg artwork unless you can verify it somewhere else. But in the interests of recapping with complete accuracy it's spelled 'RECORDED'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
Yes darn those typo's and In should be IN as well.

Well I guess the only way to know 100% would be to get the Vaultmeisters to check. All I can go off would be that Frank Zappa authorised the publishing of these albums all touched up so who can say? The fact that us mad keen fans care is further proof these recordings need to be re-released at some point and it would seem with some liner notes with full corrections and explanations. That would be nice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 5062
I think it's great that Miles Davis originally released On The Corner with no credits just to fuck with all of the critics and stats geeks who can't seem to enjoy the music on it's own terms.*

Later they just had to add the credits. Apparently some people couldn't carry on their lives without 'em.


* Source: Miles autobiography


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:40 am
Posts: 181
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Spaceresearcher wrote:
Yes darn those typo's and In should be IN as well.

Well I guess the only way to know 100% would be to get the Vaultmeisters to check. All I can go off would be that Frank Zappa authorised the publishing of these albums all touched up so who can say? The fact that us mad keen fans care is further proof these recordings need to be re-released at some point and it would seem with some liner notes with full corrections and explanations. That would be nice.


T'Mershi Duween was not yet recorded and probably not even written at the time of the Sydney shows. We don't need the Vaultmeisters to check anything.

Also, Frank authorized the release of these albums but they are certainly not 'all touched up' and he claimed many times to have no involvement with them other than permitting the release. These were not created from master tapes from the vaults but just carbon copies of actual bootlegs released by other people. FZ was upset that bootleggers were making money off these releases and decided to make some money himself off the bootleggers' work - hence the title 'Beat the Boots'.

Tom Brown from Rhino Records selected a number of bootleg titles for Frank to choose from but according to his book 'Confessions of a Zappa Fanatic' he claims that Gail actually chose which titles to release. He further states that due to Gail's dislike of Ike Willis that no titles featuring Ike were released ('All You Need is Glove' being one title mentioned). Some of the titles are actually quite inferior sounding to the actual bootlegs released at the time (Unmitigated Audacity and Swiss Cheese / Fire to name two).

Again, these titles are not going to be restored by the ZFT, they were a quick cash grab by Frank back in the day and Frank was quite up front about his motivations behind the release. All of these bootleg recordings are easily available generally more complete and better quality on a site where all true mad keen fans know where to find them.

You can also check out the Information is Not Knowledge site if you want to read more accurate information on these releases other than what is printed on the bootleg covers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 6702
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
Thankyou TwentySmallCigars. This is pretty much what I wanted to say. I've picked up one or two Beat The Boots titles for research purposes, but have no interest beyond that. My sole remaining interest re the ZFT is in any remaining gems that were recorded by FZ himself.

Just the fact that none of those BTB recordings came from the actual bootleg recordings themselves and that the ZFT does not have access to those recordings renders any remastering requests aimed at them pointless.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:55 am
Posts: 1396
TwentySmallCigars wrote:
He further states that due to Gail's dislike of Ike Willis that no titles featuring Ike were released


Not true, Ike is on two bootlegs included on BTB1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:40 am
Posts: 181
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
pbuzby wrote:
TwentySmallCigars wrote:
He further states that due to Gail's dislike of Ike Willis that no titles featuring Ike were released


Not true, Ike is on two bootlegs included on BTB1.

Of course you are correct ('Saarbrücken 1978' and 'Anyway the Wind Blows'). And here I am telling people not to believe everything they read before confirming it elsewhere. I need to practice what I preach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:00 pm
Posts: 220
Would it really hurt to release a download only or USB release of these 3 series of recordings? Seriously guys if you don't want them, then fine. But some of us do. In fact a lot going by the sales of these recordings on ebay.

The vault should take priority of course but these shouldn't be lost to time just because a few are not interested.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:40 am
Posts: 181
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
As pointed out many times, you can already download these shows in the best quality they will ever be and, in some cases, superior to the actual Beat the Boots releases.

Then put them on a USB stick your own bad self and be happy.

It's not just a few that aren't interested, it's nearly all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tinkamok and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group