By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:10 am:
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:10 am: |
Ok...let the debate continue. Just remember everyone, we all have the same interest here.
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:28 am: |
Sue,
I have not listened to the CD because I am trying for the moment to stay neutral. I am acknowledging the alledged problem from people I have great respect for. I am also acknowledging any positve comments ( including yours ) about the CD. If you want the truth from me, I'm a little hesitant about listening anyway simply because I have the deepest respect for Ed Wolfrum's expertise and passion for the music. I think I'm afraid I'm not going to like what I hear. In the "old days " I had the power to correct these types of problems. Here I don't, and I feel there is too much riding on all this to screw up. Can you really undersand where we are coming from Sue? Remember, we're the guys that brought you the music originally that we all discuss today.
| By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:35 am: |
Ralph,
Please reserve judgment -- seriously -- until you personally have heard the CD. It's only fair.
And it's fair for me to dialogue with Mike McLean over points he's raised, like whether or not the recordings being judged are from the same master tape. He brought up that point, I didn't.
I hear where you're coming from, but I don't think you're listening enough to other sources of information on the CD.
For one thing, is there truly just one way to engineer a Motown record? Thinking of the incredible diversity of music released by Motown between 1960 and '71. Really? There's one engineering formula, and that's it?
And were Motown records always immaculately engineered? I think the overblown rhetoric used in attacking the CD (as a word nerd, I can parse sentences, so I know what "doesn't sound like Jamerson" means) was too dismaying to keep Harry W. around, but he could answer that question.
And has, to many of us.
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:46 am: |
I'm going to tell you all a story. A true story.
Years ago my brother was working very hard on getting a Jackson 5 album out on schedule.( Sorry I don't remember the album title.) He was putting in brutal hours and was extremely tired but the album was released on schedule. during the course of this ordeal he had told his wife that they would get away for a few days when the work was completed. So the album gets released and Russ and his wife get out of town.
Driving home from their trip Russ hears a cut off the album on the car radio. He is appalled. It sounds terrible. He mentions to his wife that he must have been more tired than he imagined at the time of the mix.
When he returns to L.A. he calls Berry and tells him his feelings. Berry pulls the album off the market so Russ can re-mix it now that he is no longer exhausted.The album is re-released to Russ' satisfaction.
The point here is I'm sure to most of the listening public, the album sounded just fine. But Russ knew there was a problem and he was also aware of the high standards of Motown. Berry expected nothing but the best from Russ and Russ always made sure he got the best.
Now...does anyone see a paralell here??
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.132) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:18 pm: |
Sue,
Your point is well taken. I believe that I said something to the effect that I had not read the "fine print," about graphs 1 and 2, in my offending posting.
The "look" of graphs 1 and 2 was so similar, that I jumped to the conclusion that it was an AB comparison. I was too impatient to study graph 3 and figure out what it was, and removed my attention from graphs 1 and 2 too quickly.
As a presentation to show that a recent recording is more compressed then an older recording, graphs 1 and 2 do a good job. However, this seems to me to be a rather modest point.
It would seem to me that a reissue doctored up that much, compared to the original version, would be an issue that should get folks up in arms. On the other hand, to say that we old coots like a more diversified dynamic range in our mixs compared to todays young listeners, would seem to be much more a matter of taste.
I totally agree with Ed that the highly compressed mix is "bad taste," but I wouldn't have the mixer arrested for it. On the other hand, if that much difference existed in a reissue, I would be tempted.
I jumped to the conclusion that the issue was a reissue issue, rather then a taste issue, and I am hereby issuing this correction to settle the issue. Could someone hand me a tissue?
I thank you for correcting me.
Mike McLean
| By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:20 pm: |
Mike (laugh) -- go see the music and listen to the soundtrack, I'm interested in your reactions.
I wasn't correcting you, just pointing out that you said the best comparision was between two recordings taken from the same master tape. And that this clearly wasn't ...
| By Millie (68.40.209.129) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:20 pm: |
Ralph,
As someone with little interest in the technological aspects of the recording process, I can only say that "what I don't know won't hurt me". The SITSOM soundtrack is great(IMO), it's definately energetic and exciting, and the artists' rendition of the songs are good (some better than others). You're always going to have two different opinions here...one from the layperson (like me), and one from the technicians. So be it.
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:38 pm: |
I'm trying to be objective as possible here. I'm getting e-mails telling me that this is not the case. I think I have acknowledged the positive as well as the negative reports on the CD. If I seem to lean a little on the side of the technical guys it is because experience has taught me to listen to them when they speak.
Lets assume for the moment that all is well with the CD, as it may well be. That would be fine with me. But just by chance it could be better, doesn't everyone want that to happen? If not then this whole forum is a joke.Our purpose here is to pay homage to what we all consider to be a superior form of R&B. The Detroit Sound ( not to exclude Philly ) If we all become complacent with a " that's good enough " attitude then we have become consumed by the pedestrian standards of the day. Like the man ( Pogo ) said..." We have me the enemy and it is us ".
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.132) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:38 pm: |
Sue,
I'm sorry, but when you point out an error that I made, that is correcting me.
I want to be corrected when I make an error.
That is why I sincerely thanked you for correcting me.
I hate to correct you, but I'm afraid that you are incorrect when you say that you weren't correcting me when you corrected me regarding my failier to correctly understand graphs 1 and 2. While it is perhaps politically incorrect to correct someone, I think it is incorrect to correct someone and then claim that you did not correct him.
If I keep fooling around like this, I am going to be sent to a house of correction.
Once more: (With the tone of actor Charles Boyer) Sue my darling, if you could only know how deeply I appreciate your intellectual honesty and concern for accuracy, as reflected by the perfection of your correction, I know it would warm your heart to a cozy glow. It truely gives me the desire to live another day to know that people like you, who care about thinking straght, are alive in this crazy world. Sleep warm, my sweet.
Mike McLean
| By LTLFTC (12.245.225.79) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:43 pm: |
As always , debates like this come down to personal priorities. In recorded music we obviously deal with several elements; structural content (lyrics , melody etc) , performance , arrangment , and engineering. Depending on what I'm listening to , one element may be of greater importance at the time than another. For example , many of my favorite old blues and early rock and soul records would make audiophiles gag. I also refuse to believe that my passion and obsession with music/records has been in any way diminished by the fact that I've never been able to afford the finest state-of-the-art audio equpment.
However , this is complicated. The songs we usually think of when we talk of "Motown" are different. They're more a soul-based highly evolved pop music ; therefore , engineering and mixing are more important to the final result. It took me about two seconds to realise that the Soundtrack cd I was listening to on my living room ESS's kind of lacked luster compared to the audio on the Movie Trailer coming through the little Creative speakers hooked to my computer.
However , again , the I'm-reluctant-to-call-it disappointment I felt upon initial hearing passed after a couple tracks and I was able to totally enjoy the performances. The musical content is all there ; you may have to focus on individual parts a little more than you'd think from the trailer (and evidently the movie which I haven't been able to see yet), but it's not like "hey ,where's the guitars" or anything. The Funk Bros. kick all the way through, that's indisputable.
However , yet again (!) Ralph's comment about 'There's too much riding on this" resonates. This is obviously a one-time thing , a final chance to give props to this unit while some of them are still here. In that light , maybe the opinions of Joe Hunter and Joe Messina as Funk Brother elders are the opinions that should matter most. I wonder what they think of the cd ?
The bottom line for me , personally , is that the cd is a wonderful document. The slight qualms I feel about some of the audio pale in comparison to the gratitude that I feel that it even exists. For me , "Bernadette" and "...Hangin' On" alone are worth the price of the disc. I would feel pretty crummy if someone visiting this site for the first time decided not to buy the cd because they feared something was "wrong" with it.
The long-winded Steve K.
| By Sue (205.188.209.38) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:45 pm: |
Mike,
Now you're dealing with words, which is my beat.
Nope I wasn't correcting, I was amplifying upon your remarks. I was pointing out to others that you believed that Ed's point was strongest if the master tape was identical.
I don't hesitate to correct, don't worry!
| By Sue (205.188.209.38) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:46 pm: |
Amen, SteveK.
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 12:53 pm: |
Steve,
Thanks for the comments. You are correct when you say that I feel so much is riding on this. I just want to be assured that the Brothers are being presented in the best light possible.
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.132) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 01:13 pm: |
Sue,
I just reread your original comment, which I called a "correction:"
START PASTE IN
By Sue (152.163.188.68) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 09:38 pm:
Mike,
Charts 1 and 2 above are NOT based on the same master tape. Chart 1 is the original studio version of "Cool Jerk" by the Capitols. Chart 2 is the live version by Bootsy Collins, from the soundtrack CD.
How is that comparable?
END PASTE IN
The answer is that they are not comparable. Therefor, my head was on some other planet as I discussed the matter, which is incorrect on my part.
This is why I took your remark above as a correction.
You sure have me jumping through mental hoops. No matter how I try to get on a common ground with you, I find myself sinking deeper into the quicksand of misunderstanding.
While I can now see the possibility that you did not mean the above as a correction, I still just the same, maintain that your question puts the spotlight on some incorrect thinking in my posting, and therefor, it is, in my opinion, a correction, and I happily take it as such.
This entire thread is starting to sound like an argument about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Cheers,
Mike McLean
| By STUBASS (206.135.204.2) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 01:32 pm: |
GUYS; WHAT I SEEM TO BE GETTING FROM THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT EITHER, DESPITE A QUANTUM LEAP IN TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT OVER THE PAST 30 ODD YEARS, EITHER THE ENGINEERS ARE UNABLE TO KEEP PACE WITH THOSE ADVANCEMENTS, OR THE OLD DINOSOURS PRODUCED A BETTER SOUND...LIKE THE OLD 4 TRACK TAPE PLAYERS...WHICH IS IT???...STU
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 01:41 pm: |
Good question Stu. Technology certainly isn't the answer to everything. As my brother has pointed out so many times, the most important tool an engineer possesses are those two silly looking things attached to the side of his head.
| By Clay (66.73.183.219) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 01:43 pm: |
Hey Guys,
Everyone of the technical guru's are right about sound quality and the various varibles that make a excellent mix. I for one and a former quality control person understand the importance of a hit sound helping to create a hit record,and I was responsible for a lot of remixs and fixes during my years in this business and especially at Motown.
As much as it hurts me to say it the standard of great sounding music has all but faded away just like the great artist and producers that made great records.I'm sure that a remix by those standards would solve all of the questions,problems,theories and technical snarfu's mentioned,but will it really make a difference to the new buying public who does'nt seem to care about quality or better yet doesn't know the difference and will the old buying public really kick since they've been so starved for the type of musicianship that is being delivered once again by the Funk Bros?
I wish there was a way to convince the Powers that be that it won't hurt to give the remaining Motown engineering guys(Russ Terrana,Ed Wolfrum,or Myself) a shot at making it better ,simply because we are die-hard perfectionist who will push faders till our hands bleed if it means giving the Funk Bros imperial representation on their Historical CD release. Peace
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.132) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 01:46 pm: |
StuBass,
I imagine that the technical quality of the oil paint used by Pablo Picasso to paint one of his masterpieces is better, chemically, then that paint used by Leonardo Da Vinci to paint the Mona Lisa.
Old coots like Ed and I are hung up on the idea that it looks better if the womans eyes are on the front of her face, instead of the side of her head, and that each eye looks straght at you, instead of pointing all over the place.
Of course, any lover of modern art would consider such an attitude to be mearly an indication that the old coot is "out of it."
One thing that I am thankful for is that Ed and I agree completely that the modern equipment is superior to the old stuff. There are pleanty of people who would disagree. At least we don't have that disagreement complicating the matter.
Todays microphones and recorders are the best ever. The problem is the manner in which they are used.
Mike McLean
| By Ralph Terrana (ralph) (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 01:49 pm: |
Clay,
Thanks for your input. Have you had a chance to listen to the CD yet? Knowing your history in Q.C. I would be most interested in your thoughts. You're right of course. Maybe the public today doesn't really care. But we do!
| By Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 02:36 pm: |
Hello Gang,
The first plots presented in the HELP 2 thread are of the stereo remix I did from the 4 track master of "Cool Jerk" for Ollie in the 1980's. I spent the time necessary to mix the stereo as close to the original (which I had reviewed before the mix )as was possible. This was released by Solid Smoke,I believe. They could have mashed it as well on the CD release. Sadly, neither Ollie nor I never heard the final CD, Ollie had died and we never auditioned it.
My point was that the original mix has some dynamics and yet exhibited reasonable transients and was not clipped. Is sounded full and spectrally balanced and had a nice dynamic feel. The plot reflects those dynamics. Cool Jerk was a major charted record for a fairly long time and the mono single was mixed with the same care. Ollie was there with me on both mixes. It has held the test of time. Just as most of the SISOM tunes have.
The second plot, from the SISOM CD, is not a remix of the original but rather the Bootsy Collins version (Track 11), with measurable and audible smashed dynamics. That's the only similar material that I had full involvement in, for a reasonable comparison.
The problem becomes that CONSISTANT peak clipping results in what may be describe as harsh sound caused by the distortion components created and is not reflective of the original. It further destroys the natural dynamics of the music when listened to on good equipment.
Sue, Millie Others; please read the comments about this problem from others in the industry. These were quoted in the first HELP thread. The dynamics problem is industy wide. Read Jay's comments too.
The "Detroit Sound" is the sum total of:
The skill, synergy and musicallity of the FUNKS
The fine performance of the artists
The technical design and quality of the recording equipment and its audio character
The artistic use of the equipment by the musicians, engineers and producers
The skill of the mixer to create a musical/audio experience
The skill of the mastering engineer to transfer that experience to a consumer delivery format
The marketing skill of the record company
The love of the music and the synergy created by all of the people above
If ANY ONE of these components FAILED the Detroit Sound would have failed to exist. This all came together here in Detroit in the 1960-1970's. This can only be described as "Divine Providence", that God would put all the people, with these skills together in one place to make this music. Jack said it in the film..."You can feel Barry's prayers here..." I never realized that till Clay Sue my wife, pointed it out.
Ralph, Russ, Bob, Clay, Mike, Ken, Artie, myself and many other wonderful people, not on the forum were there, we helped make this music, and we know what went into it.
I can speak with authority when we say something is sonically wrong. I also have the technical and moral resposibility to do so. For this to be questioned is suspect.
My arguement is simply that those who have spent the $$$ to purchase good audio components should expect to be provided the best the audio industry can deliver for the dollars they spend. It is simply value received. The SISOM CD does not reflect this value.
To use an analogy, which Mike is famous for; I drive a Subaru, made here in the US. I don't expect it to be a Mercedes but I expect quality, which I have received. It is over 10 years old, has 105000 miles and runs and handles like the day it was purchased. No squeeks, no rattles and no problems. I received value. I got what I paid for.
If I were to have purchased a vehicle made by GM at that time I doubt whether it would have been NEAR the quality for the $$$ spent. It would dead and buried by now, based on other experiences of friends and neighbors. This is not a labor problem, both were made in the US...it is a problem of quality and value.
Be it cars or audio the problem is quality. Value. The problem boils down to my favorite line:
How do you explain hand rubbed finishes to someone who has only seen vinal clad pressed wood?
Respectfully,
Ed Wolfrum
| By Ralph Terrana (ralph) (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 02:57 pm: |
And these are Ed's thoughts very well presented I think.
| By Sue (152.163.188.68) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 03:28 pm: |
Ralph and Ed,
If you think Millie, SteveS, SteveK and I haven't read the innumerable posts on both Help threads ...
then you guys aren't listening.
Mike -- I was trying to establish common ground too, an amplification is gentler than a correction.
| By Sue (152.163.188.68) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 03:36 pm: |
p.s. Ralph and Ed -- reread the last graf of SteveK's posting.
p.p.s. Ed, I proudly drive a UAW-made Jeep Liberty that's been a joy since I got it a year ago. Total quality from the ground up. You can keep the rice-eater, and I can rest happy in the knowledge that the people who built it were treated decently. (uh-oh, we're getting into labor issues now ...)
| By Sue (152.163.188.68) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 03:36 pm: |
(the people who built my Liberty were treated decently that is) ...
| By Clay (66.73.183.219) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 03:44 pm: |
Ralph,
I made my comments based on my ears and my conversations with several people with sound and mixing knowledge whom I respect and credit for being honest as well extremely acknowledgable in what Motown's finest musicians should sound like and even more so on their own personal product debut as recording Artist. Even guys with skills and credentials can't mix a Motown record like we can. We've already proven that.
And I'm real concerned about this CD on the Funk Bros now just based on what I've heard,If it needs a remix or a fix there should be no questions ask other than how soon can we get the remix done. If the controllers will trust the ears of proven experts and put the ego and the current mix behind them I can almost guarantee that Russ or Ed could deliver an exceptional Master mix. Mixing for records is a lot different than mixing for film and what's strange is that the film version was better than the CD I'm hearing. Hey !! Let's get it fixed for the Funk Bros they're worth the few $'s more. You know maybe they don't believe we still got the ears, but the Funk Bros have let them know that the ears and the knowledge of professional technique and ability are the last to go. LOL!!!!!!!Peace
| By kim culhan (68.42.41.167) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 04:38 pm: |
Overall the CD sounds clean but with the top few db whacked with a limiter. It sounds really punchy on a Buick/GM stock sound system, almost as if there were an expander in there.
I think I heard that Dave Clark, who's seminar Mike referred to recently, consulted with GM around this time. Maybe he could shed light on this.
On the home system, which is a pair of Mackie 824's, it does not have the dynamic range of the sample on the film trailer -too bad..
As Ed has observed, the peaks very frequently reach digital full-scale although a random check shows there are never 2 consecutive samples at this full-scale level (what you might call clipping.)
So it sounds like they lopped off the last few db with a limiter and maintained the limiter drive level to keep it constant all the way through. Maybe a multiband limiter setup so you don't really hear the kick drum punching holes in the other tracks.
I was the Chief Engineer at WOMC here in Detroit for several years. As many of you know, radio Program Directors are convinced the loudness of the station compared to the competition is a key factor in their success.
There were numerous occasions when I found myself out in the station parking lot, listening to the PD's car radio as he demonstrated the need for greater 'loudness.'
Eventually I figured out how the loudest station achieved it: They used a homebrew device with back-to-back LED's connected right across the output of the stereo generator.
They found through experimentation that the shape of the 'knee' of the led's conduction curve producted a certain 'sound' -even finding a certain color LED had a better curve than others.
I'm not making this up.
For the technical types here.. the LED's were reverse biased so that the clipping level would modulate the FM transmitter just to 100% -clipping all the signals present in a stereo FM signal right to a flat-line.
Much of the harmonics produced in this process would be up in 'never never land' since theres virtually no upper limit to the frequency response of the FM exciter at this point.
A few years later, Modulation Sciences produced a product which did the same thing. Didn't use LED's but otherwise the same.
Please don't get me wrong, I don't like this approach, but it is a fact that if loudness is your goal you can achieve it with less audible processing than by really hammering it with a 3-band compressor followed by a peak limiter.
So the point is that 'commercial' success of a record is frequently associated with how loud it plays, on the radio and apparently now on a home system.
-kim
| By thecount (64.53.165.115) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 04:42 pm: |
SUE,The question i was asking was if the the entire cd was dissapointing,or only some tracks?
Well,i just got back about an hour or so ago and purchased two,one to play,and the other never to open,and to keep as a collectors item.I'am hearing things, which I can see now,that is being debated.With the head phones on,there is some glitches,but it is the feeling i'am hearing and untill the remix is available,if there is to be one,I'am happy with what I've got.Mainly because I hope the group gets their due royalties from this,and the same with the movie.Thanx anyhow SUE(Susie-Q) "COUNT"
| By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 05:02 pm: |
Count,
The CD isn't disappointing at all -- see how something like this spreads? An opinion has somehow become etched in stone. Listen to Millie and me, and the two Steves. It's well worth it to buy -- ask SteveS how many he's bought and distributed!
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 07:11 pm: |
Well we're still getting mixed messages. Please do not misundersand me. I am not trying to play Devil's Advocate here. I am genuinely interested in hearing the comments.
Sue: I did try to buy it today but the store that was handy for me today did not have it. At first the guy didn't know what I was talking about. He took me to a Motown section and looked but it wasn't there. He thought he sold the only one he had.
Clay: As always your comments are welcome and appreciated. Who would know better than you?? Your future comments will be interesting.
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 07:15 pm: |
Kim,
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. Thanks for your piece. A good lesson on how audio " works ".
| By SteveS (68.41.251.33) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 07:49 pm: |
43
| By Sue (205.188.209.38) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 08:44 pm: |
SteveS has bought 43 SITSOM soundtracks and distributed them. He's also taken countless people to the movie. Oh but Steve, you're not a sound engineer, you don't know what's good.
On the other side of the fence -- those few of you who've discouraged people like the Count from buying the soundtrack because of what you wrote about here -- for shame. The Funks are finally getting some money from this CD.
| By Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 09:01 pm: |
Cut the CRAP Sue.
If when you have recorded and mixed as many records as Clay, Russ, Artie and I then you can speak with some authority. You like the CD, I like the music but know it can be better the proof is on the film and the trailer. The FUNKS deserve nothing less.
You certainly know writing, please don't make comments about what you obviously don't understand.
The reason we are all making these comments is for the FUNKS.
The objective measurements say it all.
Ed
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.41.27) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 09:06 pm: |
Ed,
I suggest that you try the Charles Boyer tone of voice.
Mike McLean
| By larry (12.141.160.25) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 09:15 pm: |
Guys,
What's on Sue's mind is mondo CD and box-office sales. The mindset is Celebration and Recognition, which everyone wants for the Funk Brothers.
Ed brought up the quality of the CD.
The rub? Timing.
IMHO
| By DMore (63.188.32.164) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 09:24 pm: |
Reading these threads certainly has opened my eyes, needless to say, I will not be buying nor recommending the SITSOM CD. Thanxs for the 411.
| By larry (12.141.160.25) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 09:44 pm: |
Dmore,
This debate was started by Ed Wolfrum, a perfectionist about sound comparing the CD to the Trailer. He's made valid points.
That said, Buy the CD! Why?
it's good.
it's the Funk Brothers playing their asses off 30+ years later!
Rare track "The Flick".
Breakdown of the original Bernadette.
Rare Instrumental: You Keep Me Hangin' On.
Like I told my email database:
It's time to pay the tab...
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:39 pm: |
Ed and Sue,
You both need to settle down a little. Please! We are all interested in the long awaited recognition of the Brothers. I am NOT advocating the discontinued sale of the Cd. I have heard many positive reviews from the forum members.
I will allow this thread for a while longer, but lets be objective and civil. Which ever way the questions regarding the CD are answered I feel Allen will have adequate information to make any possible decisions. Whatever he decides, I will back him fully and would hope that the members of the forum do likewise.
| By David Meikle (213.122.164.97) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 03:54 am: |
Dmore is yet another alias of you know who.
We're almost into double figures. Maybe he'll run out of options soon.
If this forum has taught me nothing else...keep your eyes open for the "wind-up merchants" aka "assholes".
| By Lynn Bruce (64.53.143.164) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 08:37 am: |
The smart thing for EVERYONE to do is buy the C.D. immediately like the Count did just in-case they do re-mix it.
If you do that then you may just have a collectors C.D. when the smoke dies down.
The thing I don't like is the raw feelings right now.
The thing I do like is we all want the best for the Funk Bros.
SLAINTE VA, Lynn
| By LTLFTC (12.245.225.79) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 10:35 am: |
My (possibly) final thoughts on the Soundtrack cd. I DO see the cd as one piece of a multi-media attempt to obtain CREDIT and RECOGNITION for the Funk Bros. It (along with the Film, the accompanying media attention, dialogues such as these etc), will hopefully steer new listeners to the CLASSIC DEFINITIVE versions of these songs. Also, by putting names and faces with the music, this effort will enable we veteran fans to re-hear the classics with fresh ears.
The Royal Oak Theatre is not the Snakepit. Bootsy , with all due love and respect , is not the Contours. When I want to experience the mystery and majesty of "Grapevine" I'm not going to be reaching for the Ben Harper version (again with all due respect)etc.etc. Even the most top-notch renditions on the disc ("...Brokenhearted" , "...Mountain") are just that - Renditions. Kick ass , quality renditions , but renditions nonetheless. I'm amazed at the justice done to these masterpieces in a live setting - yet another tribute to the Funk Brothers AND the guest vocalists , but the overriding theme here seems to be one of tribute.
"Yeah, these guys can still kick it, these guest vocalists are pretty good, and some of these versions are pretty hot and playful like a good live version should be("Shotgun") , but now go back and dig the Definitive Versions". In short , it does everything I've always looked for in "Live" albums.
Re; the audio - This version of ,for example , "Reach Out..." in no way compares to the original 4 Tops version , sonically. However, this cd sound is far superior to the sound of the original 45 after three or four plays on my $29.95 Woolworth record player with 85 cents taped to the tone arm. I'm sure that rendered the finer audio qualities obsolete. Thankfully, I was too busy enjoying myself at the time to know how bad I had it. And , thankfully now , I'm able to obtain quality cd re-issues of the awesome Tops version. Hopefully, the attention this whole project is receiving will enable new listeners to experience the magic I've been fortunate enough to experience. It was absolutely amazing to be able to hear Jack Ashford and Joe Hunter talk for 40 MINUTES (no soundbites or excerpted quotes) on NPR's "Fresh Air" the other day; this all relates.
By the way, in my last post when I said that , for me , "Bernadette" and "....Hangin' On" were worth the price of the cd, that was no figure of speech - I meant that literally.
peaceout
Steve K.
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 10:55 am: |
Steve,
Thanks for your input. You have given this issue a fresh perspective that makes a lot of sense.
| By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 11:32 am: |
Ralph & Company:
While we all have our opinions and (legit) concerns regarding the sound of the CD (& I have given by two cents in the last HELP thread), we should remain focused on the following:
1)There's a movie out there that needs our support and push to make sure more than enough people see this wonderful story of the Funks.
2)There's a CD soundtrack that is gonna need our push especially with the holiday season upon us (the SITSOM CD would make a great stocking-stuffer) - regardless of how we feel about the sound.
I understand that we all want the best for the Funks & the desire to adhere to Motown's QC standards. But right now the best for us to do is get more folks to see the movie & buy the CD soundtrack, which is what we could be doing besides (and instead of) debating on issues we have no control over.
Regards,
KevGo
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.40.120) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 12:12 pm: |
FIRST MOVIE REPORT
Larry and I saw SITSOM last night at the Regent Theatre in Hollywood. Larry loaned me the CD, and I just opened the case. There is no CD inside. It must be sitting in his CD changer. Damn! Now I will have to go down tonight and pick it up.
No great harm done, because I was planning on waiting until I have enough time to write up a fairly comprehensive report on my findings regarding both the film and the CD.
This present posting is to present a couple of little points that I found very interesting:
1. I sure didn't feel left out of the picture. That panel with the five VU meters down in the "snake-pit," just to the right of the little set of stairs, was on screen almost constantly. It is the guitar amplifier unit that I designed, and about which I posted a detailed report on the forum. That report is somewhere in the archives.
2. I was astounded when I spotted an old classical LP in the film that has great significance to me and to Richard Cogger, the fellow who designed the "DM system." That is the DM number that may be found on many of the vintage Motown 45 RPM pressings.
Back in 1955, when we were pals at the age of 14, my Dad purchased an LP album with which I fell in love. It featured a section in which a narrator, speaking in German, made a very dramatic speech, accompanied by the orchestra, about joyfully marching toward certain death in battle. It sounded exactly like a speech by Adolph Hitler.
Beethoven
Music to Goethe's "Egmont", Op. 84 (Complete)
Magda Laszlo, Soprano, Fred Liewehr, Narrator
Orchestra of the Vienna State Opera
Conducted by Hermann Scherchen
WESTMINSTER WL 5281 (Mono LP)
I played this record for Cogger, and he loved it so much that he ran right out and purchased a copy for himself. We used to play it quite often for about a year.
The LP jacket is too big for my scanner, so I could only capture an image of the left three fifths of the album cover. Here it is:
In SITSOM, about 5 minutes from the start of the film, there are a series of shots taken in a record shop that obviously carries used classical LP records. These shots are "man in the street" interviews in which customers are asked if they ever heard of the Funk Brothers. In several of the shots, there is a used LP bin in which this record is clearly visible at the front of the stack. It is very easy to find because of the red color, and because it happens that the place to look for it on the screen is exactly at the bottom right corner of the screen.
The very unusual black shape, which suggests some kind of ax-like weapon, in which the word BEETHOVEN is placed in white letters, was a dead give away. I recognized the album instantly.
Needless to say, my mind was blown away. This was the last thing in the world that I expected to discover.
I made a forum posting stating that I didn't recognize Johnny Griffith. After seeing a picture of him in the movie that was taken back in the early 1960's, I recognized him instantly. Now I feel horrible about our losing him. He was a very nice fellow. We had many little conversations over the years. He was a modest man, and perhaps that is why he didn't make as big an impression on me as Benny or Jamerson. I also felt very bad to learn that Robert White has passed away. He was a very fine fellow.
It was a thrill to see Paul Riser, the arranger. He was on camera quite a bit. He made an impression on me, in the old days, of being a very well educated, well-mannered, decent, and intelligent person. I admired him very much, as did Richard Cogger. Paul hasn't changed.
In general, I was very deeply moved by the film. I had tears in my eyes several times. Two performances that stood out for me were "What Becomes Of The Broken Hearted," (what a magnificent song) and "What's Going On" (this was the first time that I ever realized what a beautiful track this is.)
That lady singer who sang "What Becomes Of The Broken Hearted," and who reminded me a little of Janis Joplin, really lit my fire. When she starts singing, her face lights up and, low and behold, you see a very attractive woman indeed.
I have to go to work. Perhaps tonight I can get the "technical report" put together.
God bless the Funks!
Mike McLean
| By LTLFTC (12.245.225.79) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 12:46 pm: |
The Record Store in the Film is Encore Records in Ann Arbor , a WONDERFUL used record store that carries all kinds of music.
Steve K.
| By Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 01:14 pm: |
Well Gang,
I did the waveform compare of Bernadette...From the MOTOWN BOX Set and then the SISOM CD. Both digital transfers from the CD's. The files were then dropped into the editor and lined up at the final pickup; at the refrain BERNADETTE. I then aligned the waveforms to the peak of the first cycle at that point. This was a good alignment point.
The MOTOWN box set version (top) is mono and has what appears to be good waveform integrity. Jamerson sounds FAT and full also.
When I looked at the WAVEFORM on the SITSOM CD, which starts with Jamerson's famous bass line, it was immeadiatly apparent why Jamerson did not sound like Jamerson to Artie or me.
As may be observed, the positive going waveform is severely clipped. I don't know why this was not sonically apparent to the mixer? Lack of accurate monitoring perhaps? Or perhaps, could this be intentional? I would hope not. Was this a Picasso mix, Mike?
I would catch HOLY HELL at United or Artie's if I did not catch this. At Motown, Clay would have my head on a stick.
With this amount of waveform distortion a spectral plot would be overkill.
Also, the music ahead of the alignment did not hold sync. Unless there were severe speed problems on the machine in the original mix, and the SISOM CD Mix, which I doubt; as I know what a stickler Mike was for maintainance, and today's machine are very stable speed wise, sync on two identical tracks should be better.
What I discovered is that the tempos go in an out of sync on the two versions. Perhaps this WAS and alternate take as was pointed out earlier on the thread. At points they were amazingly in sync however. I would not expect this variation in a 3 minute tune. Perhaps there was some editing on the original or the SITSOM version.
Others, if you have the capability...Please try this at home.
Again, intellegent technical comments are solicited.
Ed Wolfrum
| By LTLFTC (12.245.225.79) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 01:36 pm: |
Ed ; Is it possible the tempos going in and out of sync may be the result of the finished master we're familiar with being two different takes spliced together?
Also, I'm showing my technical ignorance here, but could the SITSOM waveform integrity be affected by the fact that instruments are constantly being ridden in and out of the mix?
Steve K.
| By Ed Wolfrum (165.247.228.73) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 02:01 pm: |
Hello Steve,
Yes, to your first comment, as I noted in the post. Both Russ and I used to edit like that. So that MAY be it but if you listen, there are other variables.
Regarding the waveform. No, riding level in the mix would not cause that waveform problem. Either it was intentional(?), or there were technical problems that the mixer did not hear. It actually looks (and sounds) like one side of a transformerless opamp output driver has gone south!
Ed
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 02:18 pm: |
Well it seems what I'm seeing on this thread is both positive and negative comments regarding the CD. Tell you what gang. I think even if it were re-mixed this could be a case of not pleasing all the people all the time. I think it is time to end this debate. I know Allen has a lot invested here and I'm sure his devotion to getting recognition for the Brothers is second to none. Because of that I think he and this project need the full support of the forum. Lets shut this mother down.
| By M.McLeanTech (64.236.243.31) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 03:23 pm: |
Ralph,
That works for me. Now I don't need to borrow the CD from Larry.
Mike McLean
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 07:17 pm: |
Glad to be of service Mike.OK...this thread is officially closed.....closed.....closed.....DO NOT POST PLEASE*************************
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.42.38) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 10:51 pm: |
Ralph,
In the above post, you failed to put a space between the period at the end of the first sentence, and the start of the second sentence.
Instead of: ...Mike.OK...
It should have been: ...Mike. OK...
I don't like to be a nit picker but, without putting too fine a point on it, I must say that attention to these sorts of things is something that we all have to take into consideration because, if we don't, what will happen to the fine qualities that are an inherant part of this world?
I feel that I have a right to the last word on the basis that you made the first move: You closed off this thread, and removed my opportunity to have a space in which to shoot my mouth off.
You can't do that without my responding in kind:
You removed my space, so I point out the fact that you forgot a space!
You may be able to tune Ashkanazy's piano, but I see through this front: you are "spaced" out.
I suppose that I will hear more crickets now.
Oh well...
Love ya Ralph.
Mike McLean
| By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 11:07 pm: |
Mike,.-:?
You still make me laugh.
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.42.38) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 11:25 pm: |
Ed,
Let's get the HELP 3 thread going again!
I felt that the film was wonderful. It moved me to tears. I know that you felt the same way. I can tell by the way that you construct your prose.
I have great respect for your opinion (frankly, you are the only person on the forum that I feel actually understands how I feel about high fidelity recording,) and on this basis (bless Ralph Seltzer) I want to ask you a very serious and sincere question:
I have noticed in the past that two levels existed in the case of case of home video formats: high end and consumer.
I am speaking of Laserdisk and VHS.
Both of these formats have now merged into DVD.
SITSOM has been released in two formats: first run cinema, and the CD soundtrack album.
Is it possible that a future DVD release will make it possible for the most elete and dedicated quality lovers to enjoy all the possibilities that have been discussed?
I want to know how you feel about this possibility.
I love ya buddy,
Mike McLean
| By Jay Palmer (167.167.44.218) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 04:53 am: |
I am sure glad this thread is STILL alive!
Mike you said DVD�.You were Soooo right!
I posted yesterday (or-so-I-thought) and did NOT hit "post" after previewing! Grrr...
Long post here I hope some of you get my gist. :-)
Depending on the film-makers and content-owners wishes, there is quite a strong likelyhood of getting good audio on the DVD. Usually the 5.1 sound track is directly taken from the theatrical uncompressed master version.
When the editors conform the sound to the actual video picture, they usually find snarfs and undesired sounds that were really NOT heard on the dub stage. They usually fix them along with any sloppy reel change transitions.
If the movie sound track was made with ANY forethought to the DVD release then it was done in video master mode. ie: 29.97 frame rate, 48KHZ sample rate and 24 bit resolution.
Unfortunately this usually does not happen and the A/D,D/A and sample rate conversions conspire to give something akin-to, and even-worse-than, analog "generation loss".
Then, the AC3 compression selection 384, 448 kbps etc. (The higher the number the more hi-fi) is selected for available "space" on the disk. If there are numerous "director's" comments, outtakes, stills etc. then the audio resolution will usually suffer!
Also, as I mentioned to Ed yesterday, the 2 track on the DVD, the one that could get decoded as Pro-Logic L,C,R,S 4 track, is NOT usually printed to the DVD.
What happens is that through the magic of Dolby,
a Left and Right channel (Lt, Rt) is "down-mixed" from the 5.1 track to be played in:
1. Mono,
2. 2 track stereo, or
3. 4 track matrix decoded L,C,R,S
It is actively �down-mixed� automatically INSIDE your home player.
This is solely at the discretion of the producers and content owners as they CAN request a real 2 track to also be carried on the DVD disk.
Now, that said, the other theatrical 2 track that exists is made for optical film reproduction. So it is level and sometimes frequency limited and NOT full range.
The best 2 track mixes for DVD I have been involved with were separate mixes from the 6 track 5.1 uncompressed master (better yet would be from the Dia, Mx, Efx, Stems directly!)
A new, wide range, 2 track Lt Rt would be mixed and THIS my friends, would KICK ASS on the SITSOM movie!
And it would also give you 2 track CD sufferers,
a track derived DIRECTLY from the movie mix that you could actually listen to!
I really hope that some of this makes sense as there may be some hope for the DVD mix!
Now if by chance the ship has not already �sailed� (DVD Mastered that is), I can be reached to help advise in this DVD process. We do this stuff all day long and it would be a real travesty to fuck it up!
Sincerely,
Jay Palmer
| By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.230) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 05:46 am: |
Jay,
What a thrill to hear some talk on the forum that is from folks like myself that actually have to slave away to get out quality product for the major entertainment companies.
You and I both know how intensly the system of high bucks audio technology is driven from the top down.
Those fellows with a vision, at the top, make all us professionals do what we need to do to make it happen. That is the way it is for me now.
It was not that way at Motown, in the early 60's, when I was responsible to Berry to take care of whatever was needed to assure that the studios were up to snuff.
This forum is more fun then a bucket full of pot!
By the time you attempt to establish a position, as a politition (first, you must learn to spell,)
you will become aware that, as I was told when I hired on at TODD-AO, in 1979: "We're all whores, so take the money and run!
The Funks took what Berry offered them, and today they are capable of making a documentary film that is as fine as I have ever seen. And I mean this on an objective basis. Sure: The climbing of Mount Everest by Roger Bannister was great! And the breaking of the four minute mile record by Sir Edmond Hillery was stunning.
Still, in that theatre, the Funks are unique.
I awoke from the position of the Queen. I saw the film.
I used to preach that I was worthless.
Now I preach that I know of the best movie in town. I follow my followers over to the theatre, and I remember that I was welcome in the projection booth yesterday, so I might as well sit down and enjoy the show.
Mike McLean
| By mc5rules (148.61.97.30) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 09:54 am: |
I've got an idea: why don't we ALL go out and buy the current CD, and then later we can all go out and buy the re-mix. That way, the funks get double-dipped on the royalties! And ultimately that's what it's about for me, making sure those wonderful men get their due.
| By LTLFTC (12.245.225.79) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 12:18 pm: |
Roger Bannister climbing Mt Everest ? heheheheh, I love it. Hey ,isn't this thread closed?
Steve K.
| By RALPH (209.240.198.62) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 01:33 pm: |
This thread was supposed to be closed but Mike seems to have inspired a renewel. Tell you what......I'm going to start a new thread to continue here, but will give it the whimsical name of ( get ready now ) TECHNICAL CHAT . I'm sure Mike will be so overjoyed that he may need a hit of Oxygen....or Boo?
CLOSED AGAIN*************closed********GO TO...TECHNICAL CHAT......CLOSED....&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&REALLY TRULY CLOSED***********