Worst sounding/produced big hit

[johnbasalla]

"Updated" re-records are the bottom of the barrel as far as I'm concerned. More often then not, I've found that the newly minted re-records are inferior in almost every way to the original. This is because the new versions are often super-cheap productions. The producers are not working that hard to make it as good. Couple that with the original singers not being able to sing as well as they used to, and some mixes and production elements making it a far cry from the hit you loved, and you've got the makings of garbage from beginning to end. How could they sell a 3-CD set of "Hits from the 1950s" or whatever for a bargain basement price unless the recordings they have were done dirt cheap to begin with? I have personally never heard one of these remakes that was better then the original hit. If you know of some, please share what they are and on what CD and I will try to take a listen. Used record stores in my area often have these CDs and they don't mind playing a track from it in the store if a customer asks, so I won't be out any bucks. I'd actually love to hear one of these re-recordings being equal to -- or better -- then the original.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Talk_dude said, "Radio has done a wonderful job so far, in maintaining their libraries to originality."

Maybe where YOU live, but I've heard "oldies stations" who pay little attention to "originals." Many "original" Roger Miller cuts seem to be no longer avaiilable. There are others.

No, I didn't say that, Prais said it.

"Updated" re-records are the bottom of the barrel as far as I'm concerned. More often then not, I've found that the newly minted re-records are inferior in almost every way to the original. This is because the new versions are often super-cheap productions. The producers are not working that hard to make it as good. Couple that with the original singers not being able to sing as well as they used to, and some mixes and production elements making it a far cry from the hit you loved, and you've got the makings of garbage from beginning to end. How could they sell a 3-CD set of "Hits from the 1950s" or whatever for a bargain basement price unless the recordings they have were done dirt cheap to begin with? I have personally never heard one of these remakes that was better then the original hit. If you know of some, please share what they are and on what CD and I will try to take a listen. Used record stores in my area often have these CDs and they don't mind playing a track from it in the store if a customer asks, so I won't be out any bucks. I'd actually love to hear one of these re-recordings being equal to -- or better -- then the original.

When you're talking about recordings from the 1950's, I won't get into an argument over whether the original that was recorded in mono in a single take is better or worse than a remake made on superior equipment. Most of the old recordings were crap when they were new, and the remakes are also pretty crappy. Arguing over which is technically superior is an exercise in futility. Besides, no matter how good the original recording's fidelity might have been, hearing it on a 45 rpm record player with a little dinky speaker after the disc was stacked on a changer and scratched to hell and back or else listening to it on an AM radio station over a pocket sized transistor radio with a little 2" PM speaker or worse, one of those primitive old ear plugs, the quality of the original recording doesn't really make much difference.

 

[oldies76]

How could they sell a 3-CD set of "Hits from the 1950s" or whatever for a bargain basement price unless the recordings they have were done dirt cheap to begin with? I have personally never heard one of these remakes that was better then the original hit. If you know of some, please share what they are and on what CD and I will try to take a listen.

Agreed.

I doubt you'll ever find any.....the original radio versions are what people tend to remember that lived during any given time. Why would one buy a CD, marked with ** "selections are new-stereo recordings" (assuming they read the bottom print) vs. an original record company catalog item or download. People who lived in the 50's, know how "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" originally sounded, vs some cheap remake done years later to be produced on K-Tel records or budget CD's.

 

[oldies76]

Besides, no matter how good the original recording's fidelity might have been, hearing it on a 45 rpm record player with a little dinky speaker after the disc was stacked on a changer and scratched to hell and back or else listening to it on an AM radio station over a pocket sized transistor radio with a little 2" PM speaker or worse, one of those primitive old ear plugs, the quality of the original recording doesn't really make much difference.

That was the technology then, but it's still an original version. That's the version that was and maybe still is popular today on radio.

I believe these budget CD's are catered to people who do not have an adequate background in oldies and are willing to spend very little, to hear "some form" of an older song. They probably think it's the correct song and could care less. But these versions should never be played on radio, since it was never originally released this way, on radio.

 

[hornet61]

And if we're going back to the 50s for Nervous Norvus, how about "Jennie Lee" (1958) by Jan and Dean (or more correctly, Jan and Arnie)? Supposedly recorded in a garage. Definitely sounds like it.

"recorded in a a garage by"......Herb Alpert..........good catch on the Jan and Arnie(Ginsberg), Dean Torrance was away at Boot Camp, or so the story goes.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Besides, no matter how good the original recording's fidelity might have been, hearing it on a 45 rpm record player with a little dinky speaker after the disc was stacked on a changer and scratched to hell and back or else listening to it on an AM radio station over a pocket sized transistor radio with a little 2" PM speaker or worse, one of those primitive old ear plugs, the quality of the original recording doesn't really make much difference.

That was the technology then, but it's still an original version. That's the version that was and maybe still is popular today on radio.

I believe these budget CD's are catered to people who do not have an adequate background in oldies and are willing to spend very little, to hear "some form" of an older song. They probably think it's the correct song and could care less. But these versions should never be played on radio, since it was never originally released this way, on radio.

Then they also should never be played on FM radio, since they were originally played on AM radio, and never listened to on anything other than an old transister radio, since that's what they were listened to originally.

When you figure that the people who were teenagers when the 60's oldies were new are now in or near their 60's, are you saying that the memories of the subtle nuances of the sound of those old songs are absolutely fresh in the minds of those aging Baby Boomers? I am a aging Baby Boomer myself, and when I hear those old songs today all I can think of is "I can't believe we put up with such crappy sound back then".

 

[johnbasalla]

Talk-Dude's experience is not my experience. I listened to music on little speakers as mentioned, but didn't mind because it didn't sound as bad (to me) as was mentioned. Even back then, and certainly today, I have much better equipment to listen on. Therefore, I can't agree with the assertion that so many of the records were produced poorly. A well produced record, in good shape, and of course its CD reissue sound great. There are far more well produced records then there are truly lousy ones. In fact, some records with some rough edges, particularly in Rock and R&B, are preferable to those that are over-produced. Oftentimes, the problem with these modern new-stereo recordings is precisely because the production values aren't as good as the original. Even though they were recorded on superior equipment, they still pale next to the serious original hit.

On the issue of who buys these re-recordings, I think a lot of people are hoodwinked and only when they get home and put the CD into the player do they go "Ugh!". Think about this, if it was a strong selling point that these are "new stereo recordings with one or more members of the original groups", then they'd put it in big print right on the front, instead of what is actually done, on the back or within the booklet, down a the bottom in the smallest print possible.

 

[Prais]

John Basalla said; "There are far more well produced records then there are truly lousy ones."

I was thinking of GREAT sounding hit records;

First few that come to mind;
Mercy - Love Can Make You Happy
Herb Alpert - What Now My Love
5 Stairsteps - Ooo Child
Lots of Sergio Mendes 45's
Lots of Buddah 45's

 

[stevations]

Someone mentioned phasing problems a few pages back on this topic. What about songs that used phasing on purpose, was it a good thing? Some songs that had phasing were....The Big Hurt by Toni Fisher......Listen to the Music by Doobie Bros.......Sky Pilot 45 version only......Pictures of Matchstick Men by Status Quo. I liked the sound. Later years club DJs would get two copies of the same dance songs and use the technics 1200 turntables to do live phasing playing both songs at once. It had the advantage of cutting down the bass for a few minutes that helped the people who heard loud thumpin all night long. I think the average person did not take much notice in the clubs or maybe they thought something was wrong? Other DJs in the club would be saying...cool! Of course the original phasing was probably when you heard AM signals at night fading in and out from far away cities.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Talk-Dude's experience is not my experience. I listened to music on little speakers as mentioned, but didn't mind because it didn't sound as bad (to me) as was mentioned.

Actually, what you just said is what I was getting at. I never realized at the time the oldies were new that they sounded like crap. It wasn't until my sonic taste matured thanks to hearing good recordings of much better songs on FM radio and/or good sound systems that I realized how bad the old stuff sounded. It's like someone who only ate TV dinners thinking that's how food was supposed to taste finally getting a chance to eat properly cooked food and realizing that frozen TV dinners really sucked. That's why I said, "I am a aging Baby Boomer myself, and when I hear those old songs today all I can think of is 'I can't believe we put up with such crappy sound back then'."

 

[johnbasalla]

Thank you for the explanation, however I'm just not buying the "they all sounded bad"-thing. Elvis Presley's hits were mostly well produced. The quality of the mega double sided hit "Don't Be Cruel"/ "Hound Dog" is top notch. The Flamingos haunting (thanks in large part to the production) "I Only Have Eyes For You" is compelling. My favorites from the 1950s are great sounding records (in my opinion, of course). They would include "Rockin' Robin" by Bobby Day (much more powerful then the lame bubblegum version by Michael Jackson in the early 1970s)... "The Happy Organ" by Dave "Baby" Cortez! The nice clear and crisp organ coupled with the rockin' guitar bridge that was purposely downplayed in the mix, and works to a charm... "Little Darlin'" by The Diamonds succeeds where the actual original by the Gladiolas fails, and that is in the impeccable bright and shiny production. Then there's my favorite pre-Beatles 1960s hit "The Night Has A Thousand Eyes" by Bobby Vee. This is a powerful piece of pop music because of the production values. It's a phenomenal sounding record. I could go on, but I'm sure the point has been made.

 

[oldies76]

Then they also should never be played on FM radio, since they were originally played on AM radio, and never listened to on anything other than an old transister radio, since that's what they were listened to originally.

Remastered songs heard on FM are not the same as the crappy re-records on budget CD's. Remastered meaning, stereo enhanced versions, but otherwise EXACTLY the same as mono versions. The recently released Beatles catalog is a great example.

 

[oldies76]

When you figure that the people who were teenagers when the 60's oldies were new are now in or near their 60's, are you saying that the memories of the subtle nuances of the sound of those old songs are absolutely fresh in the minds of those aging Baby Boomers?

No, but I believe most that lived then as young adults or teens can remember very well a legitimate Crystals song vs. a fake "years later" produced re-record. I suppose maybe for someone who really wasn't into the music then, could really not tell which version is legit today, but most should.

 

[oldies76]

I am a aging Baby Boomer myself, and when I hear those old songs today all I can think of is "I can't believe we put up with such crappy sound back then".

But living then, it didn't sound "crappy" because that was the best sound available "then" on those 45's played on the radio. When I was listening to the radio in the mid 70's, those hits then sounded fine..even on AM...it was the best we had then and we were accustomed to it.

Maybe in 40 years, the sound of 2000-2010 will sound "crappy" to those listeners.

 

[Silkie]

I don't think the sounds of 50's, 60's and 70's or even some 80's will ever sound bad, regardless the medium.

 

[Talk_Dude]

I am a aging Baby Boomer myself, and when I hear those old songs today all I can think of is "I can't believe we put up with such crappy sound back then".

But living then, it didn't sound "crappy" because that was the best sound available "then" on those 45's played on the radio. When I was listening to the radio in the mid 70's, those hits then sounded fine..even on AM...it was the best we had then and we were accustomed to it.

Maybe in 40 years, the sound of 2000-2010 will sound "crappy" to those listeners.

I can't agree with that. When I was a teenager in the 1960's, most of our parents had good stereos in the living room, even if they were big pieces of furniture instead of component systems. My dad was a classical music fan, and his recordings of things like the 1812 Overture on albums were very good technically. But we kids listened to our music on "record players", on scratched 45's, on on cheap transistor radios tuned to crappy sounding AM stations.

Even though I didn't develop good listening discernment about sound quality, I could tell the difference between what the "beautiful music" FM stations sounded like compared to what the AM Top 40 stations sounded like. That's why I switched to listening to FM stations as soon as they started playing rock music, and I left AM and Top 40 behind forever.

I really doubt that the sound quality of recordings today will ever be surpassed to any major degree. Future innovations will make recordings more economical, easier to play, and more convenient, but current state of the art has already hit the limit of the human ear to discern differences. Unless humans evolve better ears, we won't be able to detect any improvements in things like tone or frequency response.

I don't think the sounds of 50's, 60's and 70's or even some 80's will ever sound bad, regardless the medium.

The 1910 Fruitgum Company sounded like crap when it was new. It will continue to sound like crap forever. What everyone seems to forget is that there is only so much that technical improvements in recording and playback equipment can accomplish. Nothing will make a bad song or a singer with a crappy voice sound good. Neil Young's voice will always sound like fingernails on a blackboard. Nothing will change that. You can't polish a turd.

By the same token, the really good music of the 60's and 70's, like the Beatles, Moody Blues, Springsteen, and hundreds of other artists, will always sound good, even if the technical quality isn't totally perfect.

 

[oldies76]

The 1910 Fruitgum Company sounded like crap when it was new. It will continue to sound like crap forever. What everyone seems to forget is that there is only so much that technical improvements in recording and playback equipment can accomplish. Nothing will make a bad song or a singer with a crappy voice sound good.

Don't count them out just yet...#4 in '68 with Simon Says, #5 in '68 with 1-2-3 Red Light, #5 in '69 with Indian Giver...etc..etc.....Bubblegum & dated for sure, but obviously not "crap" for the masses that bought these 45's then.

Are you talking about the actual singing quality (poor voice tone, off tune..etc..) or the fact that many of these late 60's 45's played on radio then, were hard surfaced, non-flex 45's that distort on high notes and treble, therefore sounding bad anyways, regardless of how the song was sung?

 

[Talk_Dude]

The 1910 Fruitgum Company sounded like crap when it was new. It will continue to sound like crap forever. What everyone seems to forget is that there is only so much that technical improvements in recording and playback equipment can accomplish. Nothing will make a bad song or a singer with a crappy voice sound good.

Don't count them out just yet...#4 in '68 with Simon Says, #5 in '68 with 1-2-3 Red Light, #5 in '69 with Indian Giver...etc..etc.....Bubblegum & dated for sure, but obviously not "crap" for the masses that bought these 45's then.

Are you talking about the actual singing quality (poor voice tone, off tune..etc..) or the fact that many of these late 60's 45's played on radio then, were hard surfaced, non-flex 45's that distort on high notes and treble, therefore sounding bad anyways, regardless of how the song was sung?

I'm talking bad tune, bad lyrics, bad vocal tone, bad instrumental tone, and pretty much everything else that could possibly be bad in the sound of a song. If the best musicians and vocalists in the world were to remake any of the songs from any of the "artists" in the Kastenetz-Katz stable of performers, using the finest instruments and the best, state-of-the-art recording equipment operated only by the most talented and experienced technicians available, the songs would still suck. Yes, the masses of 13 and 14 year olds who wouldn't recognize good music if they heard it did throw away a lot of their money on buying that crap, which only proves that 13 and 14 year olds have terrible taste. It also proves that as long as some record company suit convinces enough radio program directors to put a piece of crap on the air, teenyboppers would buy it.

Granted, the non-flex 45 format might have made a bad thing worse. Sadly, my younger siblings were stupid enough to buy the actual albums, which meant my ears were assaulted by that insipid noise far more often than I would have liked.

 

[Prais]

Johnbasalla said, "I'm just not buying the "they all sounded bad"-thing. "

_____
CORRECT! Having played that crap on the radio, the tech stuff was EXCELLENT!!
______
Talk_dude said, "I'm talking bad tune, bad lyrics, bad vocal tone, bad instrumental tone, and pretty much everything else that could possibly be bad in the sound of a song."

Well your evaluation is certainly SUBJECTIVE. You were nOT a 12 year old girl in 1968. (me either) but, I can vouch for great highs and lows, great s/n, great response, deep grooves, great recording trechnology.

I agree about the artistic stuff you mentioned, but the tech stuff was EXCELLENT.

Buddah had great recording and reproduction, great A&R aand distribution, too.I lived through it all.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Talk_dude said, "I'm talking bad tune, bad lyrics, bad vocal tone, bad instrumental tone, and pretty much everything else that could possibly be bad in the sound of a song."

Well your evaluation is certainly SUBJECTIVE. You were nOT a 12 year old girl in 1968. (me either) but, I can vouch for great highs and lows, great s/n, great response, deep grooves, great recording trechnology.

I agree about the artistic stuff you mentioned, but the tech stuff was EXCELLENT.

Buddah had great recording and reproduction, great A&R aand distribution, too.I lived through it all.

Like I said, no matter how good the equipment, you can't polish a turd.