Worst sounding/produced big hit

[oldies76]

No, you're talking about "hits", as if songs were race horses. I'm talking about music. There's a big, big difference.

The "hits" of the 60's ARE music. And the album cuts, and the symphonies, and the musicals on broadway??? Your Point?? Race Horses?? We're going around in circles here.

 

[LibertyNT]

In my humble opinion, I've heard 45's and 33's that surpass the audio quality of today's recordings.

If you took good care of the records, they sounded good forever.
I play Oldies. Only the original recordings, and still use Vinyl.

Case Closed. Re-Recordings made years after the fact suck because they do not and cannot ever sound the same. The Instruments and Vocals are usually off.

I despise New Stereo Recordings By The Original Artists.

 

[Talk_Dude]

No, you're talking about "hits", as if songs were race horses. I'm talking about music. There's a big, big difference.

The "hits" of the 60's ARE music. And the album cuts, and the symphonies, and the musicals on broadway??? Your Point?? Race Horses?? We're going around in circles here.

The hits of the '60's are a teeny, tiny subset of all the music that was recorded. A few posts back, one of the defenses of the bubblegum factory that was Kastenetz-Katz pointed out that many of the album cuts that weren't hits actually had musical merit.

The tiny little subset of all the recordings made that the suits in the record industry decided to throw against the wall as singles competed against each other like race horses. It didn't matter so much if a song was good or bad, it also mattered what it was up against when it was released. Great songs got lost in the shuffle because they were either up against even greater songs, or worse, they were up against manufactured teen idols that made the girls in junior high school experience new feelings they couldn't understand. When songs become hits because the prefab "hit factory" linked the song to some heartthrob of pubescent teenyboppers, or because it was also played on a Saturday morning cartoon show, while songs by artists with real talent can't get airplay because they're not short enough, you're no longer talking about music as a form of artistic expression, you're talking about music as a disposable commodity.

The AM Top 40 hits were, for the most part, to music what a greasy Big Mac is to food.

 

[landtuna]

The AM Top 40 hits were, for the most part, to music what a greasy Big Mac is to food.

Top 40 has always been about popularity, not "quality".

 

[Talk_Dude]

The AM Top 40 hits were, for the most part, to music what a greasy Big Mac is to food.

Top 40 has always been about popularity, not "quality".

Well Duh! No one is saying it isn't. Of course Top 40 is about popularity and pandering to the lowest common denominator. I never said it wasn't. I'm only saying that pandering to the lowest common denominator is nothing to be proud of.

In other news, water is wet.

 

[oldies76]

Re-Recordings made years after the fact suck because they do not and cannot ever sound the same. The Instruments and Vocals are usually off.

I despise New Stereo Recordings By The Original Artists.

I'll never quite understand why they are even produced. If it's not original, don't produce them.

Yeah, 100 "hits" of the 60's for $7.99. And stay away from Goldenlane. Online download sites are loaded with these, for unsuspecting buyers of oldies.

 

[oldies76]

The hits of the '60's are a teeny, tiny subset of all the music that was recorded.

Well sure, if you include all the songs produced since the 1800's to today, all genres.
But the Rock era as a whole is significant, you're talking hundreds of thousands of songs, if album cuts are taken into account and all the singles that ever charted are counted.

 

[Prais]

talk dude said, "What does being able to pick song titles off of a list based on the numerical scores they receive in some auditorium test have to do with bein being able to listen to music and hear if the singer is off-key or not, or if the guitars are in tune, or if the tune isn't just an insipid re-hash of someone else's work?"
____
It has plenty. A GREAT "Selector" operator is an artist, too. Without those "auditorium tests" some folks here would be playing "deep cuts" and "b-sides" because that would be "what they like" so they assume that EVERYBODY wants that. Selector is a magnificent tool to manipulate all of this.

If you understood the research and Selector, you wouldn't have asked. It can work magic.

Personally, (since you did ask about me in number 97) I have 40 years of Hammond Organ experience (14 years of lessons), and a Masters degree. I've played in many church and concert venues since I was 11 years old.

I have a second degree in psychology (Music psychology, actually)
and since 1973, have owned, operated, sold time on and programmed 4 radio stations, as well as building a couple of facilities from the ground, up. I still operate a few towers, where I lease height
to LOTS of radio and communication antennas. I have also owned and sold a couple of funeral homes, and, after another 6 years of theology and gerontology study, (a MUCH better field than radio) am now sort of retired and a nursing home chaplain just for fun.

I'd be glad to share my curriiculum vitae with you. Now, how about YOU?

PS: Thanks for asking.

 

[Prais]

Oldies76 said, "I'll never quite understand why they are even produced. If it's not original, don't produce them."
________________
Believe it or don't, there are some people (unlike myself and the people here) to whom that doesn't matter. Also, many record labels ROYALLY gypped their artists back in the day so, the artist probably gets more money per unit for the "remake" than they did for the original, (and can now get "accountability") so it means alot to them (and their heirs).

Money explains everything.

 

[firepoint525]

Can't always blame the unsuspecting public for buying "knockoffs," partly because the original might be out of print or otherwise no longer available, even in used record stores. That might at least begin to explain why certain records become collectors' items!

I have tried finding CDs of certain artists from the early '80s, and have had to settle for compilations, because I simply couldn't find the original releases!

 

[Talk_Dude]

I'd be glad to share my curriiculum vitae with you. Now, how about YOU?

Over 40 years experience as a guitarist and bass player. Vocal training. Was a member of several bands, did some session work. Retired now, except for playing in church.

 

[johnbasalla]

Here's a new take on the main topic. I've always hated those extremely split stereo recordings, mostly from the 1960s, where the vocals would almost or totally be on one side and a good amount of the music on the other. In The Beatles case, they were very open saying that those recordings were never meant to be released that way. The stereo recording was used to produce a better mono master.

 

[TheFonz]

In my humble opinion, I've heard 45's and 33's that surpass the audio quality of today's recordings.

I've never owned vinyl, even brand new vinyl, that didn't have a few clicks and pops in it. From that standpoint alone I would choose CDs over vinyl. If you feel that vinyl somehow has a "richer" sound, as some claim, I wouldn't argue with that. But to me, the trade-off ("richer" sound with clicks & pops) isn't worth it.

 

[TheFonz]

Here's a new take on the main topic. I've always hated those extremely split stereo recordings, mostly from the 1960s, where the vocals would almost or totally be on one side and a good amount of the music on the other.

Stereo was a novelty in the early '60s. People were just starting to buy stereo equipment. They wanted something to play on that equipment, so record companies dug into their vaults and "electronically re-processed" mono recordings to try to make them sound like stereo. I'm sure that they sold a lot of music that way.

 

[oldies76]

If you feel that vinyl somehow has a "richer" sound, as some claim, I wouldn't argue with that. But to me, the trade-off ("richer" sound with clicks & pops) isn't worth it.

If you like the nostalgic feel to music, then vinyl is certainly the way to go. Sort of like those new artists of recent years, adding special effects (pop and crackle) to their songs to make it seem nostalgic. Some songs actually sound better on vinyl, especially if you are looking for the original "feel" to the music. Certain instruments are heard better on vinyl, than on CD, in some instances. "Baby, You're a Rich Man" is one of them.

 

[billyg]

Here's a new take on the main topic. I've always hated those extremely split stereo recordings, mostly from the 1960s, where the vocals would almost or totally be on one side and a good amount of the music on the other.

Recording studios until the late 60's were very primitive using 2, 3 and 4 track multi-track recorders. The Beatles first two UK albums (Please Please Me & With The Beatles) were recorded in Abbey Road using 2-track tape recorders. Plus record companies were promoting stereo and they wanted the mixes wide and extreme.

Stereo was a novelty in the early '60s. People were just starting to buy stereo equipment. They wanted something to play on that equipment, so record companies dug into their vaults and "electronically re-processed" mono recordings to try to make them sound like stereo. I'm sure that they sold a lot of music that way.

When I became an oldies fan in the seventies, most of the oldies collections (on Vinyl) were full of fake stereo..many times using horrible EQ rechanneling, reverb or time delay added, like Capitol Record's infamous "Duophonic" process. I'm glad when CD's came along record companies started using the mono master tapes again.

 

[Prais]

I forgot about this one;
Capitol Records Joe South, both the 45's and the lp with "Walk a Mile in My Shoes" and "The Games People Play."

Stereo stinks. Sounds WAY out of phase, and one channel vocal.

 

[hornet61]

You are at your class re-union and the DJ has the latest state of the Art equipment and he player "Surfer Girl" in beautiful swirling stereo with all the beach boy stereo harmonizing, against the Brian wilson bass and the Carl wilson guitar and you are in the middle of the Dance floor...followed by Groovin' By the Rascals with rich hammond sound by cavilleirre, the guitar by cornish and the harmonizing by Dinelli with Cavilerre.

how is that better than than the sock hops in the 1965 with a one speaker record player......rregardless of personal nostalgia,or personal taste, it just don't compare, 99 of 100 will take the Stereo...unless you have been in a cave for the last 50 years.

Re-recordings by one or more members of the original group years later...99 of 100 aren't very good, not from the technical recording aspect, but from the lack of the exact arrangement , makeup of the group, tempo, there are just too many nuances in re-recordings that it just doesn't sound like the original. Worst label Dominion there are many others..any body that knows his oldies can tell on the first couple of notes that it is a re-recording...and yes most of them have a fine print disclaimer "* re-recording by original artist." Having said that, only one case have i ever heard a re-recording, that sounded better that the original because it was in amazing stereo, the arrangement was close and the Singer was still in good voice, Bobby Rydell. K-Tel released a best of Bobby Rydell...extremely good....Cameo Parkway has very little quality stereo material available even the recent release of the entire Catalog which is re-channeled at best, that includes Checker, Orlons, Tymes, Question ?, etc.....these subjects Best recording , worst song, couda, shoulda,woulds, are way too subjective, especially to question whether a song deserved to be #1 ...wow, the highest prize in the Industry... and we get into knockdown arguments defending those opinions....at least the threads when asked to contribute to a list, you don't have to defend you entry, you are just contributing.... are any of so qualified that we can call "Dominque" or any other song that reached the pinnacle, garbage.To say this the greatest song ever recorded and then take on all contenders defending It, we let personal taste get the better of us contributing to this discussions

 

[Prais]

PS; Dominique is a KILLER in auditorium tests. (Really!)

 

[Talk_Dude]

You are at your class re-union and the DJ has the latest state of the Art equipment and he player "Surfer Girl" in beautiful swirling stereo with all the beach boy stereo harmonizing, against the Brian wilson bass and the Carl wilson guitar and you are in the middle of the Dance floor...followed by Groovin' By the Rascals with rich hammond sound by cavilleirre, the guitar by cornish and the harmonizing by Dinelli with Cavilerre.

how is that better than than the sock hops in the 1965 with a one speaker record player......rregardless of personal nostalgia,or personal taste, it just don't compare, 99 of 100 will take the Stereo...unless you have been in a cave for the last 50 years.

I suspect that no more than 20% of the people who were at a class reunion today could accurately remember how any songs actually sounded on mono, one-speaker record players over 40 years ago. It is a trick of human memory to recall things from the distant past as either a lot better or a lot worse than they really were. That goes for how music sounded, how good TV reception was, and how pretty the head cheerleader was.

In this forum, there is a high level of self-selection that results in people who tend to be sound quality and tone geeks participating. There's nothing wrong with being a sound quality or tone geek, but most people don't fit that description. The average listener of oldies radio might be able to tell the difference between an original era recording and a modern re-make, but he'd probably have a 50/50 chance of guessing which was which. He'd just know that if he heard them side-by-side, he'd know there was a difference.

You're right about nuances being different, but most folks who aren't radio pros who listened to those songs over and over through headphones with earpieces the size of soup cans just don't remember those nuances.

As for calling songs "garbage", just listen to them and judge them purely on their sound, without any meaningless distractions like how well they happened to sell the when they were released. Hitting #1 only means you beat the other songs on the Top 40 that week. When you're talking about the week after JFK was assassinated, that's not exactly a "normal" week.

PS; Dominique is a KILLER in auditorium tests. (Really!)

Which proves how reliable auditorium tests are!