bapu

Bub

So basically he was the annoying AV Club kid in the room who thought he was in control of everything but really did nothing? LOL!

Yeah, or mebee 'an actual audio engineer'.

he's an MIT grad.

i'm sure he figured it out pretty quick.

seems you have an axe to grind over for scholz for some reason......?

batsbrew

he's an MIT grad.

i'm sure he figured it out pretty quick.

seems you have an axe to grind over for scholz for some reason......?

No, no axe to grind, it's just that, well, their original releases were greatly lacking in sound quality, and yet he portrays himself as this all wise and knowing audio engineer. I'm sure he's a nice guy with good intentions, but he really comes off like a douche in this article.

For example ... "Every nut and bolt came out of those songs. We tweaked all of the things that couldn't be done with the mixes in the '70s." <--- I mean, I dunno ... Dark Side Of The Moon came out in '73, that sounded pretty darn good. Countless other albums sounded good ... he just had to do this now because he did a lot of it in his basement at the time and it just didn't sound good.

I always though Boston's albums were sub par compared to other releases of the day ... then I read about how they were recorded, the sticky tape, overdubbing drums because they didn't record right, slowing down reel to reel tape by hand to line tracks up, and all that, and it all suddenly made sense as to why they sounded like crap to me.

And didn't they get sued at one point by their record company for plagiarizing themselves with their second album? I seem to remember reading something about that a long time ago ... can't find it on the net now.

Not a big deal, some of the songs were good enough to overlook the bad recordings, we used to do Amanda live.

when i listen to that 1st album, i don't hear any lacking of sound quality.

i guess my ears aren't as good as yours.
heheh


"Boston has sold nearly 20 million copies"


 not bad, for a sub par album

Bats,

I believe it could be said the general buying public knows little diff WRT sound quality.

They buy because of the songs (or so I'm told).

we hope they buy for the songs!

heheh

otherwise, there would be a sh!tload of folks sitting around listening to "THE SINGING BOWLS OF TIBET"

or worse yet....

"THE HUMAN LEAGUE-DON'T YOU WANT ME"

batsbrew

when i listen to that 1st album, i don't hear any lacking of sound quality.

I do ... but ... I should say I've only ever heard it on 8 - Track and CD. Never heard it on vinyl which Mr. Scholz seems to think is the preferable listening method.

i guess my ears aren't as good as yours.
heheh

Or mine are worse than I think! LOL!

"Boston has sold nearly 20 million copies"

not bad, for a sub par album

Didn't mean the music was sub par, just the sound quality, and of course, that's just my opinion and not to be taken as a factual comment. :-)

It could very well be that the vinyl versions did in fact sound great like Scholz says they do compared CD. Unfortunately I've never been able to do a comparison and always just assumed that the CD would be as good, if not a tinge better because you wouldn't have any of the surface noise at high volumes like you do with LP's.

bapu


Bats,

I believe it could be said the general buying public knows little diff WRT sound quality.

They buy because of the songs (or so I'm told).

There is a discussion over on Keyboard central with regards to the Grateful Dead.
The two diverse opposing camps"
 
con: the band sucks, endleless noodling, terrible harmonies/vocals,, blah blah
pros: pioneered the jam band, countless fans , not all dead heads, interesting blend rock, blues, counntry, etc
 
sold records, maybe not 20 mill, played everywhere when Jerry was not in rehab..

the cd sounded awful to me, compared to a good vinyl copy on a nice playback system

it was worth the remaster, because 'the songs were so good'.

RIP brad delp.