IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVES/WEEKLY ROCK POLL POST
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board Homepage
Name: Jaded Faded
E-Mail:
Subject: RE: upon reflection...
Date: Saturday, July 15, 2017
Time: 1:14:25 PM
Remote Address: 75.70.52.211
Message ID: 309755
Parent ID: 309754
Thread ID: 309743
Good topic, lots of thoughts. Sound fidelity/quality might just be too relative and subjective, however, to say one way or the other. The best test of sonic quality is probably when you get the actual musicians who made the works to say how close the recording comes to representing what they were trying to do, or how close it fits in their mind as accurately showing what they thought was in their heads. For example, I think Keith at least really praised a few of the '02 Abkco remasters (especially Satanic Majesties) for sounding the closest to what it was actually like in the studio. But was it still subpar? Maybe to some, but not to all, and it is probably fair to say the Stones have never been quite as concerned with sonics themselves as they have been with story, attitude, and feel of things. And just because the '02 releases or anything else might still sound like poor quality sonics to some listener somewhere (despite what Keith said) doesn't mean it is. It depends on what the aim of the artist was as well as the bias and attitude of other listeners. I disagree that sonic quality has zero to do with artistry, in many many cases it is very deliberate that something might sound "poor." Many songs, indeed whole albums, by the Stones surely were never meant to sound the crystalline clear perfect way that Pet Sounds does or that certain Floyd works do. Many of those artists' songs seemed to demand that level of clarity and wouldn't have worked as well without it, but a lot of Stones songs weren't meant for that and would be hurt by sounding that polished or cleaned up. For example, for me personally EOMS is perfect on vinyl or the '94 Virgin Remaster in all its muddy glory, while the '10 release lessened it by making it too clean and sharp. But then again, Jagger is the artist here and would (and did) no doubt disagree and so who am I to say shit about it?? Anyway, back to the original question--I think it is impossible to say what has the best sound quality out of all of their songs, especially when I take into account which playback system I'm using: for example, Beggar's Banquet sounded rich and lovely in my old Japanese car but in my new (also Japanese) one it is a flat metallic wash! It bugs me. But if I had to pick I'd probably insist on Aftermath as having excellent fidelity relative to its own aim and any imaginable playback. It is just so rich and, well, rich.
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2022 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.