Joni Mitchell remasters on the way
FYI, some remastered Joni albums from an amazing period are on the way. I’m especially excited about how "Miles of Aisles" turns out, because that album really needs a remaster.
"Rhino explores the beginning of the prolific Asylum era with THE ASYLUM ALBUMS (1972-1975), the next installment in the Joni Mitchell Archives series. The collection features newly remastered versions of For The Roses (1972), Court And Spark (1974), the double live album Miles Of Aisles (1974), and The Hissing Of Summer Lawns (1975). All four were recently remastered by Bernie Grundman."
I'm not one who believes that every -- or even most -- remasters make a difference. But some really do; and when you're talking about an artist like Joni, the chances are high this is being done with some care. @tomcy6 Gonna fire up my streamer right now! @rpeluso I think I could be swayed toward your approximation of Hissing! @dpop "Remastered loudness." How you know that in advance is beyond me. And we will have to disagree about Miles of Aisles. If that sounds as good as it can be to your ears, well, we have different sensibilities. @lalitk Glad to see you know some of the specifics about this release before pooh-poohing it. Details matter, don't they?
|
@hilde45 >>>"Remastered loudness." How you know that in advance is beyond me.<<< How do I know that? From past experience. Remastered usually now means balls to the wall compression and limiting, with added EQ, which equals louder volume levels compared to the original mix (say goodbye to dynamic range). Really, does everything now need to be remastered? I personally don't see the need. I actually go out of my way to NOT purchase or listen to remastered albums anymore. What's the matter with the originals? Were those engineers not fully capable of mixing, editing and mastering in those days? Well I guess Bernie Grundman himself wasn't too happy with his first time around when mastering some of those Joni Mitchell releases, so he's going to give it another shot (or is this all about money, and generating new revenue for the labels). |
@dpop Thanks for your reply. In the meantime, I've just gone an compared about a dozen tracks with the Joni remaster. Instruments sound fuller and more natural, dynamic range sounds expanded, and soundstage is larger and more articulate. The live album sounds less muddy. What are others hearing? Do you hear more compression and limiting (as dpop says happens, usually) or do you hear something else? Curious to compare what I heard last night with your reactions. My experience with Steven Wilson mixes of Jethro Tull -- wow! not compressed and limited at all. In my experience, remastering is not always a bad thing -- though it often is a way to put old wine in new bottles. |
@hilde45 Even though I have all of the original vinyl pressings of the Joni Mitchell releases we're discussing, I rarely ever play them, I won't even reference those, as I personally believe vinyl reproduction has its disadvantages compared to digital (even though digital of course has its disadvantages too). Let me pull a quote from another well known mixing and mastering engineer - Kevin Gray. "I think a lot of what people like about a phonograph record are artifacts. Audiophiles don't want to hear that, but it's just a fact. I deal with digital and analog all day long, and I know what happens in the transfer to analog." For our discussion, I'm only referencing the original Asylum CDs. Of course audio is very subjective, and depends on the equipment it is being recorded on, played on and the ears and brain that is hearing it. Let's take for example the Miles of Aisles release. I just pulled it out, and played a good portion of it to refresh my memory. I can easily see why you would think this original release sounds muddy. Not everything has to be bright (bright - a term we use in the broadcasting industry to reference lots of high frequencies). Now from my perspective, I respect the mix and mastering of this original CD release. Lots of dynamic range, and yes, at times, high frequencies may seem subdued, but that was the norm at the time, and I can respect that, and enjoy it. I still respect the engineers (and probably artist) who wanted it that way in the first place. Others may not. I personally don't need a remaster...of anything. In respect to pumped up compressing and limiting, not only can I hear that on remasters, but I can easily visually see that with my metering. Kevin Gray - Stereophile interview
|
This is a very interesting discussion to me.
Some examples of the DR of Joni Mitchell on older CD's: Song to a Seagull (Reprise, 1992) DR12 Clouds (Reprise, 1987) DR9 Ladies of the Canyon (Reprise, 1997) DR10 Blue (DCC, 1995) DR11 For the Roses (Asylum, 1990) DR11 Court and Spark (DCC, 1992) DR12 Hissing of Summer Lawns (Asylum, 1990) DR12 Hejira (Asylum, 1990) DR13 Don Juan's Reckless Daughter (Asylum, 1990) DR14 Mingus (Asylum, 1999) DR13 Wild Things Run Fast (Geffen, 1994) DR12 Dog Eat Dog (Geffen, 1985) DR13 Chalk Mark in a Rain Storm (Geffen, 1988) DR13 Night Ride Home (Geffen, 1991) DR12 Turbulent Indigo (Reprise, 1994) DR12 Taming the Tiger (Reprise, 1998) DR9 Both Sides Now (Reprise, 2000) DR10 Travelogue (Nonesuch, 2002) DR8 Shine (Hearmusic, 2007) DR8
|
I have these, often in multiple formats. some are Rhino, some are Reprise… in many cases they have limited the number of pressings. the next batch should prove interesting, at least. here is a discussion over on PS Audio regarding dynamic range, perception (we all think our own is the best). |
@jwillox I took time to read the PS Audio article you linked, but didn't bother with the comments section. Much of this I already understood. It's almost a matter of taste. Some of us have the equipment and quiet environments to listen to recordings with lots of dynamic range, and can appreciate it, and sometimes prefer it. Others don't. Some prefer loud remastered versions of recordings, while others don't. Some prefer loud concerts, while others don't. Some prefer very dynamic recordings (balls to the wall compression and limiting), while others don't. It's all a matter of taste and preferences. I would never personally say that because a recording has lots of dynamic range, it lacks sonics or impact. That may be one person's perception, but it's definitely not mine. This is one of the things I learned from being a Radio Broadcast Engineer; to overcome street noise (in vehicles where most of radio listening takes place), one must process radio broadcasting audio aggressively to maintain a consistent dynamic loud listening level (the exception is some jazz and classical radio stations). That's why I, when enjoying music at home, I prefer whatever the Mixing Engineer or Mastering Engineer has produced and recorded, without any added EQ, compression or limiting. Mixing and mastering audio is a craft and art, and I respect someone's artistic ability to use it, and be entertained by it. As I mentioned in another post; I tailor my home audio system(s) to try and replicate what the mixing and mastering engineers heard when they did their work. I'm not trying to replicate a live performance SPL setting at home. But hey, that's me, and I try not to put down what others are trying achieve. |
@dpop Thanks for your further elaborations, and indeed for contributing so much to this thread despite your complete disinterest in hearing let alone buying these releases from Joni. Very generous of you! Let me be clear — what I especially like is when the remaster reveals notes previously un-hearable in the original. That's what I mean by "muddy." It's not a preference for "brightness" in terms of the aesthetic sheen of the music. It's the desire to hear more of the contributions of the musicians on stage or in the mix. |
Excellent information as above. I ,too, own JM catalog from debut to "Mingus". Original pressing CDs. No (HDCD) editions. I own 1 or 2 on DCC Gold Disc. Per most of my CD/SACD collection, 90% are easily original CD pressings. Very few re-masters from 1994 to Present. The HDCD counterparts are The Grateful Dead and Neil Young (Crazy Horse) catalogs.
Happy Listening! |
@dpop - +1 agreed. |
another +1 A remaster definitely does not automatically mean "better." Some remasters though are good... I like what Jimmy Page did w Zep remasters, but that's JIMMY PAGE at the wheel. The Mothership compilation sounds excellent. I have a Fleetwood Mac greatest hits 2 cd set that I got recently, remastered, and I was so excited until I listened to it and found out I like the originals much better... much. |
I bought the Joni Mitchell Reprise LP remasters last year. I thought they were good, even great, especially "Blue". I also bought the "Live at Carnegie Hall-1969" LP. I thought that one sounded great as well. I have so many different versions of Joni albums that I sometimes get confused. As "lalitk" observed, keeping an open mind on these remasters is probably a good idea. When I see the Rhino versions in the record store, I'll take a chance! Life's too short to worry about which version is the best. |
Court and Spark has a glitch where People's Parties is repeated - it's there as part of Free Man In Paris and then again as a separate track. |
I have pretty much every Joni album on vinyl (originals) and somehow I doubt that remastering is going to make this astonishing music better...these albums sounded great then and still do. No problem with remastering per-se (bought the Band "brown album" boxed set and the 45rpm remastered vinyl sounds amazingly good, and my original LP was simply worn out) but with Joni's stuff my originals do the job brilliantly. |
@wolf_garcia I'd be curious if you stream music to hear what you think about these remasters. I think @orgillian197 is spot on with his account of the results of the remasterings in this group. |
I do stream (frequently...upstream often without a paddle) with some relatively high res gear and I'm not afraid to admit it. I'll check out the new Joni and see what's what, but really my point about this is that Joni was so profoundly beyond anybody else in contemporary music that her albums transcended most everything else with nobody coming even close the her brave creativity. Remastering is unlikely to make her music better although it might sound different than originally recorded. |
@wolf_garcia I couldn't agree with you more about Joni. One thing I definitely noticed -- as an example -- was that a piano which sounded like a fairly mediocre upright now sounds like a genuine grand piano. In another track, I heard percussion instruments I had never heard before, in 30 years of listening. |
@georgeab Agree! Good to keep an open mind on these things. |
The original analog recordings of those albums, at least on vinyl, including 1971’s Blue, sound their very best over all the remasters. I have all of her albums ever produced and nothing approaches her original releases. Now you may have to buy a few of the same since the sound does vary by pressing. But it’s fun and you will get rewarded to some of the very best midrange out there. |
I found this article to be scatterbrained, poorly thought out etc, but it does do an effective job of exposing the “Remastering Industrial Complex”. As I have said many times: take care of your original or initial pressings from 20-70 years ago: the reissued “remasters” may sound different, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but they are unlikely to sound better, and my experience is that 9 times out of 10, they sound worse. A notable exception is Jimmy Page’s remastering of the Zep LPs. That might have something to do with the fact that Jimmy is an artist as well as a producer.
|
