2. music
  3. 139647-78570

Hendrix 50th Anniversary Electric Ladyland Box Release

Looking forward to release tomorrow. In my humble opinion one of the greatest albums ever. Imagine hearing this album when it was released, Compositionally and technically from another time and place, truly ground breaking. Thanks Jimi!!!!!!!
toneranger58
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,229 posts
 
Blame it on the weather.  Even when it's not, compared to winters in Detroit, Cleveland, NYC, Minneapolis, Boston and Philly, California was also sunny.  The cold, gritty steeliness of the Northeast and Midwest is reflected in the music.

It's also the drugs, heroin vs. LSD.

Neither of these explanations are absolutely valid, but they hint at the differences.

Regarding Lou Reed's musicianship.  If Neil Young is considered a great guitarist, then so is Lou Reed.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,816 posts
 

Yes, onhwy61! The choice of drug is a really, really good one (as is the weather), one I hadn’t considered. Seems obvious now that I’ve heard it! Even on the West Coast, there were pockets of anti-hippie music and culture sentiments, a counter/counter-culture, if you will. I never owned a pair of bell bottoms or a tie-dyed T-shirt (thought they were corny), and switched to booze in ’69, partly ’cause I started playing in bars regularly that year (my first time was at age 15, with a bunch of hot rod greasers in a band playing lots of Chuck Berry), where the beer was free for the band. That about doubled your pay ;-) . One of the few San Francisco bands eschewing hippieness were The Flamin’ Groovies, whom The Dolls, MC5, etc., considered peers. Another was Moby Grape (the best SF band, imo), though you wouldn’t know it from their goofy name.

Speaking of The Dolls, when I got to NY I went looking in pawn shops for vintage instruments (I play/collect/and deal only vintage drums---1920’s through early 70’s). In one I found Jerry Nolan’s set of pink Ludwigs, for sale. Sad.

Is Neil Young considered a great guitarist? A unique one, that’s for sure. Hearing him trade licks with Stephen Stills in Buffalo Springfield songs has always amused me.

tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,597 posts
 
Don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but on the Steve Hoffman forums and Amazon the early word is that the cd is pretty badly compressed.  The 24/96 blu-ray is not.  So if you can't play blu-ray you may want to hold off on this one.
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,597 posts
 
Here are a couple of posts from the Steve Hoffman forums. I can’t vouch for their accuracy:

1. it appears the CD is a DR average of [8]
and the Blu-ray is DR average of [13].
The 5.1 is a surround mix, and that in of itself is reason enough for inclusion.
Why oh why could they not at least make a new CD matching the DR average of [12] as was the 1987 CD release ?

2. Just to be clear, the blu-ray stereo mix is squashed like the CD. Just the 5.1 is DR13.

And an alternate opinion:

3.  Just got done listening to the 24/96 Stereo version. Very impressed. From the start much more information. You can plainly hear all the little bits going on in the background. Tremendous clarity, yes it’s a bit loud but IMO nothing is sacrificed. I think Kramer did a great job transferring the original tapes.

initforthemusic
282 posts
 
My favourite Album of all time. Might have have to investigate the Box Set.
More to discover