[sdiy] Should I repair my Fostex, or should I go HD recording?

[Peter Grenader]

Hey -  you forgot to mention Brain Wilson's (was: Beach Boys but they
COMPLETELY screwed up by passing on it) album SMILE.  Just retracked
completely and released (finally) after a 35 year postponement.  Had this
jewel come out when it was supposed to (1967) it would have put a huge tink
in Sgt. Peps' armor (not that that album isn't equally as brilliant..but
SMLE is scary good).

You guys think I'm totally nuts right?  I mean, the Beach Boys? Just listen
to it.  Brain Wilson is arguably the best pop producer ever and an
incredible songwriter.  This thing did the Thick As a Brick segway to the
next tune deal eight years before J. Tull did plus not only was it tracked
analog (this year), Wilson insisted in using a tube board to do it.

- P

WeAreAs1 at aol.com wrote:

> 
> In a message dated 12/26/04 11:00:59 AM, rude66 at xs4all.nl writes:
> 
> << heh.. read the beatles' studio sessions books. sgt pepper and the white
> 
> album were made on 4 tracks (or maybe the latter with 8) and include
> 
> enormous amounts of overdubs. >>
> 
> First, let me preface by saying that I think Sgt. Pepper is still the
> greatest record ever made.  Period.
> 
> However, if you listen to it with a critical ear, you will eventually have to
> agree that Sgt. Pepper is an extremely lo-fi record.  You can really hear all
> that sludgy tape-bouncing noise buildup and loss of clarity -- mostly on the
> basic track sounds (drums, bass, etc.).  Since the vocals were usually the
> last thing committed to tape, they usually did not go through any tape
> transfers, 
> and do not usually display any apparent generational loss.  Also, with a few
> exceptions (such as "She's Leaving Home"), it's a very densely mixed and
> orchestrated record.  The sonic density helps to mask some of the crappy
> sounding 
> tracks.  Additionally, in general, the lead vocals on Sgt. Pepper are mixed
> WAY 
> out in front, more so than on most rock and pop records of the day.  Since
> most of the vocal tracks are first generation, your ear tends to hear that
> vocal 
> recording quality as the general tonality of the record, but it's not.  Just
> try to ignore the lead vocal parts and listen to just the drums, bass, and
> rhythm guitars.  You may be very surprised.
> 
> That having been said, I'll say once again what I always say:  Records are
> not about equipment or even about the recording process.  They are about SONGS
> and PERFORMANCES.  In the case of Sgt. Pepper, the greatest band in the world
> simply wrote some of the best songs they ever wrote, performed them extremely
> well, and pulled out all the stops with regard to creativity in the studio.
> It 
> matters not that the recording quality is relatively lo-fi.
> 
> For another example of an incredibly GREAT record that was incredibly poorly
> recorded, look no further than Bob Dylan's classic "Like A Rolling Stone".
> Actually, look no further than the very first sound heard on the record, which
> happens to be a single snare drum hit on beat 4, just before the band comes
> in. 
> That snare drum sounds like a wet cardboard box being hit with a piece of
> meat, possible a turkey leg.  It doesn't get any better later on, either.
> Nevertheless, that record is one of rock's great works of art, and arguably
> one of 
> Dylan's very best.
> 
> Oh, and how about Little Richard's incredible "Tutti Frutti"?  The lead vocal
> is recorded so hot and distorted that it may as well have been recorded
> through a Z-Vex Fuzz Factory (it sounds like tape distortion to me..).  Did
> that 
> stop it from being one of the greatest rock records ever made?  No, that
> distorted vocal probably actually helped it achieve that status!
> 
> The inverse is true, also.  That is, one can make incredibly beautiful (or
> incredibly horrible) recordings on high quality modern digital equipment.
> It's 
> never about the gear -- It's all about THE SONGS, baby.  You want to make a
> better recording?  Write a better song.
>