I disagree, and believe that generally it's the performance and the song that deserve the bulk of the credit for how a record is received. I've had this debate with older fans of the Beatles who claim that the piles of echo added to the US single release of "I Feel Fine" helped make it more successful in the US AM radio market. I'm generally skeptical that mixes have a substantial effect on the success of an album or recorded song. In this case, I suspect the remix is much closer to what the band heard in the studio as they were recording. If an original mix is murky or sonically compromised (ie, some instruments buried and barely audible) then I think a remix can have great value. Their records was not exactly normal and, like Cale, the Bowie mix explored sound in an interesting way simply adding to and expanding the experience.Ĭlick to expand.I'm a proponent of of hearing a musical performance with as much clarity as possible. My remark about history is about how the outer limits of sound exploration have now come to the centre and displaced the popular more mainstream rock ideas. Another mix made at the time of it's release would have made more sense. It's a modern mix, but for me future remixes can rarely get it right. I know that fans are coming from a different background now (fans from a hardcore US punk faction, perhaps ?) do seem to prefer the loud in-your face-mix and I think it is that audience that Iggy tried to address. The Rough mixes were historically interesting but nothing more than rough mixes. The Iggy mix was a travesty for me, destroyed the beauty and mystery and I got rid of it. All I know is I bought it the week it came out and I still have that copy and still play it. I don't know what the majority of fans think. However, we do know that it endured and its reputation grew with the mix it was released with. Click to expand.We can only speculate on might have been.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |