https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...vide?CMP=fb_gu
Piece taken from The Guardian reflecting what I think a lot of us are all thinking.
Printable View
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...vide?CMP=fb_gu
Piece taken from The Guardian reflecting what I think a lot of us are all thinking.
Yes... somebody alerted me to that earlier today and sad to say, it's bang on the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatGoD67
Hiho,
i just finished exploring the Boxset and i still don't know what to think...or, yes, i know. I am sad.
I love the packaging for being that big, solid and impressive. But i hate the unecessary fragility of the booklets, working with the same companys who did this i don't understand why they did it like that. There are many different/better options.
When it comes to the contents i am torn between an almost hysterical happiness and a massive disappointment on the other hand. I just love love love the "Work in progress" version from AHM as well as the Montreux recoding. I feel the same as almost everybody when it comes to the BBC sessions. What a waste. And where are the other Meddle/Echoes outtakes/demos etc.? 7 Minutes? Really?
I love the videos to be honest and of course the hidden 5.1 Mix from Meddle even it sounds like Italo-Disco-Mix somtimes. Which brings me to the 5.1 2016 mix of OBC. I really like the punch and the fact that we have a new mix. But why does it have to be that shrill and mis-balanced. I feel like i have to readjust my hi-fi everytime. Same with Pompeii. Why?
But what really frustrates me is the way it has been done in general:
Why did they ask real PF Pro's like Ron to support them but cut them/him out when it comes the real deal like what to find, where to find it, what to pick, what to leave out. Fight for it, fight for the best track/snippet fight for the best source, fight with the management/band to get in on the Boxset etc.
This Boxset has not been compiled and produced by a real Pink Floyd Fan/Pro but not even by somebody who has any real knowledge of their work. I am sure about that. Sombody gave the order to do a Boxest to somebody who delegated it to a third party/person/agency. At least it tastes like that.
There is not just a lack of authencity and "love" (if you know what i mean) but there so many mistakes in spelling, tracknames, dates, authoring, manufacturing etc. In my opinion they did not run out of time they just had no idea how to make it better/right. And here i am again. Why did they not ask anybody who knows their catalogue even their live achievements. for example here at Y! we have at least 15-20 Top-PF-Professionals who could have done a much much better job. But they were to arrogant (i guess) to ask. And the band (or the rest who cares about PF at all) just did not invest a lot to make it not just good but great or even the holy grail which it is not, for sure.
Best,
Nils
Nice article… Pretty much hits the whole drama. Like this comment below a lot:Quote:
Originally Posted by PatGoD67
Quote:
„Not sure there is really anything here than grumpy old man complaining (not that I have any problem with that necessarily).
Don't think my kids would be thinking about buying a £375 box set of Pink Floyd - more likely I'd be greeted with some grunt about dinosaur music. The marketeers have recognised a market for of wealthy nostalgic old buggers with more money than sense (I suspect mostly male!).
A different Floyd lyric comes to my mind.
You gotta get an album out
You owe it to the people
We're so happy we can hardly count“
LOL
Thanks for the link, interesting read. It pretty much reflects my thoughts these days. It wasn't easy to resist the urge to buy this box set but after reading this thread I am more glad than sorry that I managed to do so ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PatGoD67
Here's the situation. The official publication is not the best options for performances, finally outlaws the officially unreleased and much better in quality the works of well known people.
Two or three such official a "gift", and our favorite YEESHKUL closes by itself, will perish like a great idea. :(
Well what the ****, bitch **** - what a mockery!!! :mad:
__________________________________________________ ______
It's hard for me to find sizes of gratitude for those people, who with their virtuoso work has brought to me such wonderful moments are to their music!
And many thanks from me to all those who have recorded, preserved, perfected and shared these records here.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! :)
That's a good way to put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinny12
There really is gold in this set and even for those with extensive collections. I have to recommend this based solely on that. Even with some of the sonic mistakes, if a copy of some of these things was posted on the forum even in half the fidelity people would be tripping.
It's a shame that it didn't turn out to the level of perfection across the board that Pink Floyd set the bar for in the past.
The ruined remixes are a real shame. And there's just enough left there to hear that there was exceptional work put into them which makes it all the more a travesty.
The BBC material screw up. Not much more to say.
Half this set being a deluxe edition while half is a budget edition is weird and misguided. (The CD content missing in HD.)
For the 'pros' list, see the track list. It's a much longer list than the cons.
Seems I'm one of the lucky ones that got a working BD1 of Continu/ation. That's the one most have had trouble with, right?
That was the first thing I checked when I got it today. The books seem to hold up OK as well and the packaging was flawless. (Amazon UK). Now it's time to dive into it as well as extracting that 5.1-mistake. :D
I wasn't looking for perfection; I have many Beatles boots but when Anthology 1,2 and 3 came out, I ate that right up but this is not that. With those, it was a hand picked tip of the iceberg but this feels more like they're either scrapping the bottom of the barrel or they just don't know what they want to do. The more I look at the total package, the more I see the label "This is not for you" on it and as someone who bought both the Shine On and Variations on a Theme of Absence box sets, I have no idea what that even means.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimfisheye
Being excited about finding a video snippet hidden in Youtube is one thing, buying it on HD Blu-Ray is overkill?
I don't care about quality or quantity but how about a little organization and honesty? For about $500, it should be there somewhere.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that the band itself never understood the difference between the their studio work and their live work. For them, it's ok to piece together a concept from several different sources because that's how they worked in the studio. As one Syd Barret put it, it's the kind of music made by architects. But live, the work flows not just within a single song but from song to song. And from show to show and year to year.
So what would I have liked? One set for each year, one disk for the early work done in the studio then a second CD... or two... showcasing where they were live with an emphasis on development and refinement. And yes, that would mean I'd skip the 5.1 mixes... which should be second disks for the individual albums by now. Put them where they go, not where they don't belong. And one video disk set, sold separately.
So instead of a mess, it'd create a narrative moving towards the missing pieces from 1972. Oh, no Obscured by Clouds material either. Again, just more lies.
In the end, I'm still impressed the released the BBC stuff at all. However, I'm not surprised they managed to screw it up.
For all the pros and cons I do find that boxsets always tend to promise more than they actually deliver. Many times over the years I've bought such sets or compilations for the "previously unreleased" material and the majority of the time, I enjoy hearing it but never return to them much. For instance, whilst I've enjoyed exploring the multitudes of outtakes by Miles Davis, whenever I want a fix of Miles, I end up listening to one of the original albums. So, this set seems no different judging from what I've been reading - some essential stuff in there and other stuff that is less so. Also it is pretty much impossible to please everybody, for instance my main gripe with this set was not mixing "Arnold Layne" into stereo especially after showing off the multitracks on that BBC radio special, but we do get some other Syd bits we didn't have before to redress that imbalance, yet even if there was that song in stereo, not everybody is into the Syd stuff and would wish there was something else from 68 or 69 in it's place.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimfisheye
It does seem in many ways there has been a few mistakes made and some things could had been done better here, but when all is said and done, still a huge undertaking and outlet of material that even a year ago would had been deemed unthinkable.