Pink floyd the early years 1965-1972

[oldpink]

Most importantly, will they leave Dave's bleatingly off-pitch vocals at the finale of The Man & The Journey intact?

Dave was clearly tired on that night, and we all know about his penchant for making past recordings perfect, even at the expense of continuity, but I really hope that they leave the recording as is, with the only change being that the source tape used is a significant improvement over the already excellent unofficial version that's been out there.

[Lennyif]

Most importantly, will they leave Dave's bleatingly off-pitch vocals at the finale of The Man & The Journey intact?

I kind of hope they fix that, the vocals on Narrow Way, and the crazy out of tune guitar on Green is The Colour. I wonder if that is even possible?

[Roscoe59]

I kind of hope they fix that, the vocals on Narrow Way, and the crazy out of tune guitar on Green is The Colour. I wonder if that is even possible?

I think this will be a warts and all recording.

[Lennyif]

I think this will be a warts and all recording.

That's cool. I guess it would be pretty hard to mess with a stereo (non multitrack) recording in that way. Actually, that may be impossible.

[emmapeelfan]

I think this will be a warts and all recording.

And so it should be! If they started tinkering and thinking "Oh, let's replace the vocals on that..." then they'd start "replacing" bits and pieces throughout the whole set if the technology could allow and cloak it. 45 plus years ago, David Gilmour had a bit of a rough night onstage... today he's still playing sell out shows. Mistakes from a few decades ago aren't gonna make the slightest bit of difference. Worst that will happen is some reviewers might write one line about it, but ultimately, it's all history now and will be accepted likewise.

[jimfisheye]

That's cool. I guess it would be pretty hard to mess with a stereo (non multitrack) recording in that way. Actually, that may be impossible.

Depends...
There are things you can do sometimes. Like autotuning Roger's bass in CWTAE (Brighton, 1972).

I'm actually all for messing with live recordings. Starting with a live recording and then going in the studio direction and orchestrating things can deliver some great results (and some of my favorite Zappa albums!)

I also appreciate that humans make mistakes live and that's part of what makes the impressive moments so impressive. I know how to listen to 'imperfect' live work to appreciate the amazing bits.

What doesn't work so well is when fixing a mistake takes something else away. I get why this happens too. Said mistake might be an attention grabber! But then the listener who knows what they're doing and can dismiss that with their own internal filter might be able to spot the artifact from the fix and this becomes distracting to them.

When recordings with amazing bits get passed over for a lesser (but mistake free) performance or there are subtle (or not so subtle) artifacts from fixes, those of us 'in the know' have a problem now.

Depends on the goal too. There a difference between an unaltered document of a live event and producing recordings that may include live content. Those of us who appreciate unaltered live documents are very much in the minority. Very few people even know how to listen to such a thing. I appreciate both approaches.

[emmapeelfan]

I'm actually all for messing with live recordings. Starting with a live recording and then going in the studio direction and orchestrating things can deliver some great results (and some of my favorite Zappa albums!)

King Crimson utilised that approach too during the Wetton era and did it so well a large percentage of listeners didn't even realise some of those songs were augmented live improvs. That approach works fine when you're actually creating the basis of a new album of new material. When you're dealing with a piece of archive, and in this case with the Floyd, a much booted performance, that's when it becomes problematic.

Then again, we have things like The Doors at the Hollywood Bowl and The Who Live in Hull... both of those were technically imperfect multitrack recordings that required some creative tinkering to make them fully releasable hence Jim Morrison's damaged vocal tracks on a couple of songs were reconstructed from parts from a host of other shows and with The Who, they had the first twenty minutes minus Entwistle's bass so they flew it in from the Leeds performance... however, and this is the crucial factor, in both instances they were honest and open about the surgery that was performed and I think if you're honest, the fans are forgiving, understanding and appreciative. I recall when the 1974 live tape was issued on "Immersion" a few years ago they did admit they had replaced the kick drum throughout... that didn't please everyone (and funnily enough Zappa did the same thing on the 1974 Helsinki show he issued) but they did at least own up to doing it and gave a reason why.

[Lennyif]

Depends...
There are things you can do sometimes. Like autotuning Roger's bass in CWTAE (Brighton, 1972).

I'm actually all for messing with live recordings. Starting with a live recording and then going in the studio direction and orchestrating things can deliver some great results (and some of my favorite Zappa albums!)

I also appreciate that humans make mistakes live and that's part of what makes the impressive moments so impressive. I know how to listen to 'imperfect' live work to appreciate the amazing bits.

What doesn't work so well is when fixing a mistake takes something else away. I get why this happens too. Said mistake might be an attention grabber! But then the listener who knows what they're doing and can dismiss that with their own internal filter might be able to spot the artifact from the fix and this becomes distracting to them.

When recordings with amazing bits get passed over for a lesser (but mistake free) performance or there are subtle (or not so subtle) artifacts from fixes, those of us 'in the know' have a problem now.

Depends on the goal too. There a difference between an unaltered document of a live event and producing recordings that may include live content. Those of us who appreciate unaltered live documents are very much in the minority. Very few people even know how to listen to such a thing. I appreciate both approaches.

Interesting! Now that I think about it wasn't part of the source for the recently released Wembley 1974 recording stereo only? They still did a bunch of fixes on that stuff.

[jimfisheye]

King Crimson utilised that approach too during the Wetton era and did it so well a large percentage of listeners didn't even realise some of those songs were augmented live improvs. That approach works fine when you're actually creating the basis of a new album of new material. When you're dealing with a piece of archive, and in this case with the Floyd, a much booted performance, that's when it becomes problematic.

Then again, we have things like The Doors at the Hollywood Bowl and The Who Live in Hull... both of those were technically imperfect multitrack recordings that required some creative tinkering to make them fully releasable hence Jim Morrison's damaged vocal tracks on a couple of songs were reconstructed from parts from a host of other shows and with The Who, they had the first twenty minutes minus Entwistle's bass so they flew it in from the Leeds performance... however, and this is the crucial factor, in both instances they were honest and open about the surgery that was performed and I think if you're honest, the fans are forgiving, understanding and appreciative. I recall when the 1974 live tape was issued on "Immersion" a few years ago they did admit they had replaced the kick drum throughout... that didn't please everyone (and funnily enough Zappa did the same thing on the 1974 Helsinki show he issued) but they did at least own up to doing it and gave a reason why.

Agree with all of that.

Yeah, for technical difficulties with recording machines, tinkering - while not "authentic" - can get you closer to what the "authentic" performance sounded like than the raw artifact riddled recording in many cases.

It is what it is. When that's all there is captured of the authentic recording, what you wanna do?

Yes, I'm digressing a bit from the discussion on preserving authentic historical live performances by mentioning some of Zappa's work. Roxy & Elsewhere and Starless & Bible Black are absolute masterpieces from using that approach though!

And I think if Floyd would have captured their live shows and tried that approach it could have been something amazing too. Even just compiling the over the top brilliant bits if not going overdub wild.

[meneerjansen]

Agree with all of that.

Yeah, for technical difficulties with recording machines, tinkering - while not "authentic" - can get you closer to what the "authentic" performance sounded like than the raw artifact riddled recording in many cases.

It is what it is. When that's all there is captured of the authentic recording, what you wanna do?

Yes, I'm digressing a bit from the discussion on preserving authentic historical live performances by mentioning some of Zappa's work. Roxy & Elsewhere and Starless & Bible Black are absolute masterpieces from using that approach though!

And I think if Floyd would have captured their live shows and tried that approach it could have been something amazing too. Even just compiling the over the top brilliant bits if not going overdub wild.

Didn't Gilmour do this w/ that organ part that was improvised by Wright in 1968 which he used on 'The Endless River' in the track called <insert track title here>?