Re: (TV) Raw Power - To Remix or not to Remix?

["Philip P. Obbard" <pobbard@yahoo.com>]

I was really, really excited when the remix came out; I couldn't wait to hear
it. My initial impressions were favorable.

Yet 3 years later, I almost never reach for the remix. I think the remix didn't
try to correct for the uneven mix of 1973; I think it tried to "modernize" the
sound for 1997 (as Iggy writes in the liner notes, "so the record can stand up
alongside anything by the Smashing Pumpkins"). This was a mistake. The record
probably sounds like a sloppy punk record for 1997, whereas it sounds like an
amazingly cutting-edge thriller for the early 70s. It's got that compressed,
no-real-highs and no-real-lows, "optimized for subway listening" sound (as
Steve Albini has often accused producers of aiming for). I think the "less
remixed" tracks like "Gimme Danger" fare better, but in general, the stark,
off-the-wall, unbalanced effect of the original record has been replaced with
something louder, bassier, occasionally noisier, but also arguably less
authentic and more generic.

The one time I met Robert Quine (in Subterranean Records!), we actually talked
about the remix, because Quine slags it in his interview for Perfect Sound.
Quine notes that Iggy used *digital* distortion in his remix, and, to
paraphrase Quine, "that's not a kind of distortion you aim for - very few
people, if any, would ever want to hear that". 

And the Ron Asheton interview someone here recently posted echoes Quine -
Asheton talks about how his friends call him and say, "Wow, I never noticed how
good Bowie's mix of RAW POWER was until I heard the remix..."

I still don't know why Bowie made RAW POWER sound so weird - the Bowie camp
always claimed that the album was recorded improperly, and looking at the
reviews on Amazon.com of the remix, at least one person claims certain guitar
solos are missing, replaced, etc. in the remix, which supports the possibility
that certain tracks were recorded and/or bounced incorrectly and thus unusable
for proper mixing (making the use of formerly un-used solos, etc., necessary -
he's not claiming they were re-recorded in 1997). Bowie was certainly capable
of better, and only a year earlier he participated in mixing Mott's ALL THE
YOUNG DUDES album and Lou Reed's TRANSFORMER. Even "rushed for time" doesn't
explain it, even though they certainly were with RAW POWER, because ALADDIN
SANE was rushed, and Bowie's multitrack demos were often rushed, yet they
sounded fine.

And I want to stress that this ISN'T a purist thing for me - it's really about
the sound. For example, PET SOUNDS was mixed into stereo in 1996, and the aim
was to match the original 1966 mono mix as closely as possible. Minus a few
missing vocal parts (due to stray tapes), I think the stereo remix of PET
SOUNDS not only accomplishes its stated goal, but is actually a superior mix to
Brian Wilson's original (blasphemy!!). Or, as I wrote Mark Linnett (the remix
engineer) in 1996, "It's like seeing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel after
they cleaned it". And no, I'm NOT saying stereo is better than mono - for
example, I think the mono mix of Pink Floyd's PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN is
better than the amateurish stereo mix, while I think the amateurish stereo mix
of the Yardbird's ROGER THE ENGINEER is much more fun than the mono mix. 

I think remixing RAW POWER was, on paper, a great idea; I just was disappointed
at how uninspired, how generic, how "1997" the resulting remix turned out.

--Philip


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"