|
wha?
No, I don't make it sound like anything of the kind. I'm just stating what's audible. I'm not attacking Davis' intentions--I'm saying he did a lousy job in some cases and pointing out that there are clear differences (that aren't lousy at all) in other cases. You're the one ascribing motivation to him--I don't know what's in the man's head, whereas you're keen to explain and defend him. My point about using different takes is simply: No matter how hard it is to track down this or that master, I bet someone could have got his hands on one of the actual old CDs (available for cheap from any used CD store in the world, for starters) for the sake of rough comparison. I don't care how or why it happened; I just know that I feel punished for wanting to hear these mixes in stereo rather than surround, because the two-channel mixes sound like a muddled afterthought. I still love the music and believe in everyone's basic decency and the nobility of the effort--I just wish that, as is the case in many big remastering projects, more than one engineer had been involved.
|