you get the artwork (though I admit the LP beats it, obviously, but it's the only area it does).
Totally agree. While all my stuff on vinyl has long since been replaced by CD (or however I could get it digitally, even if I had to digitize it myself), I still keep some LPs around just for the artwork. (Ant Phillip's BACK TO THE PAVILION just isn't the same when shrunk down to CD size, for example.)
P.S.: Boy, did this thread get off-topic...
Totally agree. While all my stuff on vinyl has long since been replaced by CD (or however I could get it digitally, even if I had to digitize it myself), I still keep some LPs around just for the artwork. (Ant Phillip's BACK TO THE PAVILION just isn't the same when shrunk down to CD size, for example.)
P.S.: Boy, did this thread get off-topic...
Yeah, but we got away with it! 
(Digitize it yourself? As in Record the LP to computer, if you didn't like it enough to buy the CD, or it wasn't available? Yes, did that too!)
Digitize it yourself? As in Record the LP to computer, if you didn't like it enough to buy the CD, or it wasn't available? Yes, did that too!
I have a number of vinyl (and cassette) items, generally non-mainstream stuff, that do not exist in CD (or downloadable mp3) form. I've either had someone put these to digital form for me or I've recorded them to computer (and ultimately burned them to CDR) myself. In a few cases CD versions have eventually become available but the digitalized versions I already had were satisfactory to me.
P.S.: Boy, did this thread get off-topic...
I accept most of the responsibility for that. I think it was an organic discussion though and particularly relevant to Squonk, studio vs SO vs other live versions. I guess you can generalize it to different listening formats which was what happened.
Not to stir it up again, but it is amazing to me that later live versions of Squonk (1980?) sound very "raw" and energetic where SO sounds colorless or tame. If that's due to playback format and equipment I'd love to know why/how. Maybe the band just sounded different.
I accept most of the responsibility for that. I think it was an organic discussion though and particularly relevant to Squonk, studio vs SO vs other live versions. I guess you can generalize it to different listening formats which was what happened.
Not to stir it up again, but it is amazing to me that later live versions of Squonk (1980?) sound very "raw" and energetic where SO sounds colorless or tame. If that's due to playback format and equipment I'd love to know why/how. Maybe the band just sounded different.
I'm pretty sure it's down to the mixing. It was claimed, in a jokey fashion, that they mixed Steve out cos he'd left, but frankly, I'm not sure it was a joke. He's not very up in the mix at all, and much as some might think he was excess baggage, ATTWT soon highlighted how much he added to the sound. Same is true here.
I'm pretty sure it's down to the mixing. It was claimed, in a jokey fashion, that they mixed Steve out cos he'd left, but frankly, I'm not sure it was a joke. He's not very up in the mix at all, and much as some might think he was excess baggage, ATTWT soon highlighted how much he added to the sound. Same is true here.
I second this Seconds Out comment. SH's guitar sounds thin and watery across the album, contributing to the overall insipid feel which is definitely in the mixing. SH said one of the contributing factors in his departure was how dispiriting were the SO mixing sessions he attended, where everyone was jostling for position at the desk and "there weren't enough faders to go round" so maybe there was a 'too many cooks' element too.
I think it was an organic discussion though and particularly relevant to Squonk, studio vs SO vs other live versions.
it is amazing to me that later live versions of Squonk (1980?) sound very "raw" and energetic where SO sounds colorless or tame. If that's due to playback format and equipment I'd love to know why/how. Maybe the band just sounded different.
We're all opinionated Genesis nuts here so pretty much any discussion about any aspect of them will spread out into other stuff, nothing wrong with that and in this case as you say it's all related.
I agree the Duke Tour Squonks are way better, as was all the older material over the ensuing years. The 81 FoF and 82 SR were far superior to the SO ones. It's a lot to do with their development as players, PC's maturing as a singer, and probably how equipment was changing.
I didn't see the W&W tour, but I knew someone who did. They said the thing they remembered most was how loud Steve's guitar was.
So I think it's safe to say he's been mixed down. I don't think they were joking at all when they said that's what they did.
In the interest of returning to the subject of Squonk, as I was one of the ones who hijacked it, I've spent afternoon listening to some different versions.
The studio on the def remasters CD - Really well balanced, lower register of Phil's voice sounds rich, every cymbal is clear as well. Maybe lacking a little bass?
The studio on the Box set CD Sounds louder on same volume as Def masters. Vocals have a beefier sound, bass slightly more pronounced. Drums more to the front. Cymbals slightly more trebly. Guitar comes through a little more on 'mirror mirror'
The studio on the Box set 5:1 _ immense sound, my favourite of the CDs (Played on 5:1 system) Every instrument can be heard and the vocals very clear.
Studio - Vinyl heavyweight - sounds similar to the def remasters in terms of dynamics, each instrument is clear and well-balanced - I'd prefer more bass. Hi-Hat more noticeable
Live on Seconds out Def remasters nice 'soft sound' very polished, better than I remembered. Great vocals.
Live on SO from Live Box set More beef on the bass and pedals and a slightly crisper drum sound. Overall a better mix to my ears
Live on Live Box set 5:1 Monster sound in terms of bass and pedals, guitar sounds a little low, vocals not as pronounced as other versions
Live on Seconds Out Vinyl remaster - Sounds great, a little more echo maybe on the vocals
Live on the "Getting in Tune" Bootleg - very up front sound and a lot of bass and pedal and guitar, which sounds good (This is one of only a handful bootlegs I've ever bought so I'm not sure what to expect from sound, but this is better than I expected)
Of course none of this means anything, just my preferences. i don't have a clue about studio techniques, compression etc. My ears turned 61 last week so who knows what I'm hearing? I'd say they all sound great, the studio versions have slight variations of bass and guitar and I prefer a slightlier bass-heavier sound if I can get it (I know I can turn the bass up but I try to leave all controls in the middle.) For live versions, I remember really enjoying the Duke tour version. I like the Bruford version, but following Backdrifter's Law of Squonk I have to mention Bonzo - and the most Bonzo-like version is probably Chester's drumming, which isn't very Bonzo either. But the 5:1s suit this track well, live and studio.
It's been a good reminder of what a good track this is and how it served the band so well as a launchpad after Peter left, both in the studio and live and how long it lasted in the live set. I would have loved to see what Bonzo would have done with it actually. I think Phil is the better drummer, but a really heavy drum sound would work well, and that is testament to the quality of the song.
I prefer most Genesis tracks as live performances. Squonk is one of the few that I prefer the studio recording. There's a crispness to the attack of the guitars and drums that gets softened on Seconds Out. Later versions reachieve some of the aggression, but Phil can't quite sustain the high As the way he could on the studio version.
