With only occasional exceptions, I usually don't prefer live versions over their originals. This is especially true with Genesis, whose live versions don't tend to add much to the originals. Some Genesis live versions do have little touches that I like, though, such as (from SO specifically) the whistling in "Squonk" and the "megaphone" voice in "Robbery."
TotW 09/04/2023 - 09/10/2023: GENESIS - Squonk
-
-
I prefer the version of The Lamb a hell of a lot to its studio version.
Yes this has come up a few times. I find the SO version so light and insubstantial and inferior in every possible way it baffles me that anyone could prefer it. That said, while I love the weighty, crunchy, growling feel of the original - textures I yearned for them to use more - I do get that it doesn't sit well with some fans.
But overall I agree with foxfeeder that SO has had its oomph removed, leaving a thin clinical sound that diminishes everything on it.
-
Agreed. Seconds Out was a missed opportunity. Great setlist but missing the sound of Genesis Live. This is partially corrected in the half speed vinyl reissue but that’s not available to everyone. Squonk in particular has already been smoothed over on the album from its original Zep template and then is further downplayed by the sound on SO
-
This is especially true with Genesis, whose live versions don't tend to add much to the originals.
This is off-topic, but coincidentally I was thinking of the middle instrumental bit of One For The Vine the other day, and how little I like the extra drum fills they put in it live. Really detracts from it imo.
Agree with most re: SO. It sounds flat - would an audiophile say something about the dynamic range not being very wide? Was it a recording issue or a mastering issue?
I gave squonk 14 btw if I didn't mention it earlier. Really love that song.
-
Fascinating how different fans' perspectives can be. I always found all of side 1 of SO superior to the studio versions, the only thing missing the additional synth lines in Robbery. Also I prefer the version of The Lamb a hell of a lot to its studio version.
Same here, in fact the whole album for me. Sides 3 and 4 are epic.
As for the dynamics people have mentioned, perhaps I'm just lucky to have good hifi but it's all there when I listen to SO.
-
A good hi-fi can't make a poor mix sound good! It's a mixing problem, IMO.
-
A TOTT was the first album I bought, and Squonk was my favorite song.
It's bombastic (intro), moving (TB pre-chorus), fairytale and dramatic lyrics!
That's what I call Genesis!
-
As for the dynamics people have mentioned, perhaps I'm just lucky to have good hifi but it's all there when I listen to SO.
So I was wondering about that. I don't think I've ever had what I'd consider good hi-fi. The best quality listening I have is a pair of Sennheiser headphones but the source is digital (streaming from YouTube music, not Tidal or the other high quality sources).
However, I just treated myself to a decent-ish turntable. Nothing crazy, a project carbon EVO. I have a serviceable pair of Elac bookshelf speakers and an integrated amp I bought when I had delusions of a home theater system (with 3 kids 10 and under 😆😆 wtf was I thinking...).
I haven't set it up yet, but one of my first orders of business will be to stick Seconds Out on, crank it up and see if there's a big thundering bass that's been inapparent any time I've listened to date. I'm not an audiophile of any sort, I just love music and decided to invest a bit on a set up where I could sit and enjoy it, so I am skeptical that my regular ears will hear a difference. We'll see. Squonk will be the test case 😃
-
I'd say you'd be better with the digital source! Can't understand the vinyl obsession, there is no area in which it beats a decent digital source (eg/ CD which is 16/44, or other sources with higher numbers like Flac etc, which can go up to 24/96 if available. Even good mp3 like 256k/b or higher is better.)
-
So I was wondering about that. I don't think I've ever had what I'd consider good hi-fi. The best quality listening I have is a pair of Sennheiser headphones but the source is digital (streaming from YouTube music, not Tidal or the other high quality sources).
However, I just treated myself to a decent-ish turntable. Nothing crazy, a project carbon EVO. I have a serviceable pair of Elac bookshelf speakers and an integrated amp I bought when I had delusions of a home theater system (with 3 kids 10 and under 😆😆 wtf was I thinking...).
I haven't set it up yet, but one of my first orders of business will be to stick Seconds Out on, crank it up and see if there's a big thundering bass that's been inapparent any time I've listened to date. I'm not an audiophile of any sort, I just love music and decided to invest a bit on a set up where I could sit and enjoy it, so I am skeptical that my regular ears will hear a difference. We'll see. Squonk will be the test case 😃
it does make a difference. I have some nice Monitor Audio floorstanding speakers with lots of dynamic range but also 2 big Rel subs which pick up the deep bass that most speakers miss. Those Moog Taurus bass pedals are definitely there in the mix, eg the guitar crescendo on Firth, various bits of Suppers Ready or best of all the final part of Los Endos. On Squonk as well come to that. I would however agree that there’s a dynamic range difference between David Henschel and the remixes, but David got more sweetness to the midrange.
-
I'd say you'd be better with the digital source! Can't understand the vinyl obsession, there is no area in which it beats a decent digital source (eg/ CD which is 16/44, or other sources with higher numbers like Flac etc, which can go up to 24/96 if available. Even good mp3 like 256k/b or higher is better.)
People swear by them and claim vinyl albums have a warmer, fuller sound.
What stands out in my recollection of playing vinyl are the crackles, occasional skips and the sound of surface wear from albums played repeatedly.
I thought CDs were a blessing in comparison, and I haven’t moved on from that format - though I know most others have.
-
People swear by them and claim vinyl albums have a warmer, fuller sound.
What stands out in my recollection of playing vinyl are the crackles, occasional skips and the sound of surface wear from albums played repeatedly.
I thought CDs were a blessing in comparison, and I haven’t moved on from that format - though I know most others have.
Exactly! As I always say, 2if you think vinyl sounds better than CD, you've bought the wrong CD player"!
Joke is, most modern vinyl is mastered off digital sources.
-
What stands out in my recollection of playing vinyl are the crackles, occasional skips and the sound of surface wear from albums played repeatedly.
I also recall having the occasional issue with records getting warped.
I thought CDs were a blessing in comparison, and I haven’t moved on from that format - though I know most others have.
I haven't moved on from it either. I don't understand why anyone would consider it less a preferable format than anything else.
-
People swear by them and claim vinyl albums have a warmer, fuller sound.
So, as someone who enjoys listening to vinyl - albeit very rarely right now - I've never understood that argument.
I grew up with CDs (actually cassettes at the start but from 14 or so it was CDs). They sounded great. When multi-disc players came out... Wow! It was like the future. And then you could write your own? GTFO.
I started getting some vinyl as a teenager in the 90s because it was the only way to get some stuff, especially bootlegs, for a period. Also my parents had a setup for playing it. Something about vinyl stuck with me. Partly the oversized album art and lyrics, mostly the ceremony of putting it on, sitting your ass down and listening to it. That said, 99% of my consumption in the last 20 years has been digital, mp3 purchases first and latterly streaming. I credit it with convenience and way more importantly, the easy discovery of oceanic quantities of new music.
I've listened to hours and hours and hours of music that way, on my phone and with wireless earbuds. When I love an album I buy it, to support the artist. Some artists only release some stuff on vinyl. As a result, and because of the hangover of my teenage habits, I found myself buying more and more vinyl. But I have never heard this "warm" shit that people talk about. To me it sounds the same (but crackly). I am aware of a very large community of people though who swear by good turntables, good speakers, cleaning records etc etc. And I figure, hey, if I'm going to spend some time and money of my own on something, let's give this a try.
I haven't set up a good system for playing and listening yet, but I'm excited to. Really excited, almost like a kid at Christmas. I'm not expecting it to sound "warm" though. As long as it sounds good!!
As an aside, I'm also going to get a cd player because I shipped some CDs from my childhood home to where I live now, and I haven't listened to them in 25 years.
-
I agree that the warm/cold distinction between Digital and Vinyl is clumsy and silly. But I do like vinyl and it’s my preferred medium when I’m at home. Obviously digital is best for on the move etc. It was once explained to me in a HiFi shop that the difference is to do with the physical nature of stylus in groove meaning the sound hits you in twinkles rather than simultaneously, as it does from digital sources. Whether this is detectable by my ears or whether I’m imagining things I don’t know but it does sound different to me when I compare albums and cds of things I’ve known for forty to fifty years, as with a lot of Genesis stuff. I don’t think it’s better, I just prefer vinyl and I don’t seem to get crackles with my current set up and heavyweight vinyls. Some of it, as Thewatcher says, is the whole experience of the size of the sleeve, the conscious effort of putting the thing on the turntable and sitting down to listen etc. Certainly you can’t beat digital for convenience and if you can only have one that’s the way to go. I’ve spent about £250-£350 on each bit of my WiFi and each component has lasted me decades. I’m lucky enough to have a turntable, CD deck and wi fi enabled tuner so best of most worlds but it’s probably the turntable that gets most use. Significantly that’s since I retired, before then it was mainly digital. In terms of Squonk- which I think is a great track, whichever I play it on its excellent but maybe too smooth. This is especially true of Seconds Out, apart from the half speed vinyl, where there is more bass and guitar. But I suspect this is due to how they sounded live at that stage as much as anything else and it’s another good reason to see Steve’s current band do some of this stuff. He doesn’t have the punch of 80s live Genesis but the material is from my favourite era and in terms of sound, it’s better than SO, although you can obviously debate arrangements and merits of individual musicians etc.
-
I haven't moved on from it either. I don't understand why anyone would consider it less a preferable format than anything else.
I haven't moved on from CD either, it's my preferred format, sounds great, easy to file and you get the artwork (though I admit the LP beats it, obviously, but it's the only area it does). I don't stream except stuff that's not out yet, and even then I only use youtube as it's free, and I don't use downloads much, except for a few things, and even then, I now use 7digital, cos you can download mp3 AND AAC for one price, AAC is lossless, and I have the software to convert it back to wav files and burn to CD.
I rip all my CD's to hard disc as wave files for backup purposes, and then convert to mp3 for my car, and my music player for use on the move/holidays etc.
-
It was once explained to me in a HiFi shop that the difference is to do with the physical nature of stylus in groove meaning the sound hits you in twinkles rather than simultaneously, as it does from digital sources.
-
Since both my dad and my brother are audiophiles, I have an audiophile stereo in my apartment. I am unable to explain all the technical backgrounds but I listen to CDs as well as vinyl and by direct comparison my experience has been old LPs from the 70's mostly sound way inferior to digitally remastered CDs. Those old LPs usually have a muddy sound, the CDs reveal a lot more details and have more dynamics. However, with LPs from the 90s it is the other way round, those newer LPs totally beat CDs: unbelievably bright, transparent and clear. CDs don't get close to them. It's still just a rule of thumb, there's humongous differences between LPs even from the same era. The original Seconds Out LP sounds remarkably great even though it is from the 70's. CDs don't have such vast differences, they usually sound good enough and it's hard to find any with real crappy sound.
That "analogue warmth" thing is a myth imho. It might come from crappy vinyl players and crappy stereos with a lot of saturation and distortion, noise, hissing and humming.
-
Since both my dad and my brother are audiophiles, I have an audiophile stereo in my apartment. I am unable to explain all the technical backgrounds but I listen to CDs as well as vinyl and by direct comparison my experience has been old LPs from the 70's mostly sound way inferior to digitally remastered CDs. Those old LPs usually have a muddy sound, the CDs reveal a lot more details and have more dynamics. However, with LPs from the 90s it is the other way round, those newer LPs totally beat CDs: unbelievably bright, transparent and clear. CDs don't get close to them. It's still just a rule of thumb, there's humongous differences between LPs even from the same era. The original Seconds Out LP sounds remarkably great even though it is from the 70's. CDs don't have such vast differences, they usually sound good enough and it's hard to find any with real crappy sound.
That "analogue warmth" thing is a myth imho. It might come from crappy vinyl players and crappy stereos with a lot of saturation and distortion, noise, hissing and humming.
I suppose most of the vinyl I listen to is old stuff - Beatles, Genesis and related and Moody Blues, almost all of which I have re-bought as heavyweight remasters.
If I go back to my original thin
79s stuff I may well agree with you.
-
Since both my dad and my brother are audiophiles, I have an audiophile stereo in my apartment. I am unable to explain all the technical backgrounds but I listen to CDs as well as vinyl and by direct comparison my experience has been old LPs from the 70's mostly sound way inferior to digitally remastered CDs. Those old LPs usually have a muddy sound, the CDs reveal a lot more details and have more dynamics. However, with LPs from the 90s it is the other way round, those newer LPs totally beat CDs: unbelievably bright, transparent and clear. CDs don't get close to them. It's still just a rule of thumb, there's humongous differences between LPs even from the same era. The original Seconds Out LP sounds remarkably great even though it is from the 70's. CDs don't have such vast differences, they usually sound good enough and it's hard to find any with real crappy sound.
That "analogue warmth" thing is a myth imho. It might come from crappy vinyl players and crappy stereos with a lot of saturation and distortion, noise, hissing and humming.
Interesting, I would have thought it would be the other way around, because the music from the 70s was specifically mastered for vinyl. But I could also write what I know about music recording and mastering on the back of a postage stamp! At any rate I am looking forward to dipping my toe in the world of hifi. A pleasing distraction. And there's the expense and inconvenience of course too 😀
