Gary
12-10-2001, 08:52 AM
Just an idea here. Remember, an audiophle is "one who is enthusiastic about higher fidelity sound reproduction" (Websters).We’ve all seen award shows like the Grammy’s, Emmy’s, MTV Music Awards, etc. And we’ve seen Black’s worse dressed list, worse song titles of all time (I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Ice Cream), worse movies of all time (Plan 9 from Outer Space), and other “funny” reversals of fortune, so to speak.
And then we get into the serious stuff, like the CEDAR awards for using no noise techniques. Why are they there? To give us ulcers? Nope – they are to encourage the use of the product. To advertise to the consumer that they should look for titles mastered using their product. It’s business and a GREAT marketing tool!
But is there anything in the Music Biz like the WORSE remasters or modern day productions? I don’t know of any.
What I would like to see is an “Anti-Award” given out for:
Worse sounding remaster from the ‘50’s and before.
Worse sounding remaster from the ‘60’s
Worse sounding remaster from the ‘70’s
Worse sounding remaster from the ‘80’s
And “dishonourable mentions” or runners up (or would that be runners down?). Categories would be Jazz, Rock / Pop, Vocal, Blues, Country and perhaps others. And explain WHY it’s so bad, ie: sonics, depth, lifelessness, etc.
Expand on the idea: The BEST remasters done in the previous year. And why.
It seems to me that there is a lot of people complaining about certain remasters, engineers, studios, artists, etc. Some people have got to the artists (Townshend, for example) but what’s being done?
What does everyone think?
This could be an internet enterprise (nothing physical, like a newsletter). And once it gains recognition, it’ll be a counterpoint to the no-noise camp.
And then we get into the serious stuff, like the CEDAR awards for using no noise techniques. Why are they there? To give us ulcers? Nope – they are to encourage the use of the product. To advertise to the consumer that they should look for titles mastered using their product. It’s business and a GREAT marketing tool!
But is there anything in the Music Biz like the WORSE remasters or modern day productions? I don’t know of any.
What I would like to see is an “Anti-Award” given out for:
Worse sounding remaster from the ‘50’s and before.
Worse sounding remaster from the ‘60’s
Worse sounding remaster from the ‘70’s
Worse sounding remaster from the ‘80’s
And “dishonourable mentions” or runners up (or would that be runners down?). Categories would be Jazz, Rock / Pop, Vocal, Blues, Country and perhaps others. And explain WHY it’s so bad, ie: sonics, depth, lifelessness, etc.
Expand on the idea: The BEST remasters done in the previous year. And why.
It seems to me that there is a lot of people complaining about certain remasters, engineers, studios, artists, etc. Some people have got to the artists (Townshend, for example) but what’s being done?
What does everyone think?
This could be an internet enterprise (nothing physical, like a newsletter). And once it gains recognition, it’ll be a counterpoint to the no-noise camp.