Johnny Marr on The Smiths boxset and Warners

I hope WB reissues these albums on vinyl... because Sound Matters.

Anything will be better than the current US discs... if they're compressed like the Japanese mini-vinyls, I'll pass.

 

What can I say - my memory ain't what it used to be

 

I do feel that Shoplifters does sounds thin (markedly so) - in the context of the other tracks on 'Louder Than Bombs' (particularly with Sweet and Tender Hooligan following it). It does stick out, and is one rare Smiths track where I believe the song is somewhat sold short by the production (this is usually said of the 1st album, but the uniformity across the songs disguises it).

 

what an odd criticism of a single - what context in respect to its sound should it have other than to itself?

and why would one necessarily expect louder than bombs to have a uniform or collective "album" sound?

 

I always suspected that Shoplifters sounds that way because of the tapes used by Sire in the USA. But I've never heard the original UK single, so what do I know? But something tells me that Bombs could have been assembled with a little more care and QC.

For example, the Germany Horzu LP of Magical Mystery Tour sounds fantastic, especially Side 2, and those are all from different singles. Granted, The Smiths didn't record all their stuff at Abbey Road, but still... we've all heard the US Capitol LP of MMT. Maybe it's possible for Bombs to sound better.

 

The basic problem must be the way the master sounds as all version I've heard sound thin and weedy.

Still, one of my favourite tracks of all time - go figure

 

Maybe Moz noz......

Peace-
N
t5

 

What does this mean? How many mastering engineers do you know and do the ones you know not take pride in their work?

 

I never said the song 'should' sound akin to the other songs on Louder Than Bombs, only that it does not - and therefore stands out. There doesn't have to be a 'uniform' album sound at all, but in the context of the album, the song stands out. It's not a criticism (the song is fantastic), merely an observation.

Like it or not, many of us here were too young to be listening to The Smiths in the 1980s, and so we discovered their music via the 'albums' made available (on CD) rather than in the chronological, 'real time' of their release. In Australia, the WB US CD releases were all that was readily available to someone like me in the early 1990s, so, whether you like it or not, I'll always understand 'The Smiths' to include 'This Charming Man' , and 'Meat Is Murder' to include 'How Soon Is Now?'. Now, that's not what the band intended, but I didn't know that until much later - when the Internet made Smiths information readily available to someone who came to their music well after the band had disbanded.

As such, I'll always hear 'Shoplifters...' in the company of such rockers as 'Sweet And Tender Hooligan' and 'London' (as on 'Louder Than Bombs'). As something of a purist, you might snort in derision, but I can't help the fact that the way I experienced those albums was a record company construction rather than what the band intended, or that the songs as presented were 'out of sequence' (in terms of their respective era of release). How was I supposed to know that, and how can that information possibly stop me from listening to the albums in the way that I do, and have done, for years?

 

well, you could try reading the liner notes

but there are no "purists" "snorting" at you, and of course I recognize that one can't help the first time they get to hear something (it is in fact one of my mantras against rock/pop snobbery)

nevertheless, I've never considered the song "thin"-sounding myself, so when you describe it not only that way but then go on to say it is "markedly so in the context of the other tracks on louder than bombs" I can't help but find it an odd criticism/observation, "whether you like it or not" , especially when that album is not only quite clearly a compilation but plainly states on the cover that the material spans over three years

it also has nothing to do with "real-time" of release or anyone trying to "stop you from from listening to the albums in the way that you do"

 

Call it lack of pride; call it lack of integrity or whatever. But most of todays remasters certainly aint good craftsmanship (and I have a feeling that the mastering engineers do know this). At least this is how I see it.

 

i have a 12" promo U.S. Sire 33rpm one track single of Shoplifters which sounds really good. i put it on a cd with a bunch of other U.K. RT vinyl 12" rips and 2 other Sire 33rpm promo singles and they (all 3 sire promos) hold their own against the U.K.s, so not sure the U.S. tapes are really the issue for these tracks IMO.

 

I'd like to re-ask the question Mark asked as you didn't answer:

Just with how many mastering engineers are you personally acquainted with?

You DO know that most mastering engineers are employees, do you not? Excepting our gracious host, who is independent of any studio, and forum fave Barry Diament, who has his own studio, the majority of these guys work FOR someone.

They may have families. They may have mortgages or rent to pay. They may even like to eat once in a while.

So when some suit/his boss - or even the client/band themselves - tells the engineer he'd like the new album to sound really loud and in-your-face, one of two options opens up:

a.) the engineer does as is requested of him

or

b.) he says no.

Note that choosing option "b" is most likely not going to further his career by much and probably do even less for that little family, mortgage & eating thing mentioned above.

So perhaps you should ask all those mastering engineers you know about craftsmanship, integrity and pride the next time all you guys meet up.

 

I believe Morrissey chose the running order for both Louder Than Bombs and World Won't Listen.

 

And Hatful?

 

A lot of people do a lot of things for a living..... but that's a different story.

I am not personally acquainted with any mastering engineerer.

My whole point is that just about anyone could make a better job than most of todays mastering engineers. Even I could; and most certainly Johnny Marr.

 

Is a boxset even desirable? The Smiths don't have much, if any, unreleased material. Any boxset would consist of almost all previously released material, with possibly The Troy Tate Sessions and an instrumental or two at best. If any band isn't well-served by a box, it's the Smiths. They have only four proper studio albums, Hatful Of Hollow, and non-lp singles. And they are ALL essential (possibly excepting "Golden Lights" - but one has to have THAT in order to get the weird personal dynamic in the group. It's integral to the story). If the box left off anything it would only cause gripes.

I think each album should be remastered and released without bonus tracks. All the singles should be collected in one place, then any rarities ("Work Is A Four Letter Word", "The Draize Train", etc...) and unreleased stuff should be on a separate cd.

 

...which would be perfect, from a marketing standpoint, to release in a boxset rather than a separate single CD

 

Or the Rolling Stones' catalog, for that matter. ABKCO probably latched on to SACD as a way to re-sell the same albums, not because someone there really cared that much about the music. Otherwise, we might have been able to purchase the Rolling Stones First and Second albums in their original UK form, and have the option of stereo and mono mixes for all the albums.

And then there is the Rolling Stones Records catalog, which is a bit of a mess as well. Come to think of it, I can't think of a major 1960s act whose catalog is consistently available in great-sounding, well-packaged form. Can you? Maybe the Byrds...

Right on both counts, John.

By the way, has anyone heard the Troy Tate stuff?

 

At least a couple of tracks produced by Troy Tate were officially released - "Jeane" being one of them.

 

Actually, I'd love to see a simple box set of the original singles and relevant B sides on CD and do a nice sounding reissue of the albums as-is. The Smiths were one of the last bands that seemed to concentrate equally on their singles as well as their albums and it'd be nice to see a reissue campaign reflecting that. Something along the lines of the recent Clash singles box would be perfect, IMHO.

 

I have, but not in over a decade

I recall enjoying it though (disclaimer: the first album has always been my least favorite)

good idea

 

There are still b-sides such as "Jeanne" that have never appeared on an official CD. There were also live b-sides to singles such as "That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore" that have never appeared on CD. There are also alternate takes/rejected mixes of songs with different instrumentation: they called in a trumpet player for a rejected take of "Frankly, Mr. Shankly" and at least one other track from that era, believe it or not. In his recent MOJO interview, Johnny mentioned that there are live takes/underdubs of the band playing together in the studio that he deems releasable. There is also a bunch of live material and, I think, some Peel session material that could be used. The live album Rank contains only about half the set of a complete concert that was broadcast on the BBC, iirc. Then, of course, there are the Troy Tate sessions, which would be the cornerstone of any box set, I think.

If we can pore over the "extra beat" U.S. mix of "I Am the Walrus" or the "extra verse" U.S. mix of "I'll Cry Instead," we ought to get the chance to hear these Smiths rarities.

 

I have that song on an official "This Charming Man" CD EP.

Yes. I like some cuts on it better than the ones on the officially released first album.

 

When I last spoke with someone at Warner/Rhino a year ago about why the Smith's boxset has been held up they said anything as far as remastering with the Smith's catalog would be held up until they get their business affairs in order.