Pearl Jam "Ten" Deluxe Editions coming*

"Brother" single campaign at rock radio

Strange choice, IMO. I guess they chose it because it is more uptempo/"harder"? I guess that will appeal more to "rock" radio. But I think "Girl" is a much stronger unreleased song. And it's not as if it's a soft ballad or anything...

 

I remember seeing this tidbit in Billboard awhile ago, and suddenly feeling very old.

 

I'll be buying the whole album for Rock Band, but I'm going to wait for reports on the sound quality before buying the new CDs. Maybe someone here will get theirs early

 

Wow! They've really screwed up "Brother". The new one isn't just remixed. It's from a different take and sounds like it has new overdubs. I wasn't that high on the original and, of course, there was that bad instrumental version from 'Lost Dogs'. But this new one is pretty lame, IMO. I actually hope radio doesn't play this thing...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike D'Aversa
The reissue of Ten serves as the launch of a planned two-year catalogue re-release campaign leading up to the band’s 20th anniversary in 2011.

Tell me about it. I've been purposely trying to ignore these various anniversary dates, and trying to focus on the positives of potentially "new"/old stuff. I read on a PJ message board that someone has a source at Sony saying that "new editions" of 'Vs.' and 'Vitalogy' are expected this year. I don't know what that means. Hopefully it's not just straight re-issues. And I doubt they'll be anymore remixing. Probably a new/unnecessary remastering, but with unreleased bonus stuff attached?

"Once" remix sounds identical to the one already available on 'Rearviewmirror'...

 

It's all a bunch of nonsense. Ten doesn't need a remaster, and all the other studio albums are rendered inferior by live versions, so why bother with them. I am surprised PJ is into such a money grab. Just one opinion....

 

Waveform of Once (remastered) below:

 

Looks like I might not be getting this after all.

 

Did you guys expect anything different? 99.9999999% of new albums look like this.

 

I am trying to keep an open mind about it, but yeah, you're right. It's really sad.

 

Who cares? This set contains a slew of music you don't have. Stuff that has never been released before. That is what is significant. Not that the original mix of Ten is brickwalled. If your posting in this thread I'm sure you already have the stock 1991 Ten CD (which is, of course, is not loud at all). If not new copies are less than $10 and used copies are less than $1. This set has 4 hours of unreleased material. I'd like to see some comments about that.

 

One person (in addition to me) has already posted that they care. I know for a fact that many members of this site care about how this stuff is mastered.

Significant to you. I have decided not to buy any more brickwalled stuff by anyone, I don't care what it is. I don't listen to the brickwalled stuff I have bought in the past and it seems silly to buy something I am not going to listen to. Moreover, as a consumer this is my only way to communicate to the labels that brickwalled remasters are not acceptable. I can't believe that I have to argue this point on this forum, of all places.

The album was remixed for this release (the waveform I posted is of the remix of Once, not the original mix), which means that there is no pre-remaster for this mix, nor is there obviously any pre-remaster of the unreleased stuff. I'd like to see more comments about how folks feel about the fact that this precious material is being mastered/released in this manner.

 

The "remaster" of 'Ten' is not the focus of this reissue. Everybody already has the original cd. The focus of the reissue is primarily the remix of the album and, secondarily, the bonus material/official release of 'Unplugged'...

 

1. That waveform is actually not that bad at all. Anytime you can see definition in the peaks all along the form (i.e. it doesn't show any solid blocking all the way to to + or - 0 db.).

2. We don't know 100% for sure what they have put up as streaming clips/what you have used as your waveform, represents the final mastering.

3. What you've posted is the remix of "Once", not the remaster. A huge difference/distinction, that people around here sometimes forget. As you know, a remix is, essentially, a brand new recording. As if they had just gone into the studio, and recorded a new album. So, if you really want to get an accurate perspective of what it will sound like ("mastering wise" - compression/maximization/EQ/etc), you need to compare it to their more recent albums/recordings. The clip makes it sound like it's identical to the one available since 2004's 'Rearviewmirror' compilation. I would strongly advise anyone concerned about sound quality, or just interested in to how the remixed album will sound, to listen to/examine "Once", "Alive", and "Black" on there. I, or somebody else, could even post a waveform to compare. Besides, any big fan of the band should already own it. It's cheaply priced. The end of "Yellow Ledbetter" is not cut off, unlike on 'Lost Dogs' and the "Jeremy" single. The alternate version of "State Of Love And Trust" is not only radically different than the 'Singles' soundtrack cd, it's IMO superior. You get the far superior video version/Japanese "Alive" EP import exclusive/Dave Abrunezze drummed/early '92/ re-recording of "Even Flow". There are a couple of other things as well (including O'Brien's '92 video/radio remix for "Jeremy" in complete form, as opposed to the inexplicably "faded a minute early" version as presented on the retail single). It's likely O'Brein has now done a second remix for the upcoming release.

4. One more thing. That clip of "Once" was most likely taken of off 'Rearviewmirror", and not the forthcoming reissue. Why? Because, as everybody knows, "Once" does not start "cold". As the first track, it is crossfaded in from the "Master/Slave" instrumental. They probably used it in place of the album version because the album version either wasn't ready, out of convenience to the listener (unless you want people spending the first minute and a half listening to a slow fade up of the official song, along with a completely unrelated instrumental piece...not a problem for people who know the album, but we're only half the audience this thing is aimed at/the reason they even bothered posting those clips).

In summary, and IMO, everybody needs to slow down and take a large "chill pill". The only thing we should be complaining about for the moment, IMO, is the version of "Brother" we will apparently be getting on this new set...

 

I'll wait to listen to the disc rather than go by a waveform..

 

How dare you???

 

The remastering of 'Ten' is not what people care about or, at least, should care about. We already have the original cd. The primary appeal of this entire project is the remixing of the album.

One of the reasons a lot of people prefer to listen to the live versions of the 'Ten' songs, in particular, is because of the original mixing (Dave Krusen's drums are lost in a sea of reverb/Ed's softer vocals often get buried under too many vocal overdubs and dated effects). While there is nothing inherently "wrong" with them, they have a definite late 80's metal "sheen" to them. Kurt Cobain had similar complaints over the sound of 'Nevermind'. 1991, as we all know, was a real transition year for the recording of hard rock bands. The new/alternative groups were used to a much more natural/non-wall of sound on their recordings, but the major labels weren't quite ready to change yet.

It's notable that PJ completely changed producers/drummers/their sound, immediately after the album's release. 'Ten' sounds almost like it's from a different era of the band, in comparison to the rest of their studio records. I've always greatly preferred the re-recording/MTV version of "Even Flow", to the one on the album. But I don't know how much of that has to do with the old recording, or the old mix, itself. I guess I'll know soon enough. Fans have complained for years that "Porch" didn't come out nearly as aggressive-sounding as it was played live (more metal/punk). Can a just remix "fix" this? I don't know. If it can, it will probably be added to my cd-r version of 'Ten', which has swapped out the two "Even Flow" versions for years.

As far as the live vs. studio thing. We'll just have to disagree on that. I've never understood the people who see many group's studio records as being like demos for their live performances. Not with Zeppelin. Not with The Who. Not with the Stones. Not with PJ. All four of these group were, granted, outstanding at performing live in comparison to most of there peers. But I see their live recordings as a great supplement/addition to the studio records. Almost ever as a proper substitute for them. As good as their were live, they were also great in the studio to varying degrees. If you're going to be a great band, IMO, you should be great in both settings. And, while I can see how PJ has sent mixed signals by releasing TONS of live albums (like they were the Greatful Dead or something), almost none of these releases feature what many consider their best live line-up. Listen to Dave A's drumming on 'Vs.' and 'Vitalogy'. As good as Matt Cameron is, he can't work the kit with the same speed/groove. Especially on the more "funk" or "punk" numbers, like "Spin The Black Circle" or "Blood". Or, perhaps you're more into the "good sloppy"/more experimental drumming of ex-Chilli Pepper Jack Irons? You really think Matt C. excels at unusual patterns on songs like "In My Tree" or "Who You Are"? There was a reason the band didn't play those two for many years after Irons left. Obviously, Matt's worked his *** off to be able to at least be able to play acceptable live versions in the various styles of these songs. But, at his heart, he is a great hard rock/metal drummer. He can play fast, but he's limited in what he can do at that speed. He can hit hard, but he doesn't have much soul or groove to compliment Ament. He's perfect for the style they record in now, but they were a different (and, in many people's opinion's, better) band when they were younger. Just like anybody. Just like those other three groups I mentioned. Live Zeppelin in the late 70's can't touch the early/mid-70's version. Live Who from the mid-70's on, can't touch the late 60's/early 70's version. Live Stones from the mid-70's onward, is a different animal from that which came before.

Oh yeah. And then there's all the bonus tracks and 'Unplugged'/etc!

 

So let me get this straight -- that waveform shows that they went and turned up "Ten" to eleven???


I honestly cannot believe we've gotten 8 pages into this thread and no one else made that joke.

 

Well, as you know, there was only ever that one amplifier made that was capable of such a dramatic increase! Early 80's vintage...

 

Hey, I think it looks and sounds like crap. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to sugarcoat this. If you feel it looks and sounds fine, that's fine with me. Is it OK with you if I don't like it?

I guess you're right, they could have created a worse mastering to use for the clips, though that would seem a very poor idea.

Right, unless I missed something, the whole album was remixed. This was stated in the original post. This remix has never been done (and therefore released) before so I think it's really sad that those who buy this $150 set won't get a much less compressed mastering. We talk about this stuff all the time, about how many of us are sick of they are doing to our music. If we just go out and buy it anyway, what is this saying? Is it saying we are not going to support what you are doing to our music? No, it's saying, we will buy whatever you put out, so don't bother reconsidering what you are doing to our music. I decided after the last REM album that I will no longer give any record company my money if they are compressing the music they release to this extent. I made that decision because 1. I simply wasn't listening to these super loud CDs anymore and 2. I can't feel comfortable about complaining about the state of modern mastering and then turn around financially support what they are doing to the music that I love. If you are OK with it, cool, but please allow me to not be OK with it. There's plenty of room for differing opinions here.

I think you missed my earlier point. I am not going to judge any CD anymore against the terrible mastering standard that we currently have, nor do I see why I should have to. Just because everything else is loud and terrible, that doesn't make pearl jam (or REM or Beck or etc) any less terrible.

I have heard a few cuts off that album and I can tell you that the original single (alternate) version of Evenflow sounds much better in it's earlier incarnation. Much more dynamic, less harsh.

I would bet that the opening music (that is clearly indicative of the sound that they are trying to get away from on this new release) to the album is not present in the new remix, but I guess you will find out when it gets released.

This is the problem with where this thread is going - you're telling us what we should be complaining about? I thought we were free here to share our opinions. I also thought that it was possible to share that opinion without attacking the opinions of others.

 

...man, that is one kicka$$ live version of 'Alive' from 'Drop in the Park'.

 

I didn't mean to say it looked great, I just said it looked decent for a "new" cd. Don't look at this as an archival release from the 60's/70's that can be easliy "destroyed" in the mastering. This was a modern recording that was digitally mixed the first time around. And now has been digitally mixed a second time. Modern recordings are often much harder to butcher in the mastering (despite what how their waveforms might appear), because they were recorded and mixed with loudness in mind.

Additionally, this particular waveform is deceiving, because this is not the version that will be on any of the new sets. This is likely taken from the "standalone"/edited/remixed verison of "Once", as presented on 2004's 'Rearviewmirrow' compilation.

Of course it is ok if you don't like it! Who said it wasn't? Disagreement is the very foundation of a forum like this, and is to be distinguished from personal attacks (which I most certainly didn't commit).

Again, I believe this particular remix/song/waveform to simply be a clone of what was done for 2004's 'Rearviwemirror' cd, and I say that only by sound alone. If people would prefer, I could post that set's waveform to see if it actually matches. More importantly, this song would need to be remixed again, in order to be part of this new set (as it is not the LP version - remixed or otherwise - of the song).

The people buying the $150 set are hardcore fans who already have the original mastering (be it vyinal or cd). They want the new mix, 'Unplugged' on dvd, and lots of cool bonus stuff.

If they were really concerned with good mastering they would have stopped buying Pearl Jam's cd's after 'Vs.', because the cd of 'Vitalogy' is loud as ****. As far as vinal, I haven't purchased their more recent album's on that format, and have no idea if the mastering is superior to that of the standard cd. If I had to guess, I would say yes. The band has stated their preference for that format, and all of their albums from the 90's are mastered better on those platters.

Keeping in mind that the $150 set will include the remixed album on viynal, it is actually more than likely that they will receive a good mastering of the aforementioned song.

I applaud this stance of integrity. It's, indeed, frustrating that modern rock/pop is still being poorly mastered. However, I am not willing to forego listening to new music because of it. The artists in question are willful participants. If there were rogue mastering engineers doing this against there wishes, I would also boycott. That, however, is not the case.

Yes, plenty of room! Is someone currently suppresing your opinion here in anyway?

That's certainly your prerogative.

If you're talking strictly fidelity, then I agree with you. However, for me, unless fideltiy is unbearable, I always go with perfromance. In that regard, I feel there is no contest between the two. Apparently, the band felt the same way.

As you say, we won't know for sure until release. However, I would be shocked beyond belief if the band was willing to compromise their art like that. For what reason? They have never voiced complaint with any aspect of the album, bar the "sound" of the songs. They did re-record "Even Flow", and have "Jeremy" remixed for single release, but those have always been seperate from the album itself. Also remember that these remixed discs are not taking the place of the original product/mix. If someone wanted to buy a standard/1 cd version of 'Ten', they'd still be buying the same glass master copy available since 1991 (unless Sony opts to replace that version over time, and circulate the newly remastered version instead...still, the mix would not change).

Did I not preface myself with an IMO? And even if I had not, is that not implied? When/where did I tell anyone that they must agree with anything I say?

It is impossible to "attack" an opinion. You can argue/counter-argue one, but the work "attack" implies/is associated with one or more individuals personally insulting one or more other individuals.

I'm sorry if you feel your being "attacked", but I will not apologize for my right to have a differing musical opinion on a forum where that is precisely what is encouraged...

 

Yeah. That's back when they weren't yet sick to death of playing it!

 

Looks like 20 to me.

 

Two more tracks for preview at rollingstone

http://www.rollingstone.com/blogs/smokingsection/2009/02/pearl-jam-two-new-tracks.php