An Introduction to Syd Barrett Album | October 2010

[mandraxhair]

The 'Cirrus Minor' birds can be heard in the intro of 'End of the Season' by The Kinks.
But this is getting off-topic.

I forgot to say that I will buy the 'Introduction'-CD. I'm very curious for the remixes. What would the overdubbed/remixed 'She Took a Long Cool Look' sound like? I guess the turning of the page will be removed. But will the remixes only contain new overdubs, or will they also make use of alternate takes?

I don't think they recorded them themselves. I think it just came from the studio.

[danielcaux]

But will the remixes only contain new overdubs, or will they also make use of alternate takes?

David Gilmour said, “I’ve got a lot of Syd Material digitised onto a hard drive that I can play with, thought I haven’t yet. I have got half a mind to try to improve it, which can be done with today’s technology.

He went on to say, “These days, you can take bits of each [outtake recordings] and seam them together invisibly, and make something that’s still Syd but a little bit prettier. Its one of those things Im tempted to look at, but I suspect your ardent Syd fans would go, ‘That’s terrible, sacrilege!’, so I don’t know.

I don't think Gilmour is going to record new sounds and mix them with the old Syd takes, just tinker with different alternate takes and cut and paste them here and there in order to create some kind of "Frankestein final mix", with the best bits of each take. Maybe he will be applying some studio magic (Autotune and stuff like that) to the "ugly" bits too. It makes sense it you take a look at the tracklist and note which songs are being remixed:

04. Matilda Mother (Alternative Version) (2010 Mix)
10. Here I Go (2010 Remix)
11. Octopus (2010 Mix)
12. She Took A Long Cool Look (2010 Mix)
15. Dominoes (2010 Mix)

Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense at all! He is remixing the songs that have the least problems! "Dominoes"? "Here I Go"? What was wrong with them? I thought an obvious choice for a remix would have been "If It's In You", with all those out of tune bits and stuff (hence explaining the inclusion of it in this comp), but is only listed as "2010 Remaster"! I was expecting him to fix the "ugly" tracks not the good ones!

I wonder, will "Matilda Mother (Alternative Version)" really be a different mix from the 40th anniversary issue? And what's the difference between a "2010 Mix" and a "2010 Remix"?

[Hudini]

And what's the difference between a "2010 Mix" and a "2010 Remix"?

That's an interesting question. Technically, this music existed 40 years ago, it should all be remixes...

[Wolfpack]

I don't think Gilmour is going to record new sounds and mix them with the old Syd takes,

According to Keith Jordan's information, there will be overdubs.

The album features 18 songs by Syd Barrett from his solo albums as well as Pink Floyd. 5 of the songs have been re-mixed and added to by the album’s producer Pink Floyd’s guitarist David Gilmour as well as Damon Iddins and Andy Jackson at Astoria Studios.

I've read (where?) that 'Here I Go' will have bass guitar added. The original mix has none.

just tinker with different alternate takes and cut and paste them here and there in order to create some kind of "Frankestein final mix", with the best bits of each take.

I'm curious what Gilmour will do with 'She Took A Long Cold Look'. The complete alternate take of the bonus tracks on 'The Madcap Laughs' contains more melody.

He is remixing the songs that have the least problems! "Dominoes"? "Here I Go"? What was wrong with them? I thought an obvious choice for a remix would have been "If It's In You", with all those out of tune bits and stuff (hence explaining the inclusion of it in this comp), but is only listed as "2010 Remaster"! I was expecting him to fix the "ugly" tracks not the good ones!

Indeed. Why on Earth include an unpolished 'If It's In You'? I find that a very weird choice. To show an chaotic Syd, I would have gone for 'Feel'. (Which I think is one of Syd's best songs.)
And why no 'Opel' with overdubs? That recording is begging for completion. Just imagine what Gilmour could do with it. (And imagine what more could have happened if Wright was still alive...) The instrumental chord strumming is obviously done for overdubs.

I wouldn't call such a project sacrilege, as long as the original material keeps available. I'm surprised that no other musician seems have ever attempted to overdub on 'Opel'. But there is a version of 'Milky Way' on YouTube (and on HYGIY) which contains an (apparently) fan-made overdub. I think that version sounds rather good.

And what's the difference between a "2010 Mix" and a "2010 Remix"?

I guess that in both cases, they mean a remix.

Gilmour doesn't live forever, so I guess 'Introduction' might go into history as a terrible missed chance. I hope 'Introduction' will be an introduction to an entire album with remixes and new overdubs. Maybe Gilmour first wants to see how the audience will react to these few tracks.

[danielcaux]

Perhaps the difference between a "Mix" an a "Remix" is that the songs that are getting the "2010 Mix" treatment will be made of previously unreleased and previously un-mixed takes? And the "2010 Remix" ones will be mainly just the old mixes with some overdubs? That's the only logical thing I can think of.

But I have a hunch that some of those mixes information may have been misplaced, and also that the "2010 Mix" of Matilda Mother is going to be actually the 2007 mix we already heard in Piper Deluxe.

[cymbaline212]

and also that the "2010 Mix" of Matilda Mother is going to be actually the 2007 mix we already heard in Piper Deluxe.

that's what i've been thinking. haven't listened to the 40th anniversary edition it in a while. actually i think the one off delux piper was a completely different take wasn't it? maybe this is a mix of the two. we need an official live release of Matilda Mother from 67 pronto! amazing psychedelic jam.

recordings of this quality ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s49gdmTM0bY ) are such a tease!

[my breakfast.]

The 2nd version of Matilda Mother sounded a lot like the same instrument track as the original but with different lyrics. I think Syd had lifted the lyrics wholesale from a poem and had hastily rewritten them for the final version.

I don't see what remixing you can do in 2010 to the old mono singles. It is really difficult to extract any instrument from See Emily Play for example. I've tried to isolate certain instruments with very selective EQing around certain frequencies but the thing is just a mush. If they found the multitracks then we would be talking on a different level! I cannot see what they can do to Remix Emily. You cannot change any instrument levels so you would have to just apply a slightly different eq to the whole track. That is dangerous as the bass frequencies sit in the lower mids, so you would end up with a murky mix. If you try and boost the high frequencies that cracking snare drum sits out, as does the S sounds of the vocals and the tinkling echoed piano. As I say you cannot do a whole lot to Emily as it stands.

[Wolfpack]

But I have a hunch that some of those mixes information may have been misplaced, and also that the "2010 Mix" of Matilda Mother is going to be actually the 2007 mix we already heard in Piper Deluxe.

The tracklist says "Alternative Version" AND "2010 Mix". So, the writer is aware that it's a different take. I guess this must mean it really is going to be a new mix and not an old one.

I don't see what remixing you can do in 2010 to the old mono singles. It is really difficult to extract any instrument from See Emily Play for example. [...] If they found the multitracks then we would be talking on a different level!

The tracklist says that 'Arnold Layne', 'See Emily Play' and 'Apples And Oranges' are just a "2010 Digital Remaster". This means that no remixing has been done on those tracks.

Who wrote the tracklist information? I hope the information on 'If It's In You' is a typo and that it's in fact a remix, containing corrections. I just can't understand why they would include the original version. Several people have complained that it is included on 'The Madcap Laughs', wishing it would have remained an outtake.

One other track I wish to see remixed is 'Swan Lee'. At the end of the instrumental section, when Syd starts singing again, I hear a clash of instruments. It sounds to me that the guitar riff that starts just before Syd starts singing, expected the instrumental section to go on longer than it is. When Syd starts singing, that guitar riff seems to go "whoops". I hear a sliding over the frets as if the guitar playing breaks down. An unreleased instrumental mix that can be heard on bootlegs, which has the reversed cymbals more prominent, doesn't have this clash. I've always found the released mix very messy because of the clash, harming the quality of the song. I wish that 'Opel' or the bonus tracks on 'Crazy Diamond' contained at least a naked version, of which only a snippet can be heard on bootleg (and another snippet at the end of the released mix, when the overdubs fade out before the end of the song).

EDIT: I also think that the released mix of 'Rats' is a bit too messy. I'm glad that, at least, a naked version can be heard on 'Opel'.

[Hudini]

The tracklist says that 'Arnold Layne', 'See Emily Play' and 'Apples And Oranges' are just a "2010 Digital Remaster". This means that no remixing has been done on those tracks.

A 'remaster' is still a new mix done from master tapes, only done in the same fashion as the original mix, this meaning that no instrument level and/or effect had been changed and the mix had only been done by a more contemporary technique (presumably digital) strictly for the sake of quality of the final mix. You can't do a remaster without master tapes.

I'm not really sure what the real difference between 'remix' and 'new mix' (as in '2010 Mix') is, but as a producer I worked a couple of times with explained to me, a 'remix' is technically a new mix of old master tapes (or extracted instruments, but this is a rather tricky way of doing it) where the instrument levels and/or effects are in some way different from the original mix (in order to emphasize some instruments or hide possible faults of the original mix), while 'new mix' (as in '2010 Mix') could contain some newly recorded channels. However, you shouldn't take this for granted.

[Idisaffect]

A "Digital Remaster" is pointless. The only reason it is happening is because it might sell a few more copies to people who think digital remastering is going to improve what was already fine. It wont.

[danielcaux]

The tracklist says that 'Arnold Layne', 'See Emily Play' and 'Apples And Oranges' are just a "2010 Digital Remaster". This means that no remixing has been done on those tracks.

A 'remaster' is still a new mix done from master tapes, only done in the same fashion as the original mix.

Not really, at least from what I know. Remastering is the process of altering the EQ or the balance of the frequencies of the final stereo master tape mix (or mono or multichannel mix), no changes are done in the levels of individual tracks nor any addition of new ones, is just the whole signal that is processed. Remixing involves working with the original multitracks (individual tapes with guitar, voice, drums, bass and keyboard takes) or mix down tracks, and changing the levels of said individual tracks in the final mix, or adding new elements to the mix, or removing old ones. A Digital Remix is done "virtually", with no real tapes, working with digital transfers of the original multitracks, so in the end is the same as remixing something directly from the tapes, only faster and less burdensome; but there's the possibility of the digital mix having lower fidelity, depending on how good the digital transfer was done.

A new mix from the master tapes, "done in the same fashion as the original mix" would be then a remix, not just a remaster.

Idisaffect, I think these days almost all remasters are digital remasters, but I could be wrong if there's still engineers working with analog consoles. Anyway, any kind of remastering, digital or analog, can massively change the sound of one given mix; it can make it more bright, more murky, with more definition, more dinamically compressed and loud, etc... But of course must mp3 buying people wouldn't even notice the differences.

Sadly the tendency this days in remasters is to make them sound LOUD (compressed and clipped) and with smiley face EQ (high bottom and top end with low middles). So the advice is to don't give away the older copies of your classic albums when you aquire the latest new remastered edition.

[Wolfpack]

A "Digital Remaster" is pointless. The only reason it is happening is because it might sell a few more copies to people who think digital remastering is going to improve what was already fine. It wont.

A lot of remasters suffer from the so-called loudness war, as Danielcaux explains.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Remastering is the process of altering the EQ or the balance of the frequencies of the final stereo master tape mix (or mono or multichannel mix), no changes are done in the levels of individual tracks nor any addition of new ones, is just the whole signal that is processed.

Correct.
A master tape is in fact a master copy of the multitracks being mixed.

[Idisaffect]

Yes, all remastering is digital. My point is that the cd never sounds better than the vinyl. But the more we approach an analogue curve the better it sounds. Along those lines, it’s a conflicting concept when you use this high technology to produce a super fidelity product and then it gets transferred to an MP3 and everyone has the iPods and they download from the internet and it’s not a full wave file.

[my breakfast.]

I do not see how a Digital Remix would be able to fix a muffled mono single. Unless you add things not present on the source tape somehow you cannot surely keep improving what is there?

[Idisaffect]

Exactly.