View Single Post
Old 2009-09-28, 08:22 AM
theface07's Avatar
theface07 theface07 is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Re: do remasters fit with the site's mission statement?

This really is a pointless and redundant argument. People keep claiming "preserve the raw original recordings". These are bootlegs. Unless there is 100% confirmation that the recording is direct from a master source, you will NEVER get the raw original recording. Furthermore, even if a recording did come direct from the master source, whos to say that the person who transferred it did so adequately and without significant alteration to the original recording? Most bootlegs, YES EVEN ON THIS SITE THAT APPARENTLY PRESERVES MASTER RECORDINGS, have been "tinkered" with in one way or another, especially silver discs that often don't even have the correct pitch!
And don't even talk about audience recordings taken from some cassette tape. If it isn't from the original master, it has been "tinkered" with greatly, either through editing or simple degradation from high generation tape transfers. If someone can take a dirty sounding tape transfer and make it sound better, it shouldn't be considered musical sacrilege. 99.9% of the time, an audience recording once it gets to flac or shn format on this site or any others has already changed dramatically from it's original form.

It's sad to see immature and uneducated comments of a personal nature where the only arguments should be based on audio fidelity and edited techniques. Such people are the real polluters and do nothing but taint this forum with negativity and a teenage mentality. Even if I or anyone else who uploads a remastered recording does a horrible job, there is nowhere that says you have to download it. It's too bad this is being made an issue. There are a lot of other things that should be addressed that are "actual" problems.
Thanks to those who are rational and attempt to actually discuss things without resorting to childish attacks. Just for the record, here are some of the enlightened messages Dana Gillespie has been sending my way:

"and by the way, you are very easily taken in, and you reveal far to much about yourself. I'm guessing the Parson's Nose was your mother's favourite part of the turkey she married? is that right?"

"A REAL MAN WOULD NEVER HAVE REACTED AT ALL (can you understand that? testosterone kicks in and the shit you don't want to hear just goes over your head). come out to L.A., i'll introduce you to some of the quietest men you ever met: all of them quiet because they have nothing to prove, but they'd cut your throat without blinking if you asked for it.
maybe you'll understand that one day, little boy.
i ain't the first person on this site to note that you take things very personally; i won't be the last.
sad for you that you let a frigging woman upset you.
sad piece of dog shit. "

"oh yeah, i forget, you're SO intellectual... you sad fucking idiot; you miss half of the comments made to you because you're so fucking dumb. you are very sad, trying to boost your ego by playing around with other people's music... why don't you make some music of your own??? oh... i guess you can't.
dumb mother-fucker.... if it wasn't so obvious that you live at home with your mother, i'd guess that she was dead and that you were fucking her corpse on a daily basis.
if you had balls, you wouldn't react to criticism.... you fucking moron. "

"Oh dear... you sad, pathetic little child.
grow some balls."

And this is all because of my attempt to defend a remastered recording I uploaded. Such people are a real scourge and make no attempt to back up their criticism with actual facts or points. According to Dana, I need to grow some balls and be a real man because of my desire to defend my work.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes