Is virtual analog an advertising ploy?

[jens]

[Hit quote instead of edit]

[ericj23]

[BONES]

I couldn't hear any of that at all in the original 1978 album version I posted here

Being Boiled wasn't on any album until they re-recorded it for Travelogue in 1980. It was their first single, on Fast Product. What you probably heard was something cleaned up and remastered as a bonus track on a CD. The first time I heard it was on a Fast Product sampler LP, way back in 1979. Gang of Four were also on it and they were the only band of the four I ever really got into (and I really got into Gang of Four!).

This (the stuff you posted about Breing Boiled) is a prime example of the pitfalls of superficial knowledge. You think you know something, you read or heard this or that there - and then you apply it to something you assume it is fitting to. Since you don't really know, chances are you won't realize that it doesn't really fit or apply to the context at hand for some reason. And then you keep arguing and arguing based on the apparent facts in your posession and while doing so, you talk more and more out of your arse. until, at some point it eventually all implodes on you.... that moment is now:
This is the original Being Boiled production from 1978 you talked about above:

Oh, the delicious irony! Look at the title of that video, it says it's a "lost version" not the Fast version that I have and that the record cover in the first video you posted is from. And honestly, did you listen to it? It's clearly a later version - Oakey's vocals are much better, it has the extra synth part from the 1980 re-recording and it's got something that actually sounds like a kick drum. If you bothered to check the comments, as I did, you'd have discovered it's from a John Peel session they did after the single came out. This from the guy who posted it - "It's the John Peel studio recoding, I messed around with the acoustics, so now everyone thinks it's a new find of an old version." I think it's the best version I've heard, I really like it. And this from Wikipedia - "In August 1978 the band recorded a session for John Peel, including a re-worked version of "Being Boiled." You can listen to the original Peel Session here -



So buddy, it seems it's you who has to do his research properly, not me. I tend to be more thorough but that's because I have a genuine interest in the subject, I'm not just trying to make a point.

What I find most hilarious is that you assume you're the only one who does his due diligence. Before you even thought to, I'd already spent a couple of hours reading up on the latest versions of the band's history, just to make sure it matched my recollections from 40 years ago and a few YT videos on the subject I had watched more recently. Needless to say, it aligns 100%, with added details I had either forgotten or was previously unaware of. It's how I discovered the 2008 Heaven 17 version.

It doesn't sound the way you claim it sounds because it has not been produced the way you claim it has.

Keep digging, buddy.

You thought the 1982 version was the re-recording of the demo.

Deeper and deeper...

I however always assumed the 1982 version was much rather a remix than an actual re-recording. It sounds much closer to the 1978 release than both versions sound to the original 1978 demo. (I can see to reading up on that too if you like.)

No need to read up, here is the album version -

Oh, dear! It's nothing like the version you posted, is it? Could it be that you're f**king wrong? How embarrassing for you, after making all that fuss. And if you want to be sure, buy the album on CD so you know you are getting the correct album with the correct songs. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, here is the Fast Product Sampler version, released in June 1978, it's the original single version, like the one you posted last week. You can hear the tape and machine noise in the quieter bits although it seems to have had some stereo separation added (the original release was in mono, or so I read).

[jens]

Oh yes, my bad totally - I was completely mistaken then and you were right regarding the facts - apologies and thanks for clearing that up! (And yeah, I can see the irony of it ) I never heard that album version - it's dreadful in all regards though (even worse than that John Peel version which I thought would have to be the homemade demo)! No wonder they used a remix (a remaster basically, I guess) of the original version for what is by far the most successful release of it.

So that really was recorded to two tracks?!? I had no idea! That makes this production even a lot more amazing than it is anyway - pure gold!

[noiseboyuk]

That's really interesting, I'd never heard this demo version before. Ironically the sounds are bigger than those used in the single. And I agree on the '82 version being more likely a remix. Although scroll down...

I'm down the rabbit hole now - there's this very rough version out there. Yikes, those vocals - this was surely prior to Phil Oakey (or he, um, hadn't yet found his range).



Then there's this John Peel BBC Radio 1 session version. Like the demo you posted jens, the iconic sounds are missing and some of the synths lines are different.



It makes you appreciate the released '78 version all the more - they stripped it right down.

Also there was this re-recorded Holiday 80 or "State Of The Art" mix that was clubbed up by John Leckie (early Simple Minds), with that irritating rising motif that they junked for the single. So maybe this was the re-recorded version people talk about and wires got crossed.



Um.... everyone clear now?

[donkey tugger]

[jens]

[audiosabre]

I spent some money on books on mixing which has helped. The next round is monitoring.

Genuinely curious. If one doesn't properly invest into monitoring, how can one accurately compare the differences?

To answer the original question; I don't believe that analog modelling itself is purely a marketing ploy, although I do think it's often overstated, & even mystified to an extent, within marketing ploys.

[Pilonsky]

I spent some money on books on mixing which has helped. The next round is monitoring.

Genuinely curious. If one doesn't properly invest into monitoring, how can one accurately compare the differences?

To answer the original question; I don't believe that analog modelling itself is purely a marketing ploy, although I do think it's often overstated, & even mystified to an extent, within marketing ploys.

Accurately compare what differences?

[BONES]

That's really interesting, I'd never heard this demo version before. Ironically the sounds are bigger than those used in the single. And I agree on the '82 version being more likely a remix. Although scroll down...

There's no '82 version, '82 was peak Dare and the original members had left. They re-recorded it in 1980 for Travelogue, it is not a remix.

Where do you guys even go to do this supposed "research"? Between Wikipedia and Discogs you can nail all this stuff down. And if you'd seen this video (it's really worth watching, just for what he has to say about the lyrics), you'd know that Phil Oakey wrote the lyrics so it has to be him performing them in that horrid demo (or whatever it is) -

It makes you appreciate the released '78 version all the more - they stripped it right down.

No, no it doesn't.

Also there was this re-recorded Holiday 80 or "State Of The Art" mix that was clubbed up by John Leckie (early Simple Minds), with that irritating rising motif that they junked for the single.

I don't think they "junked it". If you watch the video, they had envisaged brass and their 700s couldn't do anything that sounded even remotely like brass so they probably weren't happy with it at the time, but were clearly keen to revisit it later.

So maybe this was the re-recorded version people talk about and wires got crossed.

No, I am completely clear on all of it, having bought most of the actual records when they came out. That State of the Art remix thing is on the 3rd disc of that compilation, whereas Track 1 on Disc 1 is the original single version.

[noiseboyuk]

BONES, you are superior to us all. We are all fools with our casual interests.

Sorry for mentioning anything about anything.

EDIT - though there is an '82 version in as much as it was reissued then and - finally - charted in the UK.

[donkey tugger]

I used to know someone in the early 90s who claimed to have once punched Phil Oakey in a chippy in Sheffield.

Surely that trumps all else?

[noiseboyuk]

It makes you appreciate the released '78 version all the more - they stripped it right down.

No, no it doesn't.

FWIW - I have zero clue what you're arguing any more. You say it sounds terrible, everything later is better, but actually you prefer the first version even though the sounds are worse and I now I don't really know what you consider the first version to be.

But honestly - this is probably an excellent time to leave the whole thing to be boiled in its own juices.

[vurt]

being boiled...

[vurt]

sorry that was for the weather thread