2012
—————-
By Beppe Colli
Jan. 1, 2013
When it comes to semi-popular events (a category that has to be kept
separate from "niche"), I’d say that the title of "event
of the year" for 2012 goes to the, quote, unquote, audiophile, new
vinyl 180gr pressing of the whole Beatles catalogue, in stereo. An event
that sits halfway between the re-release of various Pink Floyd titles and
the massive Led Zeppelin re-release program about to start. And let’s not
forget about the Beatles vinyl mono box, whose planned release date is,
more or less – see below –
"Spring, 2013".
The vinyl 180gr re-release program of the
whole Beatles catalogue, in stereo – in so differently from the mono vinyl
edition, all stereo albums are available in a box, and also as single titles
– is one of a piece with the giant 2009 digital remastering program that
was intended to give the Liverpool Four a more "modern" appeal,
a fresh layer of paint that was supposed to take The Beatles into the future,
the by now famous – oh, the blasphemy! – USB stick included.
Not everything was perfect, of course, but
maybe things were better than what had been feared by most. (Though sometimes
I wonder what kind of "ears" listen to this stuff, given that
a laudatory article in a leading Italian newspaper listed Hey Jude as a
track off The Beatles/The White Album.)
Here I have to immediately clarify that there
are two different pressing of the Beatles vinyl albums in stereo. The European
pressing – by Optimal, I think – appears to be almost completely problem-free.
While the US edition – pressed by Rainbo – appears to be plagued by a vast
quantity of horrors, as per the numerous debates all over the Web, with
complicated issues galore about those many albums going back to the seller,
and news of heads about to roll.
This is the story, the way I got it. It had
been EMI’s intention to have (renowned, reliable) RTI press the whole
lot. But it appears that RTI, unable to do it all due to previous engagements,
was intentioned to sub-contract the work to Rainbo. It was only logical,
then, for EMI to give Rainbo the green light, bypassing RTI. What went
wrong is not exactly clear, but many problems that are usually linked to
poor QC appeared as soon as buyers took the plastic off the albums – quite
erratically, it appears, though according to reports Abbey Road appears
to be the poorest performer. Warped albums, off-centre holes, non-fill,
heavy background noise, squeaks, heavy distortion… the lot. A disaster,
really.
It was at this point that the chase for a
"safe copy" started, with unreliable results. There were those
who bought/received multiple copies of the same album, all plagued with the
same problem(s). Readers are invited to have a look on the Web, there must
be a few thousand pages out there by now, all written in the last couple
of months.
The fact that the new edition had not been
remastered off a fresh analogue master puzzled a few, though it has to
be said that the idea of having a fresh analogue remaster – when it’s obvious
that the digital 2009 edition is the "building stage" for the
new vinyl – was quite implausible. But it was argued that a 180gr vinyl
pressing of that order of magnitude needs a very accurate QC – which definitely
comes not cheap. Wouldn’t have been better to have, say, 120gr vinyl, which
is less error-prone, and doesn’t necessarily sound any worse? Sure – but
what about the whole
"audiophile" cachet?
This Beatles imbroglio is only the most talked
about, for obvious reasons of size and importance (let’s not forget those
big boxes – featuring LPs, CDs, 5.1 DVD-As – featuring historical works
by Jethro Tull such as Aqualung and Thick As A Brick), in times when industry
works full-steam, full-speed ahead, in order to squeeze the last drop off
the Deluxe trend. It’s too early to say if this long series of incidents
will prove to be invisible to the buying public – who, it has to be said,
appear for the most part to prize the "look and feel" of those
boxes much more than the featured music – or if it will be the proverbial
last drop that’ll make the majority of buyers go towards downloadable, "liquid",
Hi-Rez files.
I have
to admit I’m quite sorry to have to talk about the diminishing well-being
of many musicians, a lot of them being very dear to my heart.
That the market conditions were a lot worse
with every passing year had already been apparent for some time, but today
things are quite dramatic, with no reversal of fortunes anywhere in sight.
There are three main factors at work. A
weak economy, which makes many listeners care a lot less for "daring
listening experiments". The habit of consuming a vast quantity of
different "objects", so one’s income will never be equal to the
enormity one deals with. The fact of giving each experience just a tiny
fraction of one’s time. These items appear to be increasingly important
the younger the consumer. Hence, one could derive the prediction that a
reversal of attitude when it comes to "difficult" works – and
a growing propensity to allocate one’s money precisely to these works –
is currently not in the cards.
It goes without saying that musicians try
to do their best in order not to go under, with varying degrees of success.
The typical US strategy – which has also been adopted elsewhere – called "sink
or swim" still works. The same doesn’t appear to be true of various
subsidizing schemes, though one has to admit that when it comes to actual
results, different nations get different outputs, the famous "Protestant
Ethic" definitely playing a role when it comes to the quality of the
music many Dutch musicians have released in the last few decades, compared
to, say, those Italian musicians in the same
"genre".
In closing, I have to admit I was quite
surprised when, at the end of the year, I happened to receive a certain
number of e-mails inviting me to buy digital files and (physical) CDs at
heavily discounted prices, as if a difference in price could make a difference
when it comes to one’s attitude about recorded material.
Interesting times ahead.
© Beppe Colli 2013
CloudsandClocks.net
| Jan. 1, 2013