| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2003 : 03:48:26
|
finally got me hands on a copy of give me ecstasy....and my goodness, the doolittle demos are fantastic.....
wonder why they don't get released properly....well thats not really an issue for these doolittle ones as they're reasonably easy to get hold of, and 2 have already been officially released...but there must be similar recordings for bosanova and trompe le monde (well there is for trompe as we all are aware of).....
and also, the fallen shelter....very interesting recording....is funny to hear one charles thompson....
also, boot from Foufaine's Electriques, Montreal in january '88....its also very good.......
...great to finally lay my hands on these..... |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2003 : 09:14:34
|
| This has nothing to do with Dora the Explorer? |
Edited by - darwin on 06/09/2003 09:16:26 |
 |
|
|
Douglas
= Cult of Ray =
Sweden
308 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2003 : 16:02:54
|
Yeah, I love that demo version of Debaser. Especially the "debaser"-part where he sings it more 'often' then in the album version (if you get what I mean).
This is my first post, so everyone welcome me, and bash the newbie. (I've been browsing the forums for a week or two). |
|
|
|
PsychicTwin
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1772 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2003 : 12:06:49
|
Give Me Ecstasy is a good listen and very interesting (I like delving into a band's demos, it gives you more insight on their creative process...)
But I'll be damned if the bootleg quality is not PURE SHIT. I used to have "Ecstasy" on mp3 and deleted it just because the quality of it bugged me so much. But that was after I had listened to it numerous, numerous times.
Douglas-
Welcome to you.
You stupid newbie.
(; |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2003 : 05:35:17
|
so do u have a non-mp3 version now then?
just cause i think it's great quality...
not as good as the officially released songs from the session, but damn close.
maybe the mp3's u had were just encoded really badly. |
|
|
|
PsychicTwin
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1772 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2003 : 15:50:58
|
Hmmm,interesting...
I actually have never laid my eyes/ears/hands on the actual bootleg itself...From what I remember, I found the whole thing on Mp3 during my junior year of college on the network at school. so....it is very possible that the mp3s were just shitty quality. |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2003 : 16:02:39
|
i'd say so...
i'd try to track down either properly encoded mp3's or a real copy....
while there is a wee bit of tape fuzz, i think this may also be on the released bits....
i'd still grade it A+ |
|
|
|
Sheamus
= Cult of Ray =
Australia
345 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2003 : 02:05:35
|
The whole "Grading system" for bootlegs is stupid.
In my opinion, "A+" is officially recorded quality stuff. i've heard bootlegs of this quality, and bootlegs of extremely bad quality graded as "A+". The info file that comes with the MP3s describes it as A+. Personally, I'd give Ecstacy a B or B-. |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2003 : 03:35:03
|
well the demos are officially recorded stuff....
3 of the songs have been released as such......
yes, the grading system is restrictive as it's entirely subjective....but at least it gives people some idea of what the recording sounds like.
if you give ecstasy a B or B-, then i'm not sure we're listening to the same boot....cause the copy i have certainly ain't B or B- under anyones grading system.
which leads me to again ask about the quality of the mp3's opposed to the quality of the original.
maybe someone needs to upload an mp3 sample to try it out.....
cause either there are some badly encoded mp3's out there, or i'm deafer and dumber than i thought. |
|
|
|
Sheamus
= Cult of Ray =
Australia
345 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 00:51:36
|
I meant "officially recorded" as in the quality you get from albums you buy in stores. Perhaps not THAT good, but close to it.
Ecstacy is clearly not this quality. Somewhere along the way it's lost a lot of the original sound quality, probably from degrading tapes, taping tapes to tapes etc. Remember that this is the process that a lot off bootlegs, especially from that era, went through before finding their way to CD. You can't possibly tell me that Ecstacy sounds even nearly as good as "Doolitte".
For the sake of checking myself again, I just put it on now. I definately wouldn't give it any more than a B+.
That's not to say it's bad. I enjoy listening to it. It isn't what i'd consider A+ though. For a good example of the difference, go listen to Rough Diamonds, then the Pixies BBC collection (official release) to get a good idea about the difference between officially released stuff and bootlegs of the same recording. |
Edited by - Sheamus on 06/13/2003 00:53:53 |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 04:06:24
|
but how much difference can you tell between the demo's of debaser, no. 13 baby and bailey (and santo? - can't remember) on the official releases opposed to on the 'ecstacy' bootleg?
from listening to these official releases, these were recorded to be a little rough - certainly not have the smoothness of say doolittle....
but the difference between the boot and the official release is negligible.
then if you mean the quality of an officially released album then thats a totally different issue, and has nothing to do with rating the sound quality of a recording....
your example: yes i agree with you that rough diamonds is very inferior to the officially released versions....but thats my point - with these demo's they aren't. |
|
|
|
Sheamus
= Cult of Ray =
Australia
345 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2003 : 03:08:30
|
I disagree, I think that if these demos were to be released officially, the sound quality would be better. I just listened ot both versions of Doolittle, the Ecstacy version sounds a lot less full a sound, it is tinny in comparison.
I'm not talking about the production meathod, the fact that the demos are "rougher" recordings than the slicker produced version on Doolittle isn't what I'm referring to.
The sound quality of an officially released recording has everything to do with the issue, as this level of quality is simply what I consider to be "A+". Ecstacy isn't at this level in my opinion, and this is why I don't grade it "A+". |
|
|
|
benji
> Teenager of the Year <
New Zealand
3426 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2003 : 03:46:12
|
but i am referring to the songs from this sessions that were released officially.....
debaser and no.13 baby on the debaser 7" and santo and bailey's walk as b-sides.
obviously the official versions were taken from the original session tapes, and not from whatever the makers of 'ecstasy' had access to, but the difference in quality between the two releases is minimal.....which to me indicates that these are pretty damn near A+ quality.
|
|
|
|
Sheamus
= Cult of Ray =
Australia
345 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2003 : 11:13:58
|
OK, I just listened to the two versions (B Sides and Ecstacy) side by side on the same speakers, and after hearing them in that context I do conceed that what you say is correct.
I was wrong, it must be the way the songs were recorded. It also probably didn't help that I was listening to Doolittle on my $300 stereo and Ecstacy on my cheap tinny PC speakers in my initial comparison. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
