A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: herlock on June 28, 2023, 05:47:28 PM
-
As I felt it would be possible, after Dortmund 80, the DS official YouTube channel is releasing Wembley 85 legendary concert, starting this Friday with So Far Away, great quality in the preview:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4HdLtZAxM9Y&feature=share7
Since they don't start with Ride Accross the River, which was the opener of the tour, it is expected that they won't be releasing the ful concert, but only the song that were aired at the time.
Nonetheless this is great news, and they may release Sydney 86 after that, which will complete Wembley nicely!
I'm so thrilled to see these great concerts finally officially released, even if not on physical format! Keep it up! :)
-
I remember. I recorded this concert from TV to VHS tape :)
-
Mono sound? Really?
Image quality seems to be a digitally upscaled copy / not restored from original tapes.
This would be a sadly lost opportunity...
-
Is it really mono?? I hope it is only for the preview then... They have it in stereo, it was broadcasted in FM! Well not for TOL and SR unfortunately...
-
Is it really mono?? I hope it is only for the preview then... They have it in stereo, it was broadcasted in FM! Well not for TOL and SR unfortunately...
Correct me If I'm wrong. I think it will be in mono, because it is taken from TV broadcast mix.
Stereo versions on YouTube and VHS sourced DVDs are made by fans, and audio is taken from FM.
TOL was not aired on radio, check all video version and all are mono sound.
This is why I think it is taken from TV mix, and not from master tapes (possibility to remix audio from multitracks and a cleaner video transfer).
-
Have you checked whether the so far away preview is in mono or stereo? I haven't...
-
Have you checked whether the so far away preview is in mono or stereo? I haven't...
For me, it's mono. I don't think it's a discrete stereo sound, I heard same signal from both channels.
FM version it's clearly wider.
-
As I felt it would be possible, after Dortmund 80, the DS official YouTube channel is releasing Wembley 85 legendary concert, starting this Friday with So Far Away, great quality in the preview:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4HdLtZAxM9Y&feature=share7
Since they don't start with Ride Accross the River, which was the opener of the tour, it is expected that they won't be releasing the ful concert, but only the song that were aired at the time.
Nonetheless this is great news, and they may release Sydney 86 after that, which will complete Wembley nicely!
I'm so thrilled to see these great concerts finally officially released, even if not on physical format! Keep it up! :)
Whilst this indeed on the youtube channel I don't think this is an "official" record company release as Guy has previously alluded to. I think they basically use existing material we have access to and improve it. Seems to be somehow related to the direstraits.com website.
-
Is it really mono?? I hope it is only for the preview then... They have it in stereo, it was broadcasted in FM! Well not for TOL and SR unfortunately...
Today I have some dudes about If the audio is Stereo or Mono... If you check 0:08 on preview video, you can appreciate (with headphones) the drums starting at left channel and finishing the drum fill on right channel.
Nobody can check this? maybe it is a very discrete stereo mix for TV broadcast? FM radio source is different stereo mix.
-
Is it really mono?? I hope it is only for the preview then... They have it in stereo, it was broadcasted in FM! Well not for TOL and SR unfortunately...
Today I have some dudes about If the audio is Stereo or Mono... If you check 0:08 on preview video, you can appreciate (with headphones) the drums starting at left channel and finishing the drum fill on right channel.
Nobody can check this? maybe it is a very discrete stereo mix for TV broadcast? FM radio source is different stereo mix.
One thing I can say for sure is that UK TV did not broadcast in stereo sound in 1985.
-
I have a doubt. The show was broadcasted in 1986, not 1985, and by 1986 this was the beginning of NICAM on BBC. Could this be the first concert broadcasted in NICAM?
-
According to wiki the first NICAM broadcast was The Proms in July 1986:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICAM
Entirely possible the show was made in stereo for futureproofing but unlikely it was broadcast in stereo IMO.
-
According to wiki the first NICAM broadcast was The Proms in July 1986:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICAM
Entirely possible the show was made in stereo for futureproofing but unlikely it was broadcast in stereo IMO.
Broadcasted in mono or stereo?
-
It's easy to compare listening to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-3DG-yoMv0
Play first the official SFA video and then listen to the first minutes of this VHS sourced video (forget digital 'restoration' and FPS upscale, this is never true when source it's limited, but here audio is in true mono, it is one of the lots of VHS copies recorded on supposed mono broadcast).
Then compare with (Pre-)FM sourced bootlegs. For example, this copy with audio sourced from FM bootleg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhX4UOEsEw4
I can't distinguish If official SFA video is mono or very discrete stereo, but I can distinguish perfectly mono sourced VHS copies and (Pre-) FM bootlegs used to replace mono audio from this old homemade VHS captures.
-
Now the complete SFA is online, can these tests be redone with the full thing, to come to a definite conclusion?
-
According to wiki the first NICAM broadcast was The Proms in July 1986:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICAM
Entirely possible the show was made in stereo for futureproofing but unlikely it was broadcast in stereo IMO.
Broadcasted in mono or stereo?
According to the video credits they used the Rolling stones mobile so I guess they have the sound in good stereo
-
According to wiki the first NICAM broadcast was The Proms in July 1986:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICAM
Entirely possible the show was made in stereo for futureproofing but unlikely it was broadcast in stereo IMO.
Broadcasted in mono or stereo?
According to the video credits they used the Rolling stones mobile so I guess they have the sound in good stereo
The concert was a multitrack record by Rolling Stones mobile (same as Alchemy). Then different mixes were designed for different uses. They can made a stereo mix for FM stations, and a mono mix for TV broadcast (or an alternative stereo mix for TV broadcast).
The question is about that this official YouTube release is true mono or very discrete stereo mix. FM stereo mixes are very wide.
Maybe the multitracks are still alive today, those are the key to make a new stereo, 5.1 or ATMOS mix. And the original video tapes (not this digitalized TV broadcast). An example is "Delicate Sound Of Thunder" by Pink Floyd. They used all the original material to make a new video restoration and re-edition and audio remix. We can hope for a Wembley '85 BD in Full HD or 4K if this material is available.
-
Nah, thats too Wild dream when it comes to DS stuff.
If it was to re-release BIA for the N time, they would do it but, the Wembley 85 concert with restored video and Atmos sound? Nahhhhh
-
Sounds like a stereo mix to me, maybe the pre FM mix is used as the audio track for this upgraded edition
It says licensed from ITV archive so maybe the did indeed get as close to the source as is possible
Intruiging they used Rolling Stones mobile. My guess is they contemplated a live album from the tour but shelved in favour of a TV broadcast . I think one of the newsletters from DSIS says as much, that the material was too similar to Alchemy. So masters probably in a vault somewhere who knows
Chance of an official release to purchase? Nil, I'd say. MK not interested in anything but regular paycheck from DS catalogue. To do release like this would require some investment.
-
Sounds like a stereo mix to me, maybe the pre FM mix is used as the audio track for this upgraded edition
It says licensed from ITV archive so maybe the did indeed get as close to the source as is possible
Intruiging they used Rolling Stones mobile. My guess is they contemplated a live album from the tour but shelved in favour of a TV broadcast . I think one of the newsletters from DSIS says as much, that the material was too similar to Alchemy. So masters probably in a vault somewhere who knows
Chance of an official release to purchase? Nil, I'd say. MK not interested in anything but regular paycheck from DS catalogue. To do release like this would require some investment.
Not (Pre-) FM mix on YouTube version. I'm sure.
-
A full official live release of Wembley 85 would be great
-
Sultans Of Swing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxpQA5etd4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxpQA5etd4)
If the multitrack still exist, I would erase Alan part on the first half.
-
Sultans Of Swing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxpQA5etd4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxpQA5etd4)
If the multitrack still exist, I would erase Alan part on the first half.
Just listen to Basel 92 then 😂
-
Sultans Of Swing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxpQA5etd4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxpQA5etd4)
If the multitrack still exist, I would erase Alan part on the first half.
Thank goodness I’m not the only one here. I wouldn’t go that far but it’s way too loud, it should sit a LOT lower in the mix.
-
It's true that the keyboards are less invasive in Alchemy.
As for sax, i can't decide whether it's best with or without. Depends on my mood 🙂 both Alchemy and Wembley are great versions. I also love '92 versions, the slower break is awesome and the Pensa sound is not that bad for Sultans... And the 4 piece versions are great too. I love them all, but nothing beats the groove of the studio version 🙂
-
Could somebody check the stereo situation for Sultans, like for SFA? Still more discrete than the PRE-FM?
-
I can't say I've ever noticed the keyboards in the BIA tour versions of Sultans as any dominant force at all. In the On Location tour they played a significant role, especially in the final part of the song where they answer Mark's guitar. To me this now sounds very dated and much like experimentation. This was subsequently replaced by the saxophone and I'm sure that musically the band thought it sounded better.
-
Could somebody check the stereo situation for Sultans, like for SFA? Still more discrete than the PRE-FM?
Same as So Far Away
-
Could somebody check the stereo situation for Sultans, like for SFA? Still more discrete than the PRE-FM?
Same as So Far Away
Noted with thanks!
-
Call me picky but video still looks a bit grainy to me.
-
The video needs a to correct the saturation.
-
Sultans Of Swing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxpQA5etd4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqxpQA5etd4)
If the multitrack still exist, I would erase Alan part on the first half.
Can't agree at all! I really like the way those synths push the 2nd solo into the interlude. Hands down much more organic that the robotic 92 versions or let's pretend we're the 1979 DS incarnation for a few minutes. Both BIA and SOS peaked in this tour if you ask me.
-
Just saw this. This does appear to be a pre-broadcast source. Disappointing that they're not uploading it to YT at a higher bitrate though. The original recording was obviously to videotape given the amount of ghosting, so can't expect much in terms of video quality. Now if only they would upload Ride Across the River or PI...
-
PI will defintely be uploaded, since it was in the original TV show.
As for RATR, I think the chances are near zero. Just like for Alchemy, they keep the final product (the edited film) in their vaults, not the rushes that were partially used to make the film. Just like we will never see a release of Porbotbello Belle from 1983...
-
Ah, I forgot we have PI. I meant R&J. Yeah, it was meant to be tongue in cheek. The only way we'll see the missing pieces is if someone who worked on the edit and had the forethought to save it comes forward with it. Hope springs eternal. :lol
-
Is it just me, or do the shows from this tour feel dated now?
-
Well they are dated, this was the 80s and it sounds, the overdriven to death drums are horrible, and the synths (all over the place) are very cheesy...
But the thing is, I love cheese 🤣
I find this tour more emotional than the previous (a bit too rough and academic) LOG tour, and the subsequent (too polished and less passionate) OES tour. The sweep spot...
-
Is it just me, or do the shows from this tour feel dated now?
The filming of it is somewhat dated! All the slo-mo, the split screen images of the band and negative-style imaging is just weird now. Still, it is better than the filming of All the Roadrunning DVD!
As for the music: I don't feel it's dated no. The On Location Tour I think certainly does and to a lesser extent the Love Over Gold tour also does. I think it's mainly because we are blessed with hindsight and know how the songs have developed over the years.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
-
Of course sound is dated. The 80's were the awful time of synth everywere.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
+1000
For once, we agree, dmg 🙂
It really stroke me in 2019 when I saw Mark on stage, I remember thinking: here is an old man, walking slowly, wearing pyjamas, barely moving... some would think that he is as charismatic as a mussel. But personnally, I find him cool as hell. He doesn't need to pretend.
In the old days he had a lot of energy on top of that - that was the best charisma!
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
Exactly! I wanted to write it but dmg did it better :)
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this ;D )
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this ;D )
I think the bands appeal has everything to do with the absence of that kind of bluster.
DS are an enigma of sorts if you think about it. A pub rock band playing in stadiums. The ultimate opposite of punk, used to sell and commoditize music (CD, Phillips etc), unfairly (imo) associated with yuppie culture and the worst excesses of the 80s, and yet virtuoso musicians, performing songs subverting those same associations (MFN for example), and of course something thats always forgotten, wildly more popular than just about every other band of that era. MK almost became the archetypal anti-frontman.
The whole DS phenomenon fascinates me....
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
Totally agree with you, dmg! Everything that you have mentioned are what drew me to be a fan of Mark in the first place - that and the music, of course! I still find his stage presence as mesmerising as the first time I saw him all of those years ago.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this ;D )
I think the bands appeal has everything to do with the absence of that kind of bluster.
DS are an enigma of sorts if you think about it. A pub rock band playing in stadiums. The ultimate opposite of punk, used to sell and commoditize music (CD, Phillips etc), unfairly (imo) associated with yuppie culture and the worst excesses of the 80s, and yet virtuoso musicians, performing songs subverting those same associations (MFN for example), and of course something thats always forgotten, wildly more popular than just about every other band of that era. MK almost became the archetypal anti-frontman.
The whole DS phenomenon fascinates me....
The band were extremely lucky in that they became posterboys for the new CD medium (lots of free marketing), the amazing, new-fangled computer-animated MFN video was played a lot on MTV, plus their clean image and inoffensive songs made them palatable to a very large demographic, young and old. Very serendipitous. The music itself was not groundbreaking or outstandingly good (with the exception of BIA, the song). I'm not taking anything away from Mark's talents, but without the hits he would have been another Richard Thompson, Ry Cooder, John Hiatt, etc., all super-talented musicians, but without mainstream success.
You mentioned "virtuoso musicians", but that simply isn't true. In 85, probably Alan Clarke and Chris White might fit that description and were the best in the band in terms of technical ability; the rest were good, solid, well-rehearsed musicians, but nothing outstanding (especially John). Mark was/is different in that he has a unique touch and sound, and because he was the songwriter, he knew innately the emotional impact his playing should express. But he's not a virtuoso in the real sense of the word, even back then when he paid a lot more attention to his guitar playing.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this ;D )
I think the bands appeal has everything to do with the absence of that kind of bluster.
DS are an enigma of sorts if you think about it. A pub rock band playing in stadiums. The ultimate opposite of punk, used to sell and commoditize music (CD, Phillips etc), unfairly (imo) associated with yuppie culture and the worst excesses of the 80s, and yet virtuoso musicians, performing songs subverting those same associations (MFN for example), and of course something thats always forgotten, wildly more popular than just about every other band of that era. MK almost became the archetypal anti-frontman.
The whole DS phenomenon fascinates me....
The band were extremely lucky in that they became posterboys for the new CD medium (lots of free marketing), the amazing, new-fangled computer-animated MFN video was played a lot on MTV, plus their clean image and inoffensive songs made them palatable to a very large demographic, young and old. Very serendipitous. The music itself was not groundbreaking or outstandingly good (with the exception of BIA, the song). I'm not taking anything away from Mark's talents, but without the hits he would have been another Richard Thompson, Ry Cooder, John Hiatt, etc., all super-talented musicians, but without mainstream success.
You mentioned "virtuoso musicians", but that simply isn't true. In 85, probably Alan Clarke and Chris White might fit that description and were the best in the band in terms of technical ability; the rest were good, solid, well-rehearsed musicians, but nothing outstanding (especially John). Mark was/is different in that he has a unique touch and sound, and because he was the songwriter, he knew innately the emotional impact his playing should express. But he's not a virtuoso in the real sense of the word, even back then when he paid a lot more attention to his guitar playing.
By virtuoso I meant how they were portrayed in the media and regarded by the critics, not in its literal sense. Obviously wile DS were chock full of good musicians they were levels below some, and Mark regularly dismissed such descriptions....
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this ;D )
I think the bands appeal has everything to do with the absence of that kind of bluster.
DS are an enigma of sorts if you think about it. A pub rock band playing in stadiums. The ultimate opposite of punk, used to sell and commoditize music (CD, Phillips etc), unfairly (imo) associated with yuppie culture and the worst excesses of the 80s, and yet virtuoso musicians, performing songs subverting those same associations (MFN for example), and of course something thats always forgotten, wildly more popular than just about every other band of that era. MK almost became the archetypal anti-frontman.
The whole DS phenomenon fascinates me....
The band were extremely lucky in that they became posterboys for the new CD medium (lots of free marketing), the amazing, new-fangled computer-animated MFN video was played a lot on MTV, plus their clean image and inoffensive songs made them palatable to a very large demographic, young and old. Very serendipitous. The music itself was not groundbreaking or outstandingly good (with the exception of BIA, the song). I'm not taking anything away from Mark's talents, but without the hits he would have been another Richard Thompson, Ry Cooder, John Hiatt, etc., all super-talented musicians, but without mainstream success.
You mentioned "virtuoso musicians", but that simply isn't true. In 85, probably Alan Clarke and Chris White might fit that description and were the best in the band in terms of technical ability; the rest were good, solid, well-rehearsed musicians, but nothing outstanding (especially John). Mark was/is different in that he has a unique touch and sound, and because he was the songwriter, he knew innately the emotional impact his playing should express. But he's not a virtuoso in the real sense of the word, even back then when he paid a lot more attention to his guitar playing.
By virtuoso I meant how they were portrayed in the media and regarded by the critics, not in its literal sense. Obviously wile DS were chock full of good musicians they were levels below some, and Mark regularly dismissed such descriptions....
In that sense I agree with you. But non-musicians, and especially die-hard fans, tend to rank DS and MK a lot higher in terms of technical ability than what is actually the case.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this ;D )
I think the bands appeal has everything to do with the absence of that kind of bluster.
DS are an enigma of sorts if you think about it. A pub rock band playing in stadiums. The ultimate opposite of punk, used to sell and commoditize music (CD, Phillips etc), unfairly (imo) associated with yuppie culture and the worst excesses of the 80s, and yet virtuoso musicians, performing songs subverting those same associations (MFN for example), and of course something thats always forgotten, wildly more popular than just about every other band of that era. MK almost became the archetypal anti-frontman.
The whole DS phenomenon fascinates me....
The band were extremely lucky in that they became posterboys for the new CD medium (lots of free marketing), the amazing, new-fangled computer-animated MFN video was played a lot on MTV, plus their clean image and inoffensive songs made them palatable to a very large demographic, young and old. Very serendipitous. The music itself was not groundbreaking or outstandingly good (with the exception of BIA, the song). I'm not taking anything away from Mark's talents, but without the hits he would have been another Richard Thompson, Ry Cooder, John Hiatt, etc., all super-talented musicians, but without mainstream success.
You mentioned "virtuoso musicians", but that simply isn't true. In 85, probably Alan Clarke and Chris White might fit that description and were the best in the band in terms of technical ability; the rest were good, solid, well-rehearsed musicians, but nothing outstanding (especially John). Mark was/is different in that he has a unique touch and sound, and because he was the songwriter, he knew innately the emotional impact his playing should express. But he's not a virtuoso in the real sense of the word, even back then when he paid a lot more attention to his guitar playing.
By virtuoso I meant how they were portrayed in the media and regarded by the critics, not in its literal sense. Obviously wile DS were chock full of good musicians they were levels below some, and Mark regularly dismissed such descriptions....
In that sense I agree with you. But non-musicians, and especially die-hard fans, tend to rank DS and MK a lot higher in terms of technical ability than what is actually the case.
Because it's all very subjective. And there's nothing wrong with that.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this ;D )
I think the bands appeal has everything to do with the absence of that kind of bluster.
DS are an enigma of sorts if you think about it. A pub rock band playing in stadiums. The ultimate opposite of punk, used to sell and commoditize music (CD, Phillips etc), unfairly (imo) associated with yuppie culture and the worst excesses of the 80s, and yet virtuoso musicians, performing songs subverting those same associations (MFN for example), and of course something thats always forgotten, wildly more popular than just about every other band of that era. MK almost became the archetypal anti-frontman.
The whole DS phenomenon fascinates me....
The band were extremely lucky in that they became posterboys for the new CD medium (lots of free marketing), the amazing, new-fangled computer-animated MFN video was played a lot on MTV, plus their clean image and inoffensive songs made them palatable to a very large demographic, young and old. Very serendipitous. The music itself was not groundbreaking or outstandingly good (with the exception of BIA, the song). I'm not taking anything away from Mark's talents, but without the hits he would have been another Richard Thompson, Ry Cooder, John Hiatt, etc., all super-talented musicians, but without mainstream success.
You mentioned "virtuoso musicians", but that simply isn't true. In 85, probably Alan Clarke and Chris White might fit that description and were the best in the band in terms of technical ability; the rest were good, solid, well-rehearsed musicians, but nothing outstanding (especially John). Mark was/is different in that he has a unique touch and sound, and because he was the songwriter, he knew innately the emotional impact his playing should express. But he's not a virtuoso in the real sense of the word, even back then when he paid a lot more attention to his guitar playing.
By virtuoso I meant how they were portrayed in the media and regarded by the critics, not in its literal sense. Obviously wile DS were chock full of good musicians they were levels below some, and Mark regularly dismissed such descriptions....
In that sense I agree with you. But non-musicians, and especially die-hard fans, tend to rank DS and MK a lot higher in terms of technical ability than what is actually the case.
Because it's all very subjective. And there's nothing wrong with that.
It really isn't subjective. What moves you is subjective, but not ability.
-
You can also give an opinion about someone's abilities. And it will be subjective
-
You can also give an opinion about someone's abilities. And it will be subjective
Love it! Nothing like a bit of Nietzsche to liven up a music forum ;D
-
You can also give an opinion about someone's abilities. And it will be subjective
Love it! Nothing like a bit of Nietzsche to liven up a music forum ;D
I can't comment on that as I didn't do great in History of philosophy. And I've got objective proof of it ;D
-
You can also give an opinion about someone's abilities. And it will be subjective
Love it! Nothing like a bit of Nietzsche to liven up a music forum ;D
I can't comment on that as I didn't do great in History of philosophy. And I've got objective proof of it ;D
I'm ignoring those comments because you don't exist ;) :D
-
You can also give an opinion about someone's abilities. And it will be subjective
Love it! Nothing like a bit of Nietzsche to liven up a music forum ;D
I can't comment on that as I didn't do great in History of philosophy. And I've got objective proof of it ;D
I'm ignoring those comments because you don't exist ;) :D
That's just your subjective opinion.
-
I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this ;D )
I think the bands appeal has everything to do with the absence of that kind of bluster.
DS are an enigma of sorts if you think about it. A pub rock band playing in stadiums. The ultimate opposite of punk, used to sell and commoditize music (CD, Phillips etc), unfairly (imo) associated with yuppie culture and the worst excesses of the 80s, and yet virtuoso musicians, performing songs subverting those same associations (MFN for example), and of course something thats always forgotten, wildly more popular than just about every other band of that era. MK almost became the archetypal anti-frontman.
The whole DS phenomenon fascinates me....
The band were extremely lucky in that they became posterboys for the new CD medium (lots of free marketing), the amazing, new-fangled computer-animated MFN video was played a lot on MTV, plus their clean image and inoffensive songs made them palatable to a very large demographic, young and old. Very serendipitous. The music itself was not groundbreaking or outstandingly good (with the exception of BIA, the song). I'm not taking anything away from Mark's talents, but without the hits he would have been another Richard Thompson, Ry Cooder, John Hiatt, etc., all super-talented musicians, but without mainstream success.
You mentioned "virtuoso musicians", but that simply isn't true. In 85, probably Alan Clarke and Chris White might fit that description and were the best in the band in terms of technical ability; the rest were good, solid, well-rehearsed musicians, but nothing outstanding (especially John). Mark was/is different in that he has a unique touch and sound, and because he was the songwriter, he knew innately the emotional impact his playing should express. But he's not a virtuoso in the real sense of the word, even back then when he paid a lot more attention to his guitar playing.
By virtuoso I meant how they were portrayed in the media and regarded by the critics, not in its literal sense. Obviously wile DS were chock full of good musicians they were levels below some, and Mark regularly dismissed such descriptions....
In that sense I agree with you. But non-musicians, and especially die-hard fans, tend to rank DS and MK a lot higher in terms of technical ability than what is actually the case.
Because it's all very subjective. And there's nothing wrong with that.
It really isn't subjective. What moves you is subjective, but not ability.
I remember having a discussion with a guy in my high school English class, many many years ago - probably 1987 or 88. He was a guitarist, and he asked me who i thought the best guitarist going was. Of course I said MK. He laughed and said all of Mark's stuff was super easy to play. He suggested Yngwie Malmsteen. I told him we were approaching the question from very different angles.
-
I know we are in the century of the streamings and all those digital things but, I don't get the value of putting online all these videos and don't release them in any physical format properly.
It's ok to get the files from the source, license it and put it in the official YouTube channel to get visits (and money) but it seems dull for me.
Dusty and I had previous discussions about what can be considered as an official release or not and we had different views. Mine was that official releases are all available in physical formats (lp, casettes, CDs, VHS, dvd, Blu-ray) and that form part of the official discography. For me everything else is just drops of attention directed to fans but don't form part of the official discography.
-
I know we are in the century of the streamings and all those digital things but, I don't get the value of putting online all these videos and don't release them in any physical format properly.
It's ok to get the files from the source, license it and put it in the official YouTube channel to get visits (and money) but it seems dull for me.
Dusty and I had previous discussions about what can be considered as an official release or not and we had different views. Mine was that official releases are all available in physical formats (lp, casettes, CDs, VHS, dvd, Blu-ray) and that form part of the official discography. For me everything else is just drops of attention directed to fans but don't form part of the official discography.
I agree completely, but sadly physical media is all but dead.
Did you see that they are starting to phase out DVDs in certain territories? The idea of holding any kind of physical media in your hands will rapidly become niche in the next few years.....
-
It IS supposed to be a niche but vinyl is back after being dead and is the format that is ruling as artists delay their releases just to have the vinyl format ready to release.
I don't think digital is going to put the physical format out at least when it comes to big artists, the ones that would remain remembered in the future. Most of the ones that only release on digital will be forgotten as more and more will come.
But I think there still a need to stablish what's an artist discography and what's not. Even Spotify is full of "releases" that are just random compilations.
-
No point thrashing over old ground but the world has moved on and the simple fact is that most people don't even have the means anymore to play physical media - most people have got rid of DVD players due to streaming (some people might be able to play a disc in a games console but even they are being fazed out), if you have a car that is a few years old you MIGHT be able to play a CD.
I think we are all going to have to get used to the new world. Julio, in asking what is in a discography, you are also going to have to ask what a discography is - the fact the word DISC is in it implies it is a list of physical releases on disc, and such releases are on the way out unfortunately.
-
Big artists (old and young) are still very attached to physical releases when it comes to his new music. If it was just old artists I would agree with the niche thing but the reality is that is still a thing for record companies.
Actually I see this as a fail from digital trying to substitute physical.
It is true most of the people doesn't have media to play all those physical formats, but it is also true that those people buy the physical format and hold them reading the lyrics while listening the music on streaming media!
Nowadays I rarely watch dvds but they are still a thing for me. Streaming is voluble and you can't count that everything would be online forever.
-
Big artists (old and young) are still very attached to physical releases when it comes to his new music. If it was just old artists I would agree with the niche thing but the reality is that is still a thing for record companies.
Actually I see this as a fail from digital trying to substitute physical.
It is true most of the people doesn't have media to play all those physical formats, but it is also true that those people buy the physical format and hold them reading the lyrics while listening the music on streaming media!
Nowadays I rarely watch dvds but they are still a thing for me. Streaming is voluble and you can't count that everything would be online forever.
I differentiate between get-a-lifers that spend time on a music forum and "normal" people.
Normal people (i guess 95% of people?) don't have a way to play physical media anymore. It's good in the short term for those of us who still do as the second hand shops are full of CDs/DVDs/blurays for next to nothing.
-
Normal people (i guess 95% of people?) don't have a way to play physical media anymore. It's good in the short term for those of us who still do as the second hand shops are full of CDs/DVDs/blurays for next to nothing.
Regarding the music business your figure is completly unsourced, and as so, has no value.
Check the site of Ifpi instead, you can buy their very expensive but also detailled annual rapport and you will be able to start a valid opinion on the subject.
-
Normal people (i guess 95% of people?) don't have a way to play physical media anymore. It's good in the short term for those of us who still do as the second hand shops are full of CDs/DVDs/blurays for next to nothing.
Regarding the music business your figure is completly unsourced, and as so, has no value.
Check the site of Ifpi instead, you can buy their very expensive but also detailled annual rapport and you will be able to start a valid opinion on the subject.
Lol, OK, I’ll buy the report after you buy a dictionary so you can understand what I mean by the word “guess”.
-
That is for free
(https://ifpi-website-cms.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/Ski_chart_2022_1_e33cecaf7d.png)
-
That was a lot more physical sales than I expected, roughly 20%. But my guess is that people with CD players and turntables mostly are music lovers and audiophiles, who tend to buy much more music than the average, casual listener. Widening access to streaming services for the average person is where the potential growth in sales is (I guess ;D ). Heck, even seasoned audiophiles with high-end gear are gradually giving up physical formats (if not entirely) for streaming, something I know from frequenting audiophile forums.
-
I will and do always buy CD, until they stop making them that is. You can always rip a CD to digital. I still have an amazing CD player and speakers too.
-
I'm very torn over this subject.
On the one hand, I am a "hyper connected" type of person. I find it very convenient to launch YouTube music on my smart TV and listen to music that way, without the need to switch discs.
On the other hand, I own all the music and movies that I love on physical media. I own a UHD (HD 4K blu Ray) player , and I'm sad to see that very few new releases come. Some new movies are released, but the back catalogue (older, valuable movies) can be counted with one hand. They did Back to the Future, but that's more and exception. Last week-end I was invited to a friend's house, I knew he was a movie lover, I came with "intouchable" on UHD as a gift, only to realize that he didn't even own a player any more, even if he has a giantic screen!
So, yes, a bluray release of Dortmund 80 and Wembley 85 would be very highly appreciated. Nonetheless, the YouTube releases are better than nothing - they give these legendary concert an official status and feel, and it makes me happy. I consider them official releases, despite that very regrettable lack of physical releases.
-
As a better songwriter than MK once wrote "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".
I don't need a random, unreferenced chart to show what I can see with my own eyes.
I can see when I get into friend's cars that they don't have CDs in their cars, or even CD players.
I can see when I go into friend's homes that they don't have CD players, DVD players, or stereos. If they put music on they stream to a bluetooth speaker.
I do have friends who still use physical media, as do I , but at this point we are a niche within a niche.
With regards to the chart, what does it even mean? Is it revenues? If so, it doesn't really alter my guess, 20% of revenue could easily come from 5% of people buying physical media because physical media is expensive compared to streaming.
-
The fact is physical format has enough sales for the system to keep releasing them, not only that but also stopping CDs releases until the LP are ready to be released at the same time.
And as and old fashioned grumpy like me, those are what a official discography of a band is. Not YouTube or Spotify compilation or videos from concerts. As long as they don't have a cd/lp/dvd/Blu-ray release, they are not part of the official discography but just stuff that once was broadcasted by a TV or radio and ended on streaming services.
-
As long as they don't have a cd/lp/dvd/Blu-ray release, they are not part of the official discography but just stuff that once was broadcasted by a TV or radio and ended on streaming services.
How about things which are released as downloads and on streaming services only? I have purchased two such "albums": Bill Frisell – Further East / Further West, and Jon Batiste & Cory Wong – Meditations. These are indeed part of the artists' discography (check All Music for example).
-
I will and do always buy CD, until they stop making them that is. You can always rip a CD to digital. I still have an amazing CD player and speakers too.
Me too, but we are nonetheless a minority.
-
As long as they don't have a cd/lp/dvd/Blu-ray release, they are not part of the official discography but just stuff that once was broadcasted by a TV or radio and ended on streaming services.
How about things which are released as downloads and on streaming services only? I have purchased two such "albums": Bill Frisell – Further East / Further West, and Jon Batiste & Cory Wong – Meditations. These are indeed part of the artists' discography (check All Music for example).
Can something be part of a discography if it's never been on disc? :)
(This is a rhetorical question)
-
As long as they don't have a cd/lp/dvd/Blu-ray release, they are not part of the official discography but just stuff that once was broadcasted by a TV or radio and ended on streaming services.
How about things which are released as downloads and on streaming services only? I have purchased two such "albums": Bill Frisell – Further East / Further West, and Jon Batiste & Cory Wong – Meditations. These are indeed part of the artists' discography (check All Music for example).
Can something be part of a discography if it's never been on disc? :)
(This is a rhetorical question)
Absolutely. Though the term originated at a time (30s) when music was only released on discs, today the term includes any format.
Edit: Added missing word.
-
I purchased a lot of Jason Isbell concerts released by him in his bandcamp site that are not part of his official discography.
Wait! I also purchased a lot of MK concerts from his site that are not part of his official discography!
-
I purchased a lot of Jason Isbell concerts released by him in his bandcamp site that are not part of his official discography.
Wait! I also purchased a lot of MK concerts from his site that are not part of his official discography!
The key word being "official". But the determining factor is not the format.
-
Maybe it's a weak argument but why on the official MK - Releases website there are no concerts from Wembley and Dortmund :think ;)
-
I will and do always buy CD, until they stop making them that is. You can always rip a CD to digital. I still have an amazing CD player and speakers too.
Me too, but we are nonetheless a minority.
I prefer to be in the minority. I remember a year or two ago, Neil Young removed his music from Spotify for some reason, he did put it back on but, if, as I do, you have the CD, you will always be able to listen to the music.
-
Yeah, who decides what the "official" discography is?
I just looked at the MK website and the latest box set isn't on there yet (released nearly a year ago), so is it part of the discography?!
-
Yes, streaming are online today but, tomorrow?
I know people who doesn't buy any dvd or Blu-ray as "everything" is on streaming services but all is not there and what is there, could be deleted forever when the services want, or close.
You can't relie on them.
-
Yeah, who decides what the "official" discography is?
I just looked at the MK website and the latest box set isn't on there yet (released nearly a year ago), so is it part of the discography?!
On Mark Knopfler com the first part is :)
-
Yeah, who decides what the "official" discography is?
I just looked at the MK website and the latest box set isn't on there yet (released nearly a year ago), so is it part of the discography?!
On Mark Knopfler com the first part is :)
Yeah, that's why I said the latest box set my friend :)
-
Yes, streaming are online today but, tomorrow?
I know people who doesn't buy any dvd or Blu-ray as "everything" is on streaming services but all is not there and what is there, could be deleted forever when the services want, or close.
You can't relie on them.
Agreed, they are also already editing streaming versions of films for example. But again, the vast majority of people don't care...
-
Disney no longer producing DVDs and blurays for sale in Australia due to declining sales:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/08/02/with-sales-dropping-disney-will-no-longer-sell-dvds-in-australia/?sh=2d732f633b4b
-
Despite being now a marginal part of revenues, 5,000,000,000 US $ are still good money for the record companies and keep the production of the CDDA alive.
And if your immediate surrounding is not buying phisycal media, it doens't mean that the rest of the world is doing the same.
-
and then You have the exactly opposite exemple :
the Dagger Records label owned by Experience Hendrix LCC releases "officials bootlegs" on physical formats
in this case, it exists on CD, it's "official" (not bootlegs) , but it's not part of the "official discography" so to say, because it's not real classical "albums"
I far prefer this than having concerts uploaded on YouTube channel... :disbelief
and I fully agree about streaming not being eternal
I have all my music in physical fomats OR files downloaded and I listen to it on my Sony portable player
-
Just you guys wait until the hologramatic cube comes out ;D
-
Despite being now a marginal part of revenues, 5,000,000,000 US $ are still good money for the record companies and keep the production of the CDDA alive.
And if your immediate surrounding is not buying phisycal media, it doens't mean that the rest of the world is doing the same.
Yeah, I also posted a link showing that Walt Disney, the biggest entertainment company in the world, are ending disc production in Australia.
But I’m sure you are correct, physical media sales are booming, whatever you say sir. :)
-
Despite being now a marginal part of revenues, 5,000,000,000 US $ are still good money for the record companies and keep the production of the CDDA alive.
And if your immediate surrounding is not buying phisycal media, it doens't mean that the rest of the world is doing the same.
Yeah, I also posted a link showing that Walt Disney, the biggest entertainment company in the world, are ending disc production in Australia.
But I’m sure you are correct, physical media sales are booming, whatever you say sir. :)
Booming or not are well enough to keep production, except for Australian Disney 😛
-
Disney no longer producing DVDs and blurays for sale in Australia due to declining sales:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/08/02/with-sales-dropping-disney-will-no-longer-sell-dvds-in-australia/?sh=2d732f633b4b
Looks less likely we'll see the Madrid 2001 DVD then. :lol
-
Disney no longer producing DVDs and blurays for sale in Australia due to declining sales:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/08/02/with-sales-dropping-disney-will-no-longer-sell-dvds-in-australia/?sh=2d732f633b4b
Looks less likely we'll see the Madrid 2001 DVD then. :lol
In all seriousness, it does make me wonder about the future of live concert DVDs now sales are so low.
They used to be big sellers, along with live comedy DVDs. Live comedy shows still turn up on streaming sites but live concerts not very often, sometimes with a huge star like Springsteen on Broadway.
-
Despite being now a marginal part of revenues, 5,000,000,000 US $ are still good money for the record companies and keep the production of the CDDA alive.
And if your immediate surrounding is not buying phisycal media, it doens't mean that the rest of the world is doing the same.
Yeah, I also posted a link showing that Walt Disney, the biggest entertainment company in the world, are ending disc production in Australia.
But I’m sure you are correct, physical media sales are booming, whatever you say sir. :)
Lol
Of course I am correct, my source is The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.
They know a little about the state of the MUSIC market.
My point is not about Disney and moving pictures...
Blu-Ray format is almost totally dead, and DVD come close.
-
Disney no longer producing DVDs and blurays for sale in Australia due to declining sales:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/08/02/with-sales-dropping-disney-will-no-longer-sell-dvds-in-australia/?sh=2d732f633b4b
Looks less likely we'll see the Madrid 2001 DVD then. :lol
Well with the advanced technology of IA maybe they will be soon able to fix the sound and release it :think
-
Despite being now a marginal part of revenues, 5,000,000,000 US $ are still good money for the record companies and keep the production of the CDDA alive.
And if your immediate surrounding is not buying phisycal media, it doens't mean that the rest of the world is doing the same.
Yeah, I also posted a link showing that Walt Disney, the biggest entertainment company in the world, are ending disc production in Australia.
But I’m sure you are correct, physical media sales are booming, whatever you say sir. :)
Lol
Of course I am correct, my source is The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.
They know a little about the state of the MUSIC market.
My point is not about Disney and moving pictures...
Blu-Ray format is almost totally dead, and DVD come close.
Well the conversation was discussing Julio’s point asking why these VIDEOS aren’t being released on a physical format, do keep up.
-
My bad then.
-
Anyway, as one of the small number of people who still buys physical music I’m glad that it’s making up close to 20% of revenues so thank you for sharing your chart. :)
-
Disney no longer producing DVDs and blurays for sale in Australia due to declining sales:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/08/02/with-sales-dropping-disney-will-no-longer-sell-dvds-in-australia/?sh=2d732f633b4b
Looks less likely we'll see the Madrid 2001 DVD then. :lol
In all seriousness, it does make me wonder about the future of live concert DVDs now sales are so low.
They used to be big sellers, along with live comedy DVDs. Live comedy shows still turn up on streaming sites but live concerts not very often, sometimes with a huge star like Springsteen on Broadway.
Yes, the market for a live concert DVD has been diminished by all the YouTube videos you can find the following day. Isn't it ironic that we invented the DVD and Blu-Ray partly for maximum picture and sound quality and yet they are being phased out because we are happy to watch mobile phone footage on YouTube!
-
I find DVDs and Blu-rays a hassle, so streaming movies and concerts in full HD is perferct for me. I also run the sound signal optically out from my TV to a DAC and into my hifi. Great picture and sound.
I still like to buy CDs though, even if I don't own a CD player at the moment. Not sure if I will get another player, but I will probably keep buying CDs, rip them to FLAC and stream the files locally.
-
I find DVDs and Blu-rays a hassle, so streaming movies and concerts in full HD is perferct for me. I also run the sound signal optically out from my TV to a DAC and into my hifi. Great picture and sound.
But do you find a lot of concerts available to stream?
-
I find DVDs and Blu-rays a hassle, so streaming movies and concerts in full HD is perferct for me. I also run the sound signal optically out from my TV to a DAC and into my hifi. Great picture and sound.
But do you find a lot of concerts available to stream?
I'm not that much of a concert watcher, but it's true that the selection is not amazing. However, for people who like jazz and classical, there's stuff like medici.tv and qwest.tv. And I just discovered this: https://qello.com/en/ Of course it's all subscription based, so it quickly adds up.
-
Interesting, did not know about Qello, thanks :)
-
Disney no longer producing DVDs and blurays for sale in Australia due to declining sales:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/08/02/with-sales-dropping-disney-will-no-longer-sell-dvds-in-australia/?sh=2d732f633b4b
Looks less likely we'll see the Madrid 2001 DVD then. :lol
In all seriousness, it does make me wonder about the future of live concert DVDs now sales are so low.
They used to be big sellers, along with live comedy DVDs. Live comedy shows still turn up on streaming sites but live concerts not very often, sometimes with a huge star like Springsteen on Broadway.
Yes, the market for a live concert DVD has been diminished by all the YouTube videos you can find the following day. Isn't it ironic that we invented the DVD and Blu-Ray partly for maximum picture and sound quality and yet they are being phased out because we are happy to watch mobile phone footage on YouTube!
I am absolutely not happy about watching mobile phone footage of a concert on YouTube. I want official concerts on Blu-ray, but I feel I am more and more in the minority, but there you go!!
-
I nowadays don't watch any live concerts dvds not because of lack of players, I have two, but lack of time. I have several packs of records released in the last let's say 5 years that I didn't have time yet to watch properly like the recent RAH Clapton special 24 package...
-
I've extended the stereo image of expresso love by using a simple L+R L-R, increase L-R gain and do the opposite method and it doesn't really look a full mono signal. Nevertheless, it doesn't look a wide stereo like the FM broadcast.
Attached mp3 sample. You can compare to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agjMdwyrUuE and you will see it's not mono.
According to wiki the first NICAM broadcast was The Proms in July 1986:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICAM
Entirely possible the show was made in stereo for futureproofing but unlikely it was broadcast in stereo IMO.
Broadcasted in mono or stereo?
According to the video credits they used the Rolling stones mobile so I guess they have the sound in good stereo
The concert was a multitrack record by Rolling Stones mobile (same as Alchemy). Then different mixes were designed for different uses. They can made a stereo mix for FM stations, and a mono mix for TV broadcast (or an alternative stereo mix for TV broadcast).
The question is about that this official YouTube release is true mono or very discrete stereo mix. FM stereo mixes are very wide.
Maybe the multitracks are still alive today, those are the key to make a new stereo, 5.1 or ATMOS mix. And the original video tapes (not this digitalized TV broadcast). An example is "Delicate Sound Of Thunder" by Pink Floyd. They used all the original material to make a new video restoration and re-edition and audio remix. We can hope for a Wembley '85 BD in Full HD or 4K if this material is available.
-
Is it really mono?? I hope it is only for the preview then... They have it in stereo, it was broadcasted in FM! Well not for TOL and SR unfortunately...
Today I have some dudes about If the audio is Stereo or Mono... If you check 0:08 on preview video, you can appreciate (with headphones) the drums starting at left channel and finishing the drum fill on right channel.
Nobody can check this? maybe it is a very discrete stereo mix for TV broadcast? FM radio source is different stereo mix.
Thanks for the mp3 sample. I talked about this at the start of this tread.
-
Same happens for the dortmund Rockpop In Concert, 19th Dec 1980
Attached sultans of swing sample.
The issue is that for being lossy audio, increasing the stereo image makes the sound horrible. For full restoration, the only option would be getting this material in archive grade, flac files. If you find a way to get them I can do a cleanup and improve the stereo image and post a torrent.