Brothers in arms 40th anniversary edition

[wayaman]

I agree about Portobello, the outtro was very nice musically, with the sax and guitar duet, elaborated to create the climax to introduce the band and then link it with Tunnel.

For me when listening any bootleg of the period was a highlight.

[Robson]

For us fans (I thought for everyone) the longest version of Portobello Belle is a real treat, as is Tunnel Of Love from Uniondale.
That's why we need the album Dire Straits - Rarities live 1978 - 1992

[Brunno Nunes]

I can't stop repeating: cutting Portobello Belle at Alchemy was a sacrilege, a great missed opportunity to deliver the show as it was presented by those who were there. I'm one of those people who, whenever they listen to a bootleg from the LOG tour 82-83, always consider Portibello Bello to be a great moment of the show, totally exclusive, because it provides an atmosphere that has never been repeated. The song became epic, gained a very creative arrangement, in my opinion, remarkable passages, Mark's singing interpretation is always with great emotion, Alan shines with piano and Hammond, Mel's interventions enrich the dynamics of the song, unique tone. The final duet between Mark and Mel is a very fun moment, followed by the presentation of the musicians and the atmosphere of the transition to TOL, all of this is a tremendous exclusivity that once again leaves us with the bitter taste of absence in audio and video.

[Ingrained]

I try not to be cynical but the more I’ve thought about it, I wonder if Portobello Belle was also cut down so that a future update of Alchemy will have a USP, unique selling point. People may still buy an updated Bluray/4k film anyway, but a full length version of PB would also encourage people to buy a new updated Alchemy vinyl/CD, even if they own the Live Boxset already.

A future Alchemy scan, update and restoration would not be a cheap process and would need to be recuperated as best as possible.

Also, they may have simply considered it not worth including in the context of the Live Boxset, but they could maybe consider it integral to an Alchemy rerelease.

A future Alchemy update, I hope would be 100% uncut, as the show in that era feels so well balanced. The concert/show worked as a whole and was clearly designed and thought out that way. Not just a selection of songs.

[JF]

I can't stop repeating: cutting Portobello Belle at Alchemy was a sacrilege, a great missed opportunity to deliver the show as it was presented by those who were there. I'm one of those people who, whenever they listen to a bootleg from the LOG tour 82-83, always consider Portibello Bello to be a great moment of the show, totally exclusive, because it provides an atmosphere that has never been repeated. The song became epic, gained a very creative arrangement, in my opinion, remarkable passages, Mark's singing interpretation is always with great emotion, Alan shines with piano and Hammond, Mel's interventions enrich the dynamics of the song, unique tone. The final duet between Mark and Mel is a very fun moment, followed by the presentation of the musicians and the atmosphere of the transition to TOL, all of this is a tremendous exclusivity that once again leaves us with the bitter taste of absence in audio and video.

+1000 

[Pottel]

It was just endless jamming and noodling without any musical value. Disn't even like the shortened version, let alone the far too long one. Good job by Guy.

LE

fully disagree. To my taste, this sax/guitar duet is a highlight of the show

imho, it's not 'noodling", it's a very constructive solo with THAT lick far more complex than the Sultans one for example

and I love the build up, it creates a gorgeous climax, and then ou have musicians introduction which is nice, and then it continues to TOL... so a very great moment in the concert, imho

agree with JF here...

[Stiglar]

I've thought this for a while, but my theory is PB was cut because it was messy or there were mistakes etc,

Industrial Disease is really quite messy, I'm surprised it wasn't cleaned up a bit for an official release, I feel this was potentially the case with the outro of PB and guy felt it best to fade it, As much as i'm a completist that would've liked to have heard it , I do trust his judgement to be honest.

[dustyvalentino]

I try not to be cynical but the more I’ve thought about it, I wonder if Portobello Belle was also cut down so that a future update of Alchemy will have a USP, unique selling point. People may still buy an updated Bluray/4k film anyway, but a full length version of PB would also encourage people to buy a new updated Alchemy vinyl/CD, even if they own the Live Boxset already.

I think it's more likely it was just a stupid mistake by Guy and we will never have the full version.

[Ingrained]

I try not to be cynical but the more I’ve thought about it, I wonder if Portobello Belle was also cut down so that a future update of Alchemy will have a USP, unique selling point. People may still buy an updated Bluray/4k film anyway, but a full length version of PB would also encourage people to buy a new updated Alchemy vinyl/CD, even if they own the Live Boxset already.

I think it's more likely it was just a stupid mistake by Guy and we will never have the full version.

I suppose I’ve been reading between the lines with what they release. It maybe clutching at straws but the PB edit actually gave me a slight glimmer of hope that maybe Alchemy, the film, is being considered for an update sometime, and that’s why I pondered whether there was another reason why they left PB incomplete. It may signpost that they are looking to put the full length version on an Alchemy rerelease, if and when that ever happens.

In short, maybe they never intended for the Live Boxset to be the “definitive” version of Alchemy?

Also R+J/Alchemy was 4K on its latest Youtube release, to coincide with the Live Boxset release. Not sure if it was a rescan. Probably not. Then again, maybe R+J was only uploaded as 4K primarily to have better compression or audio quality, who knows? The Lester Bookbinder videos are 4K as well so maybe 4K is just their standard upload approach now for better quality overall.

My intention was to look at it like, maybe they made a commercial decision as well as a creative decision. But then maybe I’m thinking that there’s 4D chess level thinking going on with the releases.

[dustyvalentino]

Are they ACTUALLY 4k though?

Now I'm being cynical but I find it highly unlikely that they went back and rescanned the 16mm film in 4k.

The very nature of 16m film means it would be largely pointless anyway.

[JF]

I've thought this for a while, but my theory is PB was cut because it was messy or there were mistakes etc,

I don't hear any "mistakes" at all



BTW, there is a greenie in the TOL outro, before the built up in the final solo, and it always had been here, because Alchemy was meant to be a "real" concert recording, not a polished live album (lot of discussions about this subject, OTN, etc...)... so Guy should have kept this philosophy about that gig imho

[Ingrained]

Are they ACTUALLY 4k though?

Now I'm being cynical but I find it highly unlikely that they went back and rescanned the 16mm film in 4k.

The very nature of 16m film means it would be largely pointless anyway.

We’ll never know what the original file they uploaded was. It’s worth noting that sometimes things are uploaded to Youtube in 4K, and it’s believed by some that it offers a better compression algorithm than uploading in 1080HD. Or put another way, a 4K file uploaded and then set to ONLY play back in 1080HD will (arguably) have better/different compression ratio than a 1080HD file set to play back in 1080HD. That discussion has been going on for some time amongst videographers/creators who look to get the best results from Youtube’s compression.

I’m not saying that the scans for Alchemy are actually 4K, nor that they have gone back and rescanned it. Maybe they just upscaled a HD or 2K scan and then uploaded it as 4K. There was an interview with Dick Carruthers back in 2010 that had some technical info on the 2010 scanning I believe, but I haven’t been able to find that website for a while, and it doesn’t come up in Google searches anymore.

I would argue though that actually 16mm film is worth scanning to 4K. Especially to future proof archives of filmstock that can degrade over time. But I love film grain and I don’t see it as a downfall. It is what it is. Digital pixelation is something quite different and can look quite nasty. The idea that 16mm is not worth scanning in 4K is not necessarily true. The film 'Pi' (1998) was shot on 16mm and came out on 4K. Moonrise Kingdom I believe was 16mm. It has a quality of its own and perhaps is something to be celebrated.

Movies shot in 16mm
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls076833968/

[dustyvalentino]

I realise that it CAN be scanned in 4k, I just question whether there is any point to it. Given the limitations of 16mm as a format I would say that most of the examples you mentioned are more of a marketing exercise (Look! A shiny new format! Give us your money!) than something that people would realistically be able to perceive any real difference from the blu-ray version.

[Ingrained]

I realise that it CAN be scanned in 4k, I just question whether there is any point to it. Given the limitations of 16mm as a format I would say that most of the examples you mentioned are more of a marketing exercise (Look! A shiny new format! Give us your money!) than something that people would realistically be able to perceive any real difference from the blu-ray version.

Yes a lot of 16mm is scanned to 2K and then upscaled, as you know.

The reason I mentioned about R+J/Alchemy being 4K on Youtube was I wondered if any new work had been done on it. Was Alchemy being worked on? It almost appears to have had a bit of colour correction done maybe. That was my original train of thought, did it signify an update to Alchemy coming along? That’s why I mentioned about the 4K upload, but I realise I wasn’t too clear about why.

[Ingrained]

I realise that it CAN be scanned in 4k, I just question whether there is any point to it. Given the limitations of 16mm as a format I would say that most of the examples you mentioned are more of a marketing exercise (Look! A shiny new format! Give us your money!) than something that people would realistically be able to perceive any real difference from the blu-ray version.

Yes a lot of 16mm is scanned to 2K and then upscaled, as you know.

The reason I mentioned about R+J/Alchemy being 4K on Youtube was I wondered if any new work had been done on it. Was Alchemy being worked on? It almost appears to have had a bit of colour correction done maybe. That was my original train of thought, did it signify an update to Alchemy coming along? That’s why I mentioned about the 4K upload, but I realise I wasn’t too clear about why.

The R+J/Alchemy 4K that was uploaded last year does actually look like the Bluray scan to me now. I thought it looked a little different for a while but it does look like the same scan without any colour correction.