The official NMA board
General Category => New Model Army => Topic started by: steve22 on March 26, 2015, 01:02:17 PM
-
I know the band don't like to look back (particularly Justin), but I'd love to here a remix of the 'No Rest for the Wicked'. I think this album out of the whole catalogue could really be made to shine and introduce a new interpretation.
Some initial thoughts are:
I don't think the gallons of reverb particuarly suit Robs drumming style, especially as as he is so tight.
Maybe a bit less chorus on Stuarts bass
I also think that Justin's guitar sounds quite unnatural in places (maybe that was the idea). On Ambition (my fav track on the album) it is quite fizzy in the chorus with not much attack at all.
This may sound quite harsh as I love the songs but not a big fan of the production.
-
Maybe the band could get Space in to remix it? ;)
-
Maybe the band could get Space in to remix it? ;)
and re-do all the guitar work :o hmm,
Sorry steve22, I hate the idea. If it isn't broke don't fix it. Some music sounds better, sounds the way it should through flaws in the mixing. The first Generation-X album with all the feedback left in for example. One of the worst mixed, over produced albums in my opinion, Never Mind the Bollocks Here's the Sex Pistols. Everything turned up loud and a bit faster. If you have heard studio sessions they did at the time, much better, more raw, more passion.
A re-mix of No Rest, a rare thing, - an NMA album that I would not buy >:(
-
I love No Rest For The Wicked just the way it is. It does have a very different production, and overall sound to other NMA albums, but that's part of its appeal in my book.
I think if any of them could maybe benefit from re-mastering / re-mixing it would be Ghost of Cain. Some absolutely cracking songs on that album, but it sounds under-produced to me. Not enough volume !
-
Well, there's already a remastered edition of No rest for The Wicked out there. You want to remaster ist again?
-
Maybe the band could get Space in to remix it? ;)
I've done a bit of remixing on a few of the "No Rest" songs. I like the heavy reverb on the drums so I kept that, but I lowered the vocals on a few tracks just a bit and upped the bass. The songs now have more drive due to my strenghtening Morrow's bass.
(There's a program I use called GOLDWAVE that enables all this.)
And, steve22, you are right about the "fizz" of Justin's guitar in "Ambition." Maybe more natural guitar grit would have been better, but I kind of do like that "fizz" that is on the track. It's like a slow burn that creeps in now and again.
-
Lol here we go again. I'm sorry to sound rude but wtf is wrong with some people.
There is fck all wrong with no rest, leave it as it is nobody would tell a great painter, author or director how to change their work.
If nma want to re-do no rest then great i will buy it, will i love more than the original then no i won't.
I would much rather nma concentrated on new projects.
-
nobody would tell a great painter, author or director how to change their work.
Dude, artists do re-work their work all the time. Many times from the suggestions of others. Check out Shakespeare manuscripts -- he changed things. Albums and songs are remixed and remastered quite often. Director's? I think we are now getting our fourth Director's Cut of BLADE RUNNER this summer. Just because an album was recorded does not mean it is perfect. Many musicians say that they look back on their work and wish they could have done things differently.
-
I would much rather nma concentrated on new projects.
Agree with that. The next album should always be the most important.
-
I think we all have our favourite albums and it sucks when someone says they don't like it, I think my point in case here is LOHC, which from what I've read on the forum gets quite a bit of stick but for me it can do no wrong...it was just an idea... it's not actually going to happen.
-
...it was just an idea....
Chin up, steve, it was a good idea.
There are some people who hold everything their favorite artist does as sacred. "How dare you suggest it should be changed!?!" What you suggested - a simple remix of NO REST - was spot on. Years and years ago I read where the band themselves were unhappy with the production of that album, so you were onto the right track with your suggestion.
-
Well, for me, it'd be like those ****-awful 'new' versions of the original Star Wars trilogy that George Lucas put out, or what Spielberg did, re-doing ET with the cops guns replaced by walkie-talkies... yup, got a bit geeky there... ;)
No Rest is just fine the way it is... yes, it ain't perfect and sounds rather dated in places, but it's absolutely 'of its time'... subsequent live versions are all we need for an update on that sound. Plenty are available if you want them and know where to look.
:(
-
Interesting idea Steve 22.
I guess it depends on why it would be remixed - to change the song into a new breed like the Over the Wire remix or the Vengeance ones from a few years ago, in which case whether or not it's a good thing depends on the end result.
Or - to correct imperfections in recording quality or mix levels or some such muso geek atuff..... ;D . I suppose that depends on whether the Creators think it's worth doing.
Or - to change the sound of the instruments in which case surely that is just like re-recording the album? It would be like NMA covering NMA. I can't see that being of interest to many.
Personally, I am always interested in having a listen to remixes giving a new end result but other than that I'd rather leave original versions alone - warts and all.
Nice thread fella - Hello :-*
-
I suppose a lot has to do with how you feel about re-mixes and such. Personally I can't stand them. I absolutely hate the re-mix of "Over the Wire", and absolutely love the original.
I think Pol has it right. Leave the album alone, its in the past, there to be visited whenever you like. I would rather the band spent time bringing out new material for us to enjoy.
P/S, the original No Rest, my favourite album of all time ;)
-
Peter Gabriel remastered his catalog about 5 yrs ago and did some remixing. Mind you, I couldn't tell the difference, but his goal was to create a new/cleaner master.
-
I suppose a lot has to do with how you feel about re-mixes and such. Personally I can't stand them. I absolutely hate the re-mix of "Over the Wire", and absolutely love the original.
I quite like the Over The Wire remix. It's a bit of fun. Do love the original as well though !
-
EMI remasters were totally worth it, although I wish someone could redo one for Impurity and fix the mess made of the keyboard parts. The warble on them is brutal.
-
I also like the remastered pieces done for the Anthology set. Dawn sounds so much better on Anthology than the original, which is hugely muddled. I could do without the extra keyboard parts on Blue Beat, however.
-
Shakes head in disbelief
Leaves before getting extremely angry
-
i have to say, these thoughts about remixing just don't come into my mind. when i watch an old b/w movie, i don't think: gosh, this would be so much better with modern cgi or colour.
this is all about changing the appearance, not the idea, the soul of the art itself. this is all about technics. better recordings, better sound. who cares? i wouldn't mind if they would go in the studio and just record old tracks new. make it different or something. but to change the old recording just doesn't makes sense to me.
and there are a lot of remixes of the songs anyway. when they play live, they change the songs a little and i like that so much. we have another imperial day in accapella, we have differnet verisions of ocean rising, there was this wonderful and kinda funny reggae version of stupid questions, they do acoustic sets and the last tour with all the extra instruments was such a joy to listen to and experience and stunning and widened the perception of the songs. just watch the version of no mirror no shadow. wow!!
i have the remastered editions of the albums and i don't listen to them. with purity they (whoever did this) even made it worse.
and i can understand pols reaction to some comments here. but hey, it's all just opinion and we can talk about this.
-
Why do some here feel that all art should be like sculpture -- etched in stone and immutable?
You said it yourself, cthulhu, when the band plays these songs live, they change things up a bit. They realize that, "Hey, maybe this sounds a bit better than what we came up with back in 1987." But, no, fans say, "Don't change a thing!" I'll take what the artists thinks about their work over what fans think.
-
Space you don't get the point yet again Live music is in the moment im all for something different
Here is why this record should never be changed. This is partly Robs work and only he should be allowed to change it but since he is no longer with us rip that's not going to happen. If you change it would tarnish his memory.
-
partly Robs work and only he should be allowed to change it
Only he? It's also partly Sullivan's and Nelson's and Morrow's and Harris's.... Jeez, have you forgotten about those members of the band?
-
There all still alive or have you forgotten. Show some respect !
-
There all still alive or have you forgotten.
A) John Lennon died. John Lennon! And still The Beatles went on to remix and remaster all their material and actually record two tracks without John. But, no, NMA should not remix thier stuff.
B) Oh, by the way, NMA's older stuff was remixed/remastered on the EMI re-releases, some of the Anthology, and the entire "Vengeance" album. So much for your point that it should never be touched.
As I said, fans like Pol have this strange notion that older material should never be messed with. Thank God the bands don't feel that way.
-
No nma should do what nma want to do not anyway else Difference is the Beatles are no more and if macca and yoko want to cash in for another million then leave them too it
-
If surviving Beatles mixed older material long after the band ended, then fair enough. My overriding feeling on this issue is NMA, a current recording band have better things to do then re-work an album from the 1980's. Namely writing and recording new material.
If 20 years from now some ex-NMA members want to re-record some of the old material, I might be interested. But for now, new material please, albums like BDAW and BWAB.
-
My overriding feeling on this issue is NMA, a current recording band have better things to do then re-work an album from the 1980's.
Dude, the band just reworked, remixed an album they made 32 years ago! Didn't you buy the new "Vengeance" release?
Yes, NMA is a forward looking band who feel their best work is still to be made. But that didn't stop them from updating their earlier work "Vengeance." And what's wrong with that? Why are people here against an artist tweaking their earlier stuff? Still haven't heard a valid reason why from Pol or any of the posters here why a band should not do it.
-
If 20 years from now some ex-NMA members want to re-record some of the old material, I might be interested.
Noooo! You don't want that. Many, many artists have gone back and actually re-recorded a track or two from their past. The results are always disastrous. Psychedelic Furs remade "Pretty In Pink." Horrible. The Police remade "Don't Stand So Close To Me." Terrible. Paul McCartney for his film "Regards To Broadstreet" remade a few early Beatle tunes. Horrendous!
I don't mind a remix or remaster, but an actual remake is never a good thing.
-
I did buy it, yes :)
I think there is quite a difference from that album to all that followed. A bands first album is so often going to be missing things while a band finds its recording feet.
As for valid reasons, all I can do is repeat what you have just highlighted from my last. I think the band have better, as you say more forward thinking things to do .I cannot imagine the band as it is at the moment, on a good run of turning out worthwhile new material and gigging off the back of it, then suddenly feel the need to drop all that and re-work albums from the 1980's.
But as Pol has said, NMA should do whatever they want.
-
But, Shush, it is not looking back. Those early albums are who they are. Just because a song was made a number of years ago, that song no longer is who that band is? Does New Model Army play material from "No Rest" in their live set? Did the band recently do shows featuring songs from all their albums? Did the band just release a 30 year anthology set? Of course they did. The older stuff is who a band is just as much as the newer stuff is. New Model Army is "Vengeance" and "Between Wine and Blood." I like it that way.
Go check out a Spandau Ballet show...all they play are songs from 1987. Then go check out a Paul Weller show. He pretends that his music from the '70s, '80s. and '90s does not even exist! I like NMA's approach. They view all their music as their music.
-
to make my personal point a bit clearer. i think this diskussion is about opinion. as almost everything is, and maybe all is vanity.
i said, that these thoughts don't come to my mind (requesting something). that's my point. i don't wish for improvement, which would be only in my mind. i don't thinjk about an artists work comparing it to what i would have done. well, that's not always true, but in this case it is. of course i do judge and i compare somehow. but first there is appreciation, if there is.
for example, i do appreciate the video work to angry planet. but since i am an editor, i compare it to my personal workflow and i have thoughts about that. but i recognize the work and take it as ist is.
what i don't like here, as i perceive it, is somehow the tone of fact, as if there are facts out there, why to do things this way and why not. i don't see this. i would nerver want a band to go and do something for my personal wishes. it takes something out of the relationship that i have as a listener to an artist. i'm working with what they produce, because it affects me, and that's it.
this is not about, what if they would decide to re-record it. i would listen to it. this has the feeling, and maybe i'm wrong, about demanding or wishing for from a personal point. i don't wish such things. i don't know how to explain it better.
i like to be inspired by artists and what they do. but hey have to do it first. i cannot see myself wishing they would to things that suit me better. it somehow takes the fun out, in my opinion.
@space
you seem like an eloquent guy (or girl)
i'll take your point: "I'll take what the artists thinks about their work over what fans think."
what i cannot stand is your style to say something are facts and always to compare it with what other artists do or did and then assuming to conclusions. who cares what the beatles or john lennon or whatever did? i mean in a discussion about remixing albums you could only state your own opinion and likes and then say, that's why YOU want it some way or another. but you cannot say, because x did it, it's trhe right thing to do.
maybe i'm not clear about what i want to say, there's a little language barrier here for me because i'm a german native speaker, but i hope the ideas come through.
-
you cannot say, because x did it, it's the right thing to do.
Sometimes you can.
If you are on your way to becoming a pretty good basketball player, wouldn't you look to what Michael Jordan did to prepare himself for a game? Don't you think that might improve your game? If you are on your way to becoming a film director, wouldn't it be wise to look at the master film directors to see how they prepared themselves for their directing assignments? If you are in a band, wouldn't you look to see how a very successful band like The Beatles navigated the waters?
Nothing wrong with learning what the greats did before you in order to help you make choices.
-
If you are on your way to becoming a pretty good basketball player, wouldn't you look to what Michael Jordan did to prepare himself for a game? Don't you think that might improve your game? If you are on your way to becoming a film director, wouldn't it be wise to look at the master film directors to see how they prepared themselves for their directing assignments? If you are in a band, wouldn't you look to see how a very successful band like The Beatles navigated the waters?
It depends on how to measure being "successful". Is it cash and sales, or authentic feelings that a piece of art can evoke. After all, you can assume a result only scarcely. You can't be 100% sure if you use some certain effect 'x' that the result is always 'y'. It depends on artist himself when he/she will decide the work is ready.
I think the comparison with games (Jordan) isn't capable to here because there's only one result, goals and winning the players are after to. But perhaps a better comparison with games would be why some people seem to follow a team year after year even though they do NOT win competitions. Maybe there's some interesting way of playing, an authentic tactic etc. that maintains the interest and makes them different compared to others...