Steven Wilson remixing Chicago II into 5.1 Surround...??

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Has anyone considered the notion that "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon" is on more than one Chicago album?
Chicago+Chicago+At+Carnegie+Hall+273506.jpg
 
Good grief…
When wavelength says something's amiss with your playback system, he isn't referring to "Chicago (II)". He's talking about your statement that Steven Wilson is nothing more than a 'big stereo' surround mixer, and if you really feel that way, tell me who you consider to be an aggressive surround mixer, please, I would love to be enlighten… :rolleyes:

I like SWs work very much. I find his mixes to be warm and surrounding. But (IIRC by his own words) he adheres very much to the original stereo and expanding upon that rather than looking to make radical changes. To me that's the definition of "big stereo" but maybe you have another? That's cool. Definitions differ

My example of an aggressive surround mix would be Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi". A less extreme example would be "Tusk"

But rather than rolling your eyes at my comments perhaps you can enlighten me and detail in what ways you think Wilson's more aggressive style of mixing would improve upon what was already done for Chicago II?

If some don't like the old mix and want a new one, that's cool. Personally I'm in the camp of those who would rather see the time and effort put towards another album. VII would be awesome!
 
For petes sake, sorry to offend so many people by not licking SWs boots with every comment. I wasn't dissing on him or his style AT ALL. I was simply giving my opinion that I've never really heard much in his mixes that leads to me believe he's greatly improve upon the existing 5.1 of Chicago II. It's certainly never been one I've ever played and was left weeping for for something better.

But maybe he'd do something amazing with it? Who knows unless we hear it, of course.
 
OK, here we go again...
WHAT is YOUR definition of BIG STEREO????

Guthrie's PF DSOTM is , to me, a definition of big stereo...(and boring)

PT's Lightbulb Sun is not.

YES, the BASS has to be in the FRONT (unless you want a DANCE mix a la Goldfrapp's "Supernature", which actually works and its MCH mix is panned almost universally, BUT I LOVE IT!) and the kick and snare have to be in the FRONTS too..Also, the LEAD VOX has to be in the front, all of this is industry standard---if it were otherwise , we'd revert to "Abraxas" early 70's Quad mixes with stuff in every corner...and those mixes are merely "curios" from an age long ago....

EVERY good MCH mix engineer follows the rules mentioned above...now...what's your beef?
Are you gonna challenge these Pros?

Who have I challenged? I'm not the one who suggested there was something wrong with the existing 5.1 of Chicago II that needs improving and should be remixed.
 
For petes sake, sorry to offend so many people by not licking SWs boots with every comment. I wasn't dissing on him or his style AT ALL. I was simply giving my opinion that I've never really heard much in his mixes that leads to me believe he's greatly improve upon the existing 5.1 of Chicago II. It's certainly never been one I've ever played and was left weeping for for something better.

But maybe he'd do something amazing with it? Who knows unless we hear it, of course.

I'm with you that I would rather see another title done in surround instead of Chicago II...and maybe Steven's version won't be a dramatic difference...I can agree with that statement too...but your problem was that you made a general statement about his surround mixing style...not just as it applies to Chicago II...and nothing could be farther from the truth...but I think it stems from a misunderstanding of statements he made...not any "dissing" by you or malicious intent...when he mentions looking at the conventional mix(the stereo mix) before creating his surround version it's not to expand it to "big stereo"...it's to get the feel of the original sound because bands don't want a radical change to the original ...they just want more of the same...so Steven adds discrete elements(something completely different than big stereo)to open up the music more without changing the character of the original release...in other words enhance it by opening it up...again...I don't think you were dissing him...BUT..since he's the best "active" surround mixer out there right now you can expect a chorus of boos regarding your statement...just keep these things in mind going forward and you can't go wrong

You don't tug on superman's cape
You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger
You don't eat the yellow snow, watch out where the huskies go
You don't say Steven Wilson's surround mixes are big stereo..
 
I like SWs work very much. I find his mixes to be warm and surrounding. But (IIRC by his own words) he adheres very much to the original stereo and expanding upon that rather than looking to make radical changes. To me that's the definition of "big stereo" but maybe you have another? That's cool. Definitions differ

My example of an aggressive surround mix would be Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi". A less extreme example would be "Tusk"
i guess by saying "aggressive surround mix" you're referring to plenty of gimmicks based on ping-pong effects?
if so, then that's not main purpose of surround mixing. main advantage of spreading content in more than two channel lays in ability
to separate sound elements which cannot co-exist together without degrading impact on each other. for example string/bronze/piano/vox,
which have too many similar base frequencies. such approach greatly improves fidelity of the sound in surround mix, comparing to same
stuff but mixed into stereo.
by referring to original stereo, SW most likely meaning of preserving overall mood of work, as it was intended back, when album was firstly recorded/mixed.
 
But (IIRC by his own words) he adheres very much to the original stereo and expanding upon that rather than looking to make radical changes. To me that's the definition of "big stereo" but maybe you have another? That's cool. Definitions differ.

Definitions differ over any given term under the sun. However, what people mainly mean by "big stereo" is that a mix is not discrete, i.e. mostly or exclusively the same stuff in the rears as is already in the fronts.
While SW might not use Yosh-level auto-panning (very few engineers do), he does put absolutely discrete information in the rears, even on live recordings. So, instead of having the band spread only in front of you, you have them spread out all around you.
I can not recall anybody meaning that when using the term "big stereo" previous to your comment.
"Big stereo" can be achieved simply by choosing the "multi-channel stereo" option on one's receiver, from a stereo source, which is why many feel ripped-off when they find an anticipated release to be "big stereo."

HTH
 
I'm with you that I would rather see another title done in surround instead of Chicago II...and maybe Steven's version won't be a dramatic difference...I can agree with that statement too...but your problem was that you made a general statement about his surround mixing style...not just as it applies to Chicago II...and nothing could be farther from the truth...but I think it stems from a misunderstanding of statements he made...not any "dissing" by you or malicious intent...when he mentions looking at the conventional mix(the stereo mix) before creating his surround version it's not to expand it to "big stereo"...it's to get the feel of the original sound because bands don't want a radical change to the original ...they just want more of the same...so Steven adds discrete elements(something completely different than big stereo)to open up the music more without changing the character of the original release...in other words enhance it by opening it up...again...I don't think you were dissing him...BUT..since he's the best "active" surround mixer out there right now you can expect a chorus of boos regarding your statement...just keep these things in mind going forward and you can't go wrong

I hear ya. I just wasn't familiar with the term "big stereo" and didn't realize it was a perjorative. Yes, SW generally adds more discrete elements to mixes than exist on "Chicago II", but he also usually has more to work with then what he's likely to find on these tapes. Unless he's wants to start getting really gimmicky with stuff, which isn't his style. IIRC, Ballet For a Girl in Buchannon was recorded on 8-track. But I could be wrong, and maybe SW will just blow us all away with it.

OTHO, while I really enjoy his surround mix of "Songs From The Big Chair", that's one of his where I expected to hear MORE aggressiveness.

You don't say Steven Wilson's surround mixes are big stereo..

and I won't ever again! But, at the same time, let's not turn this into the Hoffman forum..... ;)
 
I hear ya. I just wasn't familiar with the term "big stereo" and didn't realize it was a perjorative. Yes, SW generally adds more discrete elements to mixes than exist on "Chicago II", but he also usually has more to work with then what he's likely to find on these tapes. Unless he's wants to start getting really gimmicky with stuff, which isn't his style. IIRC, Ballet For a Girl in Buchannon was recorded on 8-track. But I could be wrong, and maybe SW will just blow us all away with it.

OTHO, while I really enjoy his surround mix of "Songs From The Big Chair", that's one of his where I expected to hear MORE aggressiveness.



and I won't ever again! But, at the same time, let's not turn this into the Hoffman forum..... ;)

I think we are safe unless Steven buys this forum:couch...I've said this before but having that forum hurts Hoffman more than it helps...he should just stay off of it..
 
I think we are safe unless Steven buys this forum:couch...I've said this before but having that forum hurts Hoffman more than it helps...he should just stay off of it..

Perhaps. I always just figured he used it as a sales tool. Just based on his hardcore forum-fans alone he can guarantee X-number of sales of any remastering he does. That alone probably keeps him working?
 
Hi Clint, how do you create a new subject? I want to get others opinion on Bob Dylan MCH, from top to bottom, I don;t have any, I have many MOFI's stereo but the MCH Dylan subject intrigues me.
 
Has anyone considered the notion that "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon" is on more than one Chicago album?
View attachment 25703

I'm very certain he's remixing the original studio recording of "Ballet…" and not the live recording for two reasons:

1) According to the bottom of the picture, he's using the recent MFSL SACD of "Chicago (II)" as his stereo reference for remixing.
2) SW has said a few times over the years that he's really not that interested in (re)mixing live performances from other artists.
 
I like SWs work very much. I find his mixes to be warm and surrounding. But (IIRC by his own words) he adheres very much to the original stereo and expanding upon that rather than looking to make radical changes. To me that's the definition of "big stereo" but maybe you have another? That's cool. Definitions differ

My example of an aggressive surround mix would be Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi". A less extreme example would be "Tusk"

But rather than rolling your eyes at my comments perhaps you can enlighten me and detail in what ways you think Wilson's more aggressive style of mixing would improve upon what was already done for Chicago II?

If some don't like the old mix and want a new one, that's cool. Personally I'm in the camp of those who would rather see the time and effort put towards another album. VII would be awesome!

Many others have already said in this thread what I would have said, so I'll just add this.
For me, a mix like "Yoshimi" has not held up well at all after a few listens. The crazy panning just makes me dizzy, and a mixing engineer's prowess is not measured on his use of the panpots alone. (At least it's certainly not that way for me.)
Contrast that to "Larks' Tongues in Aspic", "Nonsuch", "Fragile", and "Songs from the Big Chair". All of those (and more) are continuously enjoyable mixes because of their tastefully discrete and faithful presentation. I wouldn't have them any other way.
I'm not sure if SW can improve upon "Chicago (II)", but I'm looking forward to hearing what he will do, and I hope it's only the start of his work for Chicago. :)
 
Many others have already said in this thread what I would have said, so I'll just add this.
For me, a mix like "Yoshimi" has not held up well at all after a few listens. The crazy panning just makes me dizzy, and a mixing engineer's prowess is not measured on his use of the panpots alone. (At least it's certainly not that way for me.)

As I said, it was the extreme example of "aggressive". You asked what I thought defined "aggressive", so I told you. Are you "enlightened" now?

Contrast that to "Larks' Tongues in Aspic", "Nonsuch", "Fragile", and "Songs from the Big Chair". All of those (and more) are continuously enjoyable mixes because of their tastefully discrete and faithful presentation. I wouldn't have them any other way.

I enjoy their tastefulness as well. I could also enjoy them if they were more aggressive. So I can't say I wouldn't have them "any other way". I might very well like them some other way. But I'll take them for what they are. Just like some people seem to want "Chicago II" to be more aggressive--which might be cool, and I might also enjoy--, but I'm also fine with the way it is.

Matter of personal taste, as always. So again, I'd rather see the time and effort spent on other works. So while I might personally want "Songs From The Big Chair" to be done a bit more aggressively? Sure. But, I'd rather hear someone do "The Hurting" instead. :)
 
As I said, it was the extreme example of "aggressive". You asked what I thought defined "aggressive", so I told you. Are you "enlightened" now?



I enjoy their tastefulness as well. I could also enjoy them if they were more aggressive. So I can't say I wouldn't have them "any other way". I might very well like them some other way. But I'll take them for what they are. Just like some people seem to want "Chicago II" to be more aggressive--which might be cool, and I might also enjoy--, but I'm also fine with the way it is.

Matter of personal taste, as always. So again, I'd rather see the time and effort spent on other works. So while I might personally want "Songs From The Big Chair" to be done a bit more aggressively? Sure. But, I'd rather hear someone do "The Hurting" instead. :)

Yes, I now understand where you are coming from with your definitions of "Aggressive Surround Mix" and "Big Stereo".
I guess what it comes down to is should the 5.1 surround mix be a natural extension of the stereo, or should it be a completely new mix that's more of an alternative to the stereo than an extension of it?
Both Steven & myself hold the former opinion because if you're dealing with a lot of classic material (as he is) if you change things too much, there could be too much of a resulting backlash from the hardcore fans who have come to know and love the album for how it is.
And I would love a surround mix of "The Hurting". Maybe it will come to pass after "The Seeds of Love" is released but not before "Elemental" is released too. Hope Springs Eternal! :)
 
ANY TFF in surround would be beyond great!!!

Raoul!!!!

ESPECIALLY Roland's "Tomcats screaming outside"!!!!! THAT would make a WICKED MCH MIX!!!!!

I just hope somebody's is listening......especially NOW!!!!!
 
ANY TFF in surround would be beyond great!!!

Raoul!!!!

ESPECIALLY Roland's "Tomcats screaming outside"!!!!! THAT would make a WICKED MCH MIX!!!!!

I just hope somebody's is listening......especially NOW!!!!!

I'm not really expecting the last two TFF albums in surround just cause they are both owned by different labels, and as well all know, the practices of one label does not always translate to others, but if Universal could at least put out a deluxe edition of "Elemental" followed by a reissue (with surround) of "The Hurting" after they release the deluxe edition of "The Seeds of Love", that would make me one happy panda! :)
 
Giving the DVD-A another spin, if Sir Steven can improve upon this, I'll be dumbfounded.

MY sentiments, exactly.

Why not reissue the existing Rhino/Warner DTS 4.0 of the CTA album in a higher resolution format INSTEAD. It, too, is OOP and nearly impossible to find.
 
Back
Top