Nostalgia, authenticity and the culture and practice of remastering music
Stephen Bruel MMus, GradDipEd (Music), GradCertJourn, BEcon
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Creative Industries Faculty Queensland University of Technology 2019 Keywords
1980s, aca-fan, aesthetic, artist, audio, authenticity, band, creativity, cultural heritage, demo, demo recordings, digital convergence, engineer, fandom, guitar-pop, mastering, mixing, music, music nostalgia, personal heritage, production, recording, remastering, scholar-fan, simulacra, simulation, sound, Sydney, systems model, Sunnyboys, technology.
2 Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: QUT Verified Signature
Date: April 2019
3 Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Principal Supervisor Dr Gavin Carfoot for his continuous support of my PhD study and related research, patience, motivation and immense knowledge. I would also like to thank my External Supervisor Professor Andy Arthurs for his guidance through the early stages of this research and my Assistant Supervisor Dr John Wilstead for his help towards the end. I also acknowledge the support received by the QUT Creative Industries Higher Degrees Research team who guided me successfully through the PhD administration process, and the financial assistance I received through my scholarship.
My research project would not have been possible without the participation and enthusiasm shown by all case study participants. In particular I would like to thank Sunnyboys’ band manager Tim Pittman, band members Peter Oxley and Richard Burgman and remastering engineer Rick O’Neil for all of their time and commitment shown towards my project. I would also like to thank Thomas Green, Darren Munt, Andrew Wass, Con Shacallis and Paul Francis for their involvement. We all shared a special moment of our adolescence together and the opportunity to reconnect after a 20-30 year period was a wonderful experience and result. I would also like to thank the contributions from Col Freeman, Dr Peter Wadsworth, Greg White and Geoffrey Lee who all provided depth and detail surrounding the production of the original recordings.
Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for all of the love and support you have given me during this four-year endeavour. In particular, I would like to especially thank my wife and best friend Janice Holland who has been my rock and whose unconditional love made it possible for me to see this project through unto the end.
4 Table of Contents
KEYWORDS ...... 2 STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ...... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 5 TABLE OF FIGURES ...... 7 TABLE OF TABLES ...... 8 ABSTRACT ...... 9 INTRODUCTION ...... 10 PERSONAL BACKGROUND ...... 10 THESIS PLAN – OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS ...... 13 CHAPTER 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 17 MASTERING AND REMASTERING – WHAT IS IT? ...... 17 REMASTERING IN FILM ...... 19 LIMITATIONS AND GAPS IN THE PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 23 REMASTERING AS AN ARTISTIC AND CREATIVE PROCESS ...... 24 AUTHENTICITY IN CONTEMPORARY MUSIC ...... 31 TECHNOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOACOUSTIC CONSIDERATIONS AND PROCESS ...... 38 COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE ‘LOUDNESS WARS’ ...... 42 DO LISTENERS NOTICE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND REMASTERED RELEASES? 44 FANDOM ...... 46 DEMO RECORDINGS ...... 48 NOSTALGIA ...... 56 LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSION ...... 60 CHAPTER 2 – THEORY ...... 63 INTRODUCTION...... 63 CREATIVITY AND ITS APPLICATION TO AUDIO REMASTERING ...... 63 DIGITAL CONVERGENCE ...... 69 SIMULACRA AND NOSTALGIA ...... 73 AUTHENTICITY, AESTHETICS IN POPULAR MUSIC, FANDOM AND INSIDER RESEARCH ...... 78 THEORY CONCLUSION ...... 85 CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY ...... 87 INTRODUCTION...... 87 METHODS AND PROJECT DESIGN ...... 88 CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 101 CREATIVE PRACTICE ...... 103 ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGY ...... 110 CHAPTER 4 – CASE STUDY: SUNNYBOYS – RESEARCHER AS SCHOLAR-FAN ...... 115 INTRODUCTION...... 115 SUNNYBOYS – THE BAND ...... 117 SUNNYBOYS – THE ALBUM ...... 118 NOSTALGIA AND FANDOM ...... 122 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND MEANING ...... 128 ORIGINAL 1981 RECORDING OF SUNNYBOYS ...... 134 ORIGINAL 1981 MASTERING OF SUNNYBOYS FOR VINYL ...... 140 REMASTERING SUNNYBOYS IN 1991 FOR CD ...... 143 REMASTERING SUNNYBOYS IN 2014 FOR CD ...... 145
5 REMASTERING PROCESS ...... 148 LISTENING COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 156 DIGITAL AUDIO ANALYSIS ...... 160 SUNNYBOYS CASE STUDY CONCLUSION ...... 171 CHAPTER 5 – CASE STUDY: DEMO RECORDINGS - RESEARCHER AS ARTIST/PRODUCER/FAN ...... 175 INTRODUCTION...... 175 JUMBLE SALE – THE BAND AND THEIR 1986 DEMO RECORDING ...... 178 THE LYRES – THE BAND AND THEIR 1988 AND 1989 DEMO RECORDINGS ...... 182 BEN’S CALF – THE BAND AND THEIR 1995 DEMO RECORDING ...... 185 NOSTALGIA, FANDOM AND NAVIGATING THE PAST...... 189 AUTHENTICITY AND MEANING ...... 197 REMASTERING THE DEMO RECORDINGS FOR CD ...... 201 LISTENING COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 207 DIGITAL AUDIO ANALYSIS ...... 214 DEMO RECORDINGS CASE STUDY CONCLUSION ...... 227 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ...... 236 REFERENCE LIST ...... 243 APPENDIX A ...... 268 APPENDIX B ...... 269 DETAILED REMASTERING PROCESS FOR THE COLOUR OF STONE ...... 269
6 Table of Figures
FIGURE 1 - OFFICIAL SUNNYBOYS PHOTOS (KING, 1983; KING, 2014) ...... 118 FIGURE 2 - SUNNYBOYS ALBUM 1981 ...... 119 FIGURE 3 - SUNNYBOYS' MANAGER TIM PITTMAN IN THE FEEL PRESENTS OFFICE SYDNEY ...... 133 FIGURE 4 - REMASTERING ENGINEER RICK O'NEIL AT TURTLEROCK MASTERING, SYDNEY ...... 150 FIGURE 5 - SUNNYBOYS 1981 ALBUM BEING DIGITALLY TRANSFERRED ON AVID TURNTABLE AT TURTLEROCK MASTERING ...... 161 FIGURE 6 - WAVEFORM VIEW OF 1981, 1991 AND 2014 SUNNYBOYS RELEASES ...... 163 FIGURE 7 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR HAPPY MAN - 1981 (BLUE), 1991 (PINK) AND 2014 (BROWN) 168 FIGURE 8 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR ALONE WITH YOU - 1981 (BLUE), 1991 (PINK) AND 2014 (BROWN) SUNNYBOYS ...... 169 FIGURE 9 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR I’M SHAKIN’ - 1981 (BLUE), 1991 (PINK) AND 2014 (BROWN) SUNNYBOYS ...... 170 FIGURE 10 - JUMBLE SALE PERFORM AT A PARTY IN 1986 L-R ANDREW WASS AND STEPHEN BRUEL ...... 178 FIGURE 11 - JUMBLE SALE PERFORM AT ST GEORGE ROCK ROOM, MORTDALE IN 1986 L-R ANDREW WASS, CHRISTIAN FISHER, STEPHEN BRUEL AND PETER JACKSON...... 180 FIGURE 12 - THE LYRES IN 1988 L-R SCOTT EGGINGTON, PAUL FRANCIS, JOHN VARIPATIS AND CON SHACALLIS ...... 182 FIGURE 13 - THE LYRES IN 1989 L-R PAUL FRANCIS, CON SHACALLIS, JOHN VARIPATIS AND SCOTT EGGINGTON ...... 183 FIGURE 14 - BEN'S CALF IN 1992 L-R DARREN MUNT, STEPHEN BRUEL, THOMAS GREEN AND DAVID PRAGNALL ...... 185 FIGURE 15 - THE CONDUCTORS PERFORMING AT THE OLD WINDSOR TAVERN, SYDNEY IN 1989 L-R ANDREW WASS, STEPHEN BRUEL, DARREN MUNT AND MICHAEL BUROKAS ...... 186 FIGURE 16 - A VILLAGE IDIOT PERFORMING AT MARTIN PLACE, SYDNEY L-R ANDREW WASS, STEPHEN BRUEL, DAVID PRAGNALL AND DARREN MUNT ...... 186 FIGURE 17 - JUMBLE SALE PRODUCTION SPREADSHEET...... 203 FIGURE 18 - WAVEFORM VIEW OF 1986 AND 2016 JUMBLE SALE RECORDINGS ...... 214 FIGURE 19 – WAVEFORM VIEW OF 1988 - 89 AND 2016 THE LYRES RECORDINGS ...... 215 FIGURE 20 - WAVEFORM VIEW OF 1995 AND 2016 BEN'S CALF RECORDINGS ...... 216 FIGURE 21 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR RED FLASH BY JUMBLE SALE - 1986 (BLUE) AND 2016 (GREEN) ...... 221 FIGURE 22 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR MIDNITE TOWERS BY JUMBLE SALE - 1986 (BLUE) AND 2016 (GREEN) ...... 222 FIGURE 23 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR COME BACK BY THE LYRES - 1988 (BLUE) AND 2016 (GREEN) ...... 223 FIGURE 24 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR SAD GIRL BY THE LYRES - 1989 (BLUE) AND 2016 (GREEN) ... 224 FIGURE 25 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR THE COLOUR OF STONE BY BEN'S CALF - 1995 (BLUE) AND 2016 (GREEN) ...... 225 FIGURE 26 - SPECTRUM ANALYSIS IMAGE FOR NEED BY BEN'S CALF - 1995 (BLUE) AND 2016 (GREEN) ...... 226 FIGURE 27 - THE SUNNYBOYS AND I BACKSTAGE IN 2017 L-R PETER OXLEY, BIL BILSON, STEPHEN BRUEL, RICHARD BURGMAN AND JEREMY OXLEY ...... 241
7 Table of Tables
TABLE 1 - DIGITISED AND REMASTERED FILE TYPES ...... 95 TABLE 2 - TRUE PEAK LEVEL MEASUREMENTS SUNNYBOYS ...... 164 TABLE 3 - RMS LEVEL MEASUREMENTS SUNNYBOYS ...... 165 TABLE 4 - DYNAMIC RANGE MEASURED IN DECIBELS (DB) SUNNYBOYS ...... 166 TABLE 5 - TRUE PEAK LEVEL MEASUREMENTS FOR DEMO RECORDINGS ...... 217 TABLE 6 – RMS LEVEL MEASUREMENTS FOR DEMO RECORDINGS...... 218 TABLE 7 - DYNAMIC RANGE MEASURED IN DECIBELS (DB) FOR DEMO RECORDINGS ...... 220
8 Abstract
The emergence of digital audio production technologies has transformed the traditional technical role of mastering and remastering to a more creative one. As the final stage in the music production process, this practice has a significant impact on the final musical product. Despite this critical role, remastering remains largely unstudied and along with mastering are often referred to as the ‘dark arts’ (Shelvock, 2012, p. 11). This project examines remastering through a number of lenses, including: remastering practice in music and film; cultural and authenticity concerns; remastering as a creative process; technological, commercial and psychoacoustic considerations; remastering workflows for lo fi and hi fi recordings; and the implications of nostalgia and perceived sonic differences between remastered and original recordings. Undertaking a case study of successful and iconic Australian band Sunnyboys, this research explores the social and cultural implications surrounding remastering practice, cultural heritage and fandom. The results of the Sunnyboys case study are then applied to a selection of lo-fi demo recordings from lesser-known Australian bands Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf – all of whom emerged from a similar genre, time and place as Sunnyboys – in order to determine how the culture and practice of remastering is enacted in these kinds of lo-fi recordings.
9 Introduction
Since the inception of the compact disc format, there has been a push by record companies to reissue digitally remastered versions of iconic studio albums in various digital formats (Rumsey, 2012). Albums originally released on vinyl from artists including The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Abba, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin have all been digitally remastered and rereleased through their respective record companies (Benzine, 2006; Richardson, 1997; Vickers, 2010). This phenomenon has led to discussion and research into the elements of remastering, including obvious volume increases made possible through the technological aspects of the digital CD format (allowing a greater loudness level on playback) and the inherent diminished dynamic range as a result of increased loudness that has been well documented under the terms ‘loudness wars’ and ‘hyper compression’ (Hjortkjaer & Walther-Hansen, 2014; Nielsen & Lund, 1999; Vickers, 2010; Walsh, Stein, & Jot, 2011). The research presented in this thesis will investigate the social, nostalgic and technological components of remastering practice and examine how this may influence cultural heritage, meaning and authenticity associated with the original musical artefact through its digital replication. The next stage involves applying this knowledge in order to investigate whether the remastering process applied to old analogue commercially released iconic studio recordings could be applied to old analogue non- released studio demo recordings from unknown artists. I have positioned the scope of the study within the specific framework of Australian rock music recording and mastering to explore historical contexts of practice. This sets the tone for future research to examine mastering in the digital and streaming age, as I have explored in the conclusion.
Personal background
I am a fan of the Australian band Sunnyboys having first witnessed them perform Alone With You on the ABC TV program Countdown in 1981 as a 13-year-old boy. The next day I rushed off to the local record shop to purchase their self-titled 1981- debut vinyl LP release Sunnyboys. I can still recall the euphoria and excitement I felt when I first played the album on our family stereo system. I found the songs, music
10 and lyrics mesmerising and a pattern soon developed that I would play this record everyday as soon as I got home from high school, alone and it would magically wash away all of the teenage angst, torment and anguish from the day. As I listened intently to every word, chord, solo, bass line and drum beat, bullies would disappear and girls would notice me. Although it was The Beatle’s film A Hard Day’s Night broadcast on a Saturday afternoon on Australian TV in the 1970s that first got me interested in popular music and the prospect of being in a band, it was Sunnyboys who made me believe I could be in a band. I started guitar lessons shortly after, formed a band in school, began to dress like them and tried to write songs like them. I even managed to sneak into age-restricted venues with fake identification to see them perform live.
When I left school and Sunnyboys had sadly disbanded, I fully submerged myself into the 1980s Sydney “Guitar-Pop” culture at the time decked out in my tight black stove pipe pants, paisley shirt, winkle picker boots, Rickenbacker electric guitar, VOX AC- 30 amplifier and a mod haircut. I identified myself with this subculture and the music, fashion and popular culture associated with this group still hold strong with me today (Cartwright, Besson & Maubisson, 2013). Easton described this “Guitar-Pop” movement as emulating a rising sense of Australiana where ‘clean, jangly guitars soundtrack accented vocals that can celebrate or sardonically mock the extremes of Australian culture’ (Easton, 2013, p. 45). I played in a band that performed our Australiana brand of original music fresh from the Sutherland Shire in the sweaty pubs and clubs of Sydney, often sharing the bill with contemporaries The Lyres. Like the many fledgling original bands that performed on the same circuit as us the goal was to attract interest from record companies and booking agencies for bigger and better paying gigs and to secure that elusive record contract as we all chased the rock and roll dream. As a result, my band Jumble Sale (and later Ben’s Calf) created demo recordings or ‘rough tapes’ of a small selection of songs on a tight budget to distribute alongside a band biography consisting of a brief background, photos and press clippings intended for industry (Elliot, 2005). Alas, fame and commercial success as a musician was not forthcoming and my rock and roll dream extinguished in 1995.
In 2014 a number of events occurred that led me to undertake this research project. My then six-year old son innocently asked me about my collection of guitars and why I had so many (as only kids can do) and why I did not appear (to him) to play them. I
11 explained to him that I played in a band many years ago, had made some recordings and he said he would like to listen to them. This harmless request had a profound impact on me. I was immediately concerned by the sonic quality of these old cassette tape recordings and apprehensive that they would sound poor in comparison to modern recordings played on our home sound system. Consequently, I feared that my son might judge my music as sonically inferior. Around this time, Sunnyboys was digitally remastered and rereleased on CD. The last time I had seen Sunnyboys perform live was at the Annandale Hotel in Sydney in 1991 as part of a small reunion tour, the last band activity until the remastered CD release in 2014. This series of coincidental events occurring within a short time frame led me to consider the following research question:
Do remastered music recordings impact cultural heritage and authenticity attributed to the original musical artefact?
This then led to the following set of sub questions:
What is remastering and what impact does this process have on the sound of Sunnyboys? How do the band members’ of Sunnyboys feel about having their original album remastered? Can the process for remastering Sunnyboys be adopted and applied to my old demo recordings stored on cassette tape and what would be the result? Is there a difference for remastering from a digital audio tape (DAT) source as opposed to cassette tape? If I was to produce the remastering of another band’s demo recordings – as opposed to my own demo recordings – how might this process differ?
This list of initial questions were further developed to consider the social, cultural and technological elements of remastering practice, and the critical interactions and relationships between the artists, producers and engineers involved in the remastering process. In addition the concepts of nostalgia, authenticity and fandom were also included through the process of remastering musical artefacts from my adolescence.
12 Thesis plan – outline of chapters
In Chapter One I start by offering a broad definition of remastering, position the practices of audio remastering alongside the issues and contexts of film and discuss limitations in previous research in this area. From there I examine the specific cultural considerations that come into play in audio remastering, with reference to ways that the meaning and cultural heritage of an existing iconic musical artefact is transformed through the creation of a new digital replica. I then study technological change and the development of digital tools that have led to the evolution of remastering from a traditional technical role of audio correction to a more creative role. I then explore the commercial demand for remastered releases, the ‘loudness wars’, and whether listeners notice sonic differences between original and remastered versions. Finally, I offer insight into the role and history of demo recordings and why they are culturally and socially significant for those involved in their creation, paying particular attention to the concepts of nostalgia and authenticity.
In Chapter Two I explore theoretical concepts that are relevant to remastering, noting how these concepts provide an underpinning theoretical framework for my research. I begin with the notion of creativity and examine how remastering is an example of representational creativity and how it is positioned in Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory (2015). The next step involves investigating theories of digital convergence and participatory culture, and how these areas have changed the dynamics of traditional business models in the production and distribution of recorded music. From there I examine Baudrillard’s simulation and simulacra theory, remastering practices of repetition and duplication, and the relationship between these concepts and the role of nostalgia in remastering (1983). Finally, I explore the concept of authenticity within remastering and offer insight into how the scholar-fan can produce authentic research.
In Chapter Three I outline my ontological premise as constructivist and my epistemological position as a generator of research; a self-observer through reflection on action and observer of others, thus situating my contribution to knowledge in context. From there I offer a broad definition of creative research and an examination on how remastering my existing recordings constitute a new creative work, and how
13 this process can assist in identifying and expressing new knowledge. I then examine case study methodology, in particular why triangulation is a suitable approach for my research project and is likely to yield useful results. I then study ethnographic methodology including a description of the different types, the role of fandom within research and why an autoethnographical approach is the most appropriate type for my research. Finally, I describe my roles as producer/researcher and artist/researcher and identify and discuss the methods I used in the research project including data sampling and collection, interviewing, fieldwork participant/observation, data generation, audio analysis and the final write up and presentation of findings.
In Chapter Four I examine the artistic, social, cultural and technological elements of digital remastering practice regarding the digital remastering and CD release in 2014 of the iconic 1981 vinyl LP release Sunnyboys. The Sunnyboys’ case study examines the process for remastering hi-fidelity, iconic analogue recordings in order to gain a better understanding of this practice, to provide new knowledge, and to benefit others interested in remastering practice, and through using ‘typical triangulation methods in case studies including context-specific interviews, document analysis, and observations’ (Pearson, Albon & Hubball, 2015, p. 3). It explores the various elements of remastering as described in the literature review from the reflective perspective of the artist, artist manager and remastering engineer in an effort to provide ‘information-rich, critical and unique’ outcomes regarding remastering practice (Johansson, 2007, p. 51-52). From there I implement a comparative digital audio analysis to help determine whether the perceived sonic differences experienced and claimed by the case study participants between the original and remastered versions were consistent with their statistical representation (Paton & McIntyre, 2009). This case study also allows me – in the role of researcher/fan – to provide an autoethnographic reflective assessment of fandom and nostalgia that can ‘provide a detailed, in-depth description of everyday life and practice’ (Hoey, 2016, para. 1).
In Chapter Five I apply the perspective drawn from the Sunnyboys case study to a collection of analogue studio demo recordings from a similar era featuring Jumble Sale, Ben’s Calf and The Lyres. In the role of researcher as artist/producer for my previous bands Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf, I examine remastering practice in real time as applied to my pre-existing musical artefacts. Furthermore, I examine my
14 position as producer/fan in The Lyres case study and the decision-making process from this perspective, which forms a contrast with my investigation of Pittman’s role as producer of Sunnyboys. From there, I develop a personal, reflective account of remastering practice including the phenomenon of social and professional interaction as mature men working on past artistic creations produced as adolescent males, as well as the responsibilities of being a band representative during remastering with no connection to the original recording. Additionally, I investigate the artistic choices underpinning the perception of authenticity (see Chapter One in this thesis pp 31 – 38) and meaning of the original work in its digital replication, given the modern digital tools available for adjustment. It is through this perspective and the application of remastering practice from the Sunnyboys’ case study towards my own creative work and the work of The Lyres that I aim to demonstrate that when ‘new learning and knowledge are applied in practice, it can have utility for others’ (Harland, 2014, p. 1114). Furthermore, by employing a multiple case study approach, I intend to develop a stronger understanding of the phenomenon of remastering as well as produce research outcomes of use to others (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014).
In Chapter Six I conclude and disclose the findings of my research project. This includes revealing the artistic, social, nostalgic and technological elements of digital remastering practice and determining how cultural heritage, authenticity and meaning are affected during the creation of its digital replica. From there I identify limitations to the study, including the relative small sample of case participants, issues related to musical genre and the specific recordings analysed, and the lack of a controlled studio environment for the case study listening tests. The final stage involves suggesting further areas of research, such as a comparison between remastering results achieved in a professional studio as opposed to a home studio; the contrast between results achieved by a skilled remastering engineer using professional mastering outboard studio equipment as opposed to their digital plugin replicas; and a comparison of the results attained by a number of alternate remastering engineers on a small collection of recordings.
In the Appendix I have included links to a sample of the original and remastered recordings used for comparative analysis as well as a detailed account of the remastering engineer’s technique for the song The Colour Of Stone.
15
16 Chapter 1 – Literature Review
Mastering and remastering – what is it?
Due to limitations in existing scholarly investigation and research, the practice and objectives of mastering and remastering can be challenging to define (Shelvock, 2012; Nardi, 2014; Deruty & Tardieu, 2014). Mastering occurs at the final stage of the music production process, after the music recording and mixing stages, to make the final product and has been defined as the ‘last creative step between mixing and replication’ (Katz, 2007, p. 9). The traditional role of mastering was to correct and make adjustments to the final mixed music recording, mainly focused on equalisation (EQ) and dynamics, as it was being transferred or cut from analogue tape to a record master that would then be used to stamp or press vinyl records for distribution. This was to ensure the vinyl records made commercially available to the public played back correctly on their home record players and sound systems both sonically as well as physically, for example, ensuring the stylus remained within the groove boundaries of the vinyl record (see Chapter Four in this thesis p 143). Although this process appears an important factor of music production, Temmer refers to it as insignificant in nature by comparison to the final musical product and merely a means to an end (1984). Alternatively, Nardi describes modern digital mastering practice as significant in determining musical production outcomes and a creative process, based primarily upon the ability of modern playback devices to better accommodate manipulation of EQ and dynamic range (2014).
Remastering is the practice of manipulating older recordings to make them sound optimal using modern playback systems and evolved through the introduction of the digital CD as a replacement for the analogue vinyl record format (Nardi, 2014). Initially record companies simply transferred or stamped the original master tape used for vinyl reproduction on to the CD with minimal intervention believing this was adequate (Sexton, 2009). However, as digital modern mastered recordings evolved alongside digital playback devices to produce a sonic quality consisting of a stronger emphasis on EQ and dynamics to optimise the format, early digital remasters of older recordings appeared to be lacking in these areas. As a result remastering developed
17 into the practice of using modern digital tools on older recordings to make them sound less lacking in these areas and sit more comfortably sonically beside the modern mastered ones. Remastering could therefore be described as the practice of creating a new digital replica or creative work from an existing analogue music artefact. When we consider the original musical artefact may be rich in musical history with an associated sense of cultural heritage, the amount and type of manipulation undertaken to create the digital replica becomes of crucial importance, particularly if the aim is to maintain the context, meaning and significance of the original work. There is also often the added pressure of the original work showing signs of degradation with a need to create a digital replica in order to preserve the original piece.
The 2009 CD remaster project of The Beatles’ catalogue is a useful case study to assist in defining remastering practice and to understand the complexity regarding the decision making process and significance of input afforded to the remastering engineers. The Beatles’ original commercially released albums, arguably rich in both musical history and cultural heritage, were remastered at Abbey Road Studios in London and released commercially on CD digital format. Abbey Road engineer and preservationist of The Beatles’ recordings Allan Rouse described his remastering team’s minimalist approach to intervention below, particularly with respect to maintaining the context and meaning of the original recordings in line with how the public originally received them. As he writes;
We'd already agreed that if we thought a 'mistake' was in any way connected with the performance, we weren’t going to touch it,' he says. 'Breaths, Ringo's squeaky bass drum pedal, the squeaky chair at the end of “A Day in the Life”, coughs, (Lennon's) 'fuck' in the middle of “Hey Jude” - all of these things were going to remain (Sexton, 2009, p. 24).
Rouse’s approach to creating a digital replica respects the meaning, integrity and perceived cultural significance of the original performance and recordings even though his team had the digital skills and tools to remove the mistakes he mentioned. It appears to be consistent with the view of remastering as primarily a historical restoration practice with the main purpose of using modern mastering and recording
18 equipment to transform older noisier recordings, particularly 78rpm recordings, into an acceptable state for listeners using modern playback equipment (Brink, 1992). The original artistic artefact is therefore treated as an ‘audio information set’ where information cannot be added; only altered (Brink, 1992, p. 14). Although Rouse decided not to intervene within performance mistakes by members of The Beatles, there was an attempt to chase and create a more modern sound of this iconic band. Clayton-Lea states that although limiting was not used on the mono releases, it was employed on the stereo masters in an effort to raise the overall level (2009). Therefore a decision was made by The Beatles’ remastering project team to use limiting on the stereo release but not the mono release. In the next section I examine remastering practice as it relates to film to help further illuminate and define this concept.
Remastering in film
The study of film digital restoration and remastering is a useful reference when examining the practice of digital audio remastering of music recordings as both mediums and technologies have been in use over a similar time period. These creative artefacts can form part of a nation’s cultural heritage and they share similar remastering production goals of preserving and improving the quality of the original without modifying the original artistic intent of the content (Croci, Aydın, Stefanoski, Gross & Smolic, 2017). Indeed, the practice of remastering and adding a tonality or specific colours to produce a certain feel or sound in music has been described as similar to the ‘way that a movie film might be colorized by a professional whose job it is to ensure a uniform hue that suits the mood of the film’ (Rumsey, 2011, p. 439). Although in film literature the term ‘restoration’ appears to be primarily used as opposed to ‘remastering’ – in reference to the digitisation process of preservation and quality improvement – there is evidence to suggest both terms are used to portray similar meaning, and that the term remastering was favoured primarily for marketing purposes (Kurtilla, 2011; Mattock, 2010).
Film and music remastering are similar in practice as they both consist of a series of steps or interventions within a workflow performed by industry specialists with specialised digital tools (Croci et al., 2017). In film, these interventions primarily
19 consist of a digital scan and transfer of the original film into a digital format taking into account chemical, physical and other damage to the original film materials, digital manipulation to improve the image quality and aural content, and the export and rendering of the final remastered product into a digital format and codec for distribution and playback (Busche, 2006).
It is perhaps the cultural heritage and importance we place on film as a society that has led both the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) and the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) to develop a code of ethics to embrace challenges surrounding film remastering (Mattock, 2010). In particular, the importance and significance of the digitally remastered product from a historic film artifact to ‘not affect our understanding of an object or the cultural identity of a group of people’, improve the ‘readability of a work of art or its historical significance’ and for the restorer to ‘avoid falsification at any cost’ (Busche, 2006, p. 4-5). For a tangible example of this concern, when MGM announced plans to colourise 24 films from their back catalogue in 1986, film institutions and practitioners including Woody Allen and John Huston denounced the process as a ‘threat to the originality of the art- work and the moral rights of the creator’ (Grainge, 1999, p. 622). Section 1.4 from the FIAF Code of Ethics is quoted in full as follows:
1.4 When copying material for preservation purposes, archives will not edit or distort the nature of the work being copied. Within the technical possibilities available, new preservation copies shall be an accurate replica of the source material. The processes involved in generating the copies, and the technical and aesthetic choices which have been taken, will be faithfully and fully documented (Mattock, 2010, p. 74).
The above statement provides a clear guideline for the remastering engineer to follow with regards to achieving an accurate digital replica of the original and encourages reflection and process through documentation. However, ethics in general only provides ‘a point of reference to be used when dealing with complex ethical issues and does not instruct the profession about the difference between right and wrong’ and merely ‘supports the reasoning’ as opposed to ‘explains what to do’ (Busche, 2006, p. 5). With an ethical guide to follow as opposed to a firm list of rules the film
20 remastering engineer’s level and amount of intervention in creating a digital replica of an historic film artifact is open to their interpretation of what is required and how the final digital replica should appear. Following are two case studies to assist in understanding the role and practice of film restoration and remastering and how interpretations of intervention can vary. While these examples are very different, one a fictional Hollywood film and the other a historical archive, it is these differences that make them appropriate case studies in remastering across different genres and contexts.
Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 film Vertigo was originally filmed in VistaVision (a double- framed 35mm film format). As this became an obsolete format the photochemical restoration team decided to transfer it to a 70mm film format. The original soundtrack consisted of dialogue, music and sound effects all mixed together during postproduction on to one mono channel. During the process the team discovered it could not simply copy the soundtrack without significant sound degradation so they decided to digitise the dialogue tracks only which meant the original Foley would be lost and would have to be recreated. Apart from the aspect ratio, the restored and remastered version of Vertigo was different to the original 1958 version in terms of ‘sharpness, contrast, colour balance, the number of sound changes, and their content’ and the end result ‘was not a version that audiences had seen in its original release, but what Hitchcock had shot’ (Kurtilla, 2011, pp. 10-11). From a commercial standpoint with regards to marketing reissued and remastered classic films there appears to be a dual task that is applied; to achieve authenticity the reproduction must be faithful to the original producer’s intentions while at the same time in order for it to be marketable in the present it needs to be enhanced and remastered to take full advantage of new technologies (Klinger, 2006).
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Apollo 11 Moon Landing is arguably one of the most important historical pieces of film from the 20th Century. Broadcast on July 20, 1969 to a worldwide audience, the famous black and white grainy footage was digitally remastered to produce a clearer image by a team of specialists with experience in remastering the iconic 1942 film Casablanca. This procedure was not without its challenges in that NASA had erased the original video of the live TV transmission as a result of cost savings, a policy which saw the erasing
21 and reusing of about 200,000 tapes which it mostly described as simple data tapes (Borenstein, 2009). In order to create the remastered product the restoration team worked from four copies they found across the world. One of the enhancements was astronaut Neil Armstrong's face visor that in the original footage was fuzzy and the remastered version depicts the visor clearly with a reflection in it. Additionally, the remastering of the moon landing was to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the event so one could argue there was a commercial element involved, similar to say ‘anniversary’ editions of remastered music releases (O’Malley, 2015). Remastering in this instance arguably distorts the original context of the moon landing, in particular the potential for unfair criticism towards the people and technology used to produce the original grainy footage as compared against the perceived improvements of the remaster. However, there is also a view that although the remastered copies of the moon landing may look superior, ‘when dealing with historical film footage, you always want the original to study’ (Borenstein, 2009, p. 2).
The Vertigo and NASA Apollo 11 Moon Landing film restoration and remastering case studies highlight the vast differences in approach to remastering practice dependent on the outcome. In the case of digitally remastering Vertigo it was determined to make significant interventions to the original film including aspect ratio, sharpness, contrast and colour balance as well as to recreate the Foley discarded during the digitisation process to deliver a version of the film that is different to what the original audience would have experienced but compliant with current technology for playback and preservation. This significant level of intervention and artistic choices implemented, particularly the newly created digitised Foley, is consistent with the view that ‘film restoration will remain a very interactive art, where experience and intuition of the conservator play a decisive role, especially for very old and heavily degraded material’ (Croci et al, 2017, p. 13). The digital remastering of the NASA Apollo 11 Moon Landing film appears to depict a more technical approach where the original footage was enhanced visually to improve what the original audience would have seen without the recreation or introduction of new elements such as Foley for example. This approach is consistent with the view that ‘a restoration is a critical interpretation, not an artistic enhancement of the object’ and is also aligned with the significance of historical film footage for study purposes as opposed to interpretation from a remastered version (Busche, 2006, p. 8).
22 Limitations and gaps in the previous research
A number of key studies into remastering have suggested that there is a lack of scholarly material surrounding not only mastering but also remastering (Deruty & Tardieu, 2014; Nardi, 2014; Shelvock, 2012). Often referred to as the ‘dark arts’ due to the lack of research undertaken and information disclosed, Shelvock states that the ‘cultural ramifications of re-mastering may also be a worthwhile lacuna for examination’ (2012, p. 57). This lack of cultural examination concerning remastering is further evidenced in the study undertaken by Bottomley who suggests ‘relatively little scholarship exists that examines how the resurrection of these old musical texts affects their meaning and value’ and that ‘the phenomenon of reissues has been almost entirely overlooked in the fields of popular music studies, media studies, and musicology’ (2016, p. 151 - 153). Nardi laments ‘an apparent lack of scholarly attention’ in the field of remastering and mastering and one whose ‘influence is rarely acknowledged if not even noticed at all by both music listeners and music scholars’ and stated mastering was ‘as a crucial gateway between production and consumption insofar as it consists of the final step of sound manipulation before a product is released for sale, and as such it deserves wider consideration’ (2014, p. 10). Deruty and Tardieu qualify their research on mastering by stating that it ‘does not deal with the practice of remastering, which has been criticised for altering the original content of classic tracks and would require a dedicated study’ (2014, p. 43). Although O’Malley’s study provided a comprehensive and detailed account of remastering practice through its focus on a selection of classic albums, there was no mention in the scope of the study on how this process might be applied to non-classic releases or analogue demo recordings (2015).
While excellent scholarly research into the area of mastering and remastering exists, there is evidence that perhaps there is a need for more research into this topic, particularly in the matter of manipulating original recordings and the considerations around this process (Deruty & Tardieu, 2014; Nardi, 2014; Shelvock, 2012). Furthermore, there appeared to be very little (if any) scholarly or non-scholarly attention paid to the question of whether the remastering process applied to well- known and iconic studio recordings could be applied to demo recordings and what would the likely outcome be (Lewis, 2006; McLeod, 2014; Perone, 2013). It is
23 therefore one of the key aims of this thesis to contribute information to the field of study of not only the process of the digital remastering of classic albums, but also the application of this remastering process on analogue non-released self-financed demo recordings emanating from similar time periods (Brett, 2013; O’Malley, 2015). It is envisaged this research project will provide critical, scholarly and practical information to assist artists and researchers with similar aspirations to remaster and modernise older analogue recordings to manage expectations when determining whether this would be a worthwhile pursuit; what are the likely outcomes sonically; what are the specific roles of the artist, producer and remastering engineer during the process and how they interact professionally and socially; and what are the possible aspects of nostalgic and authenticity considerations that may need to be addressed. This project consists of a written thesis comprising qualitative and quantitative data analysis with the researcher in the role of producer and artist. It also includes links to a collection of original and remastered recordings used in this research for sonic comparison.
Remastering as an artistic and creative process
As defined previously, the traditional role of mastering was of a corrective and technical nature and primarily through the evolution of digital technology and tools available to the modern mastering engineer has transformed into a more creative practice (Nardi, 2014; Rumsey, 2011). Elements concerning musical taste including sequencing, spacing, fading, equalisation and the choice to normalise an entire album to deliver slow ballads and faster more energetic rock songs at the same perceived loudness, could all be argued to be artistic decisions as opposed to technical ones (Shelvock, 2012). While the traditional aspects of the role may still exist, and there is an argument that the limited functions of mastering continue to be more correctional than creative, current research is demonstrating mastering as a creative dimension. If we view the modern studio as more than simply a means to capture an artist’s live sound, a creative environment with tools to digitally manipulate recordings, we place the mastering engineer at the ‘intersection of what is widely acknowledged as the moment of creation, which is normally identified with songwriting, arranging and performance’ (Nardi, 2014, p. 11). The concept of modern mastering as creative
24 practice is also embodied in O’Malley’s interview with producer and engineer Jeff Lynne, perhaps best known for his work with the Electric Light Orchestra (ELO) and production work on The Beatles 1995 single release of Free as a Bird and Real Love. As he writes;
Lynne often knew how he wanted the finished product to sound, and would drive every element of the process by personally overseeing the mastering sessions, and by adjusting EQ and compression to get the sound exactly as he wished. Lynne expressed a liking for the sonic quality that the inherent nature of vinyl imparted onto the sound of the master, sometimes feeling that a flat sounding mix was given a bit more punch by the process (O’Malley, 2015)
Lynne’s partiality for the process he describes above highlights the creative and artistic options available to the modern mastering engineer. The mastering engineer must therefore decide whether to ‘transfer as much as possible of the sound of the digital master onto the vinyl disc or whether to enhance it in some way’ and if the latter is decided this often results in creative discussion and consultation with others (Rumsey, 2014, p. 559). The remastering engineer operating within the digital environment appears to share the same artistic responsibilities as the modern mastering engineer, particularly with reference to working with vinyl, and often needs to apply these artistic and creative decisions to iconic analogue music recordings.
There is evidence to suggest that the creative and artistic choices available to the mastering and remastering engineer can influence musical attributes within a piece of recorded music through intervention. With French electro-house music for example, there is a tendency to ‘maximize average amplitude and reduce dynamic range’ during the mastering stage with an additional maximization of lower end frequencies to ideally suit the large sub-woofer speaker systems of the clubs and venues it will be played at (Shelvock, 2012, pp. 11-12). The ability to maximise average amplitude through dynamic signal processing onto the digital CD format has also been identified as a significant element of the grunge music genre of the late 1980s to early 1990s. Nirvana’s Smells Like Teen Spirit for example has been described as being ‘distinguished by an increase in volume as much as anything else’ (Vickers, 2010, p. 6). However, it is not just dynamic manipulation at the mastering and remastering
25 stage leading to increases in volume, maximised average amplitude or reduced dynamic range of the remastered versions that can impact music genre. Digitally cutting and boosting certain frequencies at the mastering and remastering stage can also relate to genre, for example bright sounding for country and a reduced brightness for reggae (Shelvock, 2012). Additionally, it is likely that many musicians will object to tape hiss and other noise introduced through production long before they object to distortion added during the production process, which may be a desired feature in certain musical styles and genres and an artistic decision (Lagadec & Pelloni, 1983).
The creation of new digital formats has also led to further artistic and creative opportunities for mastering and remastering engineers, similar to the impact and introduction of the CD format to accommodate an increase in loudness unattainable on vinyl record production. Traktor Remix Sets for example is a digital format that allows DJs to mix, loop and process a stem master with isolated tracks which would not be possible with a stereo mix. This new format ‘encourages new practices among mastering engineers, whose targets are not only music listeners but, specifically, music performers as well’ (Nardi, 2014, p. 9). The role of the mastering and remastering engineer has therefore evolved with technology to accommodate the changes in musical tastes of the public and artists, and the manner in which recorded music is consumed. This evolution in mastering and remastering practice supports the view that modern mastering and remastering consists of two main parts; an aesthetic one and a technical one (Ojanen, 2015). However, the distinction and separation of technology and art in audio mastering appears impossible as both elements are intermittently entwined (Nardi, 2014).
Cultural and personal heritage in contemporary music
Within the fields of rock and contemporary music there appears to be an initial challenge of associating and classifying the cultural and heritage significance and impact using traditional definitions. These traditional definitions include the idea that the cultural artefact contains ‘representations of custom, tradition and place that coalesce within the cultural memory of a particular national or regional context and fundamentally contribute to the shaping of the latter’s collective identity’ (Bennett,
26 2009, p. 476-477). The mass-produced commercial properties of rock music appear to be in contrast to these traditional definitions, however it can be argued that with regards to an ageing baby-boomer generation, rock and contemporary popular music is embedded within its cultural memory and generational identity (Bennett, 2009). There appears to be a need to digitally archive popular music recordings to protect local histories (Baker, 2018) and cultural heritage as well as provide new ways to interact with the art (Long, 2013). This digital archive practice therefore provides a link and continuity to the musical past (Cohen, 2016) in order for communities to have a close relationship to their music culture and heritage (Leonard, 2017). This is evidenced by reference to the remastering engineers who worked on the 2009 Beatles remastered CD release as having ‘been bestowed with the onerous task of sonically cleaning what is surely not just pop music but cultural heritage’ (Clayton- Lea, 2009, p. 2). Another tangible account of the cultural heritage and significance of rock and popular music was the recent ‘listed building’ status afforded to the pedestrian crossing at Abbey Road (immortalised on the cover of The Beatles album of the same name) by the official authorities (Roberts & Cohen, 2013).
Unlike in film restoration and remastering where there is a clear attempt by industry (FIAF and AMIA) to develop a code of ethics to guide behaviour of practitioners to ensure any digital replica of a historical film artifact will enhance and not diminish our understanding of its original intended meaning and protect its perceived cultural heritage, music remastering practice appears devoid of an industry affiliated code of ethics (Mattock, 2010). This lack of a reference and benchmark for remastering engineers appears problematic, particularly when you consider the significance of their input into the creation of digital replicas and the constantly evolving array of digital tools and techniques available to them. Therefore, the capacity of the remastering engineer to falsify the original meaning and diminish cultural heritage of an original music artifact through its digital replication is arguably more likely in music as opposed to film, as there are no industry affiliated benchmarks or guidelines to reference and adhere to (Busche, 2006). To assist the music remastering engineer to deliver an acceptable digital replica there is a belief that it would be beneficial to ‘have information about what effects have been applied originally and how, in order to produce a remastered edition that sounds better, and not different from the original record’ (Barchiesi & Reiss, 2010, p. 563). However, it is arguable that a technical
27 blueprint regarding all of the nuances of the original production would be helpful considering there exists a pre-meditated approach amongst some practitioners to mainly focus on manipulation of the upper and lower ends of the useful spectral range only, when these are sometimes not the most needed adjustments (Brink, 1992).
With reference to the creation of a significantly different sonic and cultural digital representation of an original music artifact, it is important to define the practice of remixing, often confused with that of remastering (Bennett, 2009). Remixing, sampling and mash-ups all involve using digital technology to extrapolate sections and elements of an original music artifact in order to produce a new creative work. Therefore remixes often bear little resemblance to the original musical artifact and purposely challenge Western conceptions of art and any sense of cultural heritage associated with the original iconic music recordings (Barham, 2014). The difference between the two practices and their respective impact on cultural heritage is portrayed in Bennett’s interview below with record label Songworks’ founder Mike (surname is not disclosed) using the Sistine Chapel painted ceiling as an analogy (2009). As he writes;
A.B.: Do you remix albums before putting them onto CD? Mike: We re-master, we don’t remix. . .I think remixing is tampering with history. It’s like nipping down to the Sistine Chapel and changing the colour scheme of it, y’know, as opposed to just cleaning it up. A.B.: So you never do anything like that. . .even when the sound quality could be better by. . . M: Well that’s re-mastering, not re-mixing. You’re asking me about two different things. That’s why [I use] the analogy with nipping down the Sistine Chapel. If you clean it up you can see it better that would be like re-mastering. But you don’t change the colour scheme, ‘cause that would be like re-mixing (Bennett, 2009, p. 485).
Remastering engineer Mike is adamant that remixing alters the meaning of the original work and interferes with the cultural heritage, identity and significance associated with the original work. Alternatively, Mike viewed remastering as primarily a restoration service used to enhance the cultural value and meaning of an
28 original music artifact by making a digital replica that is more assessable modern playback devices and with less noise and other sonic interference. However, choosing to remaster or remix an iconic analogue recording is not always a mutually exclusive exercise. Artist Jeff Lynne recently revisited his back catalogue of recordings and decided to rerecord, remix, remaster and rerelease various recordings to digitally improve performance and sonic elements (O’Malley, 2015). Lynne’s decision to remix as opposed to remaster existing released songs from his back catalogue appears to challenge the artist’s and listener’s need or desire to maintain the original meaning and cultural heritage associated with the original recording. Furthermore, Lynne’s choice to re-record and re-release various songs previously recorded and released, completely removing the original musical artefact from the production process, therefore could be argued removes perceived cultural heritage aligned with the original recording. The perceived desire by listeners and artists to maintain a sense of cultural heritage and meaning associated with an original musical artefact through digital replication is therefore not conclusive.
Apart from the improvement of performance and sonic elements, another potential motivation for remastering would be to protect the original artefact from degradation, and hence guard against any loss of cultural heritage and meaning associated with the eventual demise of the original artefact (O’Malley, 2015). The original gates from Strawberry Fields, the Salvation Army children's home in Liverpool, UK, which inspired The Beatles’ song Strawberry Fields Forever, have been replaced with replicas to produce an authentic experience without the risk of damage to the original artefact (Roberts & Cohen, 2013). The decision to replace these iconic gates to protect the original ones, to in a sense maintain a level of cultural heritage and meaning of the original artefact through a replication with no physical link with the original, tends to support the view that the community is satisfied culturally with this concept.
Another consideration in determining the cultural heritage and significance of an original musical artefact is the commercial push, often from record companies, to market and promote a digital replica or remastered release as somehow being superior in some way to the original release. In his study of The Beach Boys iconic album Pet Sounds and their record company’s marketing strategy for the remastered release, Bottomley suggests that their approach relied on the idea that ‘the original was
29 somehow flawed’ and these flaws were rectified through ‘remixing or remastering, reordered track lists and different artwork’ (2016, p. 160). Furthermore, Bottomley states that the ‘paratextual (cover art, liner notes, advertisements) materials suggested that the re-release version is actually offered as being better—and more authentic— than any of its predecessors, including even the original’ (2016, p. 160). If the digital replica is viewed as a superior product by comparison to the original music artefact, then cultural heritage, significance and meaning linked to the original artefact, is also somehow flawed or diminished. However, as this was primarily a marketing campaign for commercial gain, the notion of the consumer perceiving digital replicas to be superior to the original is not clear. In an analysis of Swedish popular music sensation ABBA, it was stated that there was no conclusive evidence that the remastered product was superior to the original and in fact ‘the irony is that the remastering of ABBA’s catalogue has, with respect to dynamic range, probably gotten further from the master tapes with each new release’ (Vickers, 2010, p. 7). Therefore the ABBA remasters’ format and sonic shape are also further away culturally with respect to the heritage, significance and meaning attributed to the original musical artefacts.
This attribution of meaning by the public to original music artefacts can be broken down further into what has been termed personal heritage. Barratt states that personal heritage was the creation of an archive of personal experience by ordinary individuals providing a deeper dimension to the historical event (2009). As he writes;
For example, the reality of the First World War suddenly made sense when viewed through the surviving letters, photographs, service record and associated unit war diary of a great grandfather who had left his home and family to fight in the trenches, rather than a depressing list of statistics, battles and political maps outlining the course of the war. (Barratt, 2009, p. 10)
If we were to place this example in musical terms a relative delivering a detailed account of attending a Beatles’ concert amidst the euphoria of Beatlemania accompanied by a collection of photographs and ticket stubs potentially becomes more ‘alive’ and ‘real’ than perhaps witnessing a clip of the band performing the same concert on YouTube. Furthermore, personal heritage does not necessarily need
30 to involve celebrities or well-established artists to be of use. According to Barratt, historians lament the lack of personal accounts of ordinary daily lives in medieval times to achieve a greater understanding of the conditions of life and encouraged ‘people to keep track of their lives, so that their memories and stories are passed on to the next generation, and in many ways the internet offers the freedom, scope and technology to do so’ (2009, p. 13). Therefore, digital technology offers musicians and artists, whether commercially successful or not, the opportunity to archive and distribute their experiences and recordings on various digital formats through digital media. Timothy concludes that ‘people need the past to cope with the present, because patterns in the world make sense if we share a history with them’ and the concept of personal heritage, particularly digitised personal accounts that are able to be distributed quickly and easily online, appears to allow that (1997, p. 752). It is therefore feasible to suggest that digital personal heritage can assist in the delivery and preservation of cultural heritage associated with established artists regarding time and place, particularly if a pre-digital era is examined. For example, if we explore the early career of The Beatles before they became famous it is likely there would be less imagery and recordings available as opposed to when they became successful, primarily due to the prohibitive (by today’s standards) cost and cumbersome nature of photography and recording of the time. Therefore, through distributed digitised personal heritage collections of ordinary citizens who may have seen the band perform, played in a similar looking and sounding band, performed in comparable venues or lived in the same neighborhood at the time, these materials arguably assist in creating a greater understanding of what life was like for the pre-famous Beatles.
Authenticity in contemporary music
The collection of alternate definitions and approaches regarding authenticity in contemporary music literature suggests a complexity of understanding and challenge of agreement amongst scholars. For Wu, Spieß and Lehmann, authenticity in music depended upon music genre, the era of performance, the social reference group and comprised value indicators including ‘credibility, fidelity, traditional and original, pure, real, serious, uniqueness, historically correct and being true to oneself ‘ (2017, p. 443). Douglas claims that ‘cultural constructions such as race, gender, and age all
31 contribute to definitions of authenticity’ (2016, p. 194). Authenticity therefore appears closely associated with time and place, particularly regarding era, race, age and social reference groups. Although these common themes concerning authenticity have been identified, Speers proposes that ‘there is little agreement over what it is or, indeed, whether it even exists’ (2017, p. 16). Furthermore, van Klyton concludes that although authenticity is often used to represent and determine the value of music, it is ‘a conceptualisation of elusive, inadequately defined, other cultural, socially ordered genuineness’ and like most social values, subjective (2016, p. 107). Despite Speers’ initial proposition of a degree of difficulty in understanding authenticity and agreement within scholarship, she defines three different approaches or ideologies concerning authenticity in music; the first where authenticity is inherent within the ‘person, object, event or performance’; the second where authenticity is a ‘socially agreed upon construct’ and the third where authenticity is ‘produced through cultural activity and living them out’ (2017, p. 16). Closely aligned to the ideology of authenticity as a social construct, Moore describes authenticity in contemporary music as being ‘ascribed to rather than inscribed’ that would suggest a causal connection between performer and audience. (2009, p. 220). Furthermore, Moore states that it was perhaps more worthwhile to therefore identify ‘who rather than what was being authenticated’ (2009, p. 220). To identify who was being authenticated Moore proposes that there are only three responses possible; ‘the performer herself, the performer’s audience, or an (absent) other who is being authenticated’ (2009, p. 220). This ideology was developed further in Moore’s study of authenticity as authentication, where he advises that authenticity in music can be broken down into three elements; authenticity in the first person, the second person and the third person (2009).
First person authenticity ‘arises when an originator (composer, performer) succeeds in conveying the impression that his/ her utterance is one of integrity, that it represents an attempt to communicate in an unmediated form with an audience’ (Moore, 2009, p. 214). In essence the artist’s performance conveys a sense of truth and honesty of their condition and circumstance and it is then up to the audience to either accept or reject this representation of authenticity. Wu, Spieß and Lehmann refer to this representation as ‘personal authenticity’ that ‘addresses the relationship between musician and music’ (2017, p. 446). Moore provides the example of artist Paul
32 Weller’s performance of The Changingman whereby ‘he employs gravelly vocals connoting a voice made raw from crying or shouting’ and that ‘the assumption here is that his listeners have personal experience of what gives rise to such crying and shouting and that, therefore, the result conjures up an active memory of the cause’ (Moore, 2009, p. 212). Additionally, Moore suggests that Weller’s use of 1960s vintage guitars and his practice of recording live with minimal overdubs, as opposed to current digital practice with more sophisticated options, further enhanced his representation of self as an authentic performer, someone who is exposing the truth and realness within (2009). This appears consistent with Davies who advises in his research concerning authenticity within orchestral music that ‘the sound of an authentic performance will be the sound of those notes’ which implies a pure performance or recording with historically accurate instruments (1987, p. 3). However, Connell suggests that authenticity through self-expression could be invented and constructed through behaviour and imagery that automatically implies continuity with some existing form or historic past (2002). Therefore Weller’s use of music instrumentation from the 1960s and its inherent imagery and practice of an older style and technique of music recording may be assigned a perception of authenticity from an audience not solely through Weller’s expression of self but also from an ‘automatic’ memory of theirs from that time period. In Speers’ study into authenticity concerning hip-hop music she identifies a paradox between self and other (2017). She described the phenomenon that in order for rappers to gain acceptance and approval from others and potentially progress their respective careers, they conform to various concepts of authenticity work as predetermined by others and therefore they are not necessarily being true to themselves. As she writes;
It raises the question of the extent to which a rapper’s desire for authenticity is for him/herself, or for social validation among peers, or for acceptance from fans through perpetuating a particular view of what hip-hop is. The way in which rappers have to negotiate the tension between individual expression and community practices highlights the tension between ‘rapper authenticity’ and ‘hip-hop authenticity’ (Speers, 2017, p. 18).
Second person authenticity is described by Moore as being observed ‘when a performance succeeds in conveying the impression to a listener that that listener’s
33 experience of life is being validated, that the music is “telling it like it is” for them’ (2009, p. 220). This reference to authenticity appears consistent with Connell who advocates that authenticity is observed when the performer ‘delivers a performance that serves to bring out fully its (inner) meaning and where listeners read this emotional meaning by bringing their personal experience to bear on the performance’ (2002, p.29). The audience or listener can therefore directly relate to the musical performance or recording as an authentic representation of his or her own lives, or a perception of one. This makes this ideology of perceived authenticity a subjective matter according to Speers. As she writes;
Therefore the claim of authenticity made by or for a person, thing or performance has to be either accepted or rejected by relevant others. This is called the process of authentication. It calls attention to the importance of not just the intention of those wanting to be authentic, but how others receive and perceive them, which is a highly subjective affair (Speers, 2017, p. 16).
In his study regarding the authenticity surrounding French folk music and dance, Revill concludes that over time and with the exclusion of access to high art definitions of culture, the folk ‘generation by generation they transform folk music into something of true beauty created naturally and authentically from the unselfconscious actions of everyday folk’ (2004, p. 205). Furthermore, Littlefield and Siudzinski contest that within communities representative of their ‘own set of norms and values’ that ‘songwriters gain particular respect in this community for their originality and authenticity (2011, p. 796). Popular music created naturally within a geographical location and/or community therefore assumes a sense of authenticity over time based upon participation by community members and the perception of other community members regarding what music is authentic to them. This sense of attaching a perception of local authenticity to music that is geographically based is, according to Holland, often exploited by ‘media-driven stereotyping of musically prominent cities’ to commercially construct a sense of place (2012, p. 126). For example, this is evident in the term Mersey Beat which was used to describe the music and sound emitting geographically from and commercially structured within the English city of Liverpool, predominantly started by The Beatles in the early to mid-1960s (Atkinson, 2011). However, van Klyton describes the potential diminished impact of cultural
34 authenticity over time in his study concerning World Music (2016). He suggests that ‘world music performances from West Africa, for example, could have a more modern (and less authentic feel) than it originally did 30 years ago’ based upon the modernisation of some African territories and the perceived change in social, political and economic aspects (van Klyton, 2016, p. 108). Additionally, a societal and cultural shift towards modernisation is ‘largely used to denote a dispersion and diffusion of values, a loss of aura and authenticity’ (Jones, 2002, p. 213). If we revisit the example of Mersey Beat one could argue that the perception of authenticity linked towards original music produced today in Liverpool is perhaps less than that produced in the city 50-60 years ago based primarily upon globalisation, technological change and the city’s transformation, as opposed to merely a change in musical trends.
Moore provides an example of second person authenticity as the dedication by predominantly Celtic bands (U2, Simple Minds) in the 1980s against a backdrop of electronic synthesiser focused music to feature the guitar and adhere to ‘traditional rock values for white urban bourgeois youth’ to relate to as a better representation of themselves and identity (2009, 220). Wu, Spieß and Lehmann refer to this as ‘cultural authenticity’ and described it as concerned with the recipients response, perception and reaction to the music in terms of being truthfully representative of a certain origin, culture, time and place (2017, p. 446). It could therefore be argued that perhaps this perception of cultural authenticity by the youth supporting these Celtic bands was also influenced by an opinion that technology-based music was as inauthentic alternative. As described by Connell, ‘popular music that was placeless, created electronically and highly commercial, was regarded as a major disjuncture between producers and consumers, and a denial of authenticity’ (2002, p. 38). In a similar example, the term “Guitar-Pop” was used to describe a subculture of the live music scene of Sydney in the early 1980s. It possessed a startling similarity to Mersey Beat in that it consisted of predominantly male bands with Beatlesque harmonies, haircuts, 1960s mod fashion and plying their trade with vintage looking and sounding clean and jangly Rickenbacker guitars through VOX AC-30 amplifiers (Easton, 2013). The use of historically accurate instruments was perhaps a purposeful strategy to attain a perception of cultural authenticity against the impending digital musical genre of “New Wave” that was saturated in artificial MIDI instruments, sounds and automated drum machines. This appears consistent with Littlefield and Siudzinski’s
35 research that discovered that ‘some brands represented a higher degree of authenticity and use of equipment from previous eras in music was one path to legitimacy and authenticity’ (2011, p. 796). Therefore, it would appear that regardless of the perceived improvements with digital instruments and music production, the use of traditional and historic workflows and equipment suggest musicians’ justify their use of certain technologies as more authentic in relation to some real or imagined original.
Zagorski-Thomas argued that the inherent noise and playability associated with vintage and traditional instruments and recording equipment can produce a sound that could be perceived as authentic by an audience (2010). As he writes;
Garage bands from the late 1950s onwards have produced rough and unpolished recordings and this has led to it being embraced as a production aesthetic in itself. If the dilettante approach is deliberate, however, then it takes on additional meaning: a professional quality recording may become a signifier for the ‘establishment’ and the rejection of it through choosing a lo-fi approach becomes a political statement of difference (Zagorski-Thomas, 2010, p. 262).
Inherent noise associated with the original recordings due to technological limitations of the time, as opposed to being part of the original music composition and expression, has therefore become embedded in the ways that musicians and listeners construct some recorded music as more authentic than others. The rejection of establishment to produce a ‘lo-fi’ recording as described above would potentially have been an economic point of difference as well as political. With respect to remastering, where one of the prime objectives is to remove and clean up inherent noise associated with the original recording to make it sound more ‘modern’ and able to sit comfortably next to a modern recording, it therefore becomes a question of whether removing noise is in fact removing key sonic signifiers that listeners associate with concepts of authenticity in recorded rock music (Bennett, 2009). The correlation between inherent analogue noise and authenticity is perhaps best evidenced in Zagorski-Thomas’s research that found that current professional DJs using modern digital music production tools deliberately introduced noise associated with vintage playback and recording devices (stylus crackle from a record player for
36 example) on modern recordings (2010). We therefore have a state where noise associated with vintage recording and playback devices is purposely being reintroduced deliberately to new music recordings in an attempt to instill a sense of cultural authenticity for the listener. Again, this deliberate digital manipulation to recreate analogue noise appears to be a strategy to perhaps provide security for the listener against their perception of ‘artificial’ modern music production and performance.
Moore describes third person authenticity as ‘when a performer succeeds in conveying the impression of accurately representing the ideas of another, embedded within a tradition of performance’ (2009, p. 218). The perception of authenticity therefore appears to imply the ability for one to mirror the original intent of the composer and/or the recording of a composition or live performance from an established collection of acceptable performances. This seems consistent with Davies’ study into authenticity in classical music performance where he states that ‘authentic is used to acknowledge the creative role of the performer in faithfully realizing the composer's specifications’ when the musical performance closely matched and realised the composer’s original score and the performance could be judged against a set of other accurate performances (1987, p. 1). Moore claims that third person authenticity was closely linked to first person authenticity in that it required the audience to perceive the artistic performance of the musician as an authentic depiction of self, as well as an expression that captured the style of another performer(s) that was also perceived as authentic (2009). Moore provided the example of Eric Clapton performing Robert Johnson’s blues compositions as third person authenticity. As he writes;
In performing Johnson’s ‘Crossroads’ with Cream, not only do we interpret Clapton conveying to his audience that ‘this is what it’s like to be me’ but, doubly vicariously, that ‘this is what it was like to be Johnson’, with all the pain that implies: ‘[The blues] comes from an emotional poverty . . . I didn’t feel I had any identity, and the first time I heard blues music it was like a crying of the soul to me. I immediately identified with it’ (Clapton quoted in Coleman 1994, p. 31). (Moore, 2009, p. 215)
37 Moore’s work on authenticity in music suggests that as it is ascribed there should be a greater focus on who is being authenticated as opposed to what. His first, second and third person authenticity ideology represent how a perception of authenticity can vary between the performer and the audience across common themes of time, place, gender, ethnicity and technological mediation. It is the social construct of authenticity within this ideology that, according to Speers, suggests authenticity as evolutionary as the ‘continual quest for a creative voice has the effect of destabilizing the image of the authentic’ (2017, p. 17). This sense of authenticity as evolutionary seems important with respect to remastering when you consider the constant replication and manipulation of a musical artefact and the potential for undermining the image of the original master tape. The opposing view is that authenticity in music is inherent within the performance, artist or object, and this would suggest a greater prominence concerning what as opposed to who is being authenticated, resulting in a more static sense of authenticity. This static approach to authenticity has been described as ‘type authenticity’ and depicts ‘how well the artist follows and conforms to the features and elements of an existing genre. In this respect, deviating from a genre indicates a de facto decrease in type authenticity’ (Mattsson, Peltoniemi & Parvinen, 2010, p. 1358). Examples of type authenticity artists’ would include The Monkees, Spice Girls and those who emerge from reality TV shows like Australian Idol where they are manufactured and designed accordingly within a specific genre ready for marketing and distribution to a predetermined audience (Mattson et al., 2010).
Technological and psychoacoustic considerations and process
The technologies associated with sound production play a key role in the production and consumption of popular music (Théberge 1997) as well as supply the musicians, recording and mastering engineers with tools that form part of the creative compositional stage of the process (Théberge 2012). Furthermore, these digital technologies and tools have also resulted in the creation of studios as remote locations to be connected and networked together over the internet, further enhancing the opportunities and process of creative music composition and production pursuits available to current practitioners (Théberge 2004). It is this sense of ‘social space’ created through networked studios and compositional and productive hubs, combined
38 with music playback technologies that ‘produce specific individual experiences of music in everyday contexts’ (Nowak, 2014, p. 1). Therefore, the traditional role of a large-scale studio environment with elaborate and expensive equipment as the primary means of music production and mastering is challenged.
Digital technology also provides an opportunity to examine waveforms and digital processing measures visually (as opposed to only sonically) to a much greater extent than previously possible using analogue equipment (Zak, 2001). These visual depictions and graphical measurements of sound include spectral analysis, digital waveforms, equalisation curves and a variety of plugins and parameter graphics. This change in technology therefore makes it easier to compare various versions, masters and remasters of the same recording visually and to present these differences to others using imagery as in the case of Barry’s research on The Beatles (2013). This visual representation of audio behaviour encouraged audio engineer Michael Stavrou to try and ‘chase illusive hit song and audio style characteristics using these visual technical parameters while working at Abbey Road Studios’ (Pestana, Ma, Reiss, Barbosa, & Black, 2013, p. 1). While modern audio engineers can use these visual representations of audio analysis and their associated parameters to improve their production outputs, there is still a belief amongst practitioners that the role of listening with ones ears should not be overlooked and ‘simply looking at waveforms on an oscilloscope or observing vector scope is not necessarily going to tell you whether something is acceptable or not’ (Rumsey, 2011, p. 438). However, there is also a view that ‘it is your brain and imagination that tells you what you are hearing, not your ears… something sounds good because you want it to, not because it is’ (De Carvhalo, 2012, para. 26). Using visual representations of audio and music in mastering and remastering practice to make informed decisions regarding sonic quality therefore appears to be a useful tool and guide, although non-visual approaches such as active listening are also important and relevant.
Change in digital technology has also led to a number of new and various digital formats for both storing and playing music and audio which according to some industry experts has a noticeable impact on sound quality. ‘Quite a few of the panel said that they definitely noticed a difference in sound quality when replaying from hard drives, solid state drives, and optical disks, even though the source material was
39 ostensibly the same’ (Rumsey, 2010, p. 66). Modern mastering engineers therefore need to be able to store and playback audio on a number of devices (hard drives, CDs, DVDs, Cloud) as well as master to a variety of different file types and formats (mp3, wav, aiff, vinyl, cassette and CD). Additionally, these digital file formats allow for mass distribution and diffusion due to their media and the technologies that create them (Nowak, 2016). Given that the long-playing (LP) plastic record was introduced to the market by Columbia in 1948 these various formats span a technological time period of approximately 70 years (Cartwright, Besson & Maubisson, 2013). With so many formats widely available and used by mastering and remastering practitioners there is potential for different remasters for different formats ending up on less than suitable players and therefore not delivering the desired end result sonically. For example, The Beatles’ remastering engineer Rouse discussed his concern of mastering for iTunes with a slightly different equalisation to suit that format and then the listener burning that recording to a disc for playback through a decent hi-fi system (Sexton, 2009). The remastered iTunes version with its own equalisation specific for iTunes playback would therefore potentially suffer in sonic quality when played back through a larger system. However, there is a belief that having to master for a variety of formats only affects the mastering process up to a point as the root is common across all formats including the timbre, preparatory phases and settings, and the only real difference when mastering for vinyl is a greater focus on cuts as opposed to equalisation (Nardi, 2014). These multiple remasters or texts resulting from different manipulations of a single tape source is referred to as ‘intratextuality’ by Everett and this practice raises questions on ‘definitive versions’ and ‘authoritative text’ particularly around stereo imaging (2010, p. 229). As he writes;
Digital remastering thus features far more varied approaches to the stereo image than did earlier mixes, whether the programme is as conservative as the Carpenters’ ‘We’ve Only Just Begun’ (1970; note the newly sparkling high- register piano work, the louder bass, the gradual fading down of the piano, and the altered clarinet and piano staging in the 1991 revision) or as radical as Megadeth’s ‘Remixed and Remastered’ series (2002+, with wonderful critical notes by Dave Mustaine). All-new transparency is bestowed on old recordings by 5.1 surround sound, as with the 1999 Yellow Submarine Songtrack mixes made for a wide array of Beatle songs (Everett, 2010, p. 236).
40
Similar to Everett’s concern of confusion surrounding establishing definitive versions, another challenge facing modern remastering engineers is locating the correct master tape to remaster from. It appears there can be a loose interpretation of the term ‘master’ when describing tapes, and often multiple copies of tapes are labelled as master tapes (Rumsey, 2012). In an article comparing Jimi Hendrix remastered reissues ‘Joe Gastwirt, who remastered the Reprise single CD, maintains that he used the original master tapes. Eddie Kramer and George Marino, who did the new CD, claim that, no, their version is the first to use the masters’ (Richardson, 1997, p. 96). If the aim of remastering is to create a digital replica of an analogue musical artefact that maintains the original meaning, context and sense of cultural heritage, the issue of identifying the correct original source material appears to be significant.
In spite of the creation of commercially successful digital applications to assist modern mastering and remastering practice, there is a view that the digital technology revolution has come at a cost. In particular there exists the notion that digital technology lowers the skill set and increases the margin for error for the contemporary practitioner, particularly when mastering and remastering for CD as opposed to vinyl. ‘High-end content can be very hard to make sound good on LPs, suggesting there is an art to mixing for good-sounding vinyl, whereas a CD will take almost whatever you throw at it, provided you don’t clip’ (Rumsey, 2014, p. 562). This ability to compress and manipulate digital audio in a rougher and less precise manner when mastering for CDs is consistent with the belief that ‘many recordings are currently distorted and spectrally mistreated during the production and mastering process, just to obtain the loudest possible end result’ (Nelson & Lund, 1999, p. 1). This concern is further heightened when you consider the modern mastering engineer receives the original audio file in a digital format as opposed to analogue, and that there ‘is no guarantee the signal doesn’t already contain out of band components from clipping or misbehaved upstream digital processors or workstations’ (Lund, 2006, p. 3). There is also the issue of technological differences within the digital era to consider. In Kot’s comparative study of the differences between The Beatles’ 1987 and 2009 CD remasters and releases it was found that the thin sounding 1987 releases were primarily a result of limitations of technology at the time (2009). The 1987 releases were remastered at a much lower bit-rate than is currently available and that
41 the higher bit rate used in the analogue to digital transfer in the 2009 releases resulted in a ‘modern-day oomph factor is there as well -- yes, the Beatles now sound louder, with more pop in Ringo Starr's drums’ (Kot, 2009, p. 2). Therefore, there is potential for perceived sonic quality disparities in remastering practice to occur not only when comparing remastered releases across various formats but within them as well.
Although audio and visual digital technologies are now firmly in place within mastering and remastering studios, there is evidence to suggest most modern mastering and remastering processes involve a mixture of analogue and digital equipment (Rumsey, 2011b). There also appears to be a belief in the importance of listening to as opposed to simply viewing waveforms of a mastered or remastered work during practice and workflow (Wöhr, Theile, Goeres, & Persterer, 1991). As stereo recordings should be as natural as possible to allow our ears to localise the sound source and our ears are nature’s original multiband audio compressors, there appears to be strong debate about what and how much digital technology to incorporate into mastering and remastering practice and the perceived sonic impact as a result of this intervention (Vickers, 2010; Wöhr, et al., 1991).
Commercial considerations and the ‘loudness wars’
In reference to music and cultural heritage it has been argued that ‘music heritage increasingly encompasses a range of practices that are not reducible to the music itself but linked to a wider social, cultural and economic processes surrounding the production and consumption of popular music’ (Roberts & Cohen, 2013, p. 2). It is these economic processes, often beginning with a shared concept and goal within a record company regarding the production and consumption of music, that lead in part to the decision to digitally remaster and rerelease older analogue recordings to the public (Rumsey, 2012). Therefore while there may exist debate about the artistic and cultural significance of remastering older analogue recordings ‘many such recordings do have a commercial value to those who restore them’ (Brink, 1992, p. 7). For example, Apple Corps’ manager Neil Aspinall when discussing the company’s decision to remaster and rerelease The Beatles’ entire back catalogue on CD in 2009, referred to not only the perceived sonic improvements regarding the release but also
42 described them as packages and the need to ‘get proper booklets to go with each of the packages’ (Benzine, 2006, p. 1). The package is therefore representative of far more than just the music itself. While there may be a tendency for commercial organisations to focus purely on commercial outcomes from revenue gained by releasing remastered versions of their artists catalogue of recordings, the ‘latest wave of Jimi Hendrix reissues marks the fourth time the catalogue has been remastered for CD’, there is also an alternate view (Richardson, 1997, p. 96). According to Clayton- Lea, there was a belief from the remastering engineers involved in The Beatles’ 2009 CD remaster project that it was not purely a commercial exercise (2009). As he writes;
In terms of The Beatles 1960s masters - they were never re-mastered, simple as that. What you got in the 1960s was what you got in the 1980s, and to bring them up a little bit, sonically, we re-mastered them. So it's not a money issue at all. Having said that, it's not really for me to say because we just do the job - we're told to do it. But my personal opinion is that it isn't about the money. Absolutely not (Clayton-Lea, 2009, p. 3).
It is important to note that although the arrival of the CD initially was seen as commercially prosperous for record companies with respect to selling their back catalogue in the new format, there were also critics of this decision at the time. Maurice Oberstein from Polygram UK voiced his concerns at an industry conference that the record companies were literally giving away the master tapes and that the ensuing recordable CD format would lead to a black market economy of illegal copying and distribution (Sandall, 2007). The new CD format also allowed it to contain recordings at a greater loudness level in playback as compared to releases on analogue vinyl and cassette tape (Nielsen & Lund, 1999). It is believed the initial demand to create louder recordings on CD was derived from the commercial interests of FM radio broadcasters in the early 1990s as they sought a competitive advantage to broadcast at a higher level than their opponents (Vickers, 2010). This mastering and remastering phenomenon is known as ‘hyper compression’ and resulted in the well documented and researched ‘loudness wars’ which suggest these louder produced recordings come at a cost of broadcast quality and reduced dynamic range (Hjortkjaer
43 & Walther-Hansen, 2014; Nielsen & Lund, 1999; Vickers, 2010; Walsh, Stein, & Jot, 2011).
Pop/rock albums released towards the middle and end of the 1990s (and onward) are severely compressed and comparatively louder than records of the past, averaging 4dBFS less in dynamic range than noticeably compressed masters by the likes of the Beatles, Motown, and others (Shelvock, 2012, p. 55).
To make remasters commercially viable and appealing to the consumer, record companies often use a marketing strategy designed to ‘sell the notion to existing fans that the reissue is in some way superior to any previous edition’ (O’Malley, 2015, p. 3). In Vickers’ study of the commercial decisions behind Universal Music Group’s approach to marketing their ABBA back catalogue in 2001 and again in 2005, it was revealed that ‘as long as Universal Music Group has financial incentive to keep revisiting the Abba catalogue, they need to appeal to the notion that each time they are getting closer and closer to the original, bringing out further unheard details’ (2010, p. 7). There also exists a commercial consideration and ‘belief that louder songs sell better’ that ensure increased loudness levels on the remastered releases as compared to the original recordings often with accompanying packaging detailing justification for the increase (Vickers, 2010, p. 5). However, there is evidence to suggest criticism that hyper compression and the resulting extra loudness has damaged the audio quality of remasters by decreasing dynamics and thereby reducing the emotional elements of the song as well as leading to listening fatigue (Vickers, 2010).
Do listeners notice differences between original and remastered releases?
Although the ‘loudness wars’ have been well documented – and increased levels of loudness associated with digital formats have been well defined – it is still unclear whether the perceived sonic differences between an original and remastered release are noticeable by the consumer. In his comparative study of various remastered releases of The Beatles’ song All My Lovin’, Barry questions whether the average
44 consumer would notice the perceived sonic differences he identified through his audio analysis (2013). In another research project to determine whether average listeners experience the claimed negative effects of compression in remasters, it was determined that the result was unclear and in fact ‘listeners are less sensitive to even high levels of compression than commonly claimed’ (Hjortkjaer & Walther-Hansen, 2014, p. 39). Although not directly related to remastering, there is evidence to suggest listeners on occasion tend to exaggerate their aural perceptions. Record reviews from the early 1920s included phrases such as ‘totally natural’, ‘indistinguishable from the live performance’ and ‘never to be surpassed quality’, which would appear to contrast the inherent noise associated with 1920s recordings and playback devices (Temmer, 1984, p. 2). Furthermore, there is verification of how easy it is for mastering engineers to persuade people something has changed when it has not and that experienced listeners can be confused over compression through incremental changes in perceived loudness (Rumsey, 2010; Vickers, 2010).
One consideration for the listeners’ apparent lack of ability to adequately identify differences between remastered and original versions is the disparity between the high quality studio environment where the remaster is produced, and lower quality consumer playback devices. According to The Beatles’ remastering engineer Rouse, there is a consistent generational approach to try and provide the best sound quality possible at Abbey Road Studios and he lamented the inferior quality of modern playback devices as the listener only hears part of what is there (cited in Sexton, 2009). A related consideration is the impact that mono and stereo recording formats have on the remastering process and what listeners are able to access. The Beatles band members have been reported as saying that Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band – revered by many as a masterpiece of technical innovation and construction for the time – was best listened to in mono, although only recently has the digital mono version been made available (Kot, 2009). In contrast, Paton and McIntyre undertook a study comparing average consumers listening to mastered and un-mastered pieces of music and concluded listeners preferred the mastered works (2009). Additionally, when fans and consumers of Metallica’s Death Magnetic album were confronted with a choice of either a Game Hero or a much louder and more compressed CD version, ‘over 21,000 people signed an online petition asking Metallica to remaster the CD with less compression’ (Vickers, 2010, pp. 6-7). This desire for less compression was
45 consistent with the view that louder does not mean better and the heavily compressed releases of Hendrix have been described by listeners as making ‘the already trebly guitar of House Burning Down too bright, and it heightens the background buzz and hiss on both Voodoo Child and Voodoo Chile’ (Richardson, 1997, p. 96).
The above research and examples would suggest that listeners could tell the sonic differences between mastered and unmastered versions, in particular with respect to heavily compressed as compared to less compressed. It is therefore conceivable that this capacity of the listener to determine difference has been attributed to the current trend in increased LP sales as the listener perceives vinyl has a warmer, more nuanced sound as compared to CDs and digital downloads ‘perhaps because of the necessity of using finesse to work around vinyl’s physical limitations regarding signal levels’ (Vickers, 2010, p. 14). However, Uwins ‘rejects the hypothesis that audio quality is the sole defining factor’ in his study comparing vinyl and CD recordings and attributed the resurgence in LP sales more to an ‘individual’s appreciation of other attributes of vinyl such as the artwork, sleeve notes, or even their past experiences’ (2015, p. 5). Overall, the research in this area is somewhat contradictory or complex, with some research suggesting that listeners cannot easily identify sonic differences between remastered and original releases (Barry, 2013; Hjortkjaer & Walther-Hansen, 2014), and other research suggesting that they can (Paton & McIntyre, 2009; Vickers.2010).
Fandom
The term ‘aca-fan’ is used to describe the hybrid being which is part academic and part fan (Bennett, 2002; Brennan, 2014; Duffett, 2014; Roach, 2014). Critics of the aca-fan or scholar-fan (Jenkins, 2014) view the role of part-fan and part-academic as an unacceptable indulgence in scholarly research and believe the scholar’s role should be fundamentally one of scepticism with a duty to explain something new about the works we discuss (Bogost, 2010). It is therefore a question of maintaining a sense of balance to remain critical, particularly in terms of keeping enough emotional distance from the object of study (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012b). Without this balanced approach there is potential for the researcher to misrepresent the case study participants and
46 their respective fan bases, focus too much on the researcher’s own pre-existing knowledge and not delve deeply enough into appropriate critical and scholarly perspectives. Proponents of the scholar-fan in research view fandom as a means to enrich the study through an existing knowledge and passion for the theoretical construct (Brennan, 2014). This research endeavours to include and cite relevant scholarly works as required thus dispensing the need for an overreliance on and a disproportionate level of autodidactic fan knowledge which has the potential to distort and limit research results and produce a misrepresentation of fandom overall. Another important consideration in determining the appropriate balance between fan and academic for the researcher is to examine how the role of fandom is affected through different phases of one’s life. Lee Harrington and Bielby state this is a crucial element to ‘clarify and deepen our understanding of fans sustained engagement with media objects over time’ and proposed that for scholar-fans ‘there is a [scholarly] assumption that intense popular-music investments cannot be carried over into adult life’ (2010, pp. 434-435). This would imply that although music can provide a powerful source and motivation for forming one’s identity and fandom during adolescence, this sense of fandom and attachment to the music and its creators would diminish over time. However, although Clarke, DeNora and Vuoskoski appeared to agree with Lee Harrington and Bielby’s assumption regarding the power of music to instil intense experiences for the listener, they did not put a timeframe around when this fandom would decline, if ever (2015). As they write:
Music is a source of intense experiences of both the most intimate and solitary, and public and collective, kinds – from an individual with their smartphone and headphones, to large-scale live events and global simulcasts; and it increasingly brings together a huge range of cultures and histories, through developments in world music, sampling, the re-issue of historical recordings, and the explosion of informal and home music-making that circulates via YouTube. For many people, involvement with music can be among the most powerful and potentially transforming experiences in their lives (Clarke et al., 2015, p. 61).
This hybrid approach of scholar and fan can also potentially challenge the researcher in terms of how much narrative to provide and in what style. The researcher has to be
47 mindful of ‘presuming commonalities with research participants’ based on a shared identity’ as well as ‘negotiate legitimacy in the field’ in terms of their input and narrative (Brennan, 2014, p. 225). In terms of remastering, the researcher would need to negotiate and reach an acceptable balance within the scholarly world when examining and providing narrative for the audio mastering techniques, the remastering engineer/s and their experience and the artists involved. Flood describes the need for a holistic approach towards documenting practice that should include ‘autobiography, biography and personal experiences’ to help illuminate the creative output and finished product (2000, p. 4), while Burr suggests that personal experiences, emotional involvement and a varience in the definition of professional language can allow for a less rigid approach to language, writing style and narrative and encouratged the scholar-fan to explore ‘how the academic who is also a fan can recognize and value the fan within’ (2005, p. 375). Although scholar-fans generally gravitate towards academic structures in writing and format ‘the way they structure their studies can easily be construed as not entirely conventional, for example, including large autobiographical sections detailing their personal and emotional involvement with a given fandom’ (Cristofari & Guitton, 2016, p. 4). There is further criticism that some scholar-fan writing does not supply enough details about the academic’s personal fandom as ‘it turns out that few fan theorists grant us access to their own fan lives beyond the safety of academic analysis’ (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012a, p. 45). It is understood that as long as the scholar-fan can ‘manage their duality, then the consequent data will have depth of historical understanding’ as opposed to a new non-fan researcher without ‘access to comparative experience of then and now’ and not experienced in the rules and behaviours (Scott, 2009, p. 444). It is from the duality of the scholar-fan that this research has emerged; the project as a whole proceeds from the premise that a deep, nuanced understanding can emerge by acknowledging my subject position as scholar-fan, and by drawing on this position when appropriate in the research.
Demo recordings
As the project is focused on the role of modern remastering practice and implementing this process onto non-released analogue demo recordings, it is
48 important to understand the role of demo recordings in the music production process and the desire by audiences to consume these recordings as opposed to official released versions. Demonstration or ‘demo’ recordings have been described as an informal means for musicians and nonperforming songwriters to present their musical ideas to others in an audio format that would ‘typically convey a song’s melody, harmony, lyrics, and form… guided by the aim of producing a fully realized rendition of the demonstrated song’ (Bruno, 2013, p. 68). Often defined as a ‘rough-work tape of the song’ demo recordings can range in sonic quality and complexity from simple one-track recordings depicting melody, tempo, lyrics, rhythm and style through to multi-track demos that can be used to draft a possible arrangement (Elliot, 2005, p. 5). It is the first stage of producing a finished recording whereby the demo can assist with the identification of required session musicians as well as early discussions around the arrangement of a song (Gander, 2015). It is therefore the traditional role of the demo recording to form a basis of musical expression towards the final product, and then be discarded and not released for public consumption. However, a study into the commercially successful 1980s UK production house of Stock, Aitken and Waterman (SAW) revealed that demos were not produced and considered unnecessary (O’Hare, 2009). Stock and Aitken played all of the instruments on all of the recordings they wrote and the only other artists involved in these recordings were the vocalists (Kylie Minogue, Rick Astley) who were only required to sing the vocal part as instructed by SAW. As such, demo recordings can range from a highly integrated part of the creative process of record production or be completely discarded from the process.
Demo recordings of artists that have been unofficially released for public consumption are sometimes referred to as ‘bootleg’ recordings. Bootleg recordings are illegal releases (LP, EP, CD, cassette) of artist materials generally consisting of recordings of live concerts, film, TV and radio appearances, studio out takes, home and demo recordings that are not available through official and legitimate sources (Melton, 2014). These recordings are acquired illegally (the taping of a concert by the member of the public for example) and then released often by fans for other fans and often for commercial gain (Melton, 2014). It is widely considered that the first rock and roll bootleg was the release of Bob Dylan’s Great White Wonder (GWW) album in 1969 on vinyl, which consisted of an unauthorised collection of Dylan’s publisher’s demo recordings, songs recorded in a friend’s apartment on a tape recorder and
49 miscellaneous studio outtakes (Lewis, 2006). Although Dylan’s record company Columbia Records had released official material in the same year, this bootleg release was eagerly embraced by Dylan fans who ‘were more than happy to listen instead to GWW—to them a far more authentic Dylan album than the sweet steel guitars and honey smooth vocals of this latest commercial release’ (Lewis, 2006, p. 110). There are also examples of unofficial remastered demo releases including Bob Dylan’s A Tree With Roots (remastered four-disc collection) released in 2002 and The Minnesota Tapes, a remastered sonically upgraded three-disc collection of recordings by Dylan in a friends’ apartment on a reel-to-reel tape recorder in 1961 (Lewis, 2006).
Demo recordings have also been officially mastered and released into the public domain. In 2012 the record label Hear Music released The Legendary Demos by US artist Carol King on CD and vinyl, mastered at The Mastering Lab in the USA, and was first official release for a number of recordings previously only available on bootleg copies (Perone, 2013). This release is important not only as an historical and cultural document but also as it questions the assumed quality differences between demo recordings and final studio recordings produced primarily for commercial release. By its nature, the demo recording is traditionally considered an inferior product sonically and in terms of overall quality in comparison to the final recording. The demo is produced primarily as a work in progress and to convey musical ideas and expression to others with the quality of recording not a major consideration. The final commercial release represents completeness where more emphasis is placed on the sonic quality. According to Perone, King challenged this traditional view and process (2013). As he writes;
Throughout the 1960s, King used multi-track studio techniques and recorded demos of songs that she wrote with lyricists such as her one-time husband, Gerry Goffin, and others. Sometimes recorded with King performing all of the vocal and instrumental tracks, and sometimes with the assistance of studio musicians, these demos were used to shop songs around to various artists, producers, and A&R (artists and repertoire) representatives. Unlike demos made by some of her contemporaries, King’s recordings tended to provide full arrangements (occasionally including elaborate multi-tracked vocal harmony arrangements and distinctive instrumental accompaniment figures), and in
50 some cases were so meticulously put together that they could have been released as finished commercial recordings. King’s demos therefore went well beyond simply providing the melody, harmonies, and lyrics of the songs (like an aural lead sheet); they provided arrangers and producers with concrete ideas that often were incorporated on the later commercial recordings of the songs (Perone, 2013, p.111).
To further challenge the role of demo recordings as inferior to final authorised record company releases of the time in terms of sonic and musical quality, demo recordings created by King ‘The Loco-motion’ and ‘Will You Love Me Tomorrow’ were excluded from the 2012 release as they were ‘cut with the recording artists themselves singing lead, and in some cases, the demos became the master recordings heard on the radio’ (Browne, 2012). There are other examples of official mastered releases by record companies of once illegally distributed and unauthorised bootleg recordings. The website BobDylan.com, the official Bob Dylan site managed by his record company Columbia Records, has a selection of bootleg (predominantly live) recordings available for fans to play (MP3 format) and purchase (Lewis, 2006). Additionally, the popularity of The Beatles bootleg release Live at the Hollywood Bowl led to Capital Records releasing an official version in 1977 (McLeod, 2014) as well as a remastered version in 2016 (Now Available For Pre-Order: ‘The Beatles: Live At The Hollywood Bowl’ Album, 2016).
A preference from some fans for demo recordings as opposed to official recordings is evidenced by Neumann and Simpson’s research into bootleg recording collectors and in particular an interview with a research participant called Rob, a fan and aspiring musician (1997). According to Neumann and Simpson, Rob depicted a ‘boredom and dissatisfaction with the predictability of conventional industry music’ and sought out bootleg demos not only as a source and thrill of finding something ‘new or spontaneous’ but also in an effort to ‘follow a musician’s creative process…to discover from it some insight or inspiration that will guide him in his own work’ (1997, p. 328). As they write;
Rob is interested in the process of song composition, and he believes that home demos and studio outtakes of his favorite artists allow him a peek into
51 the way they construct songs. “It’s almost like looking at how a plumber goes from bare pipes to a complete fixture or faucet,” he says, “watching the halfway point, seeing where it’s at. You get a good picture of what it’s going to look like, but the water isn’t coming out yet.” A bootleg tape offers Rob a moment of the creative process frozen in time, captured for his study. Listening to one of his bootlegs, he says, is a process of analysis, education, and inspiration (Neumann & Simpson, 1997, p.328)
For Rob, the main difference between bootlegged demo recordings and polished final releases is intimacy; ‘you’ve got a guy just by himself at his piano playing as opposed to twenty four tracks of high production. It’s a little more intimate. And sometimes, too much shine takes away the warmth’ (Neumann & Simpson, 1997, p. 335). Additionally, Stuhl found evidence within music production forums who view overproduction as ‘a sonic imprint resulting from production techniques/tools that gets between the listeners and the song. It upstages the song rather than supports it’ (2014, p. 50). Furthermore, Stuhl claims that ‘some people are entertained by authenticity, and they love the rough edges. There is no pleasing them if you accidentally get better at your craft. You will no longer be cool’ (2014, p. 50). It is not just aspiring musicians who embrace bootleg demo recordings for both their educational and listening attributes, professional musicians do as well. In the period when King’s demos were originally recorded, which was decades before digital file sharing, these recordings were prized within the music business and US songwriter and artist Randy Newman described them as the best education that any aspiring songwriter could have (Browne, 2012). Additionally, Peter Asher who managed and produced artist James Taylor (who had a US No1 hit in 1971 with King’s composition ‘You’ve Got A Friend’) was also a collector of these unauthorized demo recordings (Browne, 2012).
There is also evidence of artists purposely releasing demo recordings of their music in an effort to boost popularity and potentially gain greater commercial success. In 2006, UK band The Artic Monkeys released their debut album Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not, selling more units in the first week of release in the UK than any other band at the time (Morey, 2009). This success has widely been attributed to demos recorded by the band between 2003 and 2004 being distributed on CD to fans
52 (primarily after gigs) and then these digitised recordings being shared amongst fans using social media and the internet. As Morey writes;
The success of the demos in establishing an audience for the band also meant that many of the debut album’s listeners were already familiar with alternative recorded versions of many of the tracks. As a result, there is disagreement as to which of the recorded versions is more authentic, with many listeners preferring the apparent immediacy and spontaneity of the demo versions to their more polished cousins that appear on the first album (Morey, 2009, para. 3).
Morey provides a comprehensive, detailed technical and audio comparative analysis and account of the sonic and cultural differences between the Artic Monkeys demo recording process and that used for that of their debut album, describing how ‘many listeners preferred the apparent immediacy and spontaneity of the demo versions to their more polished cousins that appear on the first album (2009, para. 3). Morey’s study also lists common assumptions amongst producers and engineers with experience of recording bands that the demo recording environment is likely to be more ‘project or home’ styled rather than ‘professional’ in terms of equipment quality, space and acoustic treatment. Additionally, there was a belief that demo recordings will have a greater emphasis on live recording with minimal editing and overdub recording due to time and financial constraints, a tendency for tempos to drift in and out due to minimal post recording tempo editing and click track use, and for the commercially released album to have an overall ‘polish’ compared to the demo (Morey, 2009). These assumed differences proved accurate in this case. Audio engineer for the demo recording Alan Smyth had to track, mix and master in a day in his ‘bed-sit with recording equipment in it’ where as Jim Abbiss (audio engineer for the debut album) recorded, mixed and mastered the recordings in different locations over a greater amount of time (Morey, 2009, para. 16). Smyth mixed the demos solely within the Pro Tools environment with no external equipment while Abbiss employed a manual mix on a vintage EMI TGI 16 channel console with some sub-mixing in Pro Tools. Abbiss also had access to a far superior range and quality of equipment including pre amplifiers, microphones, compressors, equalization and other outboard gear as opposed to Smyth (Morey, 2009, para. 16). However, Morey concludes there
53 were similarities in the recording process of the demo and debut album including both productions were recorded live into Pro Tools and composites were assembled from a similar small number of takes (2009). An interesting discovery by Morey was that the sonic differences could arguably lead to a classification difference between the demos and the debut album in terms of genre. As he writes;
Comparison of the two recordings with a goniometer reveals that the album version has a wider stereo image than the demo version. Shepherd (2007) has suggested that sonic characteristics of recordings considered to be in the tradition of garage rock include a narrow stereo image and significant energy in the 1-2KHz range, which would allow the conclusion that the demos are sonically more authentic to a garage rock tradition, while the finesse of the album in terms of frequency range, separation and consistency of ambience suggests a grander production scale that might be attributed to classic rock (Morey, 2009, para. 13).
Smyth’s description of his recording studio as a ‘bed-sit with record equipment in it’ and his ability to ‘mix in the box’ with Pro Tools is part of a digital revolution which has transformed the music recording industry (Morey, 2009, para. 16). The evolution of personal computers and Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) including Pro Tools and Logic has led to ‘technologies and techniques once reserved almost exclusively to professional studios, from pre-production to mastering and mixing, could then be performed from one’s house’ (De Carvalho, 2012, para. 2). This has further diminished the gap between musician and listener, a scenario that creates opportunities for aspiring and hobbyist musicians and producers to experiment with equipment and methods that were once restricted to specialists (Cartwright et al., 2013). However, there is an argument that ‘lo-fi (demo) music celebrated the idea that untalented—or rather, unconventionally talented—people could make records long before Pro Tools came along’ and that in the punk music genre for example ‘lo-fi is responsible for linking authenticity to music production and thereby to recording technologies’ (Stuhl, 2014, p. 47). If lo-fi and demo recordings promote a perception of authenticity in music production, and the evolution of personal computers and digital tools has allowed the music production process to operate potentially inside
54 one’s home, then within the production workflow there is the opportunity to remaster existing demo recordings.
The roles of audio engineer, musician, mastering engineer, record producer and remastering engineer were once all considered quite separate positions with vastly different skill sets, particularly within professional facilities, but within a home studio environment the role of musicians, producers or engineers in contemporary culture is challenged and the idea who can claim them (Théberge, 2012). Songwriting and recording may occur simultaneously when using technology to assist the creative process and ‘songwriting and composing can thus be seen as overarching processes that includes production or as smaller phases in a larger chain of processes that also includes production’ (Tobias, 2013, p. 214). This situation further complicates traditional roles and practice of music production. The current practice of recording demos in a home studio vastly differs from that in the way King’s demos were produced. It has been established that King was a talented songwriter, arranger and musician but there is no mention of King’s production skills in terms of recording. In fact, according to Browne’s comprehensive liner notes, Brooks Arthur worked as King’s recording engineer and described in relation to one of her demo recordings how ‘she’d walk into the studio in the afternoon and emerge an hour later with a finished product in two or three takes’ and that ‘she was always a cut above the rest’ (Browne, 2012). King therefore was not responsible or accountable for any audio production or recording and was primarily focused on performing. The use of a professional audio engineer therefore guaranteed a quality level of recording. By contrast, today’s home recordists working on their own material may be responsible for all components of the production including songwriting, arranging, performing, recording, mixing and mastering and/or remastering which would likely lead to a disparity amongst home recordists’ outputs in terms of sonic quality.
That recording is an art – not just a craft or skill set – is evidenced by the many poor, or just unimaginative, recordings that are being made despite the use of the latest or most expensive gear. Even using the best equipment, and knowing how it operates, is not enough to guarantee a good recording. To expect this would be like expecting that simply by buying the best paints,
55 canvas, knives and brushes… anyone can paint a masterpiece (De Carvhalo, 2012).
De Carvhalo mentions an improved accessibility to higher-quality audio tools does not necessarily result in better sounding recordings. However, this improved access to equipment has impacted upon the production process itself. The line between demo and final recordings appears to be more flexible now as opposed to the clear distinction made possible through economic, technological and skills-based barriers, from only a couple of decades ago. Although demo recordings vary greatly in audio and musical quality and there still exists an assumption that they are inferior to official commercial offerings, there appears to still be a demand for these recordings from music consumers and artists (Morey, 2009). It is evidenced that some sections of the community actively seek out these unofficial recordings and prefer them to the official releases, primarily for the perceived authenticity and intimacy they tend to offer (Neumann & Simpson, 1997). These demo recordings therefore appear to have a cultural value placed upon them by some individuals and mastering and remastering these music artifacts, particularly in the case of the King demos for example, deserve the same attention to detail as with their comparative non-demo official releases (Browne, 2012).
Nostalgia
When considering the primary aim of remastering is to produce a digital replica of an historic musical artifact that in some way maintains the cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original, nostalgia is another important element to consider. In his study of the impact on nostalgia from the restoration, remastering and colourisation process undertaken in film, Grainge states that there were two forms of nostagia to consider: ‘a nostalgia for authenticity and the value attached to authentic nostagia’ (1999, p. 622). He defines nostalgia for authenticity eminating from when an historic film artefact is challenged by the capacity of technology to reconfigure its cultural meaning and text. Grainge describes value attached to authentic nostalgia as society’s fear that cultural heritage and memory is being challenged through ‘the reign of postmodern simulacra’ where, for example, the binary code of a colourised film
56 stored in a computer challenges the format of traditional film which registers ‘more obviously in cultural memory’ (1999, p. 622). These two forms and considerations of nostalgia appear transferable to the practice of remastering music, replacing the creation of digital representations of iconic and historic film artefacts with musical ones. They reiterate the importance of maintaining a sense of cultural heritage and meaning when creating a digital replica for consumption, but also portray a high cultural value on the original work and maybe is therefore a contributing factor to the commercial strategy behind marketing remastered versions as somehow closer to the original.
Analog nostalgia has long been visible, even measurable, in digital -age popular culture: while sales of CDs have steadily declined since the development of portable MP3 players, sales of vinyl records have experienced a resurgence. Music marketers display an awareness of analog nostalgia in advertising that touts, for example, the absence of digital tools in a record’s production or emphasizes the authenticity of an artist’s sound (Stuhl, 2014, p. 42).
Nostalgia has been defined as a ‘complex emotion that gives rise primarily (albeit not exclusively) to positive affect, and serves to counteract sadness and loneliness’ and is ‘an emotion often triggered by music’ (Barrett, F. S., Grimm, K. J., Robins, R. W., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., & Janata, P, 2010, p. 390). Listening to a piece of music can arouse memories from the past and in particular, certain styles of popular music heard in one’s youth can dictate and influence lifelong preferences in music, fashion and popular culture as depicted by that music genre (Cartwright, Besson & Maubisson, 2013). Therefore, nostalgia is a poweful emotional phenomenum whereby it ‘solidifies and augments identity; regenerates and sustains a sense of meaning; and buttresses and invigorates social connectedness’ (Cartwright et al., 2013, p. 462). In her work regarding the links between nostalgia, identity and commercialism, Wilson argues that nostalgia can be transformed into a cultural commodity depicted by the shared experiences of an age-cohort and hence categorised into a particular market segment (2005). Furthermore, this market segmentation solidifies not only the important links between music, nostalgia and identity, but also creates a derived demand for remastered and rereleased musical products targeted and specific for this
57 group resulting in potentially ‘yesterday’s music’ being exploited commercially by the record companies and artists (2005).
First, consider the consumption of music. The demand-side is influenced by a combination of psychological factors contributing to individuals’ desires to enjoy, reflect on, or even ‘live in’ the past. Under standard assumptions, these factors increase the demand for retro pop-rock. Technology also influences the demand for music to the extent that it contributes to the availability of music impacting costs and changing relative valuations. (Cartwright et al., 2013, p. 460)
This phenomenon of a person’s desire to ‘live in the past’ and to what degree the nostalgic impact from listening to a piece of music impacts an individual is ‘a function of context-level variables (e.g., autobiographical salience of a particular song for a given person), person-level variables (e.g., how prone to nostalgia the listener is) and the interaction between context-level and person-level variables’ (Barrett et al., 2010, p. 390). This longing for an individual to go back in time due to a music-evoked nostalgic response also potentially explains the connection between retro pop-rock music and its consumption using technology from that period, for example, the setup of a 1970s home stereo system today to play vinyl records from that time period (Cartwright et al., 2013). In a further study, music inducing a nostalgic response has also been atributed to the phenomenum of a mid-life crises and a desire to ‘return to a pre-adolescent dream rather than to adolescent rebellion or individuation’ (O’Shea, 2012, p. 204). However, it has also been argued that music-evoked nostalgia can produce either a positive or negative experience and that listening to music one does not like or is unfamiliar with, regardless of the time period, can cause irritation (Barrett et al., 2010).
Nostalgia can also be considered as an important discourse that animates the production and distribution of pop music. Reynolds claims that online music archives are difficult to navigate and contain ‘memory-trash’ (2011, p. 27). This reference to ‘memory-trash’ appears to support a market for digitally produced and distributed remastered recordings based upon the individual’s present position in society and their aspirations (Tannock, 1995). However, it is this ‘engagement with music from
58 the past that can both afford and constrain identity construction’ (van der Hoeven, p. 207). Nostalgia therefore appears to celebrate and defend certain musical tastes for the individual based upon their identity construct at a moment in time, in a way acting as a safeguard against current social change (Street, 2015). The significance of the relationship between indentity construct and nostalgia based upon the production and distribution of remastered music from the past appears to be particularly augmented in the generational identity of the baby boomers (Bennett, 2009) as ‘no era has been packaged and repackaged so much as the 60s has’ (Levine, 2007, p. 8).
Regardless of the impact nostalgia has on an individual through listening to a piece of music, it is important to note that the production of music can also elicit a nostalgic response; something that has been facilitated by the evolution of technology and digital audio tools. Digital tools that enable music practitioners to create new sounds and imitate old ones have been described as perfect for a music industry ensconced in nostalgia (Théberge, 1997). This occurrence has led to what is termed ‘analog fetishism’ – a nostalgia for old sounds found in great iconic recordings demonstrated by an ‘intense attachment to the tools and technologies that produced them’ and where ‘the music is responsible for the propagation of the equipment used to record it’ (Stuhl, 2014, p. 48-51). It could therefore be argued that the nostalgia associated with this phenomenon can potentially be evident for sounds and production techniques used in historical non-released analogue demo recordings. A demo recording by its physical output, whether it is an mp3, WAV file, CD, tape cassette, vinyl or reel-to-reel tape, often sits alongside and is linked to photographs, images, and band biographies, and these documents also represent a moment in time for those involved in the production process. According to Duchan, it is this collection of documentation and sound recordings surrounding the demo recording that suggest that the people who made the recording attribute the greatest value to it and the nostalgic potential for a demo recording is highest for those involved and who have memories of its creation (2013). As he writes;
However, for many groups, musical excellence is not the only objective. Documentation is also important: the more songs that can be included on the album, the more opportunities exist for memorable moments, thus maximizing the record’s nostalgic potential (Duchan, 2013).
59
It is this physicality that can serve as a nostalgic trigger and transform the artists of the demo recording to a place where time has happily stopped based primarily upon ‘the idiosyncratic associations that people have formed between particular songs and events in their past’ (Barrett et al., 2010, p. 401). Self-funded demo recordings created by emerging musical artists are in most cases financially constrained, as the artists involved are not at the same level financially or popularity as well-known commercial artists. This budgetary limitation may result in less time afforded in a recording studio, particularly those that charge an hourly rate for service, resulting in more simultaneous live recording by band members and with less overdubs. Although this may result in some disadvantages (such as the recording of spill between microphones resulting in limitations on the editing and mixing process), the advantages of recording this way often results in a collection of more songs recorded in the allotted studio time. Furthermore, the social camaraderie associated in simultaneous multi- tracking which for fledgling groups who never perform a live gig in front of an audience may be as close to the feeling of a live performance as the group will encounter, is likely to increase the nostalgic potential band members have towards this recording (Duchan, 2013).
Literature review conclusion
The literature review explored and revealed the limited existing research into the fields of both music mastering and remastering (Deruty & Tardieu, 2014; Nardi, 2014; Shelvock, 2012). Furthermore, Deruty and Tardieu recommended that there needs to be a dedicated study into remastering with a particular focus on the practice and criticism of altering the original content of classic tracks through its digital replication (2014). This research was therefore designed to increase scholarly awareness of remastering practice and include considerations associated with the cultural heritage, authenticity and meaning associated with original music artefacts as digital replicas are produced.
Although Barry’s work has provided a useful comparative study of a collection of The Beatles’ iconic analogue remastered rereleases, his research and results were
60 primarily focused on the technical differences in terms of loudness, dynamic range and frequency spectrum based upon measurements with some additional subjective analysis from a listening point of view (2013). There is no input from the artists themselves and little contribution from The Beatles’ mix and mastering engineers as to what artistic, cultural and commercial decisions (if any) were included during the process. O’Malley’s research included a detailed interview with artist and musician Jeff Lynne and although offering insight into the mastering and remastering process from an artistic and production viewpoint, there appeared to be limited critical evaluation around the consideration and impact on any potential sense of cultural heritage and meaning regarding the manipulation of his old released analogue recordings with modern digital technology and tools (2015). As such, this research project is positioned to widen Barry (2013) and O’Malley’s (2015) critical contributions, in order to identify and explore the elements involved in the decision- making process surrounding remastering practice from the perspectives of the artists and the remastering engineers in real time and upon reflection.
The literature review also revealed an evolution in mastering (and remastering) from a purely technical practice to a creative one, due largely in part to changes in technology (Zak, 2001). Digital tools (previously unavailable) now allow the mastering and remastering engineer greater creative control and input over audio elements including sequencing, spacing, fading, equalisation and dynamics. Once restricted for application to commercially released recordings only, primarily through economic, technological and skills-based barriers, digital technology has made the practice of remastering and mastering assessable for ‘lower-end’ or ‘lo-fi’ budget- constrained musicians, producers and aspiring home studio-based mastering and remastering engineers (De Carvalho, 2012). This phenomenon has led to demo recordings being afforded the same mastering or remastering process to improve sonic qualities once restricted to iconic released analogue recordings. Remastering practice and digital technology provide artists and fans the opportunity to improve existing nostalgic demo recordings sonically, whether originally mastered or not, and distribute them online alongside successful commercial artists to a world audience, although there is debate amongst readings on whether listeners’ notice the difference between original and remastered releases. In the following section I incorporate these
61 ideas within a theoretical framework designed to underpin research into remastering practice.
62 Chapter 2 – Theory
Introduction
The literature review in Chapter 1 has revealed some of the ways in which the modern practice of remastering can function as a creative process, in contrast to its more traditional role of audio correction. The review also provided evidence of how mastering and remastering techniques have been applied to both hi-fi studio and lo-fi demo recordings, and how current digital tools and distribution platforms make it possible for home studios and recording enthusiasts to remaster and distribute their recordings internationally quickly and efficiently on modest budgets. This forms a marked contrast to prior models of mastering as an expensive aspect of the production process largely reserved for successful commercial artists signed to major record companies (Morey, 2009). Furthermore, the readings suggested that the themes of cultural heritage, nostalgia and authenticity were key drivers and considerations for musicians, producers and fans during remastering practice. This chapter will explore related theoretical concepts in the areas of creativity, digital convergence, simulacra and nostalgia, authenticity, aesthetics in popular music and fandom, noting how these concepts are relevant in remastering and how they inform the underpinning theoretical framework for my research.
Creativity and its application to audio remastering
Having established that mastering and remastering has evolved from a traditional role of correction into a more creative practice (Nardi, 2014; Rumsey, 2011), it is important to explore how critical theories of creativity have emerged from more straightforward definitions of creativity as ‘the fashioning of something new or novel in contradistinction to the imitation of something old’ (Pope, 2005, p. 38), and ‘a movement from familiarity to strangeness and newness’ (Katz, 2013, p. 479). For example, the creative approach of an individual has been defined by Csikszentmihalyi as either representational or nonrepresentational: representational creativity occurs when the practitioner has clear external references of which to both direct the linear creative practice towards and monitor against and suggests secondary-process cognition, whereas non-representational creativity is non-linear and devoid of external
63 references, and therefore can be more emotional, irrational, improvisational, and driven by primary cognition processes (2015). The practice of remastering might suggest a representational creativity approach where the practitioner(s) reference their work against external existing remastered recordings from other artists of a similar genre and sound for example – as well as between different tracks or songs within the project – to ensure a uniform tone and that an appropriate artefact is produced. The success of the work produced through representational creativity is therefore ‘highly dependent on the artist making such comparisons repeatedly and skillfully’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015, p. 230). It is this repetitive process of reference and adjustment that often defines the representational creativity of the remastering engineer.
Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory proposed that creativity could be detected through the interactions and relationships between three main elements; domain, field and individual (2015). According to Csikszentmihalyi, the domain is a reservoir of instructions, procedures and rules that creativity must operate within; the field comprises of experts who decide on whether creative outputs are worthy to the domain; and the individual who is responsible for making a change within a domain and who seeks approval from the field for inclusion in the domain (2015). Csikszentmihalyi used the art world and industry to help explain the roles of domain, field and individual. He said that art was the domain with different types of art (Pop, Realism etc.) consisting of subdomains with the field being made up of ‘art critics and art historians, the art dealers and art collectors, and the artists themselves’ and that ‘the nature of the creative individual—and therefore the artistic personality–is dependent on the nature of the domain and field in which the individual operates’ (2015, p. 229). The role of the domain and field is therefore arguably of more prominence within the system. In her research into creative theory and practice, Katz defines the three elements of creative activity as comprising the ‘immediate usefulness of a new or refreshed idea or object, the collaborative aspects of its creation, and the role of field experts in how creative products are received’ (2013, p. 482). Katz’s theory suggests a timeframe of ‘immediacy’ for creative activity to occur within a domain consisting of rules, procedures and instruction. This sense of ‘immediacy’ with regards to creative activity appears to be accurate, particularly in the recording studio environment where new ideas and sounds can occur instantly.
64 For example, The Beatles stumbled upon playing a tape backwards in their recording of I’m Only Sleeping through mistakenly inserting the tape incorrectly, and this almost accidental form of creative activity was adopted immediately in the recording (MacFarlane, 2013). However, although creative decisions regarding adjusting parameters including equalisation, compression and volume are made fairly quickly and instantaneously, it is debatable whether these manipulations could be considered new or refreshed ideas as they appear to follow a general formulaic process (Katz, 2007).
McIntyre, Fulton and Paton define the field in Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory as ‘the social structure of the system and is composed of all individuals who possess domain knowledge, who recognize the value of the individual’s contribution’ and it is was the field that judged the appropriateness and value of the individual’s contribution before access to the domain was granted (2016, pp. 29 – 30). In remastering practice the field comprises the remastering engineers themselves, music critics, music historians, music production companies and audiophiles. The field therefore can have a significant impact on a domain’s credibility dependent upon its barriers to entry. Research suggests if there is wide acceptance of every creative activity by a field, or conversely, if creative contributions are rejected too readily based upon innovation or controversy, then this can damage a domain’s credibility (McIntyre et al., p. 2016). It is important at this stage to differentiate between field and audience in Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory. Unlike the field, the audience ‘is identified as the receiver of a created product, process or idea’ and ‘when an individual produces something, it is presented to an audience for social validation’ (McIntyre et al., 2016, p. 37). Therefore, within the nuances of Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory it could be suggested that the remastering engineer not only presents an innovation for entry into the domain but also an output for validation by the much larger in size audience and end user of the creative product. For example, the loudness wars suggest an innovation to mastering and remastering primarily concerned with ‘hypercompression,’ the reduction of dynamic range and increased overall loudness on the CD format that was presented to the field for entry into the domain. Additionally, the physical CD recordings resulting from this initial phenomenon, UK bands Oasis and Blur for example, were also distributed to the audience for social validation, acceptance and approval (Hjortkjaer & Walther-
65 Hansen, 2014; Nielsen & Lund, 1999; Vickers, 2010; Walsh, Stein, & Jot, 2011). It could therefore be argued that the creative variation in remastering practice presented to the field for consideration for domain entry, and this resultant variation in the form of a CD musical artefact presented to the audience for social validation and approval, are intrinsically linked. From there, if we were to use active listening analysis as the primary measurement and determinant for acceptance for both the field and the audience, it could be considered that the distinction in creative offering between field and audience becomes blurred. This blur in creative offering to both field and audience is further muddied by the combination of the terms ‘artistic’ and ‘creative’ which are often used interchangeably (McIntyre, 2012).
The role of the individual in Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory has been defined as ‘the producer of a variation within the systems model’ (McIntyre et al., 2016, pp. 29 - 30). The producer can either work solely or in collaboration with others to create these variations (Katz, 2013). Furthermore, the individual has been described as ‘like a blank screen on which social consensus projects exceptional qualities’ and that due to a societal need for and belief in the creative individual, ‘we endow some individuals with this illusory quality’ (McIntyre et al., 2016, p. 34). Whether an individual is deemed creative or not, the specific individual artistic and personality traits of the producer(s) and their chances of success in a given industry are heavily dependent upon the characteristics of the traits of the domain and field. Additionally, for an individual to participate in the domain it has been identified that they must also possess a certain level of cultural capital (training, experience, industry jargon and language) acquired from the domain and social capital in which their background and ability to work with others comes into play (McIntyre et al., 2016). In his research into art as representative of his systems model theory, Csikszentmihalyi concluded that what is fashionable at the time in the world of art will advantage some personality traits and disadvantage others (2015). As he writes;
A person who becomes a painter in a period when Abstract Expressionism is the reigning style will be more likely to be recognized if he or she possesses the emotional, imaginative, and introverted qualities that are well-suited for the creation of abstract, expressionistic art. Likewise, in a period when Photo Realism is in vogue, a cool, rational, and outward-oriented person will be
66 more likely to make a contribution to the domain. Given the constantly evolving nature of both the domain of art and the field of art, the idea of the artistic personality as a timeless, constitutional personality type is therefore an improbable proposition. (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015, pp. 235-236)
If we relate this theory to remastering practice one could possibly draw similar conclusions. The initial remastering of analogue recordings for the new (at the time) CD format involved a basic transfer of the original master tape that was mastered for vinyl reproduction onto the CD. Manipulation by the remastering engineer was therefore minimal (Katz, 2007). Personality traits well suited for this basic transfer may therefore include compliance and one happy to follow procedure without questioning. Conversely, personality traits of the remastering engineer during the loudness wars era, a more aggressive approach to remastering, might imply personal characteristics of antagonistic, innovative and one comfortable in questioning the actions of others (Deruty &Tardieu, 2014; Nielson & Lundt, 1999; Vickers, 2010). This appears consistent with the view that ‘technological advances within the domain raise problems for individuals to solve and provide opportunities for creativity (McIntyre et al., 2016, p. 40).
In their research into the creative system in action, McIntyre, Fulton and Paton describe the domain as the cultural component of the system as it contains symbolic rules, procedures and bodies of work and knowledge to reference, and that the individual needs to operate within these areas to produce variance (2016). Furthermore they suggest that the clarity of these rules and procedures, the accessibility of the domain and the logic of the subject matter could significantly impact the creative activity of the individual (McIntyre et al., 2016). As evidenced previously in the literature review, there appears to be a lack of scholarly material surrounding not only mastering but also remastering (Deruty & Tardieu, 2014; Nardi, 2014; Shelvock, 2012). The identification of creative activity within this domain therefore may be made more difficult due to this apparent deficiency of scholarly knowledge and reference materials both available and accessible. Furthermore, the artistic and subjective nature of remastering practice as opposed to more quantifiable and logical areas of study with well-defined rules, mathematics and science for example, makes it potentially more difficult to identify and attribute creativity within
67 it (McIntyre et al., 2016). However, in their study relating Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory to the practice of mastering, McIntyre and Paton confirm there was evidence of predominantly industry and professional knowledge concerning rules, instructions and procedures within the domain, citing written works by Katz for example, and the transferred knowledge from veteran and well-respected Australian mastering engineer Don Bartley (2015). In the context of remastering practice in Australia, the inherent specialist information owned by industry stalwarts Bartley and revered Australian mastering engineer Rick O’Neil potentially presents a theoretical threat that as members of a small field of vastly experienced practitioners they may act too quickly to dismiss new innovative ideas from individuals deemed with less experience thus keeping these contributions from entering the domain. In their defense, their combined acquired specialist knowledge and experience within this field make them useful gatekeepers in adjudging what is and is not creatively appropriate.
These individuals, groups and organizations act to stimulate or filter innovation according to an (often internalized) set of criteria for judging what is good or bad, valuable or useless, acceptable or unacceptable, new or old. (McIntyre et al., 2016, p. 36)
In their research into the application of Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory to mastering, McIntyre and Paton conclude that the production of music artefacts as a result of the technology used within a studio environment has an inherent collective and collaborative character (2015). To be successful in any form of collaboration a prudent factor is the ability to communicate and share ideas. Given the associated industry jargon used within a recording and mastering studio environment this however can be particularly challenging as there is a need for the remastering engineer to ‘convert their understanding of the frequency spectrum, and the larger audio world they work in for that matter, into the studio language used by a variety of creative individuals involved in the collaboration’ (McIntyre et al., 2015, pp. 69-70). As my research includes collaboration between myself (producer) and O’Neil (remastering engineer), there was a threat that given O’Neil’s much greater social and cultural capital with regards to remastering practice as opposed to myself that he might simply implement successful but static techniques inherent from his 30-year
68 professional career and elevated industry status. A static approach does not however necessarily lead to creative activity.
Respect for the past is not sufficient to provide an ethos conducive to creativity. In fact, by itself an excessive concern for past accomplishments might breed excellent performance, but it is unlikely to lead to novelty, let alone striking originality. (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015, p. 285)
There is also an interpretation on creative theory that the ‘self-actualising individual is creative’ and can include individuals not normally accepted as creative, and creative activity is achieved by anyone ‘who fulfills his or her potential, who expresses an inner drive or capacity, (and) who strikes out into unknown psychological territory’ (Evans & Deehan 1998, p. 37). Although it may be argued that the role of producer is less critical to the process of physically producing an output than that of remastering engineer with their subsequent skills and equipment, if the producer is self-actualising then accordingly the input they provide during production may also be perceived as creative. However, the input supplied must be of merit because ‘if an artist creates artwork that does not fulfill the needs of the field, that artist will be dismissed or ignored’ by the domain and field, and in terms of remastering practice, this rejection would come from the remastering engineer (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015, p. 233). The inherent acquired knowledge of remastering practice possessed by Bartley and O’Neil through 30 years of professional work, combined with limited scholarly research into the practice suggests entry to the domain for aspiring practitioners may be challenging. It is therefore the combination of available scholarly work and my collaboration with O’Neil that I aim to present new scholarly knowledge on remastering practice.
Digital convergence
The production and distribution of a remastered digital musical artifact in a number of digital formats for consumption by listeners is a common occurrence. Consumers are able to purchase, download or illegally acquire remastered and new music in various digital formats online. Additionally, technological change and the evolution of digital
69 tools has enabled unsigned artists, minus the budgetary and distribution support of a major record company, to produce and distribute digital music artefacts cheaply and efficiently converging alongside commercial and successful signed artists (Morey, 2009; Théberge, 1997; Stuhl, 2014). For example, the costs associated with recording a song for a demo range from free if you have your own $400 Pro Tools rig at home, a few thousand dollars for a project studio and $10 to $20,000 for a big studio (Camp, 2018). Digital technology therefore in essence has allowed ‘what was ephemeral, transient, unmappable, and invisible to became permanent, mappable, and viewable’ (Manovich, 2009, p. 324). However, the cultural products distributed to the masses generally tends to be of ‘low culture, that is, the products of film, television and popular music’ and targeted towards the working class ‘because high culture was absent from their cultural intake’ (McIntyre, 2012, p. 61). The digitally remastered demo recording of popular music from an unsigned and little known artist can therefore potentially be made available alongside successful signed commercial artists on an international scale. In his work, Jenkins referred to this as participatory culture (2014). As he writes;
The new participatory culture is taking shape at the intersection between three trends: (1) new tools and technologies enable consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content (2) a range of subcultures promote Do-It-Yourself (DIY) media production, a discourse that shapes how consumers have deployed those technologies (3) economic trends favoring the horizontally integrated media conglomerates encourage the flow of images, ideas, and narratives across multiple media channels and demand more active modes of spectatorship (Jenkins, 2014, p. 269).
For Jenkins, the new digital tools, DIY approach by traditional consumers to produce their own media and the horizontal business media landscape that allows distribution and active spectatorship, is a result from the push by critical and cultural theorists in the twentieth century ‘to expand opportunities for grassroots participation in the core decisions shaping cultural production and circulation’ (2014, p. 268). Manovich describes digital convergence as a shift from the pattern of simple consumption of
70 cultural products by subjects of the twentieth century into ‘twenty- first century prosumers and pro-ams who are passionately imitating it. That is, they now make their own cultural products that follow the templates established by the professionals and/or rely on professional content’ (2009, pp. 321-322). We therefore have a modern cultural production and consumption process made possible by digital technology whereby participatory artists that may imitate instructions and rules from the domain but may not have access to the field within Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model, are able to create and present and distribute music artefacts to the masses (2015). The diminished role of the field, the filter that decides what creative element is deemed suitable for entry to the domain, would therefore suggest that the quality of creative activity offerings might not be a critical factor. However, an assumption that cultural product created by unknown artists is poorer in quality and design than their established commercially successful artist’s adversaries’ cultural offerings, due to the removal of the field, is contentious. As Jenkins writes;
Most of what the amateurs create is gosh-awful bad, yet a thriving culture needs spaces where people can do bad art, get feedback, and get better. After all, much of what circulates through mass media is also bad by almost any criteria, but the expectations of professional polish make it a less hospitable environment for newcomers to learn and grow. Some of what amateurs create will be surprisingly good, and the best artists will be recruited into commercial entertainment or the art world. Much of it will be good enough to engage the interest of some modest public, to inspire someone else to create, to provide new content which, when polished through many hands, may turn into something more valuable down the line. That’s the way the folk process works and grassroots convergence represents the folk process accelerated and expanded for the digital age. (Jenkins, 2006, p. 136)
Digital convergence is therefore not just centred upon distribution to the masses on an international scale; it also encourages participation and cultural production in the creative arts by amateurs to not only improve their craft but also produce imitation cultural products of their commercially successful idols, where the difference in quality is diminishing. Jenkins paid particular attention to amateur filmmakers and how they can now produce ‘commercial quality’ content on significantly smaller
71 budgets and are able to duplicate and include special video effects that would have been prohibitive cost wise and technologically in the not too distant past (2006, p. 144). This is also true in music production where digital technology has made it possible to remaster and archive cheaply made demo recordings from a bygone era on home computer software that again would have been prohibitive economically and technically not so long ago.
In fact, in all media where the technologies of production are democratized (video, music, animation, graphic design, and so on), I have come across many projects that not only rival those produced by most well-known commercial companies and most well-known artists but also often explore areas not yet touched by those with lots of symbolic capital (Manovich, 2009, p. 330).
It is therefore fairly straightforward to understand the potential benefits of digital convergence for amateur and/or aspiring musical artists wanting to produce potentially quality cultural products and distribute these to the masses, particularly as it is now a relatively cheap and efficient process compared with a decade or so earlier. However, what are initially unclear are the potential ramifications digital convergence has on the established professional artist. Manovich researched the contemporary art market and discovered that the increased availability of digital art available for consumption, produced by both amateur and professional artists, had transformed it into a mass culture equal in popularity to other mass media and a ‘legitimate investment category, and, with all the money invested in it, it is unlikely that this market will ever collapse’ (2009, p. 329). This would suggest that the democratisation of media production and access would lead to an overall increase in the production and consumption of cultural goods. This is also representative of a change in the traditional makeup of experts in the field, as defined by Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model, to include audience and end users in determining the cultural value or creative products and methods and their subsequent entry into the domain. Therefore, within a world of digital convergence where the Web becomes the field in Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model; a forum is created where amateur artists can experiment and test new cultural methods and products and that ‘the most commercially viable of those practices are then absorbed into the mainstream media...in return, the mainstream media materials may provide inspiration for subsequent amateur efforts, which push
72 popular culture in new directions’ (Jenkins, 2006, p. 148). It could therefore be argued that Csikszentmihalyi’s depiction of the audience as solely a receiver of cultural products can be challenged as they possess the ability to alter and modify these offerings and in turn resubmit these to the field (Web) for consideration (2015).
Simulacra and nostalgia
In essence the remastering of music involves producing a replica of an existing musical artifact. Often this involves digitally replicating an analogue product, most likely as a result of attempting to make the digital replica appear more ‘modern’ in sound (louder and with greater bass for example), to digitally remove unwanted noise (static, hiss and crackle) associated with original version or to digitally archive and protect the performance recorded from tape degradation. Remastering therefore can be seen as a process that replaces the real music artifact, the original master tape for example, with a replica. Over time as this process is repeated and technology changes it becomes possible that future incarnations of a musical artifact will be created from an existing replica as opposed to the original music artifact due to improvements, particularly in terms of unwanted noise, as well as being readily available in a more compliant digital format. This process is consistent with Baudrillard’s theory of simulacra and simulation, in which he proposes that ‘simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum’ and that ‘simulation threatens the difference between true and false, between real and imaginary’ (1983, pp. 4-5). Therefore, according to Baudrillard, the digitally remastered musical product in itself is a simulacrum, a digital representation of the real and through the process of remastering and repetition of the original, the real music artifact becomes ever difficult to identify, and indeed that ‘what society seeks through production, and overproduction, is the restoration of the real which escapes it’ (1983, p. 44). Ashe states ‘this would be the successive phases of the image: it is the reflection of a basic reality; it masks and perverts a basic reality; it masks the absence of a basic reality; it bears no relation to any reality whatever; it is its own pure simulacrum’ (1983, p. 11). In musical terms, Moore describes repetition as the most important musical feature in that it allows subtle variations to exist and proceed (2017). This theory of repetition and the creation of digital replicas is exemplified by Vickers’ research into the
73 remastering of Swedish artists ABBA where he stated that although the intent and marketing of each sequential remastered release from the group suggests that the digital replicas were of a superior quality as compared to the original, with respect to dynamic range each reincarnation is actually further way from the original or real version (2010). Furthermore, it can be contended that ‘digital recording technology does not render a more faithful reproduction of the original sound that it has recorded than analogue technology’ given that digital is predominantly a binary code which is a digital approximation of the sound source as opposed to analogue which is a mechanical one (Hainge, 2005, p. 7). It is this mechanical analogue workflow and technology that contributed to the rock aesthetic and ‘sound’ of the vinyl record (Gracyk, 1996). Therefore, the concept of remastering these ‘noisy’ recordings to the CD format with options to reduce noise, increase the sound level and enhance fidelity, in essence remove/manipulate part of its original rock aesthetic, could be considered an artificial representation. Baudrillard suggests the production of a replicated product to sit alongside the original one could produce an overall sense of artificiality that would impact not only the replica but the original as well (1983). As he writes;
It is this way, under the pretext of saving the original, that the caves of Lascaux have been forbidden to visitors and an exact replica constructed 500 metres away, so that everyone can see them (you glance through a peephole at the real grotto and then visit the reconstituted whole). It is possible that the very memory of the original caves will fade in the mind of future generations, but from now on there is no longer any difference: the duplication is sufficient to render both artificial (Baudrillard, 1983, p. 18)
It is arguable then that digitally remastering music for mainly preservation methods in order to protect the original master tapes may indeed render them both as artificial over time as the difference between real and replica diminishes to a point where the audience loses the ability to distinguish between the two. Furthermore, Baudrillard suggests that digital technology; in particular the ‘code’, controls and promotes simulation and that in fact it ‘haunts all the messages, all the signs of our societies’ (1983, p. 115). Additionally, in his research on the reproduction of sound, Evens stated that the replica is not about fidelity but is in fact more concerned with capturing expression (2005). As he writes;
74
One climbs a mountain listening to Beethoven in one’s living room, one is drunk to the point of sickness with Nick Cave. Though there are no sore legs or nasty mess to clean up afterward, these events are real, if implicated. We hear them in the music, differently each time. The idea is to climb a new mountain, to find a new intoxication. The reproduction of sound is not a matter of physics but of affect and percept. Expression exceeds fidelity, so hold on to your LPs (Evens, 2005, pp. 23-24).
Evens’ depiction of the listener’s simulacra of a physical sensation through enjoyment of the music, minus the inherent aftermath resulting from the physical sensation, makes the listening experience no less real for the listener. It is therefore the combination of digital convergence and the diminishing distance between reality and the imaginary with respect to digital cultural products and methods that promotes ‘representation as itself a simulacrum’ and that the simulation process becomes one of ‘hyperrealism’ (Baudrillard, 1983, p. 11). In his research regarding the relationship between American Blues music and simulacrum and simulation theory, Meuller explores Baudrillard’s belief based upon the fashion cycle that ‘nothing newly created has an intense immediacy because it imagines a second life in the future’ and identified the people responsible for Blues music origins were perhaps ‘too absorbed in the present to be overly concerned with the future’ (2016, p. 87). This is an interesting concept when positioned within the realms of remastering practice as by definition the process involves creating a current digital replica from an original musical artifact, in a sense creating a ‘second life in the future’ through duplication. As such, the regular reincarnation and re-releases of remastered musical artefacts may in fact diminish any sense of intense immediacy for the end user, as they envisage a further reincarnation in the not-too-distant future based upon the regular cycle of recreations presented in the past. Often original recordings occurred within a time and place where technology of the day may have made it difficult for those involved to predict the production of future digital reincarnations in line with the fashion cycle. Through its function of producing and creating digital musical replicas of artefacts in a timely manner based predominantly upon consumption format changes and other economic and market factors, digital remastering practice can therefore be viewed in relationship with Baudrillard’s fashion cycle theory.
75
The inherent processes of reproduction and duplication that surround digital remastering practice can make it difficult, particularly overtime for an audience to distinguish between the original recording and its digital replica. This is exemplified further when digital replicas are produced from previous reincarnations as opposed to the real or original master tapes. According to Baudrillard, nostalgia assumes its real meaning when the real is difficult to identify and ‘no longer what it used to be’ (1983, p. 12). Baudrillard cites the American theme park Disneyland as a prime example of his concept, describing it as an artificial ‘infantile world’ designed to make individuals believe that ‘the adults are elsewhere in the real world, and to conceal the fact that real childishness is everywhere, particularly amongst those adults who go there to act the child in order to foster illusions as to their real childishness’ (1983, p. 12). This example represents an artificial environment for adults to recreate a sense of nostalgia for their own childhood through simulation and simulacra. Furthermore, Hainge states ‘that a nostalgic recreation of any past event or era can only ever be a simulacrum’ and that nostalgia was ‘itself only ever a simulacrum, a repetition of what was to be avoided in the nostalgic move and that the nostalgic subject thus freely deceives himself’ (2005, p. 3). A modern mastering studio implies an artificial world unrestrained by the passage of time where one’s recordings from 20-50 years earlier can sound ‘modern’ and ‘fresh’ through using digital tools to remove inherent noise and tape degradation as well as being played back on professional equipment in an acoustically treated space. This artificial environment therefore conceals the noise of these original recordings as evident in the ‘real world’ when they are played on home- based antiquated listening devices away from the studio. Consequently, nostalgic reflection regarding the emotions and physicality of the original recording session produced in the past, and the perception on how well it sounded, is based upon the simulacra that the professional mastering studio provides. The nostalgic reflections experienced in this scenario would most likely be of a ‘positive’ nature and is therefore consistent with Baudrillard’s depiction – as described by Meuller within the perspective of American Blues music – that ‘negatives do not exist and are not permitted in the age of simulations…as all things negative acquire a positive charge by becoming media spectacles or commodities’ (2016, p. 93). In the practice of remastering, the original recording is manipulated to produce a cultural commodity, a piece of personal heritage to sound modern and adhere to media quality and
76 distribution formats and codecs. Remastered older recordings are therefore cleaned up ‘positively’ to be more competitive when compared sonically to newer recordings, particularly for playback on modern devices.
Within his theory of simulacra and simulation Baudrillard identifies society’s ‘mourning for the real’ and that it was ‘by an artificial revitalisation that we try to escape it’ (1983, p. 46). It therefore appears that the process of repetition, simulation and simulacra makes it challenging for society to identify what is real and that the implementation of this same process is used to produce further replications to help society alleviate its mourning for the real. In Hainge’s research into nostalgia he defines the process employed by some music practitioners to purposely put noise inherent from analogue recordings (hiss, hum, crackle) in music recordings that have either been cleaned up using digital tools or never existed (2005). Hainge describes the phenomenon as a ‘nostalgic move that signals a desire to return to a time when the world was less virtual, more concrete and real’ (2005, p. 7). Hainge’s use of the term ‘real’ and a desire to return to this moment in time in the realms of music production appears consistent with Baudrillard’s depiction of society mourning for the real (1983). This is also evident in Redhead’s research into nostalgia where he suggests that ‘anguish about the present moment often leads to a nostalgic return to a perceived past real which no longer seems possible and the digitally superimposed vinyl hiss of a contemporary recording as signifiers of a past, more physical and material era’ (2008, p. 14). As Link reveals in his research ‘we now have some very high-tech means to achieve lo-fi ends’ (2001, p. 35). But according to Hainge, it is not only the physicality of the noise being played back to the listener, whether original or superimposed that can develop a nostalgic experience; it is also the inherent noise we as a society almost automatically instill on any nostalgic reflection (2005). As he writes;
… when nostalgically recalling our pre-digital past, we often infect it with (simulacral) noise, deliberately disrupting the faithful transmission of our past knowledge into the present – and whilst our examples have concentrated on literal manifestations of noise, a similarly disruptive implicated noise might be said to be present in all nostalgic acts (Hainge, 2005, p. 8).
77 The physical component of use and routine around playback and listening to music appear to also offer a sense of reality for the cultural product and an associated sense of nostalgia. In their study into the evolution from music CDs to digital files, Blanc and Huault identify that the playing and listening of music CDs are ‘strongly associated with routines and their substitution is accompanied with a form of memory of use’ (2014, p. 20). Therefore this sense of memory of use, the removal of the physical cultural product (vinyl record, tape cassette, CD etc.) from its container, viewing the artwork and reading the liner notes for example, may also contribute to nostalgia and a desire to return to a time, place and ‘reality’ of that operation as opposed to the current playback of digital files. However, Hainge argues that nostalgia could be transformed into a premonition for the future, as ‘present-day technologies that seem so clean and disembodied will one day appear as noisy and rooted in material reality as do yesteryear’s technologies’ (2005, p. 9). Therefore, what was perceived as a nostalgic reflection of inherent noise and a vehicle to escape the loss of reality becomes in essence a simulacra from which to base inherent noise of future products as formats of operation and technology change (Baudrillard, 1983).
This concept of simulation from Baudrillard seems very useful as remastering and will occur in the case studies. By the same token, the simulacra of remasters cannot be understood at Baudrillard’s symbolic level alone; it is also constructed within specific social settings by real actors, functioning in both symbolic/theoretical and material/social ways. This thesis at various times moves between this continuum.
Authenticity, aesthetics in popular music, fandom and insider research
Baudrillard’s theory on simulation and simulacra – particularly the idea that the reproduction of a cultural product can make the original or ‘real’ version challenging to identify – can also be related to the concept of authenticity (1983). In his research into the relationship between art and mechanical reproduction, Benjamin concludes that authenticity only becomes initially comprehensible against the backdrop of constant reproduction (1969). It therefore appears that the system of reproduction illuminates the perception of authenticity associated with the original cultural product. What is unclear is if the perception of authenticity made visible through replication is
78 associated with a physical object, the artist responsible for its creation or the audience’s reception of the performance. It is perhaps this lack of clarity surrounding whom or what is being authenticated that led Albrecht to describe the notion of authenticity as ‘a term that haunts nearly all of the scholarship in popular music studies’ (2007, p. 317). In Straub’s study of paradoxes of authenticity she states that ‘Western culture produces specialists who can formulate clear criteria for the authenticity of documents, works of art and other objects; the authenticity of individual people, however, poses quite different problems’ (2014, p. 43). It therefore seems that there is a greater challenge with authenticating the individual as opposed to the object. However, Auslander investigated the blurred relationship between the live music performance (whom) and its music recording (what) and concludes that technology changes have led to live performance deriving its authority from reference to the music recording, and consequently the music recording deriving its authority from reference to the live performance (1999). This notion suggests that identifying the perception of authenticity within music entails both the individual and object, as opposed to being exclusive, as they appear to be codependent upon each other.
Authenticity for the individual has been defined as ‘life in which the deepest and most significant motifs that resonate within us find expression’ and ‘a kind of ought’ which binds all of us (Ferrara, 1997, p. 79). Hardt defines it as ‘making one's existence one's own, separated from others, instead of surrendering to those powers or interests that manage everyday life, is the key to authenticity (1993, p. 50). Furthermore, Ferrara associates authenticity with ‘something to be attained in opposition to the demands of society and of culture’ and this suggests an anti-social rebellious approach (1997, p. 82), something that can perhaps be related to Baudrillard’s idea that one can ‘prove art by anti-art’ (1983, p. 36). In this definition, authenticity is therefore understood as being ‘true’ to one’s internal thoughts and expressing these ideas; in a sense, being ‘real’ as a shared goal or expectation that is removed or disassociated from the social, political and economic forces of society. Larmore offers a critique of Ferrara’s absolute approach to authenticity (2004). As he writes;
Ferrara thinks of authenticity as an all-encompassing ideal that ought to structure our life as a whole. Here too we differ. I consider it but one value among others, and as such it is a value we may sometimes have reason not to
79 pursue. Often things go better if we do not aim to ‘be ourselves’. Certain strands of our identity, however deep they may run, can be perfectly dreadful. Moreover, what we become by patterning ourselves on others, and not by remaining true to who we are, makes us many times better persons, even though we may be able to appreciate it only after the fact (Larmore, 2004, p. 8)
Larmore suggests a less absolute approach to defining authenticity based primarily upon the complexities and makeup of the inner self in contrast to Ferrara’s notation regarding authenticity and anti-social behavior. Hardt proposes that another influence on the ability for one to express the true authentic self, apart from the inner battle between good and evil, is the result of technological change and digital convergence theory (1993). As he writes;
In fact, the dilemma of the media is that the progress of communication technologies cannot solve basic human problems, but tends to solidify the ambiguity of chatter and curiosity, and therefore, entrench media controlled forms of social and political authority. The obvious result is further alienation of the individual. At the same time, a call for authentic discourse, that is, for the pursuit of a personal search for truth, remains but a lofty goal in the face of declining intellectual engagement and increasing cultural or political constraints. (Hardt, 1993, p. 51)
While digital convergence has in a sense increased the opportunity for individuals to express their authentic selves to a mass audience, it can be argued that the requirement of the individual to conform to a set of social norms and rules in order to participate online, results in a homogenised approach and therefore potentially further away from the true authentic self. In relation to remastering practice it could therefore be contended that digital convergence theory can impact the perceived authenticity of a cultural product offering from an identity (individual or band) if in some way that identity has felt compelled to follow the imposed set of norms and rules to gain social acceptance. For example, removing or reducing noise perceived as authentic to the original recording during remastering practice to improve playback on modern devices as prescribed by the set of rules and norms imposed by audience and the field
80 (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015). Similar to the notion that inherent noise associated with older recordings can be a factor in evoking nostalgic reflection, Link suggests that although noise was an unnecessary byproduct of recording at the time and in fact a “destroyer” of the performance, it was a significant element of perceived authenticity (2001). As he writes:
For through noise, the very destroyer of objective accuracy, the signal becomes authenticated through its embodiment of time’s passage. Withdrawal into the past perforce makes it real. A recording therefore becomes evocative and believable to the listener almost regardless of how well it conveys the actual details of an event. Apart from either its accuracy or vividness, then, a signal can be taken as authentic for a very simple reason. It was. As heard through noise, recordings isolate and contain their own authenticity that does not require verification from another source (Link, 2001, p. 39).
Link therefore suggests it is the inherent noise that has accumulated over time from the original recording, regardless of analogue format, that authenticates it and makes it real. Additionally, Link reveals that listeners of analogue recordings ‘learned to hear through noise’ as it was predictable, familiar and easy to ignore (Link, 2001, p. 36). In Gracyk’s study into the aesthetics of rock music he states that as rock music originated on vinyl record, all elements associated with this format including inherent noise, timbre, audio levels and distortion form part of the rock aesthetic of rock recordings (1996). He argues that this was in contrast to jazz music which - although existent on recordings - did not originate in that medium in the same manner (1996). It is difficult to argue and examine concepts in absolute terms or to simply suggest that the original recording is solely responsible for the output of the musical artefact or that the performance or song contributes most to the recording. The ways we engage with music in the varying roles of producer, performer, songwriter and listener would suggest it is more complex.
However, if we view inherent noise associated with recordings as central to authenticating a time and place, it is in a sense removing realness and a familiarity from the recording, and according to Baudrillard, when ‘the real is no longer what it used to be’ this leads to the full meaning of nostalgia (1983, p. 12). In this context
81 there is a suggestion of a correlation between authenticity and nostalgia. For example, the greater the sense of inherent authenticity lost through ‘noise’ removed during the remastering process will potentially render the product for the listener as less real. This may therefore result in a fuller perception of nostalgia from the listener towards the original musical artifact. Baudrillard defines the real as ‘that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction’ and that ‘the real is not only what can be reproduced, but that which is always already reproduced’ (1983, pp. 146-147). In reference to the art world Baudrillard saw that art was everywhere as it is essential to reality, but that it was also dead as reality is confused with its own image (1983). If we relate this theory to remastering practice, it arguably renders both the real and duplicate versions as artificial for future generations, and as a result the notion and importance of authenticity appears to diminish.
The concept of authenticity is also relevant when applied to research methodologies with Larsen and Zubernis describing research that emphasises the fan knowledge of the researcher as being ‘authentic’ (2012). Hills portrays this approach as ‘scholarly fandom’ which consists of researchers who are ‘self-identifying fans who are also professional academics’ and ‘versed in media studies who tactically appropriate academic sources and terminology as a way of articulating their fandom. (2004, p. 141). Regarding participation within digital convergence theory, the scholar-fan is therefore able to study and incorporate the contribution of fandom communities as they navigate changes incurred through digital media alongside academic norms and practices (Jenkins, 2014). The scholar-fan is therefore not only able to access fan communities with a predisposition to theorise their own practice and academic resources online but also potentially gain access to the origin or idol of the fandom phenomenon through online ‘collective intelligence gathering’ (Hills, 2015, pp. 360- 361). Cheung and Yue list modern idols as consisting of celebrities, luminaries, role models and pop stars and suggest idol worship ‘serves to compensate for the worshipper’s missing qualities and resources… and may function as compensation for deficits in psychosocial development, cognitive development, inadequacy in attachment, companionship, social networking, and romantic relationships, and other weaknesses’ (2012, p. 36). Therefore, worship towards a pop group for example, can be quite a significant emotional and mental attachment for the scholar-fan and this display of public expression could be perceived as authentic as the scholar-fan is
82 being true to one’s identity (Ferrara, 1997). From this position it can be argued that with such a fierce attachment to the idol, the scholar-fan’s ability to remain balanced in terms of scholarly investigation can be challenged. In their study on fandom theory, Larsen and Zubernis describe the value of the scholar-fan in determining and sustaining an appropriate emotional distance from the subject in order to remain objective (2012). As they write;
This style of argument hinges on scholar-fandom allegedly being too close to its objects of study. That is, a supposed lack of symbolic, epistemological, and emotional distance is crucial to how scholar-fandom is devalued. At the same time, as I have noted, symbolic closeness/ distance is also vital to discursive mantras which defend scholar-fandom, since these revolve around scholar- fans sharing passion/knowledge with fan cultures (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012, p. 15).
The implementation of a practiced reflexivity method whereby the researcher incessantly examines and reflects upon the questions designed to produce responses from the case study participants (Hamdan, 2009) and critically evaluates this qualitative methodological approach can also assist the scholar-fan sustain an appropriate emotional distance from the subject in the areas of popular music (Bennett, 2001). The fan element within the scholar-fan can therefore provide a ‘detailed awareness of production contexts as well as expansive knowledge of the narrative universe’ (Hills, 2015, p. 361). It is this in-depth pre-existing fan knowledge of a band’s recordings that allows the researcher and scholar to explore and detail remastering practice in a potentially more expansive manner. It is perhaps worthwhile noting that non-scholarly fans ‘also theorise their practices so as to monitor, and maintain, their valued cultural distinction(s) from non-fans (Hills, 2004, p. 141). Of course the practice of remastering implies manipulating a recording that originally occurred earlier, decades in some instances, through the creation of a digital replica from a music artifact. A consideration for the scholar-fan therefore is that the original cultural product that drew fascination and was the catalyst for fandom and worship is potentially being destroyed and will in time cease to exist (Baudrillard, 1983). From here, the scholar-fan becomes, in a sense, a willing participant in the original musical artefact’s destruction through research, investigation and the
83 implementation of remastering practice. Additionally, the participatory element of digital convergence theory suggests that this destruction is actually encouraged and endorsed by fan communities through their purchases, consumption, distribution and demand for remastered versions (either CDs or digital files) and the manipulations (mashups for example) produced by the fans themselves (Jenkins, 2014; Manovich, 2009). As a participant in the demise of the original musical artifact this therefore could question the closeness and balance required for a successful scholar-fan study in terms of distance to the object of study and fandom, if in fact the object’s sense of authenticity and perception of realness diminishes or is destroyed over time, as theorised by Baudrillard (1983). Larsen and Zubernis describe how the necessary distance is a moral judgement, and in light of the potential demise of the original cultural artifact through both the practice of remastering and its academic investigation, this concern with the principles of right and wrong behavior appear an appropriate action (2012).
Another theoretical element to consider alongside fandom is the concept of insider research. Kirpitchenko and Voloder define insider researchers of possessing an ‘intrinsic and tacit knowledge about a particular group’ and that the knowledge gained from insider researchers is different to that obtained through ‘outsider’ research (2014, p. 1). Furthermore, although insider research is considered to be ‘commonplace across the humanities’, it also ‘reshapes the researcher’s role in and experiences of her own culture and those within it’ (Taylor, 2011, p.1). Similar to the aca-fan or scholar fan, it is the requirement of the inside researcher to balance both roles (researcher and developer) to reflect on their position and seek to maintain the legitimacy of their actions (Hanson, 2013). Additionally, ethical dilemmas that need to be addressed for the inside researcher include gaining notified permission and agreement from case study participants, the ability to create a balanced account through the merging of the roles (researcher and participant) and the potential for conflicts among stakeholders within the community of interest and academia (Humphrey, 2012).
84 Theory conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to explore the theoretical concepts in the areas of creativity, digital convergence, simulacra and nostalgia, authenticity and fandom, and how these concepts relate to the practice of audio remastering. In Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory, remastering practice can be viewed as interactions and relationships between the domain (existing rules and procedures); the individual (practitioners of remastering who put forward creative activity offerings) and the field (experts who accept or deny offerings entry to the domain) (2015). Remastering is therefore a collaborative representational creative process where decisions are made based upon these relationships and the personality traits of the engineers. However, Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model in its purest form has been challenged through the onset of digital convergence. Digital technology has made possible a new DIY participatory fan culture whereby amateurs can not only produce musical recordings and remasters similar in quality to the successful commercial artists offerings they may aspire to, but also distribute to the masses online alongside their idols (Jenkins, 2004; Manovich, 2009). Therefore, the role of Csikszentmihalyi’s field – where experts determine what musical product or workflow will gain access to the domain – appears to be undermined as the audience and fans gain greater control of production, consumption and distribution. Digital technology has also simplified the process of duplication from a musical artifact and overtime it is possible that digital replicas will be created from previous reincarnations as opposed to the original master tape. Therefore, according to Baudrillard, the digitally remastered musical product in itself is a simulacrum, a digital representation of the real and through the process of remastering and repetition of the original, the real music artifact becomes ever difficult to identify or is deemed artificial (1983). Furthermore, Baudrillard states that it is this mourning for the real that allows nostalgia to assume its full meaning (1983). This apparent mourning is evident in remastering practice in the ways that some remastering engineers purposely retain or add noise (hiss, hum, crackle) associated with analogue recordings in music recordings using digital tools even though they have the option to remove it (Hainge, 2005). In this way remastering evokes nostalgic reflections on a pre-digital past through the maintenance or addition of simulacral noise.
85 The theory of authenticity was also discussed, in particular the challenge of associating the perception of authenticity made visible through replication with a physical object, the artist responsible for its creation or the audience’s reception of the performance (Benjamin, 1969). Technological change seems to have promoted the notion of a fluctuation between authenticity for a live performance being derived from reference to the recording and vice versa (Auslander, 1999). Furthermore, digital convergence and technology has appeared to alienate the individual and the authentic self from online discussion and the distribution of cultural offerings due to the obligation to follow social norms and rules. The concept of authenticity within research was also examined, in particular the role of the scholar-fan and how the inclusion and expression of fandom can lead to a more authentic study. Fandom for a subject often compensates for missing qualities within the worshipper and the public expression of one’s fandom may be considered as being authentic and true to one self (Cheung & Yue, 2012). The ability of the scholar-fan to participate online and study fandom communities alongside academia through digital convergence can also produce what Jenkins described as more ‘authentic’ research (2014). However, in order to satisfy academic conventions and rigueur of research it is advisable for the scholar fan to implement a balanced and appropriate distance with the object of study. In the next chapter I position the theoretical elements that underpin my research within a methodological framework designed to conceptualise and defend my research question.
86 Chapter 3 – Methodology
Introduction
This project combines elements of music production and artistic inquiry with the study of the cultural and social impact of remastering practice positioned within the context of the Australian contemporary music industry. The ontological premise on which the research is based is constructivist in that it is designed to explore what is out there as a participant and observer (Gray & Malins, 2004). Additionally, it is designed to ‘benefit from knowing about and engaging with’ experts in the field (Smith & Dean, 2009, p. 5). Furthermore, this approach allows me to draw upon human experience and interaction as a means for knowledge acquisition (Ansari, Ansari & Jaffri, 2014). A constructivist ontological position was chosen as opposed to a positivist empirical methodology primarily due to my existing position as a music professional and fan and therefore the capacity for the ‘mind not to start as a blank sheet’ nor to ‘put all prior assumptions aside… and simply receive stimuli through my senses in all its complexity but, using the brain's innate capacities, instantly order it, categorise it, and try to make sense of it in relation to other experience’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 164). As a participant and observer, my epistemological position is one of a generator of research material, a self-observer through reflection on action and an observer of others for placing research into context (Gray & Malins, 2004). This methodology will help position the research into context through observation and relationships formed with professional practitioners within their natural environments and help the researcher explore the cultural, artistic and technical practices and impacts of audio remastering. As described by Draper, the project will therefore implement a mixed methodologies approach comprising ‘phenomenology…action research, and autoethnographies to meaningfully triangulate the practices behind the music’ (2013, para. 24).
In this type of research, Knowles and Cole encourage an ‘epistemological process of artistic knowing and inquiry’ and established a ‘relatively simple and consistent methodology for artistic inquiry…which lends itself to reporting outcomes’ as the creative process would ‘inevitably present variability and depth’ (2008, p. 35). Clear
87 and concise reporting outcomes are critical ‘since artistic expression is essentially heuristic, introspective, and deeply personal’ and there also needs to be a focus on ‘how the work can be of use to others and how it connects to practices in the discipline’ to protect against self-indulgence, a threat to artistic-based research (Knowles & Cole, 2008, p. 29). In an effort to make this research of use for others, it was designed to provide information regarding the workflow of remastering as a performative (Haseman, 2006) research component that hopefully will encourage learners to ‘perform and exhibit their artistic work…so, they may set about creating an artefact of their own and reflect on the over-all artistic and research process that go into its making’ (Ansari et al., 2014, p. 153).
Methods and project design
In order to explore the remastering process used for iconic released analogue recordings and applying this procedure to non-released demo recordings, this research implemented three key stages of the research process as described by Gray and Malins (2004). The first stage was to implement case study methods designed to collect and analyse qualitative data from Sunnyboys in the form of semi-structured interviews (face-to-face, email, phone) through participation and observation in the field, as well as undertake a comparative audio data analysis (dynamic range, spectral distribution and volume/amplitude for all case study recordings) using a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. The second stage involved applying the data analysis and results acquired during stage one to a selection of old analogue demo recordings through a creative practice approach. The third and final stage was to present my findings in a useful and assessable way through the compilation of a written thesis with accompanying music recordings available online for comparison. The three stages identified are detailed as follows:
Step 1: Case study methods
A case study is best used when trying to determine a decision making process and the factors which influence this process within the context they occur (Baxter & Jack, 2008). As I am primarily attempting to explore the decision-making process regarding
88 remastering and any effect this may have on social and cultural practice in music, as opposed to proving a hypothesis, this involves observing participants and conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews to encourage the respondents to react ‘freely’ to the questions giving their valuable input and descriptions (Martin, 2014). Two case studies featuring four different bands with accompanying sets of recordings were researched in order to accommodate a multiple-case study approach to be able to compare differences between them and within cases (Baxter & Jack, 2008). I used the multiple case study approach to achieve a greater perspective on the remastering process as opposed to implementing a singular case study. I chose these bands as I am a fan of their music and therefore possessed a solid pre-existing knowledge of the musical elements evident in their respective recordings. Although this knowledge assisted me to engage with the research in greater detail and more quickly as opposed to researching artists or genres I knew little about, I had to approach my role with great caution so as to extract and analyse data in a way that responded to the research question in a useful, critical and nuanced manner. In the next section I discuss data sampling techniques used to ensure a valid outcome without bias.
Data sampling
The purpose of this research is to reveal and illuminate social and cultural practice in music as a result of remastering iconic released analogue recordings and applying this process to non-released demo recordings. Consequently I chose to data sample from Sydney-based bands Sunnyboys, Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf as I had access to these artefacts and they represented the ‘best sources that bear most directly on the topic’ and as the ‘most likely to possess an insider's knowledge of the research domain’ (Thomas, 1993, p. 36). Data sources and sampling have been described as including ‘a person, a group, documents, or any other artifact that embodies cultural meanings’ and that ‘not all data are of equal quality or value’ (Thomas, 1993, p. 38). Consequently, I chose to employ Rick O’Neil, the remastering engineer responsible for the 2014 remastered Sunnyboys CD to undertake the remastering engineer responsibilities for Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf. It was envisaged that this approach of remastering all case study bands within the same controlled mastering
89 studio environment would produce data that allows for and encourages real world, consistent and comparable artistic inquiry.
As this project is of a comparable nature with the intention of generating sample data to illuminate cultural and social elements as well as seek differences and similarities in approach to remastering practice across commercially released analogue studio recordings and non-released analogue demo recordings, I chose to generate data through implementing purposive sampling where the ‘sample is chosen for a purpose, in order to access people, times, and settings that are representative of given criteria’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 196). All of the bands recordings used in this project possessed similarities and were therefore arguably representative of a given criteria in that they all incorporated an analogue recording workflow using tape; were recorded across a comparable time period in Sydney; arguably sit within the same genre and were all accessible and willing participants in the study (Hicks, 2009). Remastering engineer O’Neil also offered valuable mentoring in my role as participant researcher, a role which has been described as ‘a valuable way to learn and gain experience in recording; in other words, to work with professionals and observe what they do’ (De Carvhalo, 2012). Although the selection of my case study participants may initially appear constrained by strict criteria with respect to location, time period, and musical genre, it is imagined that the design and methods of this research may potentially be applied to a wider musical group, particularly with respect to genre as it ‘is not unusual that an ethnographer is overtly researching one group or sample as a case that is illustrative of something broader and many ethnographers do want their research to have wider relevance’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 194-195).
The consistencies and quality of results achieved through adopting a purposive data sampling method to generate data within the same controlled mastering studio environment across all original recordings using the one mastering engineer helps to dismiss possible detractions and inconsistencies from the data generated. For example, inconsistencies would potentially occur and distort the data if a different studio environment with alternate equipment and a different engineer were used. Furthermore the use and input of only one mastering engineer was critical in allowing a thorough understanding and deep reading of remastering practice that allows exploration not possible through more than one source. This methodological design
90 was therefore critical in ensuring the data and source material was of a consistent nature, able to be compared fairly and achieve a valid result.
Interviewing, infield participation and data collection
Ethnographic and autoethnographic interview method has been defined as ‘an in- depth conversation that takes place within the context of reciprocal relationships’ and that ‘ethnography consists of talking and listening and asking questions as much as it does participating and observing’ to allow ‘participants to focus on intimate details, to remember historical events, and to discuss things that would not be discussed in normal circumstances’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 125). The importance in this approach for my project is to establish a reciprocal and productive relationship with all case study participants so that interviews, participation and interaction could exist. This requires initially contacting all participants through various means (telephone, email, social media, texting, messaging, face-to-face and online) to gauge their interest and suitability in participating in the research project and building a relationship from there with positive, respectful and dignified communications moving forward.
I chose to adopt an interactionist interview method as I aim to use confessional type statements in combination with other methods (comparative digital audio analysis, literature review, participant observation) to provide a nuanced approached response to my research question, as opposed to a positivist approach where interview data is deemed as the one truth (Alasuutari, 1995). I also decided to employ a semi-structured interview method. This method contains elements of both structured (a rigid set of predetermined and fixed questions with little scope for flexibility) and unstructured (free flowing with a list of themes to explore as opposed to questions) interview techniques and was deemed the most appropriate to implement as some questions demanded fixed responses; some themes needed to be explored and it also allows space to include my own perspective (Kvale, 1996; O’Reilly, 2009). This approach permits flexibility in an attempt to generate useful data and responses, for example, to focus more on a structured format for email correspondence when discussing technical elements, and to be more free flowing in field when eliciting responses about creative and artistic decision making. It also allows me to add my own
91 perspective on the process as both artist and researcher when revealing the social and cultural practice of audio remastering.
An ethnographer is usually attempting to learn about participants from their own perspective, to hermeneutically understand the other's view, and this will not be achieved by imposing one's own line of questioning on people. An ethnographic interview is usually informal and relaxed; they take time, and are usually enjoyable for all parties (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 126).
There is a view that with regards to infield participation ‘there may not always be a clear distinction between doing participant observation and conducting an interview’ and that the autoethnographer and ethnographer ‘must be more than merely a biographer or diarist, as another key aim of this type of research is to identify and comprehend some of the recurrent patterns and relationships that emerge from the web of specific events (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 17). During my research I experienced this phenomenon on several occasions, particularly with regards to observing and interviewing O’Neil’s approach to remastering practice in his controlled mastering studio environment. What would begin as a series of questions or an explored theme would often result in a practical demonstration and observation as opposed or in addition to textual or spoken responses. This allowed me to draw upon my own audio production experience to interpret the complex relationships within the remastering workflow. In addition, as a participant and not just observer in my role as the producer of the Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf remasters, I was able to fully immerse myself in the phenomenon I was trying to interpret and understand (Denzin, 1989). There is an opinion that ‘ethnographers are more likely to participate than observe because their aim is to understand something from being inside it rather than trying to look in from the outside’ as well as to objectively and in a detached way, collect data (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 155). I was able to permanently ‘step inside and outside the cave’ as described by Fassin, and therefore credit O’Neil for his understanding of the situation he experienced as well as distance myself to objectively account for what was not disclosed (2013, p.123).
During fieldwork we participate and observe, we note conversations we have both engaged in and overheard; we record (in writing, on tape, or even in
92 photograph and video, see fieldnotes) activities, events, stories, formulae; we collect news articles or anything of interest that tells us more about our topic; and we conduct interviews for subsequent transcription. This is done reflexively (reflexivity), with a research puzzle guiding us, and with constant reflection on what we are seeing and hearing (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 14-15).
Schuz refers to this method as making the strange familiar and the familiar strange (1971). The collection and analysis of ethnographic data ‘begins as early as the first set of fieldnotes’ and ‘good fieldnotes can illuminate the interconnected process of observation, data collection, theorising, and analysis’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 75). I created and maintained an electronic reflective journal to document, collect and store data and field notes as well as to reflect on learned practice. Building on Gray and Malins critical assessment of a learning journal as potentially ‘an unwieldy research document’ I divided it into separate sections to include recorded audio interviews, a collection of remastered recordings with detailed notes describing each process involved with each recording, graphs and visual representations of data analysis of recordings (psychoacoustics and spectral measures), transcripts of interviews, email responses, digitised versions of handwritten notes captured in the field, feedback received from industry experts and project supervisors and my own reflections on learning (2008, p. 152). I also used the reflective journal to allow me to take stock, evaluate, deposit and off-load ideas so as to continue the project cycle unburdened and be ready for new experiences (Gray & Malins, 2004). This approach allowed me to ‘be alert for informant answers that are contradictory’ as these ‘anomalies often lead to surprising information, and one of the greatest skills of an ethnographic interviewer is the ability to be prepared to identify and pursue follow-up questions’ (Thomas, 1993, p. 38-39). By implementing the use of an organised and detailed reflective journal I was able to engage quickly with the data collected and produce follow up questions and implement further participation and observation in areas not immediately identified as critical to the research.
We take the collection of observations, anecdotes, impressions, documents, and other symbolic representations of the culture we studied that seem depressingly mundane and common, and we reframe them into something new (Thomas, 1993, p. 41-42).
93
Although the process of reflection on practice is important in examining how as researchers we interpret the complex relationships within a phenomenon and as a means to produce new knowledge, there is an opinion that proposes ‘it is not merely the application of reflection to practice to achieve an aim or end-product –but the quality of the data that is collected to achieve it’ (McIntosh, 2010, p. 34). In his work, Thomas lends support to this view claiming that ‘we must not look at the actual collection of data as something neutral or as something that cannot be changed’ and that ‘the collection of data may be the one area where flexibility is the most crucial, because our study can be no better than the data we collect’ (1993, p. 40). Therefore, to produce a comprehensive and useful study on audio remastering practice, the means and methods I implemented to collect and interpret data from the field was critical to ensure quality data was retrieved.
Digital audio analysis
To explore remastering practice further I chose to generate and analyse quantitative data in the form of digital audio music files. This allowed me to not only compare the remastered and original music recordings against each other to identify any differences and consistencies, but also to examine if there was any correlation between the perceived sonic qualities provided qualitatively by the case study participants and the statistical impression of the quantitative data.
Although qualitative and quantitative research are distinct, qualitative researchers often turn to analytical methods which are intrinsically quantitative at some stage of the process. (Smith & Dean, 2009, p. 4)
The method I adopted closely followed the data analysis techniques Barry (2013) used to compare The Beatles re-releases as well as the analysis of recordings undertaken by O’Malley (2015). The methods used are outlined below with greater detail of the overall process described in the relevant case study sections. The first step in the process involved O’Neil creating digital 16bit/44.1kHz WAV file versions of the analogue recordings. These digital specifications were chosen for analysis as
94 they are the industry standard used for CD music recordings and are directly comparable (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015). To create a digital copy of the 1981 vinyl LP Sunnyboys O’Neil played the album on an AVID turntable with the signal encoded into digital using a WEISS analogue to digital (A/D) convertor and imported into Pro Tools via the AVID HD I/O 8X8X8 analogue and digital audio interface with 10dB of gain added to make it digitally comparable to the CD versions. To transfer the cassette recordings of Jumble Sale and The Lyres, O’Neil played the cassettes through a Nakamichi DM-R cassette deck and then this signal was sent through an analogue Neve 1073 line input preamplifier unit where around 10dB of gain was added. The signal was then encoded into digital into Pro Tools via a Digidesign (AVID) 192 8X8X8 audio interface. The digitisation of the DAT recording of Ben’s Calf followed a similar path to that of the cassette transfer process except the cassette deck was substituted with a Sony PCM 2600 DAT player. The next stage involved O’Neil remastering these digitised copies of Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf having previously remastered Sunnyboys resulting in the following collection of digital files for analysis:
Band Transferred Format Remastered Format Remastered Format
Sunnyboys 1981 original vinyl 1991 CD remastered 2014 CD remastered release as release as release as 16bit/44.1kHz 16bit/44.1kHz 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate sampling rate sampling rate WAV file(s) WAV file(s) WAV file(s)
Jumble Sale 1986 Cassette Tape 2016 CD remastered recordings as as 16bit/44.1kHz 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate sampling rate WAV file(s) WAV file(s) Ben’s Calf 1995 DAT demo 2016 CD remastered recording as as 16bit/44.1kHz 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate sampling rate WAV file(s) WAV file(s) The Lyres 1988 and 1989 2016 CD remastered Cassette Tapes as 16bit/44.1kHz recordings as sampling rate 16bit/44.1kHz WAV file(s) sampling rate WAV file(s) Table 1 - Digitised and remastered file types
95 The next step was to analyse the data for per each bands’ set of recordings. For example, the original Ben’s Calf 1995 DAT demo recording could be analysed against the Ben’s Calf 2016 CD remaster as they were both now in the same digital WAV file format and therefore comparable. Similar to Barry’s study, the digital analysis focussed on a comparison of loudness signal and shape through the graphical representation of the visual waveforms within the Pro Tools environment (2013). Additionally, true peak levels (all peaks measured regardless of the duration of the peak) were attained through inputting each digital audio file into the TT Dynamic Range Offline Meter 1.1 digital audio plug in from Pleasurize Music Foundation. According to the TT Dynamic Range Manuel Version1_2, ‘the peak value is the highest measured peak value in decibels full scale (dBFS), and as this is a true peak measurement, values above 0dBFS are shown as overs’ and represent digital distortion’.
To compare an average level of loudness between original and remastered versions, I again used the TT Dynamic Range Offline Meter 1.1 digital audio plug in to gather root means squared (RMS) values. RMS value is the standard average value in dBFS measured over the entire recording and is used primarily to display the ‘average’ level of loudness overall and therefore has lower level values than the peak measurement. RMS metering is useful for indicating if two or more songs are approximately the same loudness level (Owsinski, 2008). I also attained a dynamic range (DR) score from the TT Dynamic Range Offline Meter 1.1 digital audio plug in to help compare differences in dynamic range between original and remastered recordings. The TT Dynamic Range Manuel Version1_2 version describes the DR score as follows:
In order to determine the official DR value, a song or entire album (16 bit, 44.1 kHz wave format) is scanned. A histogram (loudness distribution diagram) is created with a resolution of 0.01dB. The RMS level – an established loudness measurement standard – is determined by gathering approximately 10,000 pieces of loudness information within a time span of 3 seconds (dB/RMS). From this result, only the loudest 20% is used for determining the average loudness of the loud passages. At the same time, the loudest or ‘true’ peak level is determined. The DR Value is the difference
96 between the peak and the top 20 average RMS measurements (top 20 RMS minus Peak = DR).
Similar to the analysis undertaken by O’Malley (2015), I used the Voxengo SPAN Plus Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) audio spectrum analyser plug in within the Pro Tools environment to attain a visual representation of signal level across the frequency spectrum. I used the Real Time Average (RT AVG) measurement type as a means to produce averaged spectrum representations. I set up each consolidated WAV file on a separate track within Pro Tools and inserted the Voxengo SPAN Plus plug in on each channel. I then created an Auxiliary track with the Voxengo SPAN Plus plug in and routed the tracks through the Voxengo SPAN Plus routing network so that I could measure visually the separate versions against each other in the one image. It is important to note that these images only provide a brief snapshot in time on the various frequency/volume levels across all of the releases although it is still useful as a frequency plot for comparison.
This audio analysis method adopted was significant and useful as it provided statistical and visual technical audio representations of the differences and consistencies between original and remastered recordings. It also provided statistical evidence and data to either support or question the sonic differences between the original and remastered version as perceived and described by the case study participants. The resulting comparisons are discussed in detail in the respective case study section for each band.
Step 2: Creative practice
The importance of immersing oneself into the practical application of research in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the artistic process, as opposed to other methods, has been described by Knowles and Cole as the result of primarily feeling ‘uncomfortable in using others to advance my ideas and methods’ and that practice- based research and ‘firsthand empirical experimentation offered a practical resolution to these ethical concerns’ resulting in a heuristic, empirical and artistic outcome focused on the artistic process (2008, p. 30-31). Apart from the ethical concerns
97 mentioned this approach which has also been defined as a critical performance pedagogy is used where there is a ‘commitment to participation and performance with, not for, community members’ and ‘through performance and participation, the scholar develops a participatory mode of consciousness understanding’ (Denzin, 2003, p. 133). This greater level of understanding of audio mastering practice is achieved through my direct participation and reflection of the process and also occurs when the ‘practitioner researchers investigating their own practice…utilizing a research process relying on data creation as opposed to the data collection’ (Ansari et al., 2014, p. 149). Additionally, there is a view that the evolution in digital music recording technologies has increased the options available for the researcher to participate in the creative process, which is what occurred in this project (Marontate, 2005).
It is through this perspective that I examined audio remastering practice as applied to the music of Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf in the role of ‘artist’, similar to the role of Peter Oxley as ‘artist’ for the Sunnyboys remasters. As the band’s songwriter, lead vocalist and guitarist I was in a position to provide input from a music practitioner’s perspective during the remastering sessions of Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf culminating in new versions of existing recordings; digital replicas of analogue musical artefacts. For the remastering sessions of The Lyres I participated in the research in the role of ‘producer’, similar to the role of Tim Pittman for the Sunnyboys remasters, as both a fan of the band and someone seeking to do justice to the original recordings again creating new digital works from analogue musical artefacts.
There is confusion in the scholarly world surrounding defining the producer’s role in that it has been described as potentially the same thing as an ‘arranger, cowriter, industry interface, mix engineer liaison, mentor and more’ and therefore ‘the idea of a record producer is a slippery one’ (Draper, 2013, para. 1). Additionally, Stuhl claims that there exist ‘uncertainties not only over the definitions of production and its modified forms but also over the fundamental nature of production as a reductive versus additive project’ (2014, p. 49-50). In an attempt to perhaps ease confusion with the definition, Howlett states ‘at its simplest, the producer’s task is to produce a satisfactory outcome’ and whether this satisfactory outcome is secured through either reductive or additive elements in this project was explored from a producer artistic
98 researcher perspective (2012, p. 190). Additionally, Draper claims that there is usefulness in artistic research for the researcher to assume the role of producer (2013). As he writes;
For the record producer as artistic researcher this promises useful ways in which to consider studio practice by acknowledging and examining exactly where these conceptual shifts occur en route to overall aims. For example, a project may have had earlier well-conceived methods for achieving its goals, but along the way some elements were rejected while other new techniques may have been ‘discovered’, investigated further, practiced, then to be intellectually discarded but artistically applied and retained as new improvisational skills (Draper, 2013, para. 20).
The phenomenon of discovering new approaches and techniques to remastering practice during participation in the process in the role of producer as artistic researcher did occur regularly, in particular elements surrounding data collection and generation within the workflow of audio remastering. For example, shifting between collecting field notes through video recording and audio dictation recording as required, allowed for the workflow and the decision making communications between the producer and remastering engineer to operate smoothly as a process and also gain and collect valuable insights along the way.
Step 3: Presentation of findings
I implemented an artistic pluralist approach and a responsive methodology that was driven by the requirements of creative practice to deliver a combination of qualitative (semi structured face-to-interviews, email responses), quantitative (numerical and statistical data) and performative (music recordings) outputs to produce performance outcomes in the form of a written thesis and music recording examples (Gray & Malins, 2004). There is a view that ‘if we are able to capture the complex meanings of experience and illuminate the values of a program through artistic expression, it makes sense to also communicate that understanding to others creatively and through artistic forms’ (Simons & McCormack, 2007, p. 305-306). In order to capture the
99 complex social and cultural practice of audio remastering therefore required not only a musical presentation in the form of audio music recordings of the songs captured as digital transfers and then transformed into remasters, but also the combination of both the qualitative and quantitative data generated to examine if the perceived sonic changes between original and remastered versions as experienced by the case study participants were consistent with what the statistical data represented.
Ethnographic research is iterative-inductive. It moves back and forth continually between data collection, analysis, reading, thinking, and writing. Writing up starts as soon as you collect and make sense of data in the field. Writing up polished pieces for presentation to others collates these emergent insights into a coherent story (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 227).
Thomas states that ‘ethnographic researchers are active creators rather than passive recorders of narratives or events’ (1993, p. 44). As an active creator, the writing and presentation style I adopted was chosen with the audience in mind (O’Reilly, 2009). I wrote up the research for presentation reflexively with due care and consideration and followed a methodology Harland describes as ‘the analytical process is recursive and it typically moves between the data, published articles, the researcher’s developing ideas and then back to the data’ (2014, p. 1117). Fassin depicts ethnography ‘as its etymology suggests, is writing’ and that the writing is used ‘to apprehend the life of others and make sense of their ideas and actions’ (2013, p. 122). Additionally, Harland measures quality case studies not only on importance but also on the writing of them to be ‘well-structured and clearly written if it is to be read in the first place’ (2014, p. 1120). I attempted to ‘make personal experience meaningful and cultural experience engaging’ through writing ‘descriptions of personal and interpersonal experience’ to reach a wider audience that traditional research can sometimes disregard (Ellis, Adams & Bochner, 2011, para. 14). Therefore, the style and structure of the writing was critical to the research and I aimed to adopt a style that would make the research accessible and useful to others.
This combination of statistical data and qualitative analysis was critical in forming a greater understanding of the social and cultural practice of audio mastering as opposed to simply using either a statistical or qualitative comparison, as it provided
100 greater depth and resulted in a coherent story for presentation. Exhibiting the music recording components of the research was also an important consideration regarding access and relevance, and it was therefore decided to make a sample of the recordings available on online (see Appendix A for a link to these recordings). As the recordings form part of the research itself they are to be conveyed symbolically as opposed to solely words and numbers (Haseman, 2006).
Case study methodology
This project employs the use of case studies to predominantly provide new knowledge that is of use to others. Case study research is different to experimental research as it attempts to ‘construct cases out of naturally occurring social situations’ and can consist of ‘a person, a group, an event, an institution, or even a process’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p 24-25). The essence of case study methodology has been described as ‘triangulation, the combination on different levels of techniques, methods, strategies, or theories’ in order to ‘illuminate a case from different angles’ (Johnson, 2007, p. 54). In his work, Denzin extends triangulation to include data sources, investigators and theories alongside data collection methods (1978). The triangulation strategy associated with case study methodology suggests a methodology that offers flexibility in data collection methods and the use of multiple data sources that ‘naturally encourages good practices of in-depth analysis and triangulation for the purposes either of verifying findings or providing richer detail about the case’ (Pearson, Albon & Hubball, 2015, p. 3). This flexible approach in data collection, usually consisting of ‘context-specific interviews, document analysis, and observations’ combined with the potential for providing rich detail is ideally suited to identifying and examining the social and cultural impact of remastering practice (Pearson et al., 2015, p. 3). There is a view that this type of strategy of investigating remastering practice ‘in its natural context with a multitude of methods’ and to ‘address a problem or an intervention of interest to the researcher’s professional practice’ will not only benefit the researcher but ‘when new learning and knowledge are applied to practice, it can have utility for others’ (Harland, 2014, p. 1114). It is this desire to create utility for others and draw out rich detail surrounding remastering practice through triangulation that this project implemented a case study methodology.
101
As opposed to a singular case study methodology, this project adopted a collective case study type approach whereby to attain a general understanding of the phenomenon; two or more representative cases are selected for their ability to contribute (Stake, 1995). This collective case study approach is combined with the exploratory case study type where the aim is to inform subsequent research through a pilot study (Yin, 2014). Although the case study type of this research may be more closely suited to Yin’s descriptive case study model that promotes a detailed contextualized description of a phenomenon, one of the main aims of this research product is to provide a solid foundation for subsequent research into remastering practice (2014). The case study participants were ‘purposefully selected cases in virtue of being, for instance, information-rich, critical, revelatory, unique, or extreme’ in an attempt to produce research and outcomes of use to others (Johansson, 2007, p. 51-51). As ‘it is characteristic of case study methodology that the boundaries, and often even the focus of the case, change through the research process’, the case study participants were also chosen on their adaptability to change (Johansson, 2007, p. 50).
Case study, like all research, has to fulfill its purposes and these need to be worked out by the researcher as a guide to aligning the research process with outcomes…case research should be educative and how well it facilitates learning depends on the quality of the work and how it influences change for the better. In case study, the unexpected should emerge and when it does, there is potential to make a useful contribution to knowledge, theory and practice. A successful study will explain what the reader or listener needs to consider before they contemplate change and it will be seen as critical in the sense that it avoids being dogmatic in its examination of the case and theory (Harland, 2014, p. 1120 – 1121).
Critics of case study methodology suggest case studies are too ‘specific to the circumstances of individual practice and, therefore, limited in what it can offer theory’ and as most case studies take a qualitative approach, ‘there is none of the certainty that the technical-rational view of knowledge seems to bring nor the elegance and simplicity of the scientific method’ (Harland, 2014, p. 1115). There is also an argument that ‘a causal explanation in a single case must be based upon a
102 theory structured in terms of what comprises a critical realist causal explanation’, highlighting the need to make methods explicit, an evolutionary shift from the first generation of case study research to the second generation (Tsang, 2013, p. 198). For a case study to be of quality it therefore requires imagination and creativity to engage the reader as closely as possible to the experience with the researcher requiring qualities including ‘persistence, a skeptical temper of mind sustained by critical principles, and a doubt not only about the received and comfortable answers, but also about one’s own hypotheses’, which in itself is a challenge (Harland, 2014, p. 1120- 1121). There is also the concern for the welfare of the case participants themselves as ‘it is essential that participants are treated with respect, dignity, and care throughout’ (Pearson et al., 2015, p. 3). To ensure that the case study participants involved in this project were treated with respect, dignity and care they participated in research in environments they felt comfortable in (mastering studio, office, home), were given opportunity to review interview transcripts and their input during interviews, and were observed in action within timeframes dictated by them. Additionally, I followed and adhered to the ethical protocols governing the QUT Code of Conduct at all times.
Creative practice
Creative practice research stems from a philosophical basis that is ‘mainly phenomenological and hermeneutic in the sense that it aims to examine creative practice as a phenomenon construed by the research participants’ (Ansari et al., 2014, p. 143). It is designed to ‘bring into conscious awareness that which we already in a sense know, and that which resides in our background understanding’ so that these subjective experiences can be scrutinized through reflexivity (McLaughlin, 2009, p. 117). Furthermore, it has also been described as ‘the systematic use of the artistic process, the actual making of artistic expressions in all of the different forms of the arts’ as a means to understand and examine the ‘experience by both researchers and the people that they involve in their studies’ (Knowles & Cole, 2008, p. 29). The creation of knowledge, as described by Smith and Dean, is reliant upon the interdependence of the creative practice, the creative product and the creative process (2009). Additionally, this approach to research should be treated ‘not monolithically, but as an activity’ which may consist of ‘basic research carried out independent of creative work; research conducted in the process of shaping an artwork; or research
103 which is the documentation, theorization and contextualization of an artwork – and the process of making it – by its creator’ (Smith and Dean, 2009, p. 47). This collection of definitions for creative practice appear consistent with the notion that all research into the creative industries contains some element of creative practice (at least at some level) and that there is a reliance on a creative artifact as the central theme and core to form the basis of new knowledge and contribution.
Role of the creative artefact
For the creative artefact to be considered a valid form of research there is a belief that the knowledge acquired during the research and creation of the artefact must be transferable to other contexts (Smith & Dean, 2009). Simons and McCormack cites the role of ‘artistic knowing in evaluation’ leading to ‘opportunities for evaluators to express their creativity’, further evidence of the importance of creative practice research outcomes containing an ability to transfer knowledge (2007, p. 308). If the new knowledge attained is required to be transferred to other contexts there is the issue of using an adequate language and expression of meaning. In her study into creative methodology, Bacon cites and describes Corbin’s ‘imaginal’ reality (an intermediary between the sensible and intelligible world) as consisting of an ‘order of reality that is ontologically no less real than physical reality’ and a place where ‘creative processes and methodologies live and prosper’ (2010. p. 63-64). Additionally, Bacon suggests that this imaginal reality provides a valid platform where creative practice researchers can contribute to knowledge through the medium of ‘voices and beings brought into the sensible world of academia, professional arts and also our personal lives’ (2010, p. 63-64).
The music artefacts used in the case studies in this research project comprise a collection of physical analogue and digital products. The Sunnyboys’ case study artefacts included ¼ inch reel-to-reel tape, vinyl record, CD and digital WAV file formats, while the combined demo recording case study consisted of cassette tapes, a DAT, CDs and digital WAV files. O’Neil physically remastered the original existing music artefacts (reel-to-reel tape, cassette tape, vinyl record and DAT) into new music artefacts (WAV files and CDs). Blanc and Huault define artefacts as an ‘object that
104 has been intentionally made or produced for a certain purpose’ that is also representative of ‘culture, values and symbols’ (2014, p. 10-11). In this research, the musical artefacts employed, both original and their digital replica counterparts, are used to elicit information and data from the case study participants regarding themes focused on nostalgia, authenticity, cultural heritage, technology and musicality. Specific bands and their artefacts were chosen to showcase and account for a similar cultural male gender specific representation of “Guitar-Pop” in Sydney in the 1980s. In particular, the demo recordings were selected based upon their rarity, personal nature (in that they are not distributed), genre and my pre-existing knowledge of their musical elements. They are also used to undertake digital audio analysis to compare directly against listener sonic perceptions across both original and new music artefacts, and therefore able to carry ‘design relevant knowledge that extends knowledge that can be transferred verbally’ (Hengeveld, Frens & Deckers, 2016, p. 324). In their study, Ansari, Ansari and Jaffri state the potential of the music artefact to ‘not only guide the research process but in fact become the research outcomes, themselves’ (Ansari et al., 2014, p. 154).
The research will include both the existing and newly produced remastered musical artefacts in combination with generated communications to ‘result in research insights, such as those arising out of making a creative work and/or in the documentation and theorization of that work’ and that these outcomes include ‘not only the artwork but also the surrounding theorization and documentation’ (Smith & Dean, 2009, p. 3-5). Ansari, Ansari and Jaffri suggest the combination and relationship of creative practice and reflective research skills lead to a ‘reliable and valid replicability of findings, which can be utilized by other artists researching their specific domain’ (2014, p.146). This is consistent to the approach taken by Simons and McCormack who state that ‘if we are able to capture the complex meanings of experience and illuminate the values of a program through artistic expression, it makes sense to also communicate that understanding to others creatively and through artistic forms’ (2007, p. 305 -306). This approach has been referred to as performative research with an aim to ‘contribute knowledge within the creative practice as textual and performative outcomes’ and is a standard form of presentation for the creative practice researcher (Ansari et al., 2014, p. 151). This research will therefore produce performative outcomes in the form of digitised analogue recordings and remastered
105 works in combination with documentation to deliver new knowledge in an accessible and appropriate format. This research project is therefore designed to express new knowledge gained through practice, research and reflection through a variety of formats including written documentation, music recordings and technical graphical representations of digital audio analysis including a ‘range of exemplars to analyse well known (music) recordings’, a critical component for evaluation validity and scrutiny (Draper, 2013, para. 9).
Role of the remastering engineer
Australian music industry veteran Rick O’Neil was chosen to undertake all of the ‘hands-on’ remastering for the demo recordings by Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf at his Sydney-based Turtlerock Mastering studio. O’Neil is well qualified for this role, and similar to Don Bartley, his ‘deep immersion in the domain of mastering can be seen in his career path’ (McIntyre & Paton, 2015, p. 73). As he writes;
In a career getting on 25 years long, Rick has worked on over 10,000 major release records that have sold tens of millions worldwide. His credit list reads like a who's who of the Australian and international music scenes. While working for Festival, he worked face to face with the international hit acts of the eighties and mid-nineties such as U2, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Sting, Huey Lewis, Tina Turner and nearly all of the Australian music industry. Since Turtlerock's inception, Rick has worked face to face with Madonna, Celine Dion, Bryan Adams, Pearl Jam, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi and Kylie Minogue, Powderfinger, Silverchair, The Whitlams, You Am I, Alex Lloyd, Delta Goodrem, Kasey Chambers and all of the major Australian labels (O’Neil, 2016, para. 3-4).
As the remastering engineer responsible for the Sunnyboys 2014 CD release, this positions the research to explore deeply not only O’Neil’s workflow and approach to remastering practice in general, but as he applied it specifically to Sunnyboys and subsequently to the demo recordings of Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf. Therefore there is an inherent consistency across both case studies through working
106 with the same well qualified and industry respected remastering engineer on the same equipment within the same environment.
Role of the producer
My role as producer in the creation of the new remastered music artefacts may potentially jeopardise my project’s compliance with creative practice research methodology in terms of physically producing a new musical work. Although I was physically involved in a more ‘hands on’ role as musician in the songwriting and musical performance of my previous band’s production of the original musical demo recording artefacts, O’Neil performed the tangible and creative elements of remastering and operated the specialised equipment. However, there is a view that the role of musician has changed in that musicians have become many things including ‘technologists, producers, engineers, synthesiser programmers, turntablists, sample artists, mixers and remixers’ and their skills and knowledge in the areas of music production including remastering ‘have become as important as their knowledge of music, style, or vocal and instrumental performance’ (Marshall & Frith, 2004, p. 142). Although I did not physically operate the studio machinery used during the remastering process in this research, I did offer input into the creative decision making process based upon my previous artistic and technical experience in music production. This input revolved around creative themes including equalisation, compression, volume, track listings, tone, timbre and performance. Similar to the role of The Beatles’ producer George Martin, his creative practice and input as their producer was revered throughout the music industry although he did not physically operate the studio equipment in the production of their recordings (Marshall & Frith, 2004). Furthermore, in collaboration with his son Giles, Martin played a significant role as the producer in the remixing and remastering of classic Beatle recordings for the 2007 studio release of Love without physically operating the machinery (Doyle, 2007). By its earlier definition as ‘the systematic use of the artistic process, the actual making of artistic expressions in all of the different forms of the arts’, remastering practice is not excluded as a justifiable art form and also complies with the ‘artistic process’ of creation through interaction and creative decision making (Knowles & Cole, 2008, p. 29). This research project also reflected in action cognitively using the
107 researcher’s awareness of music production techniques to notice, observe and think about the process while applying it (Schön, 1983). It undertook analysis described as creative construction where the researcher identified ‘relationships, contrasts, comparisons and patterns’, considered various options and alternatives, continuously reflected, evaluated and crosschecked against the original intention and sought feedback’ (Gray & Malins, 2004, p. 155).
Having previously established the potential importance of artefacts to research design and outcomes, it is perhaps important at this stage to position the digitally remastered replica from an original music artefact as comprising a status of a new musical work emanating from a creative practice process. It has already been discussed that remastering practice involves interaction and creative decision-making and therefore constitutes by definition, creative practice (Knowles & Cole, 2008, p. 29). With regards to defining a remastered digital replica as a new work, a copyright judgment passed in 2016 in the courts in the United States of America declared a remastered recording is considered different enough from the original recording to qualify for copyright protection as a new work.
ABS Entertainment sued CBS Radio for unauthorized use of ABS’s sound recordings prior to February of 1972. CBS’s defence was viewed as a gamble — they argued the remastered versions of pre-72 recordings were derivative works with separate copyright protections. Following this logic, radio stations owned by CBS Radio had been exclusively playing copyrighted sound recordings dated after 1972. Earlier this month, the court agreed with CBS Radio (Speck, 2016)
The Court found that the pre-1972 sound recordings had undergone sufficient changes during the remastering process to qualify for federal copyright protection (Masnick, 2016). This ruling was based upon the notion that the creativity involved in the remastering process including ‘creative decisions about EQ, compression, reverb and a host of other aural details’ met the threshold to be considered a derivative work that qualified it for a separate copyright. This is similar to new copyrights being granted to colourised black and white movies (Speck, 2016). It is therefore these creative decisions intrinsic with remastering practice and the view that remastering is a
108 creative practice as evidenced in the literature review that lends support to the notion that the practice and output from remastering music produces what could be considered a new artwork (Nardi, 2014; Rumsey, 2011; Shelvock, 2012).
Critiques of creative research and methodology have questioned its legitimacy and claim ‘unless researchers who view practice as a legitimate form of research clearly acknowledge this fact, creative arts problems cannot be solved’ (Ansari et al., 2014, p.145). Draper – while admitting there is literature regarding analysis methods of other artists’ works – states that there are ‘far fewer examples of how an individual exposes their own music-making endeavours to rigorous academic examination in terms of questions, methods, data, findings and validity’ (2013, para. 6). Furthermore, there is a view that creative practice is self-indulgent and contributes little to the music industry and that evaluating how a music practitioner achieved a particular sonic result benefits no one (Isakoff, 2012).
Simons and McCormack discuss the difficulties and challenges involved in evaluating creative practice research, essentially ‘how the creative arts can elicit and portray the essential values of a program to promote usable knowledge and understanding’ (2007, p. 294). They suggest this could be achieved through clarity in ‘philosophical perspective underpinning the evaluation approach and in choice of methodology’ and that ‘in a field currently dominated again by technical rational and reductionist models of inquiry there is a need not only to continue to advance the case for qualitative inquiry but also to develop new ways of evaluating’ (2007, p. 298). There is also evidence of significant contradictions within scholarly writing on creative practice: for example, Smith and Dean appear to promote a flexible and non- monolithic approach to creative practice research but also state that it would greatly benefit a practice-based researcher to be rigid in their approach with clear ‘start and end points – usually consisting of an initial plan and a clear idea of an ultimate objective or target outcome’ (2009, p. 23). Absorbing such criticism and these inconsistencies in creative research methodology and design as noted above, there is also a view that ‘no single, unchallenged paradigm has been established for deciding what does and what does not comprise valid, useful, and significant knowledge’ thus highlighting the subjective nature and characteristics of artistic practice-based research (Denzin, 2003, p. 71). It is from this perspective that this research project
109 will be positioned and that through the creation of new remastered digital replicas and artistic expression from existing analogue music recordings and artifacts, new knowledge will be attained through examining the experience and relationship of the original creator of the musical artifact, the producer and the remastering engineer involved. It will in a sense therefore examine the action of participation in artistic creation and produce knowledge surrounding this creation as philosophy in action (Barrett & Bolt, 2007).
Ethnographic methodology
Ethnography has been defined as ‘any qualitative research project where the intent is to provide a detailed, in-depth description of everyday life and practice’ (Hoey, 2016, para. 3). This definition could potentially be used to define case study methodology although according to O’Reilly the key difference between case studies and ethnography is that ‘ethnography is defined by its methodology, whereas a case study can be highly quantitative or statistical and use no ethnographic methods at all’ and therefore ‘ethnography implies a methodology and set of methods’ (2009, p. 24). As this project used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection, an ethnographic methodology was adopted to reflect a realist ontology featuring an author decreed narrative entailing experiences and information from the case study participants as clarified by the project’s interpretative framework (Van Maanen, 1988). Additionally, this was created in a self-directed narrative style and voice that made the researcher feel comfortable within academia and knowledge production (Foley, 2002).
The process of ethnography has been described as ‘watching what happens, listening and asking questions, producing a richly written account that respects the irreducibility of human experience that acknowledges the role of theory as well as the researcher's own role and that views humans as part object/part subject’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 14). The case study participants in this project were therefore viewed as part object and part subject in an attempt to extract new knowledge of use to others that encompassed all social and cultural elements associated with remastering practice, as opposed to purely technical attributes only. Without proceeding with this ethnographical methodological approach, although the research would have arguably
110 been successful in gaining a detailed description of the technical workflow and equipment used in remastering practice, it would have been at risk of not being able to produce new and useful knowledge surrounding the cultural and social attributes of remastering practice. This approach supports Simons and McCormack’s claim that ‘gaining insight into a program through the unique experience of the people who implement it can yield an understanding of the significant values and worth of the program’ (2007, p. 297). This therefore also encourages an ethnographic methodology that exposes the researcher’s selfhood and subjectivity and that as ethnographers we need to be critical of and reflect on how we position ourselves within the research and the ramifications of our thoughts and decisions (Madison, 2006).
O’Reilly concludes that the two different types of traditional ethnographic methodology; ‘dialogic’ (a dialogue between the researcher and the researched that reflects the difficulties of interpreting another person's world) and ‘polyphonic/layered accounts’ (the narrator pieces together disparate passages of data, resulting in an abstract theory)’ were set for failure as ‘the more one tries to remove or curtail the voice of the author, the more authorial he or she becomes in determining how something is portrayed, and the more dishonest the inevitable representation of the other’ (2009, p. 170). These two types were judged as not appropriate for this project as it would have potentially produced a misguided and confused account of remastering practice if all core text was excluded and it was not clear whose words and thoughts were attributed to whom (Spencer, 2001). There also exists a third traditional type known as ‘critical ethnography’ which has been described as predominantly ethnographic research into social sciences involving human suffering, inequality, social oppression and poverty, which based upon the context and content of this study was also deemed inappropriate (Thomas, 1993; O’Reilly, 2009; Bacon 2010; Fassin, 2013).
A modern ethnographic methodological model believed to be best suited to and adopted for this project was autoethnography. Defined as ‘a blend of autobiography and ethnography’, this approach is of the belief that the self-examination and emotion experienced and portrayed by the autoethnographer leads to the production of narratives that are realistic and accessible (Foley, 2002, p. 474). Autoethnography therefore allows ethnographers to present ‘personal accounts of their own experiences
111 (sometimes alongside those of others) in order to convey their experiential and autobiographical understanding of a phenomenon’ and is ‘often a sincere attempt to acknowledge the intimate relationship between researcher and researched, and auto- ethnographers challenge the absent authorial voice of much realist ethnography by front-staging their own character and experiences (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 171). Through positioning the author with dialogue alongside others and displaying a personal and cultural history, autoethnography is a modern alternative and different to the traditional role of author as a detached theoretical (Carspecken, 1996). This autoethnographic methodological approach appears consistent with achieving the aims of this project; to not only provide a realistic examination of remastering practice but also to provide new information and performance texts (text and music recordings) of use and assessable to others, both in scholarly and non-scholarly fields. Autoethnographic methodology was also chosen, as it is arguably the best means to ‘allow audience members to enter a given world and to witness how actions carry consequences’ (Holman Jones, Adams & Ellis, 2017, p. 385). This was an important factor considering the aims of the research were to provide new knowledge that was accessible to a wide audience consisting of scholars and practitioners. There is also an opinion that performance autoethnography, a commitment from the researcher to produce and perform texts created in conjunction with project participants in everyday life, is the future of ethnography (Denzin, 2003).
My autoethnographic approach consisted of being a participant and observer within the field of remastering practice to illuminate the experiences of others through a direct involvement and relationship with the bodies of the case study participants and to gain a greater understanding of their experiences (Maxwell, 2002). This was achieved through ‘document collection, guided conversations, informal interviews, participant-observation, and self-reflexive interpretation’ (Herrmann, 2012, p. 156). Self-reflection was a critical part of the process as it assisted not only in implementing changes to future data collection methods based upon the data received, for example creating new sets of questions for participants to answer based upon their initial responses, but also to ‘become self-aware of the process and consequences of knowledge production by bringing the original act of knowledge back into consciousness (Thomas, 1993, p. 44). This autoethnographic approach was important to my research project as it helped detail, document and describe the not only the
112 decision-making process surrounding the technical practice of audio remastering practice but also examine and analyse the social and cultural elements as witnessed and experienced within their natural environments.
Critics of ethnography have evidenced the creation of an‘epistemological paradox’, methodologically inferring that ‘we are forced to explore the self-other relationships of fieldwork critically if we are to produce more discriminating and defensible interpretations (Foley, 2002, p. 473). This critical appraisal of self and other in ethnography analysis has been described as ‘something of a messy business that ethnographers learn through practice and experience’ leading to critics to conclude this methodological approach as being of little use for social science and labeling it as ‘self-indulgence’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 14). In her study, Soyini Madison found the term autoethnography to be problematic where the ‘rootedness and embellishments of the self diminish the thickness and complexities of the encompassing terrain. When the gaze is on one’s own navel one cannot see the ground upon which one stands or significant others standing nearby’ (2006, p. 320-321). This opinion is consistent with Foley’s research which proposes traditional theoretical ethnographers are critical of autoethnography as they view it as a ‘self-indulgent, narcissistic diary disease or excessively subjective with shallow textual reflexivity’ and that it generally ‘incorporates much more of the researcher’s personal self and utilizing a more artistic, a reflective way of knowing is not without problems’ (Foley, 2002, p. 475). As he writes;
Indeed, it is hard to imagine grand theorists like Geertz and Bourdieu representing themselves as experiencing cultural others in a vulnerable, emotional, embodied manner. Most accomplished authoethnographers would probably agree that highly autobiographical reflexive practices, in the hands of an unskilled or egocentric practitioner, can degenerate into self-serving, narcissistic, heroic portrayals of the ethnographer (Foley, 2002, 475).
In response to elements of this criticism of autoethnography, it is suggested that the researcher adopt a theoretical reflexivity type (Denzin, 2003). This approach results in the researcher working ‘back and forth between field experience and theory, cultivating a theoretical reflexivity that produces a detached, objective authoritative
113 account of the world being studied’ and ‘portray this cultural space and its people in a provisionally accurate manner’ (Foley, 2002, p.472-476). Critical reflexivity is guided by how ‘we examine how our own values and ideology influence our work’ as well as exploring ‘the social implications of our findings and how we present them’ (Thomas, 199, p. 44-45). The approach which I adopted for this project supports O’Reilly’s account that ‘rather than proceeding in a linear fashion, it is far more likely that the ethnographer will progress as in a spiral, moving forward from idea to theory to design to data collection to findings, analysis, and back to theory’ and this is consistent with ‘the specific theoretical and epistemological perspective from which qualitative investigation generally, and ethnographic study specifically, is associated’ (2009, p. 16). This self-reflective practice has been described as particularly useful in the creative arts as we ‘discover about our different subjective selves in relation to the people and contexts we study’ (Simons & McCormack, 2007, p. 297-298). The situation of the ethnographer not only analysing their actions (reflective) but turning inward to consider the thought processes contemplating their actions (reflexive) is described by Madison as the dialogic performative which ‘requires us to think about how we are thinking about our positionality as ethnographers’ (2006, p. 321). My autoethnographic approach therefore could be described as ‘a blend of autobiography and ethnography’ (Foley, 2002, p. 474) and is useful as a means to depict my emotion within the process, particularly concerning nostalgia, and to ‘help produce realist narratives that are much more accessible’ (Foley as cited in Denzin, 2003). Furthermore, my aim to create new knowledge is dependent upon a practice-based approach comprising ‘the artistic practitioner, the creative product and the critical process’ (Smith & Dean, 2009, p. 47) and that my combination of creative practice and reflective research skills intrinsic with this case study will lead to a ‘reliable and valid replicability of findings which can be utilized by other artists researching their specific domain’ (Ansari et al., 2014, p.146). It is this duality that I managed as researcher and participant, putting aside my own self-interest in the bands I had chosen to ensure an accurate collection and reflection on data, and consequently integrity in determining useful and assessable results. In the next section I unite the ideas and concepts explored within my literature review, theoretical framework and methodological design to investigate remastering practice as applied to Australian band Sunnyboys.
114 Chapter 4 – Case Study: Sunnyboys – researcher as scholar-fan
Introduction
The main purpose of this case study was to reveal the artistic, social, nostalgic and technological elements of digital remastering practice regarding the 2014 remastered CD re-release of the iconic self-titled 1981 vinyl LP release Sunnyboys. It was undertaken to provide ‘information-rich, critical and unique’ input from the perspective and experience of the artist, artist manager, remastering engineer and researcher as scholar-fan and inside researcher (Johansson, 2007, p. 51-52). As I was interested in seeking out not only the technical and statistical data associated with remastering practice, but also the social, nostalgic and cultural elements immersed in this phenomenon, my role as scholar-fan and inside researcher and ethnographic approach within this case study was undertaken to ‘provide a detailed, in-depth description of everyday life and practice’ (Hoey, 2016, para. 1). It was also implemented to produce an account that ‘respects the irreducibility of human experience that acknowledges the role of theory as well as the researcher's own role and that views humans as part object/part subject’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 24). Additionally, the Sunnyboys case study was used to examine the process for remastering iconic analogue released recordings in order to gain a better understanding of this practice and to provide new knowledge and benefit to others concerning remastering practice through using ‘typical triangulation methods in case studies including context-specific interviews, document analysis, and observations’ (Pearson et al., 2015, p. 3). This triangulation method also consisted of a comparative digital audio analysis to help determine if the perceived sonic differences experienced and claimed by the case study participants between the original and remastered versions were consistent with the statistical representation of these variances (Paton & McIntyre, 2009).
I chose Sunnyboys as a case study for the following reasons. I am a fan of the band and was keen to explore my role as scholar-fan to determine if my strong pre-existing knowledge of their repertoire and recordings would produce an authentic account (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012). It was envisaged this fan approach combined with my comprehensive literature review and theoretical underpinning would outweigh any
115 possible unacceptable self-indulgence elements associated with this methodology (Brennan, 2014; Duffett, 2014; Roach, 2014). As the research was designed to examine the practice of applying remastering techniques used on iconic commercial analogue recordings to analogue demo recordings, it was also important to choose a case study that exhibited consistencies with the other case study subjects to ensure comparisons could be made effectively, particularly around frequency, instrumentation and genre. The Sunnyboys’ line-up (two guitars, bass, minimal keyboards, drums, male vocals and backing vocals) and melodic “Guitar-Pop” genre is similar by design to the other case study participants (Jumble Sale, Ben’s Calf and The Lyres) who to an extent were trying to emulate them. As idol worship ‘serves to compensate for the worshipper’s missing qualities and resources…’ it could argued that these perceived ‘missing’ qualities were consistent across Jumble Sale, Ben’s Calf and The Lyres and were also uniform with the qualities Sunnyboys exhibited (Cheung & Yue, 2012, p. 36). Furthermore, this consistency between all of the case study participants’ recordings used, particularly genre, is further evidenced by the reported influence the iconic mainstream band The Beatles had on the chief songwriters of Sunnyboys (Jeremy Oxley), Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf (Stephen Bruel) and The Lyres (Con Shacallis) and the uniform influence evident across the compositions (Oxley & Oxley Griffiths, 2015).
Sunnyboys was recorded in 1981 on analogue equipment, which is the same decade as the Jumble Sale and The Lyres’ demo recordings were produced, and as the research revealed, on similar equipment and using a similar workflow. The 2014 Sunnyboys remastered CD was engineered by Rick O’Neil at Turtlerock Mastering studio in Sydney. The 2014 Sunnyboys remastered CD was engineered by Rick O’Neil at Turtlerock Mastering studio in Sydney. In search of consistencies and adequate comparisons across the case studies as well as a deeper reading and understanding of remastering practice, the remastering of the demo recordings from Jumble Sale, Ben’s Calf and The Lyres were also all undertaken by O’Neil in 2016 on the same equipment as Sunnyboys and in the same controlled studio environment.
Another important reason for selecting Sunnyboys is its popularity and historical relevance and meaning within Australian popular music culture.
116 There are other Australian albums as great as Sunnyboys’ 1981 debut Sunnyboys. There aren’t any that are better. Hearing it again thirty-two years later, it still feels like one of the best rock’n’roll debut albums ever, one of those collisions of bright-eyed youthful energy, lyrical intensity and razor- sharp rock’n’roll instincts that couldn’t have been scripted. Like singer and chief songwriter Jeremy Oxley’s assured, expressive guitar playing, something about this music hits you in the guts, the heart and the head. It says all you need to know about being young and alive, with all those doubts, joys, heartache and hopes. And it rocks - Noel Mengel, The Courier Mail (Pittman, 2014).
The published newspaper review above by well-respected Australian music critic Mengel is a reflection of the popularity, significance, cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original 1981 recording musical artefact Sunnyboys by Australian society. Therefore, having established that there is cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original recording, Sunnyboys as a case study satisfied the research project’s aim of determining whether the remastering goal of producing a digital replica that maintained the cultural heritage and meaning of the original was adhered to. Finally, as another aim of this research was to produce new knowledge that was assessable and of use to others, it was envisaged that including the Sunnyboys in the project through their popularity alone, would encourage a wider audience to this research (O’Reilly, 2009).
Sunnyboys – the band
The band Sunnyboys were formed in Sydney in 1980 and their line up consisted of Jeremy Oxley (songwriter, lead vocals, lead guitar), brother Peter Oxley (bass guitar and backing vocals), Richard Burgman (rhythm guitar and backing vocals) and Bil Bilson (drums). In 1981 Sunnyboys signed a contract with Mushroom Records and released their debut album Sunnyboys featuring their bestselling single Happy Man and iconic song Alone With You that earned them platinum status of 75,000 plus in sales (Pittman, 2012).
117
Figure 1 - Official Sunnyboys photos (King, 1983; King, 2014)
The band would release three official studio albums (Sunnyboys, Individuals and Get Some Fun) and one live album (Real Live) on vinyl before disbanding in 1984; ‘internal dissent and the pressure and stress of industry expectation being cited as the reasons for the break-up’ (Pittman, 2012). It would emerge years later in the 2013 film The Sunnyboy that lead singer, guitarist and songwriter Jeremy Oxley suffered a 30-year battle with schizophrenia which played a role in the Sunnyboys break-up in 1984 and subsequent rare live appearances during that period (Harrison, 2013). Mushroom remastered and re-released all of the Sunnyboys official albums in 1991 on CD. Feel Presents (owned by Sunnyboys manager Tim Pittman) managed the remastering and re-release of the official studio albums (minus Real Live) in 2014 (Tim Pittman, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
Sunnyboys – the album
This album was originally released on vinyl in 1981 and then subsequently remastered for CD and re-released in 1991 and 2014. Although Sunnyboys released a four track EP in 1981 through Phantom Records that included a recording of their single Alone With You, this song was rerecorded for the album during the same session as the other tracks. However, the recording of Happy Man that appears on the album was recorded a couple of months earlier (Tim Pittman, personal communication, October 2, 2015). The research revealed that all three releases were sourced from the original analogue two-track master tape created in 1981 from the
118 original analogue tape used in the original multi-track studio recording. This occurrence therefore made the process of identifying and comparing the perceived sonic differences between the versions simpler as the original master tape was used for each reincarnation. Therefore, there were no anomalies present that could be attributed to using and trying to compare different releases from different source material and master tapes. Although there was a strict adherence by O’Neil and Pittman to use the one original source tape for all replications, there still exists the concern that having the original 1981 vinyl version sit alongside the 1991 and 2014 CD replicas will potentially render all three versions as artificial as the memory of the original vinyl release fades in the mind of future generations (Baudrillard, 1983). Furthermore, in musical terms the process of constant repetition can create the greatest preliminary blockade to those unacquainted with the music (Moore, 2017).
Figure 2 - Sunnyboys album 1981
Using the original master tape to create replications however was not the case for all Sunnyboys’ studio albums and subsequent remastered releases. For example, the Sunnyboys’ Individuals studio album released in 1982 and the CD remastered release in 1991 is from a different master tape source than the one used for the 2014 CD remastered re-release. In fact, the 2014 CD release was remastered from a completely different recording session and source tape altogether. This approach appears to support Baudrillard’s theoretical premise that through repeated duplication,
119 distinguishing the real from imaginary becomes increasingly difficult, particularly when it is unclear the correct origins of the source material (1983). The studio album Individuals, for example, would therefore not have been appropriate to use to identify the sonic impact, if any, from remastering practice across the three releases as different source material was used. Another reason this album was chosen was that the band members were more positive towards this album and more comfortable to discuss it as opposed to the other studio albums. I therefore believed this album offered the best opportunity to create new knowledge that is both accessible and of use to others through the band’s positivity and by making them feel comfortable and treated with respect and care (Pearson et al., 2015). I was also concerned there may have been reluctance from the band members to revisit recordings of Individuals and Get Some Fun that would have potentially stifled my means to generate and collect data. Discussing the original production (recording, mixing and mastering) of the album Individuals, Jeremy Oxley recalled the following:
After we got enough songs down, the band returned to Australia to resume the grueling tour schedule while Lobby (Loyde) took the recording masters (Individuals) to the US to produce. Generally we were all happy with the masters. The songs sounded true and I thought we had achieved the sound we were after, which was slightly different from the first album - more experimental. When he did (return), and I heard what he had done to the recording, I almost puked. 'That's not going to sell! That's shit!' I was gutted. All my work, all the energy I fed into those songs, had been destroyed. The sound was awful! Meanwhile Mushroom was desperate to get the second album out and capitalise on the success of our debut. I just shook my head and thought 'This is the end.' Nobody was happy with the production - I thought Lobby must be deaf to have put it together the way he did - but we were still made to release it. We had no money to fix it and no time. There was nothing left to say to Lobby so we severed our ties with him, but the damage was done. Needless to say, the second album, Individuals, flopped (Oxley & Oxley Griffiths, 2015, p. 70).
Bass player Peter Oxley was also disappointed with the original mix and release of the album Individuals, referring to it as ‘shit house’ so I had concerns asking members
120 of the band to revisit this album (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015). Although Peter Oxley was overcome with emotion when hearing the 2014 CD remastered version of Individuals for the first time, stating he was ‘weeping with pleasure, the mixes sound beautiful’, the remaster was sourced from a different recording session. Therefore, although both Jeremy and Peter Oxley may have been pleased to discuss and revisit the 2014 remastered version, it appears unlikely they would have been comfortable or willing to provide input regarding the original 1981 album release nor the 1991 CD remaster (Condon, 2014). Additionally, there was a desire from the band and band management during the production of the 2014 CD remaster of the 1984 Get Some Fun album release to try to reduce the 1980s production elements associated with the original release (Tim Pittman, personal communication, October 2, 2015). Therefore, the 1981 Sunnyboys album was the logical choice in terms of getting the Sunnyboys’ band members and management in a positive mind set and enthused towards my research project.
The 2014 Sunnyboys remastered release consists of two CDs, the first CD being a remastered version of the 1981 studio recording. The second CD is titled New Kicks (Complete And Unreleased Pre-Album Demo Session) and features a playlist from the previously non-released demo session recorded prior to the released 1981 studio recording. Songs including Happy Man, Let You Go, I'm Shakin', My Only Friend, Tunnel Of My Love, Gone and I Can't Talk To You are on both CDs, offering the listener the opportunity to compare a remastered non-released demo version of Happy Man, for example, against the remastered released studio recording. This potentially offered insight into remastering practice regarding remastering a previously non- mastered non-released analogue studio demo recording for commercial release. Both the 2014 remastered CD versions of Individuals and Get Some Fun do not contain remastered recordings of both demos and the original released recordings, and therefore do not allow this potential opportunity for comparative audio analysis. Having established Sunnyboys as the most suitable album from the band’s discography to analyse, in the next section I examine the impact of the band and album concerning notions of nostalgia and fandom.
121 Nostalgia and fandom
Sunnyboys the album had and still has a significant impact on my life. It was this album that I played incessantly each day when I got home from high school to make me feel good about life, a physical and sensory mechanism to help cope with teenage angst, and a fuel for my desire to follow a life of music production and consumption. Consistent with Moore’s depiction of second person authenticity (2009) and Wu, Spieß and Lehmann’s reference to cultural authenticity (2017), Sunnyboys appeared authentic to me as I perceived it as being truthfully representative of being a teenager in Sydney in the early 1980s. It is also this album that as an adult I still play to feel uplifted, a powerful nostalgic tool that can transform me back in time or brighten my present situation as I listen to it with my pre-teen son. It is therefore a simulacra of a physical sensation I experience that makes the listening experience for me seem still seem real despite the passing of time (Evens, 2005). The 1981 album forms part of the cultural heritage surrounding the Sydney “Guitar-Pop” sound and fashion associated with this period, and consequently I personally attributed a significant level of meaning and sense of authenticity to the original 1981 vinyl album musical artefact over a long period of time (Eason, 2013). I was therefore initially concerned upon learning of the decision to create the 2014 digital replica as to whether perceived cultural heritage, my personal heritage, meaning and authenticity attached to the original musical artefact would be maintained (Cartwright et al., 2013; Grainge, 1990). Additionally, I was apprehensive towards my son’s reaction to this newer release, but also acutely aware that I may be perhaps guilty of attempting to transfer my personal meaning and the cultural heritage associated with the album at the time of release onto my son, as opposed to allowing him freedom to draw his own meaning (Barratt, 2009). Remastering practice is therefore not simply a technical process of modernising musical artefacts through digital reproduction, it is also an emotional, social, cultural and interactional process for those involved, and is intrinsic to the final remastered product.
Another element I felt apprehensive and nervous about was my fandom towards Sunnyboys, and in particular gathering and generating data from the band members. I first witnessed Sunnyboys perform live in concert as an impressionable 14-year-old and instantly identified myself with their “Guitar-Pop” music, teenage angst-ridden
122 lyrics, their visual appearance and the audience that surrounded me. The significance of my age and life changes I experienced at the time (puberty, self-identity) and the corresponding impact of Sunnyboys upon me is an important consideration in understanding my own fandom. Additionally, my fandom for Sunnyboys, although different to that I held as an adolescent, is no less intense as an adult and that my ‘fandom still includes intense activity surrounding the collection of records’ (Duchan, 2013). Therefore, having admired them as a cultural phenomenon safely from a distance for so long, the prospect of personally meeting some of the band members in the capacity of scholar-fan, even though the academic element offered some protection and afforded me a professional status unattainable as purely fan, was still quite daunting (Duffett, 2014). It was one factor during the research design process to scrutinise and conclude Sunnyboys would be an appropriate case study; to physically get them involved however was an entirely different proposition and as an intrinsic element of the social and cultural practice surrounding remastering, worthy of mentioning.
In line with digital convergence theory and insider research, I was able to identify and approach this fan community for assistance and knowledge gathering (Hills, 2004; Jenkins, 2014). I initially attempted to contact the band members through the Sunnyboys Facebook Fan Club Page but received no reply. I then sent an email to Feel Presents, the company responsible for the remastered 2014 Sunnyboys CD release and the band’s touring schedule. Sunnyboy’s manager Tim Pittman expressed his permission for me to use the band in my research and included in his response contact details for bass player and band co-custodian Peter Oxley. As mentioned previously, there are critics of scholar-fan writing of not enough details being supplied regarding the academic’s personal fandom, which I will attempt to address now (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012a).
This development was very exciting as now I had contact details for and permission to contact Oxley, the same Oxley who along with the rest of Sunnyboys I had first witnessed performing Alone With You on the ABC TV music program Countdown in 1981 as an impressionable and besotted 13-year-old. I recall feeling anxious and excited as I carefully scripted (and rescripted) my initial email to Oxley mindful of managing my duality of fan and academic (Scott, 2009). Oxley replied to my email
123 and included his landline phone number, suggesting I call him and citing a preference for verbal as opposed to written communication. With my anxiety levels rising, I called the number only to be greeted with an answering machine on which I left a message and my mobile phone number. I was relieved and disappointed at the same time. A few days later my mobile phone rang, which coincidently had the Sunnyboys’ song Happy Man as the ringtone and when I answered it was greeted with ‘Hi, this is Peter from Sunnyboys’.
The emotions that I experienced at that moment in time are difficult to describe. I felt excited, anxious, nervous, and tried my best to appear calm and professional (at least on the outside) as we discussed my project and possibly meeting up in March 2015 when Sunnyboys were scheduled to perform in Brisbane (where I live). After the call I phoned my wife to tell her about my exciting experience and was immediately transported back to that 13-year-old boy watching Countdown on television. I met Oxley face-to-face for the first time outside the Brisbane venue Tivoli on 13 March 2015 at around 4.30pm as agreed prior to their performance. We shook hands and I was invited inside the venue, again trying to appear professional and composed on the outside as the excitement and fandom within escalated. I caught glimpses of the other band members as I entered the venue’s stage door but was ushered past the band room down to the main audience area by Oxley.
Unfortunately, our conversation was stifled and I blame my fandom for this. I was too nervous to ask any questions and converse generally, which would be regarded as a negative occurrence in the role of the aca-fan, a failure to manage this duality successfully and value the fan within (Burr, 2005). However, I was allowed to stay for the band’s sound check and felt honoured and humbled to be the only person in the audience area (apart from the sound engineer) to experience this undressed rehearsal. This included the performance of eight songs and banter between band members away from the public and reserved for a select few. This was an emotionally intense experience and I felt I had been accepted, at least in a small way, into the tightknit circle of Sunnyboys. In a sense, my reflection of this event and sharing of my experience allows the readership and ‘audience members to enter a given world and to witness how actions carry consequences (Holman Jones, S. L., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C., 2016, p. 385).
124 Over the course of continued email communications with Pittman it was arranged for me to interview Oxley at his house in Sydney. Mindful of my nervousness and fandom restricting my ability to collect and generate data as effectively as I sought during our first face-to-face meeting, I was determined to learn from this experience. I was well prepared and arrived at Oxley’s house with several printed copies of my list of questions, laptop and audio recording device. What developed over the next hour was surreal and productive. It was surreal in the sense that I could not believe I was sitting at Oxley’s kitchen table enjoying a cup of tea discussing Sunnyboys, one of my favourite albums of all time. It was productive in that although I was nervous and experiencing a surreal sensation, I was able to remain composed and focussed in an effort to collect and generate useful data. In fact, my in-depth pre-existing knowledge of the band and fandom was a positive factor as it allowed greater detailed conversation, critical reflection and insight to occur, as perhaps opposed to a non-fan interviewing Oxley, evidence of the value of the fan within during academic investigation (Burr, 2005; Scott, 2009). Furthermore, as I emphasised and embraced the pre-existing fan knowledge within, the data collection and results of the research could be considered as authentic (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012).
After the interview was complete and I had left Oxley’s house, I felt exhilarated about what had occurred; excited about meeting and working with one of my musical idols, pleased with how the interview transpired and the quality of the data collected and generated, and relieved it was over. I had used my moral judgement to attain an appropriate distance between subject and researcher in order to achieve the necessary balance to reflect upon and produce a detailed and subjective account (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012). Later in discussion with Pittman, I mentioned how nervous I was at the prospect of interviewing Oxley and that I would probably have been calmer interviewing a more commercially successful group like U2 for example. I found Pittman’s response below interesting, particularly when you consider his role as their manager and the longevity of his relationship with the band members. As he writes;
I still get weird when I go into their dressing room and the four guys are there. It’s like Sunnyboys for me, that first recording they released all those years ago is never going to lose its magic for me. I first saw them at 16 and was a fan, but within weeks we were friends. They are those four guys and it doesn’t
125 matter that I have this relationship with them, I still find them awe inspiring and I guess there are lot of other fans that feel the same as well. So if I have this fandom thing in my role, it must be much more daunting for other people. So weird that fandom thing, but it exists because these people become super human to you (Tim Pittman, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
Fandom, particularly focused towards established musical artists therefore appears to be a phenomenon that is not restricted to the distant fan but also a powerful factor in those who work closely and alongside the subject matter (Clarke, DeNora & Vuoskoski, 2015). Fandom, in conjunction with nostalgia also played an integral role in the social and cultural practice of remastering practice for Pittman. As he writes;
Of all the acts I’ve ever worked with, this is definitely the one I don’t want to fuck up. This is my childhood and I’d hate to get the blame in 10-15 years’ time if it goes bad (Tim Pittman, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
It was evident that Pittman felt pressure to produce an appropriate digital replica of the original music artefact, one that would maintain his cultural and personal heritage of the original recording, a connection that is so significant in his life that he refers to the original music artefact as ‘his childhood’. I was also keen to explore if there was an element of nostalgia experienced by Sunnyboys’ band members towards their original recordings and how this may be different to nostalgia experienced by non- band members and fans. I was able to interview Sunnyboys’ guitarist Richard Burgman via email (as he is based in Canada) who confirmed that the physical process of recording Sunnyboys in 1981 is still a powerful, emotional and nostalgia- soaked experience he still feels today.
I loved the feeling of going there and being part of something so special. It was one of my greatest dreams becoming reality. I never thought I would ever get the opportunity, but there we were. It was very exciting (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017).
126 This is consistent with the view that the nostalgia potential for music recordings is most powerful for those directly involved in its creation (Duchan, 2013). Oxley described this period as ‘real, raw and exciting’ and Sunnyboys as ‘a band I would have loved to have seen’, offering an insight into not only the nostalgia he experienced but also his fandom for the band from within the band (Pittman, 2014b). Oxley’s statement of ‘loved to have seen’ is in the past tense and suggests a desire to go back in time, which is consistent with attributes common with nostalgia (Barrett et al., 2010). Burgman also reflected upon the nostalgia he and the audience experienced during Sunnyboys’ first live performance since 1991 at the Dig It Up reunion concert in Sydney in April 2012. As he writes;
After three days rehearsal in Sydney we walked onto the stage at The Enmore on that Saturday afternoon to a full house and we played our little hearts out. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house. I will never forget that day and I will never forget that feeling. We were blown away. The response was amazing, the crowd sang along to every song, people were crying and we were grinning our heads off. We play the songs they know and love, and we’re happy to do so. It’s nostalgia, and our audience we have mostly brought with us from the eighties, but we get a good sprinkling of younger people at the shows too, so that’s OK. One of my greatest wishes was to be able to show my kids what all the fuss was about. I have been able to do that. I am grateful. I couldn’t ask for more. I’ll be more than happy to play as long as we possibly can (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017).
Burgman’s emotional depiction of the tears, love and joy experienced by both the band and the audience, predominantly consisting of the age group and demographic of most fans, appears in line with nostalgic traits of being transported back in time to a happier place (Barrett et al., 2010). Nostalgia therefore is an intrinsic part of the social and cultural practice of remastering as it not only induces memories associated with the original musical artifact and time period, it also assists in the creation of a market segment to consume and finance the production of the digital replica (Wilson, 2005). Furthermore, this nostalgic outpouring by the Sunnyboys’ audience may have been as a result of its disillusionment with reality and mourning for they perceive as the real (Baudrillard, 1983).
127 For Sunnyboys 2014 CD remastering engineer Rick O’Neil there appeared minimal personal nostalgia or fandom towards the band or project. According to O’Neil, working on the remastered release of Sunnyboys was like any other job in that he would get on with the job, give 100% effort and skill and then get on with the next job the following day. As he writes;
When I joined the record company in 1985 there was no vibe for Sunnyboys. They peaked in 1983 and that’s not a very long for them to have been bright, young things. I’m constantly amazed by the level of fan accolade they get, as I don’t have the passion you guys have about this band, or any band really. The job that I’m doing I get right into it, and when complete, I then move onto the next one (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
O’Neil was therefore devoid of nostalgia and fandom for the band and allowed him to focus purely on the technical and creative process of remastering. With input from Pittman and Oxley, O’Neil was tasked with creating a final product that hopefully maintained a sense of cultural heritage and meaning for not only Pittman and Oxley, but also for me as a fan.
Cultural heritage and meaning
I was keen to explore the cultural heritage considerations identified in my literature review from the perspective of those involved in the Sunnyboys’ 2014 remastering project to conclude if any existed. In particular, I was interested in the analysis undertaken by Bennett in determining whether the perceived cultural heritage differences between remixing and remastering he identified was consistent with the Sunnyboys’ project (2009). Additionally, I was keen to explore the idea if the digital replica was perceived by the band members and management as in some way ‘superior’, whether this resulted in a perception of the cultural heritage, significance and meaning linked to the original artefact being flawed or diminished (Bottomly, 2016). When I interviewed Oxley regarding cultural heritage consideration he was quick to point out that because they were not remixing from the multi-track or adding anything new (a new guitar part for example), and that they were only working from the original stereo master tapes and not the multi-track session tape for Sunnyboys, the
128 overall intention was to only make the recordings sound better, not different. As he writes;
If we had gone back and put a couple of guitars on there, then that would have been a whole different thing. But all that was being done was using the technology today to get it sounding better. You go, okay, that sounded good there, it’s the same band, same instruments, same sessions, so you get it to that point and you change it slightly or you do whatever you need to do (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015).
This then led me to question Oxley on whether he believed if the Sunnyboys’ existing fan base, primarily those original fans from the 1980s, wanted to hear these modern and updated digital replicas. In particular, whether these perceived ‘better’ sounding digital versions resulted in fans experiencing a diminished perception of cultural heritage and meaning towards the original recordings and vinyl release. As he writes;
I think fans do. I know myself that I’ve rebought records when they’ve been rereleased and I probably didn’t need to, but I did. For example, the Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds album Push The Sky Away. Twenty year olds in 1980, they still want to be 20, well, you don’t want to be 20 but the music that you loved when you were 20, if you can go and see it played by the same people that played it then and they can play it well, that’s really tight, good, powerful, then it’s going to be just as exciting as it was when you were 20. I mean, the worst thing I think is when a band plays and they are not very good, and you think, oh god that band was good when you were 20 or something. So remastering and re-releasing, it just part of that and if you’re playing, to have a remastered recording out that you could sell them at the shows, it’s part of the marketing. And, I think they go hand-in-hand (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015).
Oxley’s response appears to indicate that despite the digital replica sounding in his opinion ‘better’, the perceived original meaning and cultural heritage associated with the original recordings and live performances from the band and fans is not diminished. In fact, Oxley viewed the remastered digital replica as helping to sustain
129 and potentially build a commercial market and to give the band a reason to resume playing live. Another point Oxley was keen to make was that remastering their back catalogue for ‘iTunes and all the different media available’ not only made their original recordings sound ‘better’ and more ‘modern’, but made them more accessible to fans to play on their modern playback systems as opposed to requiring a record player and home sound system (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015). Oxley’s almost preconceived view that a digital remaster will automatically sound better than the original recording, particularly an analogue recording which is 30 years old, is also shared by Sunnyboys 1981 audio engineer Col Freeman. As he writes;
I have never heard Sunnyboys since I last heard it in the studio, and I have not heard the remaster you mention. I do not wish to get into listening and comparing. Doubtless a recent remaster will be a vast improvement on the original, since mastering technology has improved immeasurably in the Digital Age (Col Freeman, personal communication, October 5, 2015).
It is this biased approach towards the superior sonic qualities of remastered digital replicas as opposed to the original musical artifact that contributes (alongside the ability to play back these classic albums on modern and portable playback devices) to creating a demand from fans for these digital replicas. However, with regards to a sense of cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original music artifact, although Oxley and Freeman believe this is not diminished and in fact may be increased with reference to the digital replica’s accessibility, noise reduction and other sonic improvements, there does exist a view that every reincarnation of a remastered release does get further away from the original musical artifact sonically, and therefore potentially cultural heritage and meaning (Vickers, 2010). This appears consistent with Meuller’s study on American Blues music incorporating Baudrillard’s fashion cycle theory in that the regular production and distribution of digital reincarnations diminishes the potential impact of a new work and/or remaster as it ‘imagines a second life in the future’ (2016, p. 87). Therefore as the audience becomes more familiar with the fashion cycle model, future ‘remastered’ releases will have a decreasing immediacy and influence.
130 Sunnyboys’ guitarist Burgman said that without the creation of digital replicas much of the music recorded before 1990 would be lost from tape degradation and that the ability to take old tape masters and convert them to digital has saved many recordings. With regards to remixing and remastering, Burgman shared a similar view to Oxley in that ‘we’re not trying to change anything we did back then, we’re just much more in control of what comes out now that has our name on it, and that’s a good thing’ (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017). However, Burgman cited the recent example of digital intervention involving remixing, remastering and preservation being of tremendous value in the 2017 remastered CD release of Shy Imposters (a self-titled band release Burgman and Peter Oxley were in together directly before Sunnyboys) in 2017, from a recording session in 1980. As he writes;
In 2016 we looked into finding our original tape and seeing if we could remix it, remaster it for release on CD. The tape was dug up, and was unusable. It had to be baked and transferred to digital to be any use. This was done in Sydney, the tracks were rescued, the songs remixed and remastered, and it’s now available - cool huh (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017).
Burgman’s depiction of the original music artifact having to be transferred to digital to be of any use is an interesting insight, particularly when we consider cultural heritage and meaning. The fact that the original recording was of little use in its present condition would suggest that any attached cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original recordings were in danger of disappearing altogether. To salvage the musical artifact and create a digital replica for fan consumption, Burgman was not only happy for remastering to be used, but also for the recording to be remixed, which implies a greater level of digital manipulation and intervention on the original as opposed to the practice of remastering. However, according to Pittman, remixing had to be incorporated as most of the tracks had been previously unreleased, although he conceded there was intent during the remixing sessions to make it sound as close as possible to the previously released tracks. Taking this one step further, Burgman appeared more comfortable for the 2017 Shy Imposters remastered CD to incorporate both remastering and remixing as opposed to the 2014 Sunnyboys remastered CD where only remastering was allowed. This was perhaps in response to
131 a perceived stronger element of cultural and personal heritage and meaning attached to the original recordings of Sunnyboys as opposed to Shy Imposters, and the greater commercial success of Sunnyboys. To further complicate matters Oxley said he was unhappy with the original Individuals release by Sunnyboys and saw the opportunity to remaster from a completely different recording session used for the original release in an effort to make it sound as the band originally intended it to. This approach appears to contradict the strict edict Oxley and Burgman both placed on the 2014 remastered Sunnyboys CD to be only improved and not changed. Therefore, these contradictions concerning remixing and remastering for albums other than Sunnyboys in conjunction with the use of different master tapes from different sessions suggest potential challenges for future generations to identify the real musical artifact (Baudrillard, 1983).
In an interview with Pittman regarding cultural heritage considerations of remastering and re-releasing the band’s back catalogue from a band management perspective, he stated the primary reasons were to rectify the disservice these iconic recordings received when first printed on CD in 1991. Pittman was determined to remaster to make them sound as good as they can so as to protect the legacy of the band. Furthermore, the remastered CD provided a reason for Sunnyboys to begin touring and playing live again in 2014. As both a fan and manager of the band, Pittman was of the belief that the CD remasters released in 1991, and to a lesser extent the original vinyl release of Sunnyboys in particular, could have and should have been better as they both failed to capture the excitement he recalled of seeing them live in the early 1980s. Therefore Pittman was comfortable producing a digital replica that not only improved (at least for him) but also altered the perceived cultural heritage and significance he placed upon the original musical artefact as he was of the belief that the original music artefact could have been better made at the time. Additionally, during the remastering process of Sunnyboys’ back catalogue, Pittman, like Oxley, was keen to change the original release of Individuals through remastering by using an entirely different source tape and session to remaster from.
132
Figure 3 - Sunnyboys' manager Tim Pittman in the Feel Presents office Sydney
This approach therefore depicts a varying as opposed to a fixed perception of meaning and cultural heritage placed upon the different Sunnyboys’ official studio album releases by the band and those involved with them. As a fan these decisions around remastering practice undertaken by the band and management were remarkably consistent with my own beliefs. For example, due to the high level of meaning I placed upon the original Sunnyboys release, I was apprehensive towards listening to the remastered version fearful that the digital replica would alter too much away from the original music artefact and diminish my sense of attached original meaning. However, in the case of Individuals, I can remember as a 15-year-old being disappointed not in the melodies and song structures of the album but in the actual overall sound and was consequently hopeful remastering would ‘fix’ this. I therefore also exhibited the same variance in perceptions of meaning I attached towards each specific original album release, similar to Oxley and Pittman.
I interviewed Sunnyboys’ remastering engineer O’Neil for his perspective on the cultural heritage considerations regarding remastering and re-releasing not only the Sunnyboys’ back catalogue, but also in general. According to O’Neil, Sunnyboys are quite new in the scheme of things and that the technology that was available and used in the 1980s, he still uses a lot of it today. As he writes;
133 The reality is it was played on a tape machine and it’s been recorded digitally instead of going to vinyl. It’s not particularly different. With Sunnyboys, all of their master tapes sound good (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
O’Neil’s approach to remastering Sunnyboys was the same as any remastering project he works on which involves souring the correct master tapes and trying to manipulate them into a format that is loud enough without sounding particularly different. In contrast to Pittman’s aim to remove the 1980s production style from Get Some Fun, O’Neil believes that album sounds great and that the artistic decisions undertaken at the time should be respected
Original 1981 recording of Sunnyboys
In order to examine the social and cultural practice of remastering Sunnyboys, and to discuss possible causal effects regarding the cultural heritage and meaning attributed to the original music artefact through its digital replication, it is crucial to gain a detailed understanding of how the original was created. As listed on the album cover, Sunnyboys was recorded between June and July in 1981 at Albert Studios in Sydney; produced by Lobby Loyde; engineered by Col Freeman and released by Mushroom Records, Australia. To gain a critical understanding behind the album’s production I was keen to communicate with both Loyde and Freeman, regarding their roles and responsibilities and possibly to attain some insight into the production. Unfortunately, my initial investigation revealed Loyde, who produced both Sunnyboys and Individuals, had died in 2007. Loyde has been described as possessing tremendous pride in his production role with Sunnyboys, and the fact it, along with his own band Coloured Balls’ records ‘all appear in The Age’s 2008 Best of the Best, which lists the top 50 Australian albums of all time as compiled by Donovan and Murfett from a panel of 59 experts' Oldham (2012, pp. 58-59). Sunnyboys’ singer and lead guitarist Jeremy Oxley described Loyde’s role in the Sunnyboys album production as minimal. As he writes;
134 With Lobby, I always went into the studio and laid down track after track and take after take to perfect it but with little collaboration – and Lobby was always off on the phone sorting out his other bands and not really on hand to give a lot of advice (Pittman, 2014).
However, Burgman recalled Loyde as assisting the band greatly during the recording and that they ‘relied on him for input and advice, and he challenged us repeatedly to do one better’ (Pittman, 2014b). Although Peter Oxley, like his brother Jeremy, remembered the band providing most of the creative input and musical ideas into the recording, he does remember an incident when Loyde provided specific creative input. As he writes;
Lobby suggested in the song I Can’t Talk To You for Jeremy to change his tortured three or four notes stretched solo and have a crack at a wild screaming guitar solo. Jeremy went in and slammed it down there and then – not bad for a 19 year old. It sounded good and represented how we played. So yeah, it was a great record (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015).
Loyde’s role and influence into the recording of Sunnyboys is therefore debateable depending upon which band member interviewed. However, what is evident is that the band were well-rehearsed and had a sense of the sound they were after so the influence of Loyde, or any producer, may have been limited due to this. Prior to the Sunnyboys recording sessions, Peter Oxley recalled the band recording 18 songs in a pre-album demo session (featured on CD 2 of the Sunnyboys 2014 remastered release) at EMI studios in Sydney in 1981. For Oxley, this showcased a young band that was well-rehearsed and ready to record. As he writes;
So even before going in there, we had done those demos and they were really, really tight and organised. So, I think there was none of this in there, working out a song while we were there. Essentially we had everything arranged and ready to go before we got in there. There was a lot of stuff possibly, like backing vocals, even that, we just went in there as young blokes and just played it (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015).
135 Another possible limitation for the role of the producer, and in particular the ability to plan out the recording sessions and what was to be achieved in them, were the challenges of the spasmodic recording schedule. As Oxley writes;
They (the recording sessions) weren’t just like turn up at 9 o’clock in the morning and go till 9 at night, but when Albert’s Studios was free. So it was like, maybe three nights and we would do all-nighters and we’d be there from 7pm until 7am in the morning, although we were 20 years old and had adrenaline pumping. It was recorded over two to three weeks, but we didn’t record every day. We might have had a couple of days in a row and then missed a couple of days. I think, what I can remember, that’s how it went. So, it was really in between everything (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015).
The fact the band were well-rehearsed in conjunction with the irregular recording schedule with arguably minimal input from the producer appears to share consistencies with demo recordings produced at the time and as I recall, with my own band as well (Morey, 2009). I was therefore keen to locate audio engineer Freeman who could hopefully provide a description of the recording process from an audio engineer’s perspective and the workflow of the recording. However, finding the reclusive Freeman and then getting him involved in my project would prove challenging. I asked Peter Oxley, as a first point of contact, if he knew anything about Freeman, if he was still involved in the industry and how I might be able to contact him. Oxley told me that he had not seen Freeman since the original Sunnyboys recording session in 1981 and did not know where he was, or even if he was alive. I then undertook an extensive internet search for Freeman, sent an introductory email and received the following reply;
I am the same Colin Freeman, however, I regret that I do not discuss bands and artists with whom I have worked. I realise that many do, that I am unusual in this regard and indeed, in the past some people have become most offensive when I have refused to discuss such matters. Please do not take offense; it is purely that I feel than I am breaching the privacy of others if I chat about stuff like this. I’m afraid there is no chance whatsoever of my changing my mind in
136 this matter. I will say that the Sunnyboys were an excellent band, and lovely people (Col Freeman, personal communication, September 1, 2015).
Upon receiving this reply I initially sensed both excitement and disappointment. I felt excited that I had located the audio engineer from Sunnyboys but was disappointed at his insistence that he would not provide any information for my project. Although I understood and appreciated his reasons regarding respecting the privacy of the Sunnyboys’ band members, as my project was focussed more on the technical and cultural practice of remastering, as opposed to a journalistic line of enquiry seeking out tabloid type information regarding negative depictions of relationship breakdowns and mental illness, I felt there was still a possibility of getting Freeman involved (Harrison, 2013). I replied by email and also requested Pittman to send an email on my behalf reiterating the focus of my project and evidence I had the band and band management’s support. I received no further communication from Freeman for a number of weeks and during this time my anxiety grew that a crucial piece of history regarding the original Sunnyboys recording, from the perspective of the recording engineer, the only member of the production team still alive and able to deliver this account, would not be forthcoming. In order to sonically compare the perceived difference between the original musical artefact and the digital replica through listening and digital audio analysis, I believed it was critical to understand the social, cultural and technical practice that surrounded the production of the original recording. My belief appears consistent with the view of the usefulness of having information regarding the technical production of the original, for example the equipment and effects used, in order to create a digital replica that sounds better and not different (Barchiesi & Reiss, 2010). Coincidently, as I was nervously preparing for my face-to-face interview later that day with Oxley, I received the following short reply from Freeman:
Folks, The .pdf is attached. Feel free to use whatever you like, but no more, plz :) (sic) Cheers (Col Freeman, personal communication, October 5, 2015).
Although the email message was short, Freeman had attached a three-page text document that provided tremendous detail regarding the original recording sessions of
137 Sunnyboys including his thoughts on Loyde as the producer. The exhilaration I experienced was quite emotional as an inside researcher. I knew I had in my possession information critical to assist in answering my research question and a detailed guide on how Sunnyboys was produced, the equipment used and workflow followed. As a fan and music production practitioner, I was overwhelmed to realise that at that moment in time I (along with Pittman) had sole custody of the production details behind the Sunnyboys recording and as the 13 year old fan and music production practitioner within, the keys to a treasure chest I had long searched for. Therefore, amongst this initial excitement was the challenge to maintain my duality and ensure significant scholarly input and investigation was adhered to (Scott, 2009). Following is an abbreviated account of Freeman’s three-page text document describing the original 1981 recording session of Sunnyboys:
The sessions were conducted in Alberts’ flagship Studio 2 with sophisticated acoustic treatment in the control room at their premises in King St, Sydney, now long since demolished. The console was a Music Center Incorporated (MCI) JH500 series with automation of faders and mutes during mix down only with automation at the time still in its infancy. The tape machine was an MCI 24-track machine running two-inch tape with Dolby noise reduction. On Sunnyboys Freeman implemented the standard speed of 15 inches per second using Dolby. The studio room was not vast like an Abbey Road or Decca but was a good spacious place for a rock band with a more dead than live sound. The drums were set up in a drum booth to improve separation, which was centrally located so it was easy for the drummer and band to see each other and communicate.
The backing tracks were all laid down first and then the vocals were overdubbed. Jeremy most likely had a guide vocal microphone that would have fed into everyone’s cans so that they knew where they were. As the band was well rehearsed this would have been in place more for communication. Everyone would have been wearing headphones and received their own individual fold back mix. Freeman would have used some flavour of Neumann condenser microphones about one foot off the guitar cabinets pointing at the speaker in the cab about half way between the coil and the rim. The bass would have had the same, but would also have been directly injected using a passive direct input (DI) box resulting in the two tracks being blended during
138 the mix. The drum microphone set up would have been fairly standard with the toms and kick drum most likely using a Beyer or Sennheiser dynamic microphones. The vocals were certainly recorded using a Neumann U47 microphone covered by a foam pop shield, one of the truly great vocal microphones, who Freeman mentions as Frank Sinatra’s personal favourite and that he refused to work with anything else.
Jeremy Oxley played a Gibson Les Paul Special double cutaway guitar with two- times P-90 pickups. Richard played a standard Gibson Les Paul guitar and Peter Oxley played a Fender Precision bass guitar. The only keyboard used was a Farfisa electronic organ that was overdubbed afterwards on the band’s single Alone With You. Monitoring in the control room was through UREI speakers with each cabinet consisting of an Altec 604E 15-inch speaker with an additional 15-inch woofer mounted flush to the wall and powered by Crown amplifiers. Additionally, placed on top of the console meter bridge was a pair of standard Yamaha NS10s near field speakers, small Auratone speakers to replicate the sound on an AM radio and a spectrum analyser used as a visual reference. Freeman used a UREI 1176 compressor with a ratio of about 6:1 (possibly 8:1) on the vocals and bass and apart from subtle compression used on the guitars in the mix there was no compression applied anywhere else, including the final studio mix. Freeman would also request the mastering engineer not to compress the mix too much during the cutting process. The depiction by both Peter and Jeremy Oxley that producer Loyde adopted a ‘hands-off’ approach to producing Sunnyboys was also confirmed by Freeman. As he writes;
In so far as I can remember he (Loyde) did what any good producer would do with a well-rehearsed band that knew what they wanted and let them go for it without unnecessary interference. I think having an amiable ‘elder statesman’ type figure there helped keep things moving along smoothly. The band knew what they wanted to do, went in and did it, and very good it was too (Colin Freeman, personal communication, October 5, 2015).
The workflow of the sessions, particularly with the band playing ‘live’ to capture the rhythmic backing tracks (drums, bass, rhythm guitar) with vocals (lead and backing) and some lead instruments (lead guitar and Farfisa organ) appears similar to the process used predominantly in demo recording workflows (Morey, 2009).
139 Additionally, the minimal supervision of a producer is arguably also consistent with the method commonly adopted when recording a demo. This approach therefore suggests that the remastering practice and process used for the digital replication of Sunnyboys may be an appropriate process to adopt for remastering demo recordings from a similar period and workflow, particularly when faced with the similar challenges including mixing from a multi-track recording consisting of a limited number of tracks (as compared to DAWs today that were non-existent at the time) and the likelihood of the spillage of instruments across the separate tracks resulting from playing and recording ‘live’. However, Freeman’s list of equipment used, in particular Neumann U47 microphone; the sophisticated acoustic treatment in the control room of Alberts’ Studio 2 and the pedigree of guitars mentioned suggest a level of potential sonic quality to tape unattainable in demo recording sessions by budget-limited bands using inferior equipment.
Original 1981 mastering of Sunnyboys for vinyl
Sunnyboys was originally mastered and cut to vinyl (at least initially) at Strawberry Mastering Lounge (SML), London in 1981 as listed on the album credits. Oxley said that although all of the band members were physically there to listen to the various mixes produced by Freeman and Loyde, they were not involved or present during the mastering process in the U.K. (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015). Through my research I connected with Strawberry Studios custodian and music historian Dr Peter Wadsworth who confirmed the studio ceased operations in 1983 and that the most likely candidate for the mastering engineer role on Sunnyboys was Mel Abrahams. Although Abrahams could not be contacted, Wadsworth, who had undertaken his PhD study into the history of Strawberry Studios, provided valuable information to identify the most likely equipment and workflow used for the initial mastering of Sunnyboys in 1981. Set up by Eric Stewart and Graham Gouldman from the popular 1970s band 10cc in 1978 as part of their Strawberry North and South studios business, SML was established to offer mastering services (Dr Peter Wadsworth, personal communication, August 26, 2015). A 10cc fan newsletter from August 1979 describes the mastering process at SML as follows:
140 Basically the master tape is played through and the tape (mastering) engineer has to work out the correct volume, remove any pre-echo there may be on the tape, work out how many and how deep the record grooves have to be and generally make sure that the sound that you hear on your record at home is as near as possible to the sound that the band played in the recording studio. Once all this has been worked out then the actual cutting can begin. The now processed tape is fed through the desk again and a lathe, which resembles a giant record deck, cuts the grooves into the lacquer. When this is complete, the lacquer can then be taken to the pressing factory where the metal plates, which press the records, are made (Dawes, 1979).
Although emanating from a brief article within a fan newsletter and therefore written with the fan in mind as opposed to mastering engineers and music production practitioners, the workflow described depicts the aims of SML was to cut the record with arguably minimal intervention to try to get records to sound as close as possible to the master tape playback. This appears consistent with the traditional corrective role of mastering as opposed to the creative position of the modern practitioner (Nardi, 2014; Temmer, 1984). However, the article also suggests that SML through its design and approach sought to create a relaxed environment where the cutting engineer was seen as part of the production team, which is arguably a more modern as opposed to traditional approach, given the opportunity for creative input and collaboration with artists and producers during the production process (Nardi, 2014; O’Malley, 2015; Rumsey, 2011; Shelvock, 2012).
According to Dean’s article in the industry magazine Studio Sound, the custom designed control console was fitted with remote control of all operational functions for the Neumann VMS 70 lathe including cutter head temperature, current meters and a linearised grooves-per-inch meter (1978). Two sets of stereo Helios parametric equalisers were used on audio and advance signal paths that allowed adjustment during the cutting process. Abrahams preferred to use Teletronix limiters on albums and Audio Design vocal stressors and limiters on singles as he believed they produced a less punchy sound for albums overall (1978). Therefore as Sunnyboys was an album and not a single, it is likely Teletronix limiters were used to produce a less punchy sound. This appears consistent with Pittman’s sonic perception that the original
141 Sunnyboys mastered album ‘could have been better’ and seemed to lack the ‘punch’ and the excitement of their live performances (Tim Pittman, personal communication, November 9, 2015). Other equipment used included an Ortofon CPS cutting control unit, Ortofon cutting head, phase reversal, stereo width control and switchable filters to roll-off low bass and top all the way down to 8kHz. A portable microscope was also used for precise inspection of cutting head symmetry to assist in an accurate cut. Visual monitoring on the desk was provided by two horizontal light band meters with red coloured overload sections and a CRT screen to display what the cutting head was doing in vertical and horizontal directions. Either side of the central control area were two Studer ABO tape machines, the 76/38/19 cm/s mastering version to the left, and a standard version to the right (1978). Abrahams appeared to be a respected practitioner within the industry as evidenced below in an interview with Laurence Neil 'Lol' Creme from 10cc as published in Sound International Magazine. As he writes;
Without wanting it to go to his head I must say that Mel (Abrahams) is a really superb cutting engineer because he not only knows what he's doing but he also cares. He spends a lot of time getting everything just right before he even makes a trial cut. He takes cuts home and tests them on his own equipment going to incredible lengths to try test pressings out on different pieces of equipment (Cited in Denyer, 1979, p. 22).
This endorsement of Abraham’s skills and description of his attention to detail regarding producing and listening to test cuts on a variety of sound systems would suggest the 1981 Sunnyboys vinyl release was flawless from a mastering perspective. It may also form part of the reasoning behind having the album mastered in the U.K. as opposed to using local mastering engineers and production houses to attain this perceived quality. However, according to remastering engineer O’Neil, who undertook the digital transfer from Peter Oxley’s 1981 first generation SML mastered vinyl album to WAV format, the original cut did not last very long and was replaced soon after with copies cut in Sydney. The major reason for this, according to O’Neil, is that one of the tracks on side two is over cut and it jumps. As he writes;
The song on side two that jumps is I’m Shakin’. Now in the case of this record, there’s a little secret code going on in these grooves. I can see this isn’t
142 an Australia cut and what kind of lathe was used. I wasn’t there when Sunnyboys was recut, but certainly side two is overcut and it’s faulty, as the grooves hit each other at an XY crossing which shouldn’t be there and this makes the needle on the record player jump. Of course you can adjust the turntable setup so that it won’t jump but this makes it sound bad. It is overcut (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
This revelation that there were possibly errors present in the original mastering of the Sunnyboys album was difficult for me to comprehend and this epiphanic moment of personal significance required further investigation, a requirement of the autoethnographer (Williams & Jauhari bin Zaini, 2016). It suggested that the original music artefact, the vinyl album I had personally assigned so much meaning too, the songs that guided me through the often confusing and confronting formative years as a teenager that I now share with my nine year old son, was somehow flawed. I was surprised, concerned, confused and felt a sense of betrayal. Although O’Neil’s reported error had not been sonically perceived by me previously, and that I had never expressed this concern or had the conversation with any other fan or music production colleague over the years that ‘I love that album except for I’m Shakin’ being overcut’, nevertheless, it still hurt. It made me question how concerned I really was about the remastered digital replica maintaining the meaning I had assigned to it, the cultural heritage attached to it by society, given that I was now aware that the original musical artefact might be flawed. However, regardless of the reported fault, the strong sense of nostalgia I experience through listening to the album ensured that any initial concerns I had regarding a sense of diminished meaning and cultural heritage associated with Sunnyboys was short term and of little consequence overall.
Remastering Sunnyboys in 1991 for CD
Sunnyboys was first released on CD in 1991 as part of the Mushroom Midprice Masters series. This series compromised releasing a number of original analogue LP recordings of Australian bands including Split Enz, The Models and The Triffids on the new CD format (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, October 2, 2015). Although the album artwork and credit listing on the 1991 CD remaster mimics those
143 accreditations as itemised on the original vinyl album, for example mastered at SML, it is evident this replication of credits is simply that. There is no mention on the CD artwork of where the remastering for the 1991 Sunnyboys CD took place and who was the remastering engineer involved. However, O’Neil believes he most likely was the mastering engineer and that this application involved very little manipulation due primarily to a short timeframe and minimal budget, hence the name Midprice Masters. According to O’Neil, the source master tapes used to create the 1991 CD master were not the original Albert’s masters; that they were in fact third to fifth generation copies equalised for another format, namely vinyl or tape cassette. As he writes;
The early Sunnyboys’ CDs that were put out are nothing more than the copy master transferred straight to the CD format, not even touched, just whatever was done. When they came back to Festival and they re-released all the stuff again, and decided we’ll do the right pricing, they got the cassette masters, which were equalised per cassette, and put two records on one CD and sold them for $12. Typically that was the equalisation when it was set up for vinyl. It may have been set up to be a little brighter when it played back (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, October 2, 2015).
This process described by O’Neil suggests minimal involvement by the remastering engineer with the main aim of the record company to resell the Sunnyboys’ back catalogue on the new CD format with minimal time and costs accrued. It is therefore difficult to ascertain whether the role of the remastering engineer in this instance, supports either a modern creative or a traditional corrective approach. It does not appear creative in the sense that minimal intervention seems to have occurred without a clear understanding of the new CD format or aim to maximise playback given its nuances. This process would therefore appear to be deemed as unimaginative and not creative with respect to Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory, as there appears to be no new activity by the individual for consideration by the field for CD mastering and merely a replication of workflow used on vinyl and cassette (2015). It is also unlikely whether it could be referred to as corrective action as there is no evidence to suggest an attempt to improve the sound or correct the master tape to maximise the CD format. According to Oxley, the band had no input into the CD release of their
144 back catalogue either and it was a decision taken solely by the record company. However, Oxley said the band were excited about the release of their back catalogue on CD and it did prompt a mini reunion tour to promote the CDs, including two nights at the Annandale Hotel in Sydney in 1991, which I attended.
Remastering Sunnyboys in 2014 for CD
The decision to remaster and re-release Sunnyboys on CD in 2014 was primarily to address the issue of the original recording never previously being properly mastered for CD (or iTunes and other current digital formats) and to commercially support the live performances and touring of the band (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015). For Pittman, it was an opportunity to finally do ‘justice’ to the original recordings in a digital format and bring these recordings into the now. As he writes;
The 1991 CD releases were never mastered for CD, they were just the original vinyl masters, and if you actually listen to them, they are ever so slightly off kilter. As a result, there’s a ‘whir’ sound slightly off centre and that’s why they ended up in the $9.99 cheap bin out the front or record shops. This is not really how to look after them so remastering was an opportunity to rectify the disservice these cheap 1991 CD releases represented (Tim Pittman, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
Pittman’s decision to remaster and distribute Sunnyboys to finally do the original recordings ‘justice’ is an interesting idea when applied to digital convergence theory. If we assume the goal was to improve and modernise the original recordings for distribution so that they sit more comfortably alongside modern recordings (particularly in the area of volume and dynamics) then Pittman appears to be employing a DIY approach consistent with participatory culture (Jenkins, 2014). This is more evident when you consider Pittman funded the remasters through his small company Feel Presents, similar to the approach of an unsigned artist, as opposed to this activity being funded generously by a major record company. In a way,
145 technological change has enabled Pittman the opportunity to produce and distribute digital music artefacts cheaply and efficiently converging alongside those supported by major record companies (Morey, 2009; Théberge, 1997; Stuhl, 2014). However, the original recording and vinyl release of Sunnyboys was professionally mastered and released through the support of a major record company in 1981 and its subsequent commercial sales would categorise Sunnyboys as an established artist. Manovich believes that established artists can benefit by an overall increase in the production and consumption of cultural goods partially created through the democratisation of media production and access (2009). Therefore this democratization of media would appear to not only benefit Sunnyboys through greater overall consumption of cultural goods as an established artist, but also allow their old recordings to now sit comfortably alongside and compete against modern recordings.
For O’Neil, the overall aim of digitally remastering old analogue recordings for modern consumption is to enhance the listener’s experience. In conversation with O’Neil to explain the aims of the Sunnyboys remaster, he depicted a model for comparison of consumer music consumption between the years 1981 and 2014. O’Neil claims that in 1981, although you would most likely set up your stereo system and adjust the volume to a desirable sound pressure level to enjoy the playback of the Sunnyboys album, record players were rarely set up to play back correctly and consequently the listener would not hear the full recording as it was meant to be. Additionally, playback vinyl has a lot of surface noise that can be quite noticeable, particularly between 40-50dB, and if the stylus is not clean or maintained regularly this would contribute to a duller playback. So, according to O’Neil, to compensate for the inaccurate playback, vinyl surface noise, an incorrectly aligned sound system, unclean stylus and outside noise (for example a truck driving past so the listener doesn’t hear the quieter parts), the listener would increase the volume of the stereo system to get past these loudness issues so the music sounded good to them.
O’Neil maintains that for playback on a stereo system in 2014 of the remastered Sunnyboys CD release, the same rules apply in terms of the listener adjusting the volume to the same desired sound pressure level. However, the technology changes in the last 30 years regarding compression, limiting and EQ allows the remastering engineer to shift the recording volume level up out of the noise floor and limit and
146 compress the odd overly loud transient (tom hit for example) and then make the whole recording louder. This results in, as O’Neil describes, a lower level pleasure listening point for the listener. For example, if your desired playback sound pressure level of your Sunnyboys vinyl album was 7 (out of 10) on your 1981 sound system, the 2014 remastered CD listening pleasure point on your current stereo system maybe around 4 (out of 10). Therefore, in a simple context according to O’Neil, the loudness button on old stereo system is remastering as the listener can all too easily believe there may be something wrong with a recording if it sounds quieter. The digital representation is therefore louder overall and with less surface noise than the original musical artefact and as Baudrillard theorised, the constant duplication over time will potentially make the louder digital representation assume the role of how Sunnyboys originally sounded for future generations (1983). Furthermore, the reduction of surface noise on the digital replica may indicate a preference for some to embrace the 1981 vinyl original as the inherent noise may be instil a nostalgic transition to a pre- digital time that appeared more real (Hainge, 2005).
This conversation on perceived loudness and its correlation with quality led me to ask O’Neil about his thoughts on the ‘loudness wars’ (Hjortkjaer & Walther-Hansen, 2014; Nielsen & Lund, 1999; Vickers, 2010; Walsh, Stein, & Jot, 2011). O’Neil believes that compression, limiting and lessening the dynamic range of a recording when used correctly does not ruin the sound, it actually enhances it and that ‘getting your head around bass and volume control can make a big difference to the sound of perceived inferior old analogue recordings’ (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015). I also asked O’Neil about his thoughts on compression and limiting and how they contribute to the ‘loudness wars’. As he writes;
And this is the thing with the loudness wars that people don’t get. The inference is we are all at war and we’ve got flak jackets on and we are fighting the good fight against the evil of limiting and that’s just not the case at all. What we’re actually doing is, we’re a bunch of guys who know what we are doing. When I started 30 years ago, there were four guys in Australia that cut records. Now if you go looking for a mastering place you will find 100 names in Australia. So where there used to be 30 guys or 40 guys around the world, now there are 4000 to 5000 all with a sign out the front claiming that they’ve
147 done 10 to 15 years work, they’ve done lots of records and know what they are doing (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
O’Neil’s statement above suggests that there is confusion surrounding the well- documented loudness wars debate (Deruty &Tardieu, 2014; Nielson & Lundt, 1999; Vickers, 2010). For O’Neil it appears to be an over simplification to conclude that a decrease in dynamic range and corresponding increase in volume as the result of primarily extensive compression and limiting, an occurrence synonymous with modern digital mastered and remastered releases, leads to a poorer listening experience overall. Therefore, if the quality of the final remastered and mastered product is of an inadequate quality and standard, O’Neil is of the opinion that this result is more likely to be due to the recent increase in mastering and remastering engineers and facilities available and their perceived lack of knowledge, skills and experience in this area and an inability to reduce dynamic range and maintain sonic quality correctly. If we place this view within Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory, it would suggest that the role of the field may have diminished over time, predominantly due to digital technology and tools and therefore the appropriate judgment on deciding the validity of new ideas and creative activity entering the domain may have diminished (2015). Furthermore, digital convergence theory and the ability for amateurs to efficiently and cheaply produce and distribute arguably commercial quality remasters in the modern world, at least as judged by the audience, may also support O’Neil’s criticism of a lack of insightful and specific industry knowledge attributed to the ever increasing number of remastering practitioners (Jenkins, 2006).
Remastering process
The remastering process for Sunnyboys began with O’Neil and Pittman identifying the various technical formats required (WAV and mp3); understanding how the remastered recordings would be distributed (iTunes, CD) and then acquiring and listening to all of the existing stereo track master tapes for Sunnyboys, which was mostly in analogue tape format. Pittman had the important task of finding all of these various master tapes and credits the persistence of Warner Music Australia employee
148 Dave Laing for locating and gathering up all of the tapes available from the record company’s storage facilities. The number of tapes totalled over 30 and included both studio and live recordings, although a lot of these were copies of copies. This was a challenging process according to O’Neil. As he writes;
So I guess the main thing about all of the Sunnyboys stuff is the record company gave us five tapes and said that’s the back catalogue, but it wasn’t. Tim went hunting and he ended up with four boxes containing around 30 tapes as opposed to the original five they supplied. We played every single tape to work out what was what (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
The challenge Pittman and O’Neil experienced in locating the correct original source master tape amongst the multitude of generational copies appears to be a consistent phenomenon associated with remastering older analogue recordings (Richardson, 1997; Rumsey, 2012). Once located, in order to play the original master analogue tape of this vintage for optimal playback and to protect it from stretching and snapping, O’Neil chose to ‘bake’ it. This baking process involved placing the physical analogue tape into an oven with a low consistent heat of around 47 degrees Celsius for a couple of days and then turning the oven off and leaving the tape inside to cool down slowly over a 10-12 hour period to set the tape. O’Neil adopted this process to ensure that the tape could be played back safely and able to be transferred. Once baked, the tapes were played through an Ampex ATR102 tape player to accurately reflect the original playing of the master tapes. According to O’Neil, as the Sunnyboys’ master tape was a ¼ inch tape he could adjust not only the heads and the rollers of the Ampex ATR102 to play it but also ‘calibrate the machine so that it behaved and played back thinking it was a tape machine at Alberts’ Studio 2 in 1981’ (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015). This was a critical element of the remastering process for O’Neil who mentioned during interviews and my observations how important it was to get the master tape, once correctly identified, to play back as it was originally intended.
149
Figure 4 - Remastering engineer Rick O'Neil at Turtlerock Mastering, Sydney
Once the tape could be played correctly, the next consideration for O’Neil was Dolby noise reduction. According to O’Neil, many of the Sunnyboys’ master tapes were encoded with Dolby, a noise reduction process that existed on tape recordings primarily between the 1970s and 1990s. Referring to the process of aligning his Dolby machine correctly as similar to aligning a tape machine, O’Neil says it was critical to get this process right to playback the natural and correct sound. The next stage involved O’Neil employing a mastering process he referred to as ‘pitch and catch’ (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015). This procedure comprised of the playback or pitch on one system, manipulating the sound and recording, and catching the final mastered signal on another system. According to O’Neil, this workflow stems from his previous experience mastering to vinyl where the master tape would be played, the signal enhanced with predominantly EQ, gain and compression and then captured by the vinyl lathe which cut the master copy or acetate disk of the vinyl record. As he writes;
The pitch and catch system is different to modern ‘out of the box’ mastering where a plugin is used within the one system. With pitch and catch I can quickly switch between tracks, listening to very small sections of songs looking for particular problems. The only time I hear a track in its entirety is once when I initially catch it and once when I play it back to check the master (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
150
This pitch and catch process described by O’Neil is very similar to the approach used at SML and suggests a traditional method to modern-day mastering and remastering as opposed to using plugins within the one system. This adopted traditional cutting vinyl method may help substantiate claims made by O’Neil that it is a lack of this type of experience in some modern remastering and mastering engineers that may lead to a perceived lower-quality final musical product. O’Neil transferred the analogue audio signal from the tape playback on the Ampex ATR102 into a Weiss analogue to digital convertor and then into his customised Parkside Sound Mastering Console for straight gain. This signal was then fed into a Pro Tools DAW system with no equalisation added. Within Pro Tools, the signal has a small amount of digital limiting applied to it before it is sent or ‘pitched’ out of this digital environment as an analogue signal into an Avalon Mastering EQ unit. The signal then flows into an Alta Moda compressor where it is manipulated before being recorded or digitally encoded into the SADiE mastering software program or ‘capture’ system. With regards to Sunnyboys, O’Neil said his main work was undertaken getting the master tapes to play back correctly as the quality of the source tape was so good. As he writes;
I believe there are more harmonics at both the top and bottom end of the Sunnyboys album due primarily to the work I did lining up the test tones correctly and making sure the tape played back correctly and accurately. In the 1991 CD release, that probably wouldn’t have been done as efficiently due to the inferior tape equipment available at the time. This matched up Tim’s (Pittman) desire to remaster as close to the original mixes as possible and if good enough, we left them. If some songs were a little thin we may have added some bottom end but on the whole most of the tracks rolled off the tape with maybe a little work in the high and/or low end to match the previous track, if it needed it. A big part of the process was adjusting the volume so track three would match up with track four for example, to make them sound like they belong together with straight gain. I used limiters to make everything sound like it’s the same level (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
151 O’Neil played the recording three to four times while adjusting the left and right stereo channels moving 100 Hz around to find the low end information and boost or cut the EQ as required. For example, as Disk 1 of the 2014 Sunnyboys CD release featured the original album track listing with bonus tracks, O’Neil would manipulate the bonus tracks to make them sound similar to the original album tracks. Typically, O’Neil used five to six limiters on remastering Sunnyboys to try and make it sound big and huge and able to sit next to a modern recording comfortably. Reflecting on his previous remastered works, O’Neil mentioned that he had put vast amounts of compression on records and no one has ever in his entire career told him that a particular record was too compressed, limited or distorted. O’Neil therefore implemented a significant level of limiting and compression on Sunnyboys, as according to him, you cannot put one limiter on a track and attain 20dB of gain and that is what was required. As he writes;
Typically if somebody hits a snare drum or sings a vocal line there’s 20dB of dynamic range in that performance, and if you mix them all together with one limiter there is probably still around 15dB from the quietest to the loudest point. On a modern release, there is three or four dB of dynamic range so therefore I need to get 12 dB from somewhere, and there isn’t a limiter made that can take it up 12dB in a stereo program and not leave massive artefacts. So I use stacks of limiters together all doing something different, one on the bass, one on guitars, one on vocals etc. to get the dynamic range down to somewhere between 3-4 dB so that it’s capable of being played next to something modern (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
This complex use of both digital and analogue limiters employed by O’Neil in an effort to make the 1981 recording of Sunnyboys sound more ‘modern’ is different to the ‘out of the box’ approach described earlier of mastering or remastering within the one digital environment and inserting digital plugins. This technique employed by O’Neil seems to suggest a process based upon longevity and experience within the industry, a mixture of traditional and creative as opposed to a less experienced practitioner simply using one plugin limiter, criticised by O’Neil earlier. The combination of analogue and digital tools used by O’Neil, in particular the analogue
152 ones to create the digital replica, could therefore potentially be viewed as a show of respect to how the original musical artefact was originally created in a pure analogue environment and used in a manner to protect, maintain and successfully transfer the cultural heritage and meaning assigned to the original work. Alongside his complex use of limiters, O’Neil believes the intervals between songs on an album is also a major part of mastering and remastering as it can set the mood of the record. O’Neil explains that he works out the gap length between tracks based upon the dynamics surrounding the end of one track and the start of another track. For example, if a song has a loud ending and the next song has a quieter start, O’Neil may shorten this gap to continue the momentum of the record for the listener so as they do not notice a large gap and potentially question this silence and lose interest. For the Sunnyboys’ collection of remastered albums, O’Neil explains the process he adopted. As he writes;
What we did with the Sunnyboys back catalogue, as much as we could, was to copy the gap structure exactly as they appeared when originally released in the early 1980s. However, for all of the live stuff and extra tracks we created the gaps based upon the feeling of the other tracks. For example, if it was a pacey record then the gaps were created to ensure the pace was maintained. I spent hours cutting different live recordings together to try to make them sound like they belonged together (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
This description appears to portray an effort by O’Neil to maintain the perceived cultural heritage and meaning of the original musical artefact by employing the same gaps between songs on the digital replica as they originally appeared. O’Neil described remastering Sunnyboys as a ‘historic technical job’ where his aim was to remaster and place the original album tracks to sound like they all belonged together in the digital format. This process was made easier, according to O’Neil, in that ‘the good thing about the original Sunnyboys release is that once you get the sound for one track they are pretty much all a carbon copy of that’ (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015). For O’Neil, this relative ease of process and replication was possible primarily because he and Pittman located, identified and remastered from the original master tape played back correctly. Another goal for
153 O’Neil was to make the bonus tracks (assorted live and studio recordings from the same period) that physically sit on and follow the original album tracks on the Sunnyboys 2014 CD Disk 1, sound sonically similar and not out of place. So for O’Neil his role did not consist of listening to the songs as a whole and focussing solely on ways to improve them, as O’Neil reported was the case with Pittman, his main mission was to ensure they all sounded like they belonged together in the digital format and all tracks sat comfortably side by side (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015). It is therefore evident that O’Neil’s creative activity with regards to remastering Sunnyboys could be described as representational as it was linear and with clear external references by design (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015).
The main aim of the remastering process according to Pittman was to ensure the final remastered product of Sunnyboys was an accurate representation of the original album (minus the added bonus tracks) and of the band in general. For example, Pittman was keen to safeguard that when the listener set up the CD to play on their home system or through headphones that Richard’s (Burgman) guitar was on the left side and Jeremy’s (Oxley) guitar was on the right, the same set up the band used on stage and similar to the panning technique employed for the guitar parts on the original album (Tim Pittman, personal communication, November 9, 2015). As the band representative who attended most of the remastering sessions, Pittman said he had the trust of the band members in his decision-making ability regarding remastering Sunnyboys to attain the sound and sense of authenticity he believed it should be. This desire to achieve a sense of authenticity for Pittman appears consistent with Moore’s second person authenticity theory, in that the remaster is authenticating Pittman’s perception of his existence and memory of the band (2009). For example, Pittman mentioned that there were 10-12 different versions of the last track on the Sunnyboys album I Can’t Talk To You (Reprisal) he and O’Neil had to listen to in order to determine the correct version to use, the most authentic. This approach and attention to detail appears consistent with those who signify the importance of maintaining the cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original musical artefact when producing a digital replica (Barchiesi & Reiss, 2010; Bennett, 2009). Pittman also mentioned that the remastering process for him also included the monumental task of retrieving all of the master tapes, attempting to get the correct tones of the band and
154 their recordings, accuracy, track identity, fadeouts, track listings and song sequences (Tim Pittman, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
For Peter Oxley, the remastering process of Sunnyboys involved visiting O’Neil’s studio on a few occasions to listen to the progress being made and having faith and trust in Pittman and O’Neil to deliver an accurate digital replica of Sunnyboys that improved sonically but not changed the original musical artefact. Oxley said during these sessions he was amazed with not only the transformation in sound but also the physicality of the over 30 year old reel-to-reel tape being played and the fact it could be played back. However, for Oxley the remastering sessions regarding the band’s other albums uncovered lost elements that became evident only through remastering. For example, Oxley discovered that on the song Individuals from the album of the same name there existed a Farfisa organ part that he had never heard before and that excited him (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015). This sense of excitement through remastering the album Individuals therefore, in a sense, created new meaning for Oxley and this was only made possible through the digital replication process. It is important to note that this organ part was not added during the remastering process and had in fact lay dormant and unheard for around 35 years. This therefore presents a slightly different interpretation surrounding cultural heritage and meaning of an original music artefact through digital replication when the remastering process uncovers existing elements of the original artefact that up until that point had remained buried. Therefore in this case the social and cultural practice of remastering has allowed, similar to the remastering of Hitchcock’s film Vertigo, the audience to listen to the album Individuals not as it was first played or heard but as the Sunnyboys had recorded it (Kurtilla, 2011). The band members have stated that they were sonically unhappy with the original vinyl release of Individuals in 1982 as it was presented to the public and chose to replace this with a remastered version emitting from a different recording session that included the Farfisa organ part as the band had recorded and wanted the original 1982 record to sound (Oxley & Oxley Griffiths, 2015). Unlike Sunnyboys, where there was a sense of intent from the band and management to maintain cultural heritage and meaning perceptions associated with the original album release, this was not evident in the cultural and social practice of remastering the album Individuals where a different musical artefact was used and replicated. As a teenage fan I can still recall my initial excitement purchasing
155 Individuals and rushing home to play it on my home stereo system only to be disappointed, not in the song writing or performance, but at the overall sound. This, I believe, led to me to attach a lower sense of meaning to this album as opposed to the Sunnyboys release, which still has a strong nostalgic influence on me today (Barrett et al., 2010). This approach by the band to completely remove the original musical artefact from the remastering process and to digitally replicate from a different source, is therefore likely to render the original 1982 vinyl release of Individuals as obsolete for future generations and potentially render both versions as artificial (Baudrillard, 1983).
Listening comparative analysis
I asked Peter Oxley and Burgman to listen to a selection of songs from Sunnyboys and describe the sonic differences they perceived between the original 1981 vinyl LP, the 1991 CD and the 2016 remastered CD. Burgman preferred to compare the sonic differences between the different versions of Sunnyboys in their entirety as he claimed comparisons between one era’s medium and another to be too subjective. However, Oxley was happy to focus on the selection of songs from the album in an effort to provide greater detail on these individual tracks. According to Burgman, he first heard the 1981 recording master tape played back in the control room at Alberts’ Studio 2 through professional studio quality equipment and speakers. For Burgman, this was the best way to listen to Sunnyboys as ‘audio tape has a dynamic range and frequency response that was superior to anything else at the time, vinyl records paled by comparison and don’t even talk about cassettes’ and he was ‘blown away with the huge sound, clarity and presence of the instruments, the blending of voices, the interplay of the guitars, the work of the rhythm section, and that overall it had space, dynamics and energy’ (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017). Concerning the 1981 vinyl release, Burgman said he generally liked what he heard but perceived it was not close to the sound he had heard in the recording studio as the vinyl record playback technology at the time was not the best, as O’Neil previously alluded to. As he writes;
156 The average turntable in the 1980s was not very good in that turntable speeds varied, the cartridges and needles were poor and the amps, speakers and wiring attached to them were often of similar low quality. Most people, including myself, had lots of records and we played them all the time on stereos we cobbled together. Part of listening to music is losing yourself in it and suspending your inner critic as it performs its magic on you. This is what we did (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017).
With regards to the 1991 CD release, Burgman said he thought it sounded pretty good at the time. The only differences he perceived between this version and the vinyl release was that the CD was missing the familiar pops and crackles of vinyl, there was no tape hiss, the silences between the tracks appeared deeper and the treble seemed pushed up. The fact that Burgman noticed the missing noise that he described as ‘familiar’, an element you would not normally associate with musical performance, appears to support Link’s theory that there is a correlation between noise and authenticity (2001). Additionally, Burgman recalled CDs being referred to as the superior format at the time and similar to O’Neil’s account, thought they still had their limitations in 1991. In particular, Burgmen believes that CD mastering was not what it should or could have been with regards to sound quality, and many CDs at that time were released with minimal mastering to quickly capture the market of people replacing their vinyl. Burgman was also critical of the home stereo systems at the time, particularly those that had multi CD players built in, claiming they were lightweight and cheap, and lamented the loss of the ‘big old heavy good sounding amps and speakers of the 1970s systems’ (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017). The 2014 CD was much better sonically than the 1991 CD according to Burgman, primarily due to the increased responsibility and importance of mastering and remastering in the current era as opposed to 1991. As he writes;
The 2014 CD is louder, the dynamic range is better, the bass is clear and tight, and the highs have been mellowed to make it a more pleasant listening experience. Overall it’s better balanced, cleaner and clearer, and the songs sound more alive as a result. I am very happy with it (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017).
157
However, with reference to the five songs chosen to analyse individually [I Can’t Talk To You, Happy Man, Alone With You, I’m Shakin and I Can’t Talk To You (reprise)], Burgman said he loved the vinyl versions of those songs the best. He attributes this to its association with nostalgia, inherent noise, a sense of time and place, a comfortable resolution and a pre-existing process (Duchan, 2013). As he writes;
I love the sound of vinyl, with its warmth, with all the ritual of getting a record out, putting it on the turntable, dropping the needle in the groove, and then remembering to not walk across the floor in front of the stereo so you don’t make the needle jump. They are what we were trying to achieve back then. Records were it. We wanted to make a good record and I think we did. The 2014 CD is really good too, but it’s more transparent than the record, more revealing, more of us are laid bare. In a way the warm blanket that is vinyl encourages a listener to use their imagination when it comes to lyrics, chords, which guitar is doing what, as opposed to a well mastered CD through a decent stereo which shines a more fluorescent light onto the performances, and reveals more internal detail. That warm light was what we used to listen to everything back then. A bit like old school PAL TV versus 1080p, there is a charm, magic, a measure of comfort, in not having everything so crystal clear. It encourages the imagination to participate and allows for mistakes, it means each person’s appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of the music will be different and it will be their own (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017).
Burgman suggests that the extra detail evident through the 2014 remastered CD in terms of clarity and performance comes at a cost when compared to the original vinyl release. For him, there appears to be an associated charm, sense of cultural heritage and meaning associated with the vinyl release and the process surrounding consuming vinyl that is lost through the more detailed 2014 digital replica, in particular the meaning and imagination of the audience through its consumption (Vickers, 2010). Furthermore, his depiction lends weight to Blanc and Huault’s theory that the physical use and routine surrounding the playback and listening to music offers a sense of
158 ‘reality’ associated nostalgia and memory of use (2014). Additionally, this preference towards the 1980s vinyl offering appears consistent with Baudrillard’s theory that the process of replication, simulation and simulacra has resulted in Burgman mourning for what he perceives as the real (1983).
For Oxley, the 1981 vinyl release was a great representation of the band, particularly for fans, as that was the way the band sounded live, the record had a nice sense of separation of the instruments and a warm bottom end. Although Oxley was initially excited about the 1991 CD release in terms of Sunnyboys being made available on the considered new ‘superior’ format, he was disappointed as it sounded like it had been badly cut from the original vinyl master, was a bit muffled, and he refers to it as not a very thoughtful release from Mushroom Records. However, Oxley said he was very pleased with the 2014 remastered CD release, citing he perceived a beautiful quality of sound of the vocals and instruments, fantastic separation and overall it sounded amazing. For the track I Can’t Talk To You, Oxley said he perceived the 1981 version to have an ‘edgier’ sound and the 2014 copy portrayed a ‘heavier and fuller sustain on the guitar part and better separation overall’. For the song Happy Man, Oxley said he believed the 1981 original version to be ‘happier and lighter’ when directly compared against the 2014 release. For arguably their best-known song Alone With You, Oxley appeared to favour the 2014 version describing it as ‘smooth as silk’. Oxley depicted the 1981 original version of I’m Shakin’ in a positive manner as ‘wild’ and also thoroughly enjoyed the better ‘separation of instruments’ on the 2014 copy. Finally, Oxley said he enjoyed all three versions of the final track I Can’t Talk To You (reprise) ‘because it’s funny and a great idea’ (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015). Oxley’s brief descriptions of the sonic elements he associated with the vinyl version of these five songs as being ‘happier and lighter’ and ‘edgier’ may suggest, when compared to the 2014 copy, that there is less volume overall across the frequency ranges and perhaps sharper transients and peaks in the frequency range, roughly around the 2kHz mark that is associated with ‘edge’ (Katz, 2007). Oxley’s perception of ‘greater separation overall’ of instrument parts and a ‘heavier and fuller sustain’ associated with the 2014 version may also indicate a greater use of equalisation and dynamics (limiting and compression) signal processing employed in its creation. Having generated, collected and interpreted this listening comparative qualitative data from both Burgman and Oxley, the next step was to undertake digital
159 audio analysis to ascertain whether their sonic perceptions were similar or not to the results depicted during this quantitative process (Smith & Dean, 2009).
Digital audio analysis
In order to undertake a fair comparative audio analysis between the three versions, I used a digital transfer made from Peter Oxley’s first generation vinyl mastered copy of Sunnyboys. O’Neil was adamant the vinyl record used for digital transfer had to be a first-generation copy cut at SML as this would have emanated from the same original master tape used to create the 2014 remastered CD. O’Neil was able to verify Oxley’s copy as being of first-generation status due to the encoding on the vinyl. However, despite having sourced a first generation copy and having all of the appropriate professional equipment to ensure a quality transfer and claiming he was ‘probably the best person qualified to undertake this type of digital transfer’, O’Neil was initially reluctant to do so (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015). The first concern O’Neil raised was the potential for copyright infringement and the impact this could potentially have on his reputation and business. O’Neil said that as Sunnyboys had been signed to Mushroom (which had been on sold twice) this made it difficult to ascertain who owned the copyright. Therefore, to create a digital transfer of an artefact without the copyright holders’ permission may potentially result in legal issues. O’Neil cites an example of a previous project he worked on with Pittman featuring Nick Cave where the record company terminated the remaster and release of a collection of unreleased recordings. According to O’Neil, he has received regular emails from a fan in Germany over a 10-year period that was willing to pay money to receive a digital transfer of these recordings. O’Neil was also hesitant due to the lack of financial gain from this type of work and states that it does not help his career over the longer term. As he writes;
What I like to do is I make new records, every day of the week, that’s the only thing that gets me up. And doing back catalogue stuff, if I have an affiliation with the band or like the label; I do the same work with something that’s 30 years old as I do today. Only when it’s 30 years old you get paid a third as much and it’s harder (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
160
O’Neil states he has a personal preference for mastering and remastering ‘new records’ as this is what excites him and he considers the budgets associated with remastering older stuff smaller by comparison to new work. He also mentions the process in general for remastering older iconic musical artefacts was harder as opposed to mastering new recordings within the digital realm as it involved extra steps (sourcing the correct analogue master tape, baking, getting the tape to play back correctly, digital conversion, maintenance of analogue studio equipment) and often he was generally not financially compensated for. I was persistent in my approach with O’Neil who eventually agreed to undertake the digital transfer, perhaps another example of the inside researcher being granted access to events and services not necessarily readily available to the sole academic or pure fan (Brennan, 2014; Duffett, 2014; Roach, 2014).
Figure 5 - Sunnyboys 1981 album being digitally transferred on AVID turntable at Turtlerock Mastering
The digital transfer process began with Oxley’s first-generation Sunnyboys vinyl record being played on a high-end professional ($25,000AUD) AVID turntable.
161 According to O’Neil, this turntable is essential in the process as it has a rubber band belt driven monolithic platter and as the only vibration from the motor came across an attached string, this results in little to no surface noise or rumble. O’Neil used an Ortofon cartridge (worth around $2000AUD) and matched its impedance level with the preamplifier or phono box using a set of test tones to bring it up to line level and achieve a flat response, or as close to a flat response as possible. However, O’Neil did warn me that due to the age and wear and tear of the record, although he blew the dust off the record before playing it, the transfer would have some evidence and element of surface noise, pops and clicks. O’Neil decided not to try and clean and remove this inherent noise as according to him, it would affect the dynamic range and was not the most accurate way to proceed. This view is consistent with Lagadec and Pelloni’s claim that there is ‘no miracle in signal enhancement. Noise cannot just be reduced without penalty. Only the tools exist’ (1983, p. 6). However if we are to include the inherent noise associated with the 35-year-old vinyl record musical artefact, there is an argument that although sonically this may not be the best way to proceed, it may make the digital transfer appear more ‘authentic’ and allow the listener to refer to their pre-digital past in a nostalgic reflection (Hainge, 2005; Link, 2001). O’Neil then analysed the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) equalisation curves, a standardised measurement of vinyl records to improve sound quality and reduce groove damage during playback, and manipulated the EQ to get as close to a flat digital transfer as possible. As he writes;
Getting a flat response of vinyl does cost $25,000. Using a $600 player that we all have at home cannot result in a flat response; it cannot sound like the guy that cut it. It’s just technically impossible (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
The aim of trying to achieve the flattest response possible during transfer was to create a digital replica of the 1981 vinyl release that was accurate and that the 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate WAV files produced were consistent with and comparable against the 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate WAV files of the 1991 and 2014 digital CDs respectively. Having sourced and generated accurate digital audio data representative of the three releases that was directly comparable and in the same
162 format, the first piece of analysis undertaken was a waveform comparison, as adopted by Barry in his work (2013).
Figure 6 - Waveform view of 1981, 1991 and 2014 Sunnyboys releases
Figure 6 is a screenshot that depicts the loudness/amplitude range over time of the respective waveforms for each release of Sunnyboys within the Pro Tools digital audio workstation (DAW) software environment. The first track (blue) represents the 1981 vinyl transfer, the second track (green) depicts the 1991 CD release and the third track (purple) portrays the 2014 remastered CD release. As shown, each track consists of the individual songs aligned directly above and below each other. The visual representation of the 2014 remastered CD release (purple) clearly shows a louder and more compressed signal identified by the ‘block’ shape of the files as compared to the other two tracks that exhibit greater shifts between softness and loudness. This block shape indicates an overall higher loudness level maintained throughout the recording with fewer quieter passages as compared to the other two tracks. This visual representation therefore tends to support O’Neil’s claims that the 2014 CD appears to sound four times louder by comparison to the other versions due to the use of multiple limiters and significant levels of compression to achieve a modern sound. Although this may appear similar to the approach by engineers depicted in the loudness wars, O’Neil insists that his remastering practice ensures no distortion or clipping (Deruty
163 & Tardieu, 2014; Nielsen & Lund, 1999; Vickers, 2010). The waveform differences between the 1981 vinyl transfer and the 1991 CD release appear to be less severe and more closely aligned with only minor variances. However, the 1991 CD appears slightly louder overall compared to the vinyl which would lend support to the likelihood that the 1991 CD release was simply the 1981 vinyl master tape cut straight to CD with minimal manipulation. To explore these variances further I recorded left and right true peak level meter readings of the Sunnyboys 1981 digital vinyl transfer, 1991 CD and the 2014 remastered CD, similar to Barry’s analysis undertaken on The Beatles (2013).
Song 1981 Vinyl 1991 CD 2014 CD
Left Right Left Right Left Right True True True True True True Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak I Can’t Talk To You -0.22 -0.04 -1.78 -0.9 -0.13 -0.13 My Only Friend -1.47 -1.17 -0.69 -0.30 -0.13 -0.13 Trouble In My Brain -2.55 -0.85 -1.55 over -0.13 -0.13 Gone -1.88 -0.96 -0.54 -0.38 -0.13 -0.13 It’s Not Me -1.56 -1.29 -0.58 -0.29 -0.13 -0.13 Happy Man -0.56 over -1.18 -0.84 -0.13 -0.13 Alone With You -1.95 over over over -0.13 -0.13 Tunnel Of My Love -2.40 -2.21 -1.07 -0.61 -0.13 -0.13 Liar -2.32 -2.78 -0.63 -0.8 -0.13 -0.13 Let You Go -1.75 -1.58 over over -0.13 -0.13 I’m Shakin’ over over over over -0.13 -0.13 I Can’t Talk To You (Reprise) -8.65 -7.45 -4.52 -4.35 -0.13 -0.13 Consolidated WAV file of over over over over -0.13 -0.13 whole album Table 2 - True Peak level measurements Sunnyboys
Table 2 represents the left and right true peak level values for each individual album track as well as the album in its entirety across the three versions. The consolidated WAV file of the whole album measurement suggests that both the 1981 digital vinyl transfer and the 1991 CD are distorted as indicated by the value ‘over’. If we pay particular attention to the song I’m Shakin’ we can see it is distorted on both the left and right channels on both the 1981 digital vinyl transfer and the 1991 CD. This arguably lends support to O’Neil’s claim that the original vinyl cut undertaken at SML was ‘overcut’ and that this ‘mistake’ was replicated in the 1991 CD release. The 2014 remastered CD release is exactly the same peak level throughout the whole
164 album; -0.13dB on both channels and this was achieved by tuning the NOVA limiter on the Apogee UV22 Super CD Encoder. These results support O’Neil’s claim of no distortion or clipping evident in his remastering practice due primarily to his complex use of limiters. According to O’Neil, he aims for around -2dB on the first track of the album and tries to keep that level and sound across the whole album to make it sound like it belongs together in the digital format. Although this was helpful information in terms of identifying the loudest peaks across an individual track and entire album, it did not provide an average peak level for an arguably fairer loudness comparison. To explore these average variances in loudness, I also recorded the left and right root means squared (RMS) level meter readings of the Sunnyboys 1981 digital vinyl transfer, 1991 CD and the 2014 remastered CD. As this measurement is used primarily to display the average level of loudness overall, RMS metering is useful for indicating if two or more songs are approximately the same loudness level (Owsinski, 2008).
Song 1981 Vinyl 1991 CD 2014 CD
Left Right Left Right Left Right RMS RMS RMS RMS RMS RMS I Can’t Talk To You -15.12 -14.7 -14.72 -14.24 -6.60 -5.80 My Only Friend -16.17 -15.52 -15.08 -14.30 -7.37 -5.88 Trouble In My Brain -16.34 -15.78 -15.32 -15.02 -7.12 -6.32 Gone -17.08 -16.72 -15.80 -15.75 -7.01 -6.15 It’s Not Me -15.87 -15.79 -14.37 -14.21 -6.67 -6.06 Happy Man -18.80 -18.22 -16.35 -15.82 -6.93 -7.03 Alone With You -17.42 -17.33 -14.05 -14.03 -6.58 -6.97 Tunnel Of My Love -17.71 -17.88 -15.46 -15.66 -7.36 -7.88 Liar -17.29 -17.30 -15.23 -15.24 -7.20 -7.61 Let You Go -16.61 -16.84 -13.93 -14.15 -6.44 -6.87 I’m Shakin’ -19.01 -19.11 -15.02 -15.15 -7.03 -7.60 I Can’t Talk To You (Reprise) -24.42 -24.20 -19.94 -20.30 -11.23 -11.64 Consolidated WAV file of -17.41 -17.20 -15.27 -15.15 -7.27 -7.09 whole album Table 3 - RMS level measurements Sunnyboys
Table 3 displays the RMS levels for both left and right channels across all three releases. The difference in average loudness between the 1981 digital vinyl transfer and the 1991 CD for the consolidated whole album file is quite minor at approximately 2dB. However, the figures for the consolidated WAV whole album files clearly show the 2014 remastered CD is significantly louder on average overall
165 than the other two releases, around 8dB louder than the 1991 CD and approximately 10dB louder than the 1981 digital vinyl transfer. Focusing on the last two tracks I’m Shakin’ and I Can’t Talk To You (Reprise), it is evident 12-13dB is the greatest difference in average loudness and occurs when comparing the 1981 digital vinyl transfer and the 2014 CD remaster. According to O’Neil, this relatively large amount of variance in RMS is actually quite normal in the pursuit of creating a modern sounding digital remaster from an old analogue recording so that it can sit comfortably alongside a new recording. As he writes;
If you compare something from the CD (2014) to the digital vinyl transfer (1981) I gave you, you will be comparing apples with apples. If the CD (2014) is sounding four times louder, it is four times louder. If the 1991 CD is sounding a little bit louder than the transfer (1981), it is a little bit louder (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
Having established that the 2014 CD remaster of Sunnyboys was significantly louder than the other two versions with regards to the RMS, Peak and waveform analysis, the next step was to attempt to ascertain the impact these volume manipulations have on the dynamic range.
Song 1981 Vinyl 1991 CD 2014 CD
I Can’t Talk To You 13db 12dB 5dB
My Only Friend 13db 12dB 5dB Trouble In My Brain 12db 11dB 5dB Gone 13db 13dB 5dB It’s Not Me 12db 12dB 5dB Happy Man 14db 13dB 5dB Alone With You 12dB 13dB 5dB Tunnel Of My Love 13dB 12dB 6dB Liar 13dB 13dB 6dB Let You Go 13dB 12dB 5dB I’m Shakin’ 16dB 13dB 6dB I Can’t Talk To You (Reprise) 12dB 11dB 7dB ** Consolidated WAV file of 15dB 13dB 5dB whole album Table 4 - Dynamic range measured in decibels (dB) Sunnyboys
166 Table 4 depicts decibel measurements of dynamic range (DR) across the three releases as individual tracks as well as versions in their entirety. As displayed, the consolidated WAV file of the flat digital transfer of the 1981 vinyl release has the largest DR score of 15dB with the 1991 CD release slightly lower at 13dB. However, the remastered 2014 CD version has the lowest DR score of 5dB, which is significantly lower than the other two versions. According to O’Neil, modern sounding recordings have a dynamic range value of around 3-4 dB and he strives to achieve this value primarily through using multiple limiters and compressors, as discussed previously. As he writes;
I try to get the dynamic range of a remaster down to something that’s capable of being played next to something modern. If you listen to a Taylor Swift or Katie Perry record, where everything comes off from a sampler, there is no dynamic range and it is a smash hit. Having minimal dynamic range does not necessarily mean it has to be distorted. It can sound amazing (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
O’Neil’s remastering strategy of reducing the dynamic range of the digital replica with respect to the original analogue music artefact appears to contradict the standard notion that decreased dynamic range automatically results in a poorer sonic experience for the listener. In fact, the loudness wars phenomenon suggested that the sonic quality of modern recordings and remasters are diminished through primarily over limiting and compressing the signal which results in a reduced dynamic range (Deruty & Tardieu, 2014; Nielsen & Lund, 1999; Vickers, 2010). Although this reduced dynamic range may also be perceived as an affordance or aesthetic possibility of the digital medium.
Another consideration is the rock aesthetic or ‘sound’ of the vinyl LP when compared to the alternate ‘sound’ of the newly created remastered CD. The data reveals that the rock aesthetic elements (Gracyk, 1996) associated with the 1981 Sunnyboys vinyl release (recording levels, distortion) were either removed or manipulated during the remastering process for the CD format. It is therefore a question of what impact, if any, this removal/manipulation of the vinyl rock aesthetic from its digital replication has. This issue was explored in the listening tests undertaken by the case study
167 participants. To further examine the characteristics of a significant reduction in dynamic range and increased volume inherent in the digital replica, as opposed to the original analogue music artefact, the next measurement undertaken was frequency spectrum analysis. Similar to O’Malley’s work, I was keen to examine the frequency spread of the three different Sunnyboys versions in an attempt to identify where these dynamic differences existed and why they were made (2015). It is important to note that the images below only provide a brief snapshot in time on the various frequency and volume levels across all three releases. It would therefore be questionable to draw comparisons of a whole album based upon a brief snapshot so I decided to focus on single songs instead in an effort to attain a fairer and more comparable determination.
Figure 7 - Spectrum analysis image for Happy Man - 1981 (blue), 1991 (pink) and 2014 (brown)
Figure 7 represents the frequency spectrum for the song Happy Man, the sixth track on the album. I chose Happy Man because as a fan and avid listener of the band I always believed this song sounded ‘quieter’ on the 1981 vinyl release in comparison to the previous track It’s Not Me and the following track Alone With You. The RMS levels for the 1981 digital vinyl transfer confirm this as Happy Man is approximately 3dB quieter than It’s Not Me and around 1dB quieter than Alone With You. According to Pittman, this version of Happy Man was originally recorded at a different session to the rest of the album, which may contribute to the impression of
168 sounding quieter. The image depicts the 2014 release as being significantly louder than both the 1991 and 1981 versions and appears consistent with O’Neil’s’ strategy of using substantial compression and limiting. It is evident at around 70Hz to 100Hz that there is a boost in both the 1991 and 2014 releases as opposed to a flatter response on the 1981 vinyl transfer suggesting a greater emphasis on the bottom end for the 1991 and 2014 releases. Additionally, the shape of the frequency spectrum between 10kHz and 15kHz appears to show a boost to both the 1991 and 2014 releases as opposed to the 1981 digital vinyl transfer, proposing an extra ‘shimmer’ to these releases. The image also reveals that the 1981 digital vinyl transfer does not fully fit the frequency spectrum (20Hz to 20kHz) and lies between 25Hz and around 16kHz. This lack of energy at the bottom end and missing ‘brilliance’ at the higher end of the frequency spectrum may also contribute to this song sounding ‘quieter’ overall. Additionally, this lack of bass energy of the 1981 version is consistent with Oxley’s perception of it sounding ‘happier and lighter.’
Figure 8 - Spectrum analysis image for Alone With You - 1981 (blue), 1991 (pink) and 2014 (brown) Sunnyboys
Figure 8 represents the frequency spectrum for the seventh and final track on Side A of the album Sunnyboys, Alone With You. All three spectral patterns appear to be of a
169 similar shape with the 2014 CD release displaying an overall loudness across all frequencies. However, there are some variances. At the frequency range between 60Hz to 100Hz there is a significant boost for both the 1991 and 2014 CD releases resulting in a different shape to the 1981 digital vinyl transfer implying a louder and fuller bass sound overall. Between 3kHz and 6kHz there is also a significant boost for the 1991 and 2014 releases resulting in a different shape to the 1981 digital vinyl transfer and representative of ‘adding aggression and clarity to guitars and vocals’ (Shepherd, 2010). Oxley described the 2014 version as being ‘smooth as silk’ which might be attributed in some part to the relative uniformity between 80Hz and 6kHz resulting in a smoothing out of the overall frequency spectrum image and shape.
Figure 9 - Spectrum analysis image for I’m Shakin’ - 1981 (blue), 1991 (pink) and 2014 (brown) Sunnyboys
Figure 9 represents the frequency spectrum for the song I’m Shakin’, the second last track on side B off the album. I chose this particular song as it is a personal favourite and my band The Conductors use to perform it live. As a scholar-fan it is arguable that personal bias may not perhaps be a rigorous enough criteria to warrant selection, however I believe my in depth knowledge of this recording and its musical attributes allow for greater insight (Brennan, 2014; Duffett, 2014; Roach, 2014). The spectral analysis shapes of all three versions again appear similar overall with the 2014
170 releases exhibiting the most loudness. However, in the frequency range 6kHz to 10kHz both the 2014 and 1991 versions have a flatter shape and slope away less significantly than the 1981 digital vinyl transfer. According to Shepherd, this extra boost across this range results in ‘adding clarity and life, particularly for the top end of drums’ and that ‘too little (amplitude in this range) will lack presence and energy’ (2010, para. 10). Additionally, it is evident there are major peaks between 1kHz and 3kHz, particularly for the 1981 and 1991 releases, which may be a contributing factor to the large DR scores associated with this track (16dB for 1981 release) and the associated ‘bite and aggression for guitars and vocals’ (Shepherd, 2010, para. 9). Oxley described the 1981 version as ‘wild’ and this summation may be supported by both the left and right channel true peak measurement levels being recorded as ‘over’ or distorted. Additionally, the boost between 4kHz and 10kHz on the 2014 CD frequency spectrum image appears to be consistent with Oxley’s claim of ‘better separation of instruments’ and greater clarity.
Sunnyboys case study conclusion
The primary aim of the qualitative (interviews and listening comparisons) and quantitative (digital audio analysis) data generation and analysis undertaken was to investigate the band members’ perceptions of the sonic differences, if any, between the 1981, 1991 and 2014 commercially released recordings of Sunnyboys. Although Burgman was pleased with the remastered 2014 CD he describes as being ‘better balanced, cleaner, and clearer, and the songs sound more alive as a result’ he also portrayed a preference for the 1981 vinyl version of the five songs as they emancipated ‘charm, magic, and a measure of comfort in not having everything so crystal clear’ (Richard Burgman, personal communication, March 29, 2017). For Oxley, the 2014 CD remaster delivers ‘greater instrument separation’ and a ‘beautiful quality of sound’ (Peter Oxley, personal communication, October 5, 2015). The digital audio analysis reveals the 2014 CD remastered version of Sunnyboys as generally louder, possessing a wider frequency spectrum and a reduced dynamic range as compared to both the 1981 digitised vinyl version and the 1991 CD. Although there was a sense of generalness regarding the consistent nature in shape of the frequency spectrum images across the three versions of Sunnyboys, there were
171 some differences. The images displayed a greater average volume overall in the remastered 2014 CD, particularly around 20Hz and below, the 4kHz – 10kHz range and 20kHz and above. These patterns appear consistent with Burgman’s view that ‘the bass is clear and tight’ and Oxley’s view of better separation with greater instrumentation clarity, and a sense of added life to the 2014 CD remaster. The dynamic range measurement of the remastered consolidated WAV file of the whole Sunnyboys 2014 CD was 5dB, which was 8dB less than the 1991 CD and 10dB less than the 1981 digitised vinyl version. Burgman said he felt the dynamic range was better on the remastered 2014 CD, which is consistent with O’Neil’s methodology to remaster with a dynamic range of between 3dB to 4dB to make older recordings achieve a ‘modern sound’ and sit comfortably alongside new commercial recordings.
The case study was also used to investigate any change in the cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original Sunnyboys 1981 vinyl release through its digital replication. The research uncovered some consistent views around this. Oxley was adamant that because they were not remixing from the multi-track or adding anything new (a new guitar part for example), and that they were only working from the original stereo master tape, the cultural impact was minimal as the overall objective of the remastering process was to make the recordings sound better as opposed to different. This approach, according to Oxley, delivered a digital replica of Sunnyboys that sounded better than the original, not different, thus maintaining his sense of cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original. Burgman reiterated Oxley’s view that any change to the cultural heritage and meaning associated with the original recording through its digital replication was minimal as the band were not trying to change anything they did, and only set out to improve the overall sound. It could however be argued that the improved sound they were seeking, in particular the increased volume overall, is different to the original and implementing Baudrillard’s simulacra and simulation theory, there is a threat that the digital replica may therefore become perceived as the original musical artifact by future generations (1983). These improvements appeared to result from O’Neil and Pittman locating the correct master tape, making the tape playback as its optimal position and the complex use of dynamics and equalisation signal processing. These sonic changes represented through the visual presentation and various calculated measurements presented in
172 tables also appeared generally consistent with the perceived sonic differences revealed in the listening tests undertaken by Oxley and Burgman.
As a scholar-fan and inside researcher this case study was both an emotional and research-intensive journey as I diligently pursued the creation of new and assessable knowledge of use to others (Brennan, 2014; Duffett, 2014; Roach, 2014). It was emotional in the sense that I had to manage the 13-year-old fan boy within and the ensuing excitement as I conducted a face-to-face interview with Oxley, had email correspondence with Burgman, was present at the band’s sound check in Brisbane and was invited backstage before a concert on the Gold Coast for a group photo with the entire original line up of the band. I had to ensure my fandom and nostalgia towards Sunnyboys, heavily entrenched in my psyche, enhanced the story behind the data collection and analysis ‘with a detailed awareness of production contexts’ to produce a report of scholarly worth and outcomes (Hills, 2015, p. 361). It was an intensive process as I meticulously generated and pursued information relevant to the social and cultural practice of remastering. This included tracking down and generating data from Freeman and Wadsworth regarding the production behind the original musical artefact; compiling a comprehensive reflective account of the relationships at play and the roles of each case study participant with regards to remastering practice; identifying the challenges surrounding locating and getting the original source master tape to play back correctly and accounting for O’Neil’s complex use of digital and analogue signal processing to produce a modern sounding digital replica from the original musical artefact.
The Sunnyboys case study provided the following response to the research question concerning whether cultural heritage and authenticity attributed to the original music recordings were impacted through the creation of the remastered digital replicas. While there existed a united approach from band members that the Sunnyboys remaster did not impact cultural heritage and authenticity associated with the original recording as they only sought improvement as opposed to change, improvement is change, and therefore by definition different to the original artefact. Remastered primarily to a format that can sit comfortably alongside modern recordings on modern playback devices, there is a concern that the original music artefact will be replaced
173 entirely over time by the digital replica, and therefore any sense of cultural heritage and authenticity associated with the original recording will also be impacted. Upon reflection, my deep pre-existing knowledge of Sunnyboys and the context of the scholar-fan and inside researcher seemed to enable and strengthen rather than limit the results of the case study. In the next chapter I directly apply the remastering practice revealed in the Sunnyboys case study to a collection of demo recordings emanating from a similar geographical place, time and music genre to provide a real- time account as opposed to retrospective account.
174 Chapter 5 – Case Study: Demo Recordings - researcher as artist/producer/fan
Introduction
The main purpose of this case study was to produce a reflective account based upon my real-time experience in the social and cultural practice of remastering. My role in the Sunnyboys case study as scholar-fan occurred after the 2014 Sunnyboys CD remastered release and therefore was a purely retrospective study into the area of remastering. While it was tremendously valuable in terms of revealing the practice followed and implemented, it offered little insight into the decision-making process and the details surrounding the social and professional relationships and interaction of those involved as they occurred in real time. To achieve this I applied the knowledge drawn from the Sunnyboys case study that adopted a triangulation strategy to a collection of analogue studio demo recordings from a similar vintage featuring my previous bands; Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf (Denzin, 1978; Pearson et al., 2015). In the role of researcher as artist and producer, I was eager to participate in and examine whether my old musical artefacts could be remastered to create a digital replica, what would be the potential social and nostalgic considerations of doing this and how would the final digital remastered version compare sonically with the existing original analogue recording. I also included demo recordings by the band The Lyres, a band I was a fan of and who often performed with Jumble Sale, to achieve a reflective account based upon real-time decision-making of my role of researcher as fan and producer. In an attempt to provide new knowledge of benefit to others I employed an ethnographic approach to ‘provide a detailed, in-depth description of everyday life and practice’ (Hoey, 2016, para. 1). It was also implemented to produce an account that ‘respects the irreducibility of human experience that acknowledges the role of theory as well as the researcher's own role and that views humans as part object/part subject’ (O’Reilly, 2009, p. 24). Furthermore, the inclusion of a third band to the case study was consistent with Baxter and Jack’s multiple-case study approach; to be able to compare differences between them and within cases, and that multiple case studies are ‘best used when trying to determine a decision-making process and the factors which influence this process within the context they occur’ (2008). By employing a multiple case study approach, I aimed to develop a better understanding of the
175 phenomenon of remastering and to produce research outcomes that may be useful to others (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). It was through this perspective and the application of the practice from the Sunnyboys’ case study towards my own creative work and that of The Lyres that I aimed to demonstrate that when ‘new learning and knowledge are applied in practice, it can have utility for others’ (Harland, 2014, p. 1114).
The Jumble Sale demo recording was chosen primarily for its similarity in production technique and equipment to the 1981 recording of Sunnyboys. Jumble Sale, like Sunnyboys, was recorded mainly live, had few overdubs, was done on a tight budget, featured only analogue equipment throughout the entire production and was mixed to analogue tape. The main differentiation, apart from Jumble Sale recording on an obvious tighter budget with inferior equipment over less time was that the Jumble Sale session was mixed to a master stereo cassette tape whereas Sunnyboys was mixed to a quarter inch reel-to-reel tape. Therefore, as both bands’ recordings were produced in the 1980s and adopted a similar recording style and analogue production workflow, it was envisaged that an analysis of the application of the Sunnyboys remastering process applied to the Jumble Sale recordings would be helpful, useful and an evolutionary shift for comparison (Tsang, 2013). As the songwriter, lead singer and bass player in the band I was able, like Peter Oxley, to provide an artist’s perspective into the creative input required and the decision-making process in real-time during the remastering process. Additionally, as I produced the remastered recordings with O’Neil, I was also able to provide an account similar to Pittman of remastering practice from the producer’s viewpoint in real-time and upon reflection. Finally, Sunnyboys was a significant influence on my songwriting at the time (amongst other bands including The Beatles and The Cure) so my sonic aspirations of the Jumble Sale recording during that period would have been to try and attain something sonically close to the sound of Sunnyboys.
The Lyres produced two demo recordings (1988 and 1989) using a similar workflow to that of Sunnyboys and Jumble Sale, and mixed their demo recordings to master stereo cassette tapes. The remastering process for The Lyres offered me the opportunity to simulate Pittman’s role as producer and self-confessed fan of Sunnyboys, in particular the tasks performed, input provided and social interaction with O’Neil during the remastering process in the same controlled studio
176 environment. Pittman had no artistic input or connection with the original recording of Sunnyboys in 1981 yet was entrusted to manage its digital replication. I was in a similar position with respect to The Lyres’ remaster. Another important consideration was the opportunity to simulate the task of Pittman and O’Neil regarding remastering bonus tracks from separate recording sessions to sound like they belong alongside the original tracks. As The Lyres’ set of five songs derived from two separate demo sessions on two separate cassette tapes, it was of interest to determine whether the procedure implemented by O’Neil regarding bonus material on the remastered Sunnyboys CD would yield similar results. I was therefore able to construct a solid reflective autoethnographic account based upon personal action to meaningfully triangulate practice entrenched in the process, as opposed to relying on third-party recollections of past events (Draper, 2013).
The Ben’s Calf demo recording was chosen for similar reasons to both Jumble Sale and The Lyres, although there were a few notable exceptions. Although the music production of Ben’s Calf was undertaken on a tight budget with a similar live workflow and used analogue equipment, it was created in 1995, more than 14 years after the Sunnyboys sessions and 7-9 years after the Jumble Sale and The Lyres demo recordings respectively. Hence, Ben’s Calf was mixed from an analogue multi-track tape format to a stereo master digital audio tape (DAT). I was therefore eager to examine if the remastering process and practice would be different with a digital source tape as opposed to an analogue one and whether the remastering process used for Sunnyboys could still be applied. Additionally, in Ben’s Calf there was real intent by me as the songwriter, lead vocalist and rhythm guitarist, to try and attain a real “Guitar-Pop” driven sound that was heavily influenced by Sunnyboys, as opposed to the more keyboard-focused “New Wave” sound of Jumble Sale. I therefore perceive the Ben’s Calf set of recordings as more authentic in the performance, similar to Moore’s account of first person authenticity, as I was being true to my identity and believed they formed a public expression of my integrity (2009). As The Lyres also acknowledged the band Sunnyboys as a major influence on their songwriting and “Guitar-Pop” sound of the band it was of interest to apply a similar Sunnyboys remastering process to the Ben’s Calf and The Lyres’ demo recordings and examine the sonic qualities and digital analysis of the results. The Ben’s Calf demo recordings
177 also provided an opportunity to describe in detail O’Neil’s process of applying multiple limiters on the recording of my composition, The Colour of Stone.
Jumble Sale – the band and their 1986 demo recording
Figure 10 - Jumble Sale perform at a party in 1986 L-R Andrew Wass and Stephen Bruel
Jumble Sale formed in 1986 in the Sutherland Shire (Sydney) and the lineup consisted of me (songwriter, lead vocals and bass guitar), Andrew Wass (guitar and backing vocals), Peter Jackson (keyboards and backing vocals) and Adam Boland on drums. By this stage Wass and I had been playing music together since 1983 while attending Port Hacking High School. I remember nervously playing Wass an original song during school and being excited not only by his enthusiasm towards it and the idea of playing original music, but the amazing lead guitar he instantly constructed against my laboured strumming. This meeting would form the foundation of a 10-year musical partnership and solid friendship. In 1986 I had recently left high school and acquired what appeared to me to be a meaningless job in a bank to finance and support my dream of rock and roll stardom. Decked out in tight black stovepipe pants, paisley shirt, winkle picker boots and a mod haircut, I would play gigs with Jumble Sale as well as attend live music performances around the numerous pubs in Sydney. There were cultural and social similarities between Jumble Sale and Sunnyboys,
178 including a shared visual and fashion style (as depicted by the band members’ fashion on the Sunnyboys album cover) and young men playing original guitar-based rock music compositions as a means of rebellion, self-formation, escape from and/or celebration of Australian 1980s culture (Easton, 2013). Easton describes this subculture and movement as ‘a rising sense of Australiana also pervades movements like “Guitar-Pop”, where clean, jangly guitars soundtrack accented vocals that can celebrate or sardonically mock the extremes of Australian culture’ (Easton, 2013, p. 45). Around this period I realised Wass was a much better guitarist than I and having had trouble locating and keeping a bass player, decided to switch to bass guitar. A band biography (bio) from the time describes Jumble Sale as follows;
Four young musicians from various backgrounds with diverse musical influences combining to create an individual sound best described as both unique and commercial. A fun dance band with an array of effects created on various keyboards with a beat created by solid bass and inventive drumming. Melodic over tones are introduced through energetic guitar playing. Hookline lyrics and harmonising vocals enhance the sound and invite the audience to participate. The result is a fun time had by all and JUMBLE SALE. The band has played numerous gigs at parties around the Sutherland Shire recently graduating to small hotels and has already demonstrated an ability to create the party feel in a different atmosphere. On stage the band perform a high proportion of original material contrary to the jukebox sound of a covers band. A willingness to use own material reflects the bands serious approach toward s the music and recording industry and a view towards making it to the top (Jumble Sale Biography, 1986)
As evidenced in the excerpt above, there was a clear attempt to write and record original music as opposed to play cover versions of songs. This was due primarily to my belief and drive as the chief songwriter that practice in this art would lead to improvement and offer a better chance of securing a recording contract, the primary aim of the band. However, this strict approach to playing original music was eased on occasion with Jumble Sale performances including cover versions of songs from Sunnyboys including Happy Man and I’m Shakin’. My personal biography entry at the time lists Sunnyboys as a major influence on my composition style. Although
179 Jumble Sale’s line-up was slightly different to Sunnyboys in the sense we featured guitar, bass, keyboards and drums as opposed to two guitars, bass and drums, Sunnyboys the album features keyboards (in particular the Farfisa organ) so there is some consistency and comparability there to the songs on the Jumble Sale demo recordings.
Figure 11 - Jumble Sale perform at St George Rock Room, Mortdale in 1986 L-R Andrew Wass, Christian Fisher, Stephen Bruel and Peter Jackson
Jumble Sale recorded four songs in 1986 at Maestro Music studio in Caringbah (Sydney) with producer/recordist Peter Mapleson and his assistant Greg White. The studio was situated inside a residential house with a separated soundproofed recording space and control room containing a Soundcraft Series 500 mixing console combined with a Fostex E-16 16 track ½ inch reel-to-reel tape recorder. Microphones used included Neumann U87, Neumann KM140, Beyer M88, Senheisser 451, Shure SM58 and Shure SM5. Outboard gear included a Roland SRV-2000 MIDI Digital Reverb, Yamaha SPX90 Multi-Effects Processor and a Sony PCM-F1 encoder with Beta video recorder (Greg White, personal communication, October 5, 2015). The aim was to record three original songs and one cover song to distribute via cassette tape to local booking agents and record companies, along with a band biography, in an
180 attempt to further our career. The three original compositions written by me comprised of Red Flash, Midnite Towers and Good Things in Life. We also recorded a cover of the song (I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone composed by Boyce and Hart and made famous by the band The Monkees. The session took place in an afternoon, as this was all we could afford, and included set up, record and mix down of our four- song demo to a stereo cassette master tape. The workflow for each song consisted of first recording the drums and bass guitar (without a click track) with guide vocals sung by me so we could track where we were in the song. The guitar and keyboard tracks were overdubbed next followed by the lead and backing vocals. The final recording was then mixed down from multi-track to a stereo track tape and transferred to cassette tape. Although this workflow is slightly different to the Sunnyboys recording process in terms of the quality of studio acoustics and equipment, it is of a similar format considering the procedure of recording the rhythm section live and overdubbing the lead instruments later (Col Freeman, personal communication, October 5, 2015) and was also similar to the demo recording workflow of The Arctic Monkeys (Morey, 2009).
181 The Lyres – the band and their 1988 and 1989 demo recordings
Figure 12 - The Lyres in 1988 L-R Scott Eggington, Paul Francis, John Varipatis and Con Shacallis
The Lyres formed in 1985 in Padstow (Sydney) and consisted of Con Shacallis (lead guitar and vocals), John Varipatis (guitar and vocals), Paul Francis (bass guitar) and Scott Eggington on drums. The band played around venues in Sydney (often with Jumble Sale on the bill) including the Sutherland Royal Hotel, Mortdale Hotel (St George Rock Room), Penshurst Den, Cronulla Workers Club, Coogee Bay Hotel and the Evening Star Hotel. A self-written band biography from 1987 portrayed the band’s commitment to producing a “Guitar-Pop” sound with strong harmonies, an intention to develop original material and an ambition to record and release a vinyl single in 1988. Additionally, it is evident that the band was also influenced by Sunnyboys and The Beatles (similar to me) in the press clipping from the 1980s below:
John Varipatis, of Sans Souci, the band’s lead guitarist said: ‘We all remember the night well. It was December 7, at the Bexley North Hotel, and although we were a little nervous everything went OK. The crowd seemed to warm up to us when we belted out a few Beatles and Sunnyboys hits.’ Eggington said ‘We tend to have a Sunnyboys sound because of our lead vocalist and songwriter, Con Shacallis. Con was crazy about The (sic) Sunnyboys and this comes through in his delivery’ (Press Clipping 2, 1980s).
182 In 1987 the band changed their name to Sinister Smiles and broke up in 1989 due primarily to health problems within the band. However, they reformed for a one-off show 26 years later at The Brass Monkey venue in Cronulla (Sydney) in February 2015. Similarly to Jumble Sale, the band never released any material in the format of a vinyl single or album, but did produce demo recordings.
Figure 13 - The Lyres in 1989 L-R Paul Francis, Con Shacallis, John Varipatis and Scott Eggington
The first demo was recorded in March 1988 at Down Under Studios in Kogarah (Sydney) and similar to the Jumble Sale demo recording, featured three original songs and one cover version. The songs included two original compositions by Francis (Come Back and Out Of My Head), one original composition by Shacallis (What’s Your Name) and a cover version of The Records song I Don’t Remember Your Name. Although research failed to locate or identify the engineer involved or the equipment used, Shacallis recalled that the recording session took place in a small
183 recording studio within the Down Under Rehearsal Studios complex in Kogarah (Sydney). The second demo recording took place in March 1989 at a small studio in Glebe (Sydney). The songs included three original compositions by Francis (There‘s No Heart, Already Gone and I Can See) and two original compositions by Shacallis (Liar and Sad Girl). Although research into this studio failed to identify either equipment or personnel used, Shacallis remembers a two-inch 24-track tape machine was present. Shacallis’s describes the recording workflow below:
I don't remember too many details from the demo recordings, as I never took much interest in recording studios at the time. In fact, I found them quite overwhelming and daunting as I had previously only used my small Tascam Porta-One four-track cassette recorder at home. However, I know it was a live recording as we pretty much had the whole band in the one room. The engineer would tell us where to stand, we would have a run through and then he would record the next take. We never used a click track and overdubbed the guitar and vocal parts separately. It was the first time I heard my VOX AC-30 on full volume, 100% fully cranked! It was in the recording room and you could plug in from the control (Con Shacallis, personal communication, February 9, 2017).
Interestingly this admission by Shacallis of being unable to remember details surrounding their demo recording sessions, apart from the VOX amplifier on full volume, appears to challenge Duchan’s work that suggests the nostalgic potential for a demo recording is highest for those involved and that the physicality of the demo recording and associated documentation (posters, bios, press clippings, reviews etc.) can transform the artists’ back to that time and place of its creation (2013). According to Shacallis, The Lyres recorded these demos and distributed them as a cassette tape alongside a band bio (same as Jumble Sale) to venues, promoters and record companies with the aim of securing more live work and hopefully a recording contract. Shacallis recalls the band being pleased with the final outcome of these recordings at the time as they sounded ‘a 100 times better than the recordings they had previously done on their little four-track tape recorders at home’ (Con Shacallis, personal communication, February 9, 2017).
184 Ben’s Calf – the band and their 1995 demo recording
Figure 14 - Ben's Calf in 1992 L-R Darren Munt, Stephen Bruel, Thomas Green and David Pragnall
Ben’s Calf formed in Sydney in 1992 and featured me (songwriter, rhythm guitar and lead vocals), Thomas Green (lead guitar and backing vocals), David Pragnall (bass guitar) and Darren Munt (drums). The line-up evolved from Jumble Sale in the following chronological order; Jumble Sale 1986 (Bruel, Wass, Jackson and Boland), The Conductors 1987 - 1990 (Bruel, Wass, Munt and Burokas) and A Village Idiot 1991 (Bruel, Wass, Munt and Pragnall).
185
Figure 15 - The Conductors performing at the Old Windsor Tavern, Sydney in 1989 L-R Andrew Wass, Stephen Bruel, Darren Munt and Michael Burokas
Figure 16 - A Village Idiot performing at Martin Place, Sydney L-R Andrew Wass, Stephen Bruel, David Pragnall and Darren Munt
As is evidenced in Figures 15 and 16 there was a shift in music focus and line-up from the late 1980s “New Wave” keyboard sounds of Jumble Sale and The Conductors to a more 1990s “Guitar-Pop” slant of A Village Idiot. I changed my instrument from bass guitar to rhythm guitar to reflect my desire to emulate my
186 musical idols of the time, most notably Jeremy Oxley, Paul Weller and John Lennon, who were songwriters, singers and guitar players. Furthermore, the Ben’s Calf line-up of lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass guitar and drums with male vocals and harmonies was identical to The Beatles and Sunnyboys who had influenced my decision and passion to learn guitar and play in a band. This conscious decision to emulate my idols and switch from bass to rhythm guitar appears consistent with Cheung and Yue’s claim that idol worship ‘serves to compensate for the worshipper’s missing qualities and resources’ as this was the type of role and music I wanted to play as opposed to Jumble Sale (2012, p. 36). Additionally, it is also arguable that my transformation into this role could be defined as self-actualising, a manifestation aligned with creative activity (Evans & Deehan, 1998). A self-written band biography from 1992 states the following:
Ben's Calf is a Sydney-based band forging their brand of 'happy pop' through the city. With their all-original melodic songs and guitar based arrangements this four-piece band have been described as an "impressive package" (Stuart Coupe, OTS, June 1991). Gigs have included The Tom Tom Club, The Den, The Forest Inn and a packed lunchtime gig at Martin Place. Their debut single "Do, Do to Her" is coming out in April on the Metro label (Ben’s Calf Biography, 1992).
As the band’s lead vocalist and songwriter I recall trying to write and record songs that captured similar melodies and chord structures of Sunnyboys and The Jam, the rich male vocal harmonies of The Beatles, and the classic British sound of a Rickenbacker guitars plugged into VOX AC-30 amplifiers. My preference to use iconic and vintage guitars and amplification appears consistent with Moore’s first person authenticity theory and my representation of self as an authentic performer, someone who is exposing the truth and realness within (2009). However, as Connell suggested I could be criticised for constructing and inventing imagery that automatically implies continuity with some existing form or historic past such as 1980s “Guitar-Pop” or “Mersey Beat” (2002). Furthermore, the stipulation of my use of the Rickenbacker and VOX could be seen as a further attempt at attaining some sense of authenticity given that it appears consistent with Littlefield and Siudzinski’s claim that some brands from previous musical eras portray a higher perception of
187 authenticity (2011). This is perhaps also relevant to Shacallis who deliberately referred to the amplifier brand (VOX AC-30) in his recollection of The Lyres’ recording session
The Ben’s Calf demo recording consists of four original songs that were recorded and mixed at Zen Rehearsal & Recording Studios in St Peters (Sydney) in 1995 by in- house engineer Geoffrey Lee. The recording studio consisted of a live room and a control booth converted from a rehearsal studio space within a rehearsal room complex. The recording took place over two separate 4-hour nighttime sessions. The first session consisted of setting up and sound checking and performing live as a whole band with the drums, bass, rhythm guitar and a guide vocal recorded. The lead guitar part was overdubbed later that evening. The second session consisted of recording all of the lead and backing vocals followed by the final mix to DAT. The emphasis on live recording in a short amount of time appears consistent with the workflow of the Jumble Sale and The Lyres demo recordings, and to a lesser extent, the Sunnyboys recordings.
The studio equipment used centred on an eight-track Tascam 688 PortaStudio multi- track tape recorder that Lee recorded to and mixed on. Lee used a selection of sound effects including outboard compressor/limiters (Alesis 3630 Duel Channel, Boss CL 50 and a Boss RCL-10), delays and reverbs (Ibanez DM2000 digital delay, Yamaha R100 reverb processor and a Roland DEP-3 reverb unit) and a Boss RPQ-10 preamp parametric equaliser. Lee also used a variety of microphones including an Electro- Voice N/D 408 on the kick drum, Beyerdynamic M 201 TGs on the hi-hats and snare, AKG D310s on the tom drums, Sennheiser MD 441-Us on the drum overheads, Shure SM57s on the guitar amps, Electro-Voice N/D 357 on the guide vocals and an original Rode NT1 on the final vocals. Additionally, the bass guitar was recorded through a Boss DI-1 direct input box straight out of the bass amplifier head. Lee mixed the songs on the Tascam 688, monitored through a pair of Yamaha NS10M speakers driven by a Rotel HiFi amplifier and recorded the final mix onto a Sony DAT machine.
188 Nostalgia, fandom and navigating the past
Researching the Jumble Sale recordings and associated textual elements transported me back to 1986 to their creation and produced both positive and negative experiences of nostalgia. This appears consistent with the view that nostalgia is an emotion often activated by music and although primarily it is of a positive nature to counteract sadness, this is not always the case (Barrett et al., 2010). Furthermore, Duchan’s concludes that the nostalgic potential for a demo recording is highest for those involved who can be transported back in time to the place of its creation (2013). I was not only transported back to the day of the original recording session in Caringbah (Sydney) but was also immersed in the social and cultural context of teenage relationships, angst, rebellion, live performances, rehearsals and parties synonymous to that time and place. This experience produced positive emotions as I recalled the excitement of finally undertaking a proper multi-track recording session, the exhilaration of hearing my lead vocals for the first time through a Neumann U87 microphone with professional signal processing and the support and enthusiasm I received from friends and family as I played them the cassette tape. I remember the excitement of distributing these cassette tapes alongside a printed band biography to a number of record companies and booking agents in the hope of commercial success. It was a hedonistic time, perhaps the best days of my life where the band and partying were my main focus in life and the primary aim was clear and simple – to secure a recording contract and become a wealthy famous rock star. However, the nostalgic experience also resulted in negative emotions as I looked back from the relative safety and knowledge of maturity. I am embarrassed by my behavior as I attempted to mimic the alcohol and drug-fueled excesses of real rock stars as portrayed in the media at the time, and my poor treatment of those around me as my self-obsession and self- expression permeated to an extent where I also regard this period as the worst days of my life. As Ferrara states ‘an identity constructed and pursued for the purpose, among other things, of being recognized by others is not an authentic identity. Rather, it is the attempt to imitate a model. In a sense, nothing is more inauthentic’ (1997, p. 81). I believe I presented an inauthentic depiction of myself during this period and my poor conduct collected a multitude of fractured relationships along the way, most notably Wass in 1992.
189 Wass and I shared and pursued the same musical dream and objective of commercial success for 10 years and finally secured a recording contract with Metro Music in 1992, a small independent label in Lane Cove (Sydney). The excitement and euphoria I felt at this occurrence was overwhelming and provided gratification and justification that our pursuit of original music had not been in vain. However, this sense of joy turned to despair as I discovered Wass had begun a relationship with my girlfriend at the time, without my knowledge. The sense of betrayal I felt was excruciating and I terminated our friendship immediately resulting in the band disbanding and the record company withdrawing their offer. At the time I solely blamed Wass for the demise of the band and removal of the record contract, but upon reflection I note my general poor behavior and treatment of others including Wass over a number of years, and believe this was most likely the significant contributing factor. Listening to Wass’ guitar playing and singing on the Jumble Sale recordings therefore not only brought back the excitement of the recording in 1986, but also the pain of our relationship breakdown in 1992. In order to produce an authentic and balanced research methodology, a study where the researcher is not too close to the subject to obstruct legitimate enquiry and input, it was therefore critical to include Wass despite personal reservations or conflict (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012).
I found Wass online and over the course of a few emails organised a face-to-face meeting at the North Cronulla Hotel (Sydney), a local pub we use to frequent together as teenagers. It was a surreal feeling as I sat nervously waiting for him at the bar steeped in memories ready to discuss and trade our collection of recordings and memorabilia from that period – our personal heritage (Barratt, 2009). This was potentially a puzzling situation as although I am primarily a fan of the music we produced, I still carried feelings of hurt regarding his act of betrayal while also harbouring guilt for my own poor adolescent behavior. I was therefore concerned this mixture of emotions and sense of fandom would potentially diminish my ability to collect and generate data proficiently (Burr, 2005; Scott, 2009). Fortunately this meeting was productive. We apologised for our actions and behaviours of the past, cried and laughed about what could have been if we had of taken full advantage of the record contract we coveted so dearly, and became friends again. Wass described his recollection of this reunification as consisting of both negative and positive emotions and outcomes (Barrett et al., 2010). As he writes;
190
I wanted to be involved in this project in the hope of rekindling my friendship with Stephen (Bruel) again. However, although the experience has provided some peace and closure, the Sutherland Shire and the era for multiple reasons carry some very dark memories for me, so the memories of the good times aren’t necessarily there (Andrew Wass, personal communication, February 13, 2017).
In 2000, I created a basic digital transfer of the Jumble Sale recordings using a ‘cheap’ cassette to CD digital transfer process on my home computer. This was undertaken primarily to preserve the original artefact and accommodate playback on digital devices. This protective action appears consistent with Duchan’s claim that the creators of demo recordings possess the highest nostalgic and meaning (2013). Additionally, this concept of protecting the original through replication appears consistent in approach to Baudrillard’s simulacra and simulation theory, particularly his reference to the protection of the Lascaux caves through the production of a replica (1983). Buadrillard claims that although the physicality of the original caves has been protected and will therefore last longer, there is a danger their memory will fade and that duplication will render both the replica and the original as artificial. Through the consequent intermittent playback of the digital replica of the Jumble Sale demo recordings to friends and family, the replica appeared to assume the role of the original musical artifact despite being merely a digital representation and seemed to evolve into the point of reference.
During our face-to-face meeting (which occurred before the O’Neil remastering sessions) I gave Wass a copy of my digital transfer from 2000 for him to listen to and provide initial feedback. It is important to note that unlike my ability to play and listen to this recording through a variety of formats and playback devices since 1986, Wass had not physically heard these recordings since at least 1992. As he writes;
Listening to these recordings has been a very powerful and emotional experience ranging from sadness to joy. I definitely became nostalgic listening to my young sounding voice from so long ago, a rare treat given we grew up without iPhones, and felt a sense of pride in our early efforts of
191 recording. I particularly wanted to hear Red Flash and Midnight Towers as I always remembered them as pretty interesting tunes, certainly not three chord wonders, and particularly when you think we started playing around with these songs as 15-yearolds, they were pretty slick. I had a memory of us sounding like the best band in the world (or at least that was how serious we took things) and I really just couldn’t audibly visualise what we sounded like back then. Extending on this I always remembered you (Bruel) as a fantastic lyricist and I wanted to hear the words again (Andrew Wass, personal communication, February 13, 2017).
It is evident that Wass’ nostalgic experience and subsequent emotions ranged from sadness to joy, which is consistent with the work of Barrett et al (2010). Wass’ description of this recording sounding like the best band in the world and comprising interesting and slick tunes also appears consistent with Duchan’s study that found that the artists directly involved in the demo production process attribute the greatest value towards it, and the nostalgic potential for a demo recording is highest for the creators (2013).
Although Jumble Sale often shared the stage with The Lyres at venues across Sydney and there was conversation between the two bands at the time, there was very little interaction socially away from this environment and as a result no solid relationships were formed or developed between the respective band members. Unlike Sunnyboys whose past commercial success and fame resulted in a fairly straightforward research process to contact them online, an initial online search of The Lyres only revealed information about the US band who went by the same name. However, by chance The Lyres played a reunion show in 2015 under the name Sinister Smiles with a band I knew and followed on Facebook called The Persuaders. Therefore, the emergence of digital convergence culture that allows amateurs the opportunity to promote and distribute their cultural offerings online eventually led me to identify and make contact with Shacallis through this medium (Manovich, 2009). Although a fan of The Lyres, I did not experience the nervousness or anxiety associated with interviewing Oxley from Sunnyboys and therefore was confident in my ability to keep enough emotional and objective distance from the object of study (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012b). Shacallis sent me an assortment of musical artifacts including The Lyres’
192 original demo tape cassettes, WAV digital transfers and scanned press clippings and band bio documentation. Similar to my approach with Jumble Sale, there appeared to be an attempt to preserve the original cassette tapes as Francis had created digital transfer copies of them, which suggested he placed a high value on them (Duchan, 2013).
Listening to The Lyres demo recordings for the first time was an amazing and surprising experience. I was a fan of the band at the time and admired their commitment and courage to produce their 1960s influenced and infused pure “Guitar- Pop” sound that featured catchy melodies with male harmonies. The Lyres produced this music at a time when “New Wave” was the current fad, a style of music awash with warmed padded synthesizer sounds, electronic drums and heavily digitally delayed guitars. I therefore viewed their performance and music as authentic, as Moore describes in his second person authenticity ideology whereby the band portrayed an image that appeared to validate my life and experiences, particularly my identification with the “Guitar-Pop” genre of early 1980s Sydney (2009). This courage was evidenced by Shacallis’s recollection of the industry pressure he perceived to change their musical style. As he writes;
I was told by a member of a high-profile Sydney band at the time, who we were supporting in a show, that our style of music was on the way out and that we would do well to lose the Sunnyboys’ covers from our set list (Con Shacallis, personal communication, February 9, 2017).
Upon initially listening to the recordings unmastered, I was shocked that after all this time I could remember and sing along with their original songs Liar and Sad Girl on the first playback! After approximately 30 years of not having access to their music, reliant solely on my memory of the 10 – 15 live performances I witnessed between 1987 and 1989, I was able to sing the choruses and hum the verses to these songs instantaneously. This was a powerful emotional reaction that transported back in time to various small sweaty pubs and clubs in Sydney in 1987 watching The Lyres perform. It was tangible evidence that confirmed and supported my memories of how well I perceived they sounded at the time. It is this intimate and detailed pre-existing knowledge of the band that allowed me as the scholar-fan to produce authentic
193 research (Jenkins, 2014). However, this forceful poignant experience also made me revisit a lack of courage I had with Jumble Sale. Although I believed my compositions were melodic and lent themselves to rich male harmonies and a “Guitar- Pop” sound, I was influenced by others and my own insecurities to produce them incorporating the “New Wave” ‘synthesiser’ sound that was popular at the time. I admired their courage and representation of the iconic fashion look of 1960s incorporating Beatlesque haircuts, stovepipe pants and turtleneck tops against the fashion and popular musical style of the time. Although the Jumble Sale recordings captured a sense of optimism for the future as evidenced through songs including Good Things in Life, they also represent an inauthentic divergence away from my core musical influences and sounds, primarily as a result of trying to emulate the strong commercial and popular fad of “New Wave” sounds of the era (Ferrara, 1997). Upon reflection, while still pleased with the melodies and song structures I created through Jumble Sale, I believe the recordings suffered as a result of this approach. My apparent rejection of the 1980s ‘artificial’ electronic sounds and elements of the Jumble Sale recording today is perhaps reflective of my perception of these songs as being an inauthentic alternative to the “Guitar-Pop” sound I wanted to create (Connell, 2002).
Shacallis described his nostalgic experience of listening to The Lyres’ recordings as ‘bittersweet’ as it produced both positive and negative responses (Barrett et al., 2010). It was positive in the sense that ‘the band sounded tight and punchy and it was like we were back rehearsing in my parent’s garage in Padstow in 1985’ (Con Shacallis, personal communication, February 9, 2017). However, the recordings also forced Shacallis to reflect upon circumstances that led to the band’s demise. These included a sense of pressure to progress the band while they were still young without the industry connections and a regret for not recording and releasing a self-funded single or EP. Francis shared a similar nostalgic experience in that the fast tempo of the songs was a tangible reminder of when the band felt young, alive and full of excitement, but the songs also made him feel old when he thought about how long ago they were recorded. Like Shacallis, Francis also lamented that the band did not record and release a single.
194 I experienced a different sense of nostalgia from listening to the Ben’s Calf material as opposed to Jumble Sale as it was recorded nine years later and I was at a different phase in my life. I was now in my mid 20s and had experienced overseas travel as a backpacker and the consequent cultural and social differences and customs, was further developed as a musician and audio engineer, and vastly more experienced in love, loss and relationships. Ben’s Calf evolved from the relationship breakdown with Wass and although it is a tangible reminder of that difficult situation and time, it is also one that fills me with tremendous pride as I persevered with my rock and roll dream despite Wass’ departure (Duchan, 2013). Furthermore, these recordings represent the true core of my musical aspirations including creating commercial three- minute song structures, memorable and interesting verses and choruses, Rickenbacker and VOX AC-30 saturated guitar parts and solid Beatlesque harmonies. Therefore, listening to the Ben’s Calf demo recordings is a powerful nostalgic experience as it ‘solidifies and augments my identity’ and ‘regenerates and sustains a sense of meaning’ as it was more aligned to my core “Guitar-Pop” music and popular culture preferences as opposed to Jumble Sale (Cartwright et al., 2013, p. 462).
Ben’s Calf disbanded amicably in 1995, primarily through a collective waning in interest to proceed, and consequently I had not been in contact with Green for almost approximately 20 years. Unlike my experience with Wass, Green and I departed the band as friends so the prospect of contacting him featured no pre-meditated angst or negative emotion. Green was enthusiastic towards my project and said he was also proud of these recordings as they represented the high water mark of his musical endeavours and portrayed the best of him when it came to music. As he writes;
I joined the band as a replacement for the lead guitarist, and the band was well established by then. It was a dream come true with harmonies, guitars, gigs, drums and talent galore. The songs were awesome and the attitude was professional as we rehearsed once a week and gigged as often as we could. It was like living the dream. Over the years the songs have become a window back to that dream and their effect can be powerful. They can make me laugh as I remember the fun or reduce me to tears as I realise what’s lost. The more I listen, the more I remember (Thomas Green, personal communication, February 20, 2017).
195
Green’s depiction above is evidence of the powerful and emotional effect his nostalgic experience produces when he listens to the Ben’s Calf demo recordings, and is consistent with the view that the nostalgic potential for a demo recording is highest for the creators (Duchan, 2013). Green’s positive and negative emotions brought upon from nostalgic reflection also appears to support the view that nostalgia is an emotion that although primarily is of a positive nature to counteract sadness, this is not always the case (Barrett et al., 2010). I also interviewed Darren Munt who played drums on these recordings to investigate any sense of nostalgia he attributes to the Ben’s Calf recordings. Unlike Green and Wass, I have maintained regular contact and friendship with Munt since the demise of Ben’s Calf. Munt said he always enjoyed rehearsing, playing live and the slightly off-the-wall sense of humour that was present in the band and to some extent evidenced in the music. As he writes;
When I listen to the recordings I am reminded of how much fun the songs were to play and am actually surprised at some of the musicianship that we had. During this process I have concentrated more on specific parts as opposed to during the original recording, and have really noticed some great playing, particularly the bass and some of the guitar work. I am a little embarrassed by some of the drumming, but also quite proud of a lot of it too (Darren Munt, personal communication, February 13, 2017).
Munt viewed the Ben’s Calf DAT demo recording as ‘a representation of what we thought were the best tracks we had at the time’ and despite the tight budget and associated quality issues ‘was pleased enough with the sound at the time and the effort applied by the band’ (Darren Munt, personal communication, February 13, 2017). However, Munt said the recordings also transported him back in time to a belief that Ben’s Calf could have been more successful, claiming to hear elements of our music in commercial recordings by Blur and Oasis, and that there was perhaps an early 1990s niche that the band may have been able to fill. Digital convergence theory would have perhaps allowed Munt to test his conviction with the ability to distribute a digital version of the Ben’s Calf demo to the masses to sit online alongside Oasis and Blur, but it is a more recent phenomenon (Jenkins, 2006). Munt therefore experienced a similar nostalgic response to the Ben’s Calf demo recordings as Green and I, a
196 positive perception of pride in our artistic merits at the time given our small budget, and a tinge of sadness that perhaps given the right circumstances, Ben’s Calf may have become a commercially successful band (Barrett et al., 2010). Additionally, this nostalgic reflection was further enhanced when during the remastering process O’Neil, who worked with and signed bands to a major record company at the time, said he would have signed us back then if he had been aware of our existence.
Authenticity and meaning
Having established that Wass and I shared feelings of nostalgia and meaning towards the Jumble Sale recordings, I was keen to learn if Wass exhibited any concerns regarding a sense of meaning and authenticity (if any) being attributed to the digitally remastered replica (Duchan, 2013). Wass stated that although he had a traditional belief that analogue sounds better than digital, which he evidenced by his preference for analogue pedals in his guitar rig, he had no issue with remastering as long as the end results sounded good and that it was sonically pleasing overall. This view appears to be consistent with Oxley and Burgman’s approach for remastering Sunnyboys in that they both only sought sonic improvement as opposed to change (Bennett, 2009). Wass also believed that remastering could result in the digital replica presenting the sounds the band originally intended in a better way which, like Pittman with Sunnyboys, suggests a dissatisfaction with the original recording and a desire to do them justice. However, by doing them justice implies change and therefore the seeking of improvement through the creation of a digital replica may overtime render the digital replica as real and one that bears little resemblance to the original, hence becoming its own simulacrum (Baudrillard, 1983). Therefore, this sonic improvement (the reduction of noise for example) could potentially bring into question the perceived authenticity of the replica if the noise that promotes nostalgic reflection and authenticates the original is removed (Link, 2001).
I shared a similar view to Oxley, Burgman and Wass regarding seeking sonic improvement only as opposed to change, and attempting to remain faithful to the original intent of the artist and therefore maintain a sense of authenticity. However, this approach was tested and brought into question, particularly on the track Midnite Towers. Benjamin states that authenticity only becomes clear and understandable
197 through reproduction and the option to maintain a perception of authenticity through remastering practice appeared in this instance to become a real choice (1969). On the 1986 recording I always believed the opening wind introduction was way too loud and intense. The original intent was to create a subtle wind sound, and in my opinion the wind sound was more akin to a huge storm or cyclone. Working with O’Neil I had the option to change the wind introduction to be closer to my original intent through gradually fading in the segment. This placed me in a difficult position; do I honour the perceived authenticity and meaning I associated with the original recording or do I take advantage of the technology during replication to change the wind introduction to be closer to my original intention. I chose the latter, similar to the Vertigo film case study, because although it was not what was originally heard by friends, fans and booking agents 30 years ago, it was what was originally intended and still comprised the original recording (Kurtilla, 2011). This decision to slightly alter the digital replica seems to lend support to Moore’s theory that we need to focus on ‘who rather than what was being authenticated’, as I believe although the original product has differed, as an artist I feel authenticated by this action as the replica moved closer towards my original intent (2009, p. 220). Furthermore, this subtle change appears consistent with Buadrillard’s claim that the digital replica will overtime be perceived as real and potentially render the 1986 original unmastered cassette tape version as not real and potentially inauthentic (1983).
As the producer of the remastered CD for The Lyre’s demo recordings, I pursued a similar objective as Sunnyboy’s fan and manager Pittman in that I wanted to do them ‘justice’. I felt the reproduction had to be faithful to the original intention of the band but also enhanced to take full advantage of new technologies (Klinger, 2006). Like Pittman, although I was not present during the original demo recordings and never a member of the band, I felt a tremendous sense of trust from the band to deliver a sound that they would be happy with and what was authentic to them without the band physically being involved in the remastering process. Additionally, Francis had entrusted in me their irreplaceable demo cassette tapes of which they valued so highly (Duchan, 2013). I interviewed Shacallis regarding any perception of meaning and authenticity he attributed towards the process of digitally replicating the original The Lyres’ musical artefacts, and as a musician experienced with music recording and
198 production he said that he had changed his views on the digital manipulation of recordings. As he writes;
I use to dislike digital recording and manipulation and would argue that analogue sounded better. As a result, to this day, I still prefer analogue tube guitar amplifiers instead of digital transistor ones. However, having spent time working with Pro Tools, I prefer digital editing in terms of cost, maintenance and convenience of workflow. It sounds great and I can do everything I need to on a laptop (Con Shacallis, personal communication, February 9, 2017).
Shacallis mentioned a preference for listening to vinyl records and the perceived warmth in sound during analogue playback, as opposed to digital CDs and MP3s. This belief appears similar with Burgman’s preference for vinyl playback and perhaps supports the theory that the physical use and routine surrounding vinyl playback and listening offers an associated nostalgia and sense of reality through the memory of use (Blanc & Huault, 2014). Furthermore, this nostalgic leaning towards analogue equipment and playback may also be the result of Baudrillard’s theory that suggests that when the real is no longer identifiable, as is the case through digital duplication, then nostalgia assumes its full meaning, and Shacallis through vinyl playback actually transcends into the past to a time of perceived reality (1983). Francis said he was happy to proceed with remastering if it was primarily used to overcome technological limitations of the time of the original recording and if it could improve the sound overall. Furthermore, Francis said that had always wanted to hear how The Lyres’ demo recordings would sound if they were recorded using current technology and now and was hopeful remastering would deliver a sound close to what he envisaged. Francis appears to embrace the digital replica as the ultimate simulacra of the band however he conceded that remastering was a phenomenon he did not fully understand and was uncertain what could be achieved (Grainge, 1999).
Regarding the Ben’s Calf remastering process and any perception of meaning and authenticity attributed to the digital replica, Green said he believed remastering was appropriate in principle as long as it was implemented solely to improve the audio quality of the recording as opposed to change it. This view was consistent with
199 Bennett’s study, and Green listed remixing as a process he would consider as inauthentic (2009). As he writes;
The Ben’s Calf demo recordings were produced in the 1990s and were the best we could do with the technology of the time and with the small budget we had. From my perspective, enhancing our original recordings 25 years later using digital means is a natural continuation of the process we started back in the 1990s and is totally desirable (Thomas Green, personal communication, February 20, 2017).
Green appeared to view the practice of remastering as a ‘natural continuation’, whereby the original musical artefact was produced given the technology and equipment of the time, and that it was desirable to continue this process with new technology with the aim to deliver the original musical artefact as an improved version on a current media format. Munt agreed with Green and believed it was a positive step to encourage and allow the audience alternative ways to listen to the recordings on various formats as long as the digital replica captured the original intent and authenticity of the original musical artefact. The opinions of Green and Munt appear consistent with Baudrillard’s fashion cycle theory in that they have both described and apparently envisaged an evolutionary ‘second life’ for the original musical artefact (1983). However, Munt said he was empathetic towards people being upset through listening to remastered versions of favourite albums on a different format. As he writes;
A friend of mine replaced his original 1972 vinyl copy of David Bowie’s The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars with a remastered CD version, only to complain that as his beloved vinyl LP had a scratch on it that he had become accustomed to and the CD did not, this lessened his listening enjoyment overall, as he felt something was missing and not quite right (Darren Munt, personal communication, February 13, 2017).
The above example appears coherent with Link’s theory that noise associated with older recordings can promote a nostalgic reflection and accumulated over time authenticates it (2001). Although I had a strong sense of meaning and authenticity
200 attributed to these recordings and was focused as producer to preserve the original intent, similar to Jumble Sale, my willingness to remain faithful was again tested. Although not included in the final listing of Ben’s Calf recordings to be analysed but still remastered (due to it being on cassette tape and from a different session to the DAT), my composition Do Do To Her featured a backing vocal line in the second last chorus sung by the bass player David Pragnall that I had never been happy with. During the remastering process O’Neil and I experimented with removing this section which resulted in shortening the chorus and subsequently the song duration overall. However, given the original intent to produce a Beatlesque chorus vocal line and duration this edit was deemed inappropriate, as it appeared to diminish my perception of the original meaning and authenticity. Therefore, the digital replica of Do Do To Her was created in its entirety from the cassette tape version. However, O’Neil did reduce some offending electrical static noise using a WAVES Z-Noise noise removal plugin on the start of the song Falling For You from the Ben’s Calf DAT session. I was comfortable with this modification as it did not impact musically on the song’s original intent and merely reduced noise which if possible time and budget permitting, would have been reduced during the original recording. However, Link claims that this reduction of the static noise may be viewed as inauthentic as it this inherent noise that authenticates it to the original time and place (2001).
Remastering the demo recordings for CD
My decision to remaster the Jumble Sale demo recordings was made for the following reasons. As a father, I wanted to leave my son a collection of my bands’ recordings sounding the best they possibly could, a worthy legacy that would hopefully sit comfortably alongside modern recordings. Furthermore, I was keen to see if remastering practice when applied to my old demo recordings on cassette tape could modernise them a similar way to commercial remasters I consume on CD and vinyl of Sunnyboys, The Beatles, The Jam, The Who, Oasis, The Sex Pistols and You Am I. Additionally, I wanted to have greater access to these recordings and be able to play them on current digital playback devices. Finally, as a music production practitioner, I was keen to learn more about remastering practice, in particular the workflow
201 followed, gear used and identify what sonic elements could and could not be manipulated and improved through this process.
As there was real intent by Ben’s Calf to produce a Sunnyboys type “Guitar-Pop” sound, the decision to remaster these recordings was taken to explore if remastering practice implemented by the Sunnyboys’ remastering engineer would result in a better and similar sounding modernised version. This process was also undertaken to investigate if there were any differences between remastering from an analogue recording mixed to a DAT as opposed to an analogue cassette tape, and to identify them. Finally, I was enthusiastic to have these songs remastered to potentially hear them at their best as they were originally intended to be released in 1995 as a self- funded EP and represented what I believed to be my most authentic and best material produced (Moore, 2009). Consistent with digital convergence theory, I wanted to digitally manipulate Ben’s Calf based upon the remastering template used for Sunnyboys so that I could distribute this cultural product online and alongside Sunnyboys and other professional cultural offerings (Manovich, 2009).
In the role of producer for the Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf remastering process, I initially collected all of the recordings I could locate (cassette tapes, digitised WAV files on CD, DAT and video tapes) and created production spreadsheets for both bands that detailed the song title, the preferred playing order, the year of original production, source material format, comments regarding the sonic quality of the source including any potential problems that may be encountered and the format the original recordings were to be remastered to (CD). The comments column included sonic information regarding potential issues associated with the original musical artefact including tape hiss, warble, fadeouts and EQ. Additionally I provided input during the session with O’Neil regarding appropriate gaps between songs for the final remastered CD.
202
Figure 17 - Jumble Sale production spreadsheet
In the role of artist, I provided O’Neil with direct input (as the only band member present) as required during the remastering sessions on musical and artistic decisions regarding edits, fades, EQ, track running order and overall sound. The collaboration between O’Neil and myself appeared to be compliant with Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory (2015) in that O’Neil assumed the role of the domain with a deep understanding of the rules and existing techniques surrounding remastering practice, as well as the field as he constantly referenced his workflow against his deep knowledge of acceptable and appropriate remastering outputs. The role of individual however appeared to be a joint venture between O’Neil and myself as we both sought feedback from each other during the process concerning equalisation, gaps between tracks, fades, stereo balance, instrument positioning and track order (2015).
I asked O’Neil if his approach to remastering my non-released non-mastered demo recordings on cassette tape and DAT was different to remastering the commercially released recordings on the Sunnyboys album. O’Neil said that the process was similar in that you attempt to find and use the original master tape as opposed to an equalised copy and try to honour the intent of original mix. Therefore, the first step O’Neil took was to try to ensure the most accurate source tape was used. In the case of Jumble Sale this was a first-generation cassette tape originally presented to me by Maestro Music in 1986 and for Ben’s Calf, the 1995 DAT. O’Neil described both my cassette tape and DAT as being in ‘good shape and better than some ¼ inch reel-to-reel master tapes I have had to remaster’ which highlights the value and importance I placed on the storage and preservation of these original materials (Duchan, 2013). I digitised the Jumble Sale tape cassette in 2000 to offer an alternate playback medium and the cassette was then placed in a plastic storage container indoors and away from any
203 direct sunlight, heat or moisture. I had no access to a DAT player so the Ben’s Calf master tape had not been played since 1995.
The next stage of the process involved getting the cassette tape to play back on a Nakamichi DR-3 cassette deck, a high quality player according to O’Neil, as best as it could. O’Neil then played and listened to the cassette in short 5 second intervals to determine whether the cassette tape was playing back either too bright, dull or boomy. He manipulated the functions on the cassette deck to identify the correct tape type for playback (chrome, Type I, Type II) and to identify if the recording was encoded with Dolby noise reduction (A, B, C type). According to O’Neil, finding and using the correct noise reduction setting will remove some tape hiss and stop it sounding tinny. O’Neil then played the cassette in mono and out of phase and tweaked the placement of the play/record head in an effort to completely remove the centre channel. This was done to determine the correct position of the play/record head so that the azimuth (measure of the angle between the tape heads and the physical tape) was at its optimum. According to O’Neil, the Jumble Sale cassette tape played on the Nakamichi cassette deck displayed too much information on the left channel. As he writes;
Cassette tapes playing back both left side or right side heavy is common and means the Nakamichi machine is not aligned with the playback of the machine it was originally recorded from. As I don’t have a set of parameters on the Nakamichi, I grab either the left or right channel and kick it back 2-3dB so that the music plays back stereo balanced. While doing this I check the left and right hand channel just to make sure one channel wasn’t all bass or all treble (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 30, 2016).
After ensuring the Jumble Sale cassette tape played back at its optimum on the Nakamichi cassette deck, the next issue facing O’Neil was ‘print through’. Defined as ‘the undesired low level transfer of magnetic fields from one layer of analog (sic) tape to another layer on the tape reel’, this is what O’Neil described sonically as the noise delay you hear at the end of a song and it is generally the result of poor storage (Analog Audio Mastering Tape Print-Through Technical Bulletin A011194, 1994). Fortunately print through was minimal on the Jumble Sale cassette tape as O’Neil said
204 there was not a lot that could be done to rectify the problem. The optimised signal was then sent out of the Nakamichi cassette deck into a Neve 1073 line input preamplifier unit (not a plug in) where O’Neil added around 10dB of gain, similar to the Sunnyboys vinyl transfer, so as to make it comparable with CDs. The analogue signal was then encoded into digital into Pro Tools via a Digidesign (AVID) 192 8X8X8 audio interface. Once the four songs had been digitised O’Neil adopted the pitch and catch system he used for remastering Sunnyboys. It was fascinating to witness this workflow in real-time as O’Neil began switching quickly after short 2-3 second bursts between the first track Red Flash and the other tracks, making a calculated decision regarding overall loudness of the finished CD. This was done to measure if the different tracks were at the same volume level before and after EQ had been added. O’Neil therefore does not listen in a traditional sense to the verse and chorus of songs and instead focuses on the tone and the technical content of the recording. According to O’Neil, this requires the use of a different part of your brain as compared to recording or mixing a track. As he writes;
I don’t use reference music to compare my remastering against as I reference to every track within the project I am working on. I have set up my mastering chain so I can quickly flick between tracks constantly checking if it is loud enough, bright enough etc. There are about 20 guys I know of around the world who work my way and hundreds of guys who work to a third-party reference. I am using my 30-years experience and that is a fundamental difference between me and other engineers (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 30, 2016).
Once O’Neil was pleased with the sonic qualities of the selection of songs and the gaps between the tracks, he burnt a reference CD of Jumble Sale. He then played the CD through a pair of Meyer Sound HD-1 speakers for critical listening. At this stage we discussed the gaps between songs, the corresponding loudness levels between tracks and the flow of the CD, making minor adjustments before the final reference CD of Jumble Sale was burnt. O’Neil followed the same Jumble Sale remastering process for the Ben’s Calf recordings with a few minor differences, particularly regarding equipment. Having established the Ben’s Calf DAT as the most accurate source master tape (I did have some cassettes available), O’Neil’s aim was to play this
205 back at its optimum through the Sony PCM 2600 DAT player. However, O’Neil experienced a problem with the DAT playback in that it muted near the start of the tape and explained that this was due to an error correction, as the player could not hear or read the digital binary code on the tape. At this stage I felt a tremendous sense of panic and concern as I had learned through conversations with O’Neil regarding remastering Sunnyboys that it was critical to try and use the original source master tape to achieve the best results. The DAT of Ben’s Calf was the original master tape and had not been played in 21 years so having assumed that I had stored it carefully, I believed it would be critical in yielding the best outcome. I was so proud of these recordings and the thought that we may not be able to use the original music artefact, and that this artefact was damaged in some way, was painful. It was similar to the shock and sadness I initially felt when I discovered my vinyl copy of the Sunnyboys album may have been in some way flawed, due to the original mastering process. Thankfully O’Neil managed to fix the problem by rewinding and playing the DAT back a few times quickly over a short duration to jolt and shift dirt on the tape and the DAT was useable and as he described, in excellent condition. The relief I felt was incredible.
The Ben’s Calf remaster session also offered the opportunity to gather and collect data surrounding O’Neil’s complex use of limiters, EQ and other digital signal processing to achieve the final remastered musical outcome for the track The Colour Of Stone as it occurred in real-time (see Appendix B for the detailed account of remastering The Colour Of Stone). As my relationship with O’Neil developed positively during the time we spent together in a predominantly intense one-on-one situation, I was relaxed not only in myself to be able to ask O’Neil to describe in specific detail his use of signal processing as applied to a particular song, but confident that he would be agreeable to this. This approach appears consistent with Flood’s claim that building upon relationships with case study participants and documenting these interactions in an autoethnographic style can help illuminate and reveal the creative process and finished product (2000).
The remastering process for The Lyres was technically similar to both the Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf remastering processes. Once the selected five songs had been digitised, O’Neil implemented the same pitch and catch remastering process
206 incorporating the Neumann switching system previously described. Once the CD was burnt O’Neil and I then listened to all five tracks in their entirety for the first time, discussed and manipulated elements of the overall sound and the gaps between songs, and then the final CD Master was cut. However, as producer only for this process (not artist), similar to Pittman’s role with Sunnyboys, there were some differences. Before the sessions began, I consulted with both Shacallis and Francis to identify and choose the most appropriate songs, finalise the appropriate track listing for the CD and to manage their expectations. This approach was in contrast to Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf where as both the artist and producer, I felt more comfortable making these decisions without input from my former band members. Another point of difference to Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf was that the five selected songs came from two different source master cassette tapes that were recorded 12 months apart in different studios by different engineers. Therefore, as was the case with O’Neil and Pittman regarding the bonus tracks (not from the original recording session) remastered to sit alongside the original album tracks on the Sunnyboys 2014 CD release, the roles for O’Neil as engineer and me as producer became clearly delineated. O’Neil’s main aim at that point was to ensure all songs sounded like they belonged together in the digital format and sat comfortably side by side whereas my objective was to listen to the songs as a whole and focus solely on ways to improve them. O’Neil said that The Lyres tape cassettes, similar to Jumble Sale, were also in fairly good condition and must have been stored well (Duchan, 2013).
Listening comparative analysis
Jumble Sale
Similar to the Sunnyboys’ case study, I asked Wass to listen to and describe the sonic differences he perceived between the 1986 unmastered digitised transfers and the 2016 remastered for CD versions of the Jumble Sale songs Red Flash and Midnite Towers.
207 Track 1: Red Flash
This was one of the first musical passages and set of lyrics I wrote and when listening to it I am instantly transported back to my bedroom as a teenager in the early 1980s playing my cheap Ibanez acoustic guitar with a difficult high action, and handwriting lyrics in my well-thumbed exercise book (Barrett et al., 2010). The song derived from a catchy guitar riff with the lyrics centred on the threat of nuclear war stemming from the arms race between the USSR and the USA at the time. It describes the helplessness I felt that the world might end tomorrow from nuclear bombs, a red flash destroying the Earth with fragments landing on the Moon. I was happy with the recording of this song at the time and felt it captured the original intent of the band well. Consequently, I have attributed a high sense of meaning and nostalgia to this recording (Duchan, 2013). However, as I consumed ‘pristine’ popular music on the new CD format when it became available, I found my degenerating analogue cassette tape sounded inferior by comparison and therefore diminished my desire to play it. Additionally, it also decreased my want to share this recording with others, particularly those acquainted with the sonic qualities attributed to digital CD recordings. Listening to the remastered version of Red Flash was amazing. This 31- year-old demo recording incredibly sounded fresh, alive and comparable to modern digital recordings. The excitement of the increased volume level, the tightness of the vocals and their prominence out front, the fat bass line, greater presence in Wass’ guitar part and the crispness and depth of the drums was all consuming. I was finally comfortable to share this recording with family and friends confident the negative sonic elements associated with the cassette tape were removed. I could now proudly play this recording to others without the obligation to apologise first. This would suggest that moving forward the digital replica will assume the position of the real and original musical artefact as the cassette tape version is placed back into storage and not consumed (Baudrillard, 1983).
For Wass, the remastered version offered greater clarity as opposed to the muffled sound of the unmastered version. He was particularly impressed that the lead and harmonising backing vocals sounded smooth, warm, had a really nice tone, were tighter and seemed more prominent. Additionally, Wass said that he had always experienced difficulty listening to his own singing voice on the original recording and
208 that remaster not only made this more tolerable, but now wished the harmonised vocal element of the chorus had been repeated more often during the song. Therefore the digital replica of Red Flash allowed Wass to experience greater levels of joy, excitement and self-belief, particularly in his vocal ability as opposed to the original musical artefact. However, in a negative light, Wass believed the overall added sonic brightness of the digital replica contributed to the hi-hat timbre sounding too trebly by comparison.
Track 2: Midnite Towers
I wrote this song when I commenced my first job as a bank clerk after leaving high school. The lyrics were inspired initially through witnessing my father over many years undertake the daily commute in a suit and tie to Sydney CBD to a role in finance that he did not appear to particularly like, and my own (thankfully short) depressing experience of this routine. Midnight Towers is a fictional nightclub (hence the spelling of Midnite), a place to socialise with friends before being forced by society to transition from a high school student into a working adult. I was particularly proud of these lyrics at the time as I felt they captured not only that important transitioning time in life, but also questioned this well-worn path. Musically it is evident I was influenced by the band The Cure, in particular their song Forest, and attempted to produce a pop song with a haunting keyboard line. Additionally, I incorporated a swing jazz middle eight section to represent a jazz band playing in the fictional venue.
Listening to this song was also a powerful and emotional experience although different to Red Flash. As I listened to this recording I was not necessarily instantly transported back to that time and place, but remained in the present, and upon reflection thankful and proud that as a mature man I adhered to the warning from my teenage self to leave the bank shortly after and pursue a career in the creative industries. Additionally, it is this song that my elderly father still refers to as his favourite composition and recording of mine, which suggest my lyrics were poignant, at least to him. I was generally pleased with the original recording of this song at the time and believed it captured the original intent of the song well. However, as discussed previously, I felt the wind introduction was too loud and overpowering, and
209 as a newly constructed song compared to Red Flash, the performance overall suffered from not being as well rehearsed. I found the remastered version offered a greater crispness in the lead and backing vocals that appeared to be pushed further out the front. The snare drum sounded bigger and the keyboard solo after the swing jazz part was louder, crisper and enhanced the chorus effect used on the sound. Similar to Oxley’s experience of remastering revealing a forgotten and buried Farfisa organ part on the song Individuals, the remastering of Midnite Towers also uncovered what appeared to be a tambourine rattle panned hard left which I did not know previously existed. This event therefore created new meaning for me regarding this musical artefact that only could have occurred through remastering practice and digital replication. However, I found that although the sound was clearer over all, that this came at the cost of some lost warmth particularly through the jazz section of the song.
For Wass, this song best showcased the difference between the unmastered digitised original version and its remastered replica. As he writes;
On the original recording of Midnite Towers I would almost liken listening to the first 30 seconds as if it was playing in a room and I was standing on the wrong side of the door. The remaster opens the door and drags you into the very centre of the room. Listening on headphones, I almost feel like I can see where people are sitting in the room (Andrew Wass, personal communication, February 13, 2017).
Apart from the improved clarity and space he experienced, Wass also found the remastered version portrayed a lush sounding ride cymbal and enhanced the digital delay on his guitar solo before the keyboard part. Wass also noticed the presence of the tambourine previously unheard on the original music artefact, the relative volume decrease in the wind introduction and the overall nervousness of the band’s performance.
210 The Lyres
I asked Shacallis and Francis to listen to and describe the sonic differences they perceived between the 1988 and 1989 unmastered digitised transfers and the 2016 remastered for CD versions of The Lyres’ songs Sad Girl and Come Back.
Track 1: Sad Girl
Shacallis said he was amazed at the high level of volume on the remaster and felt that the instruments were more defined, the voices popped out of the track and the whole song sounded ‘glued’ together. This perception of the song sounding glued together lends support to O’Neil’s remastering technique of using the Alta Moda limiter in a blended approach to soften up and ‘glue’ the sound. Francis was also impressed by the increased volume of the remastered version and perceived that the quiet parts in the song breathed more and that there was better clarity on the rim shots on the snare drum in the first verse. Furthermore, Francis said the bass sounded bigger and fatter on the remaster as opposed to the thin and rubbery sound on the remaster.
Track 5: Come Back
Shacallis said he perceived the remastered version of the Francis composition to be punchier and bigger and attributed this to louder vocals and bass, where they should have been originally placed in the mix. For Francis, the remastered version just sounded bigger overall and he could not highlight any specific or individual elements of improvement.
Ben’s Calf
Similar to all other case study participants, I asked Green and Munt to listen to and describe the sonic differences they perceived between the 1995 unmastered DAT transfer and the 2016 remastered for CD versions of the Ben’s Calf songs Need and The Colour Of Stone.
211
Track 1: Need
I wrote this song in the transition period between my relationship breakdown with Wass and demise of our band, and forming Ben’s Calf. Listening to this song is a representation of that period in my life when I suffered tremendous hurt through Wass’ betrayal but also experienced tremendous pride as I rebuilt my rock and roll dream and myself. Need is lyrically about the pursuit of love but also possessed undertones of my strong need for the band to continue. Musically it was based around the sound of the opening chord progression played high up on the neck of my Rickenbacker guitar through my VOX AC-30 valve amplifier, and evolved quickly from there with Green contributing the accompanying lead guitar riff. It was purposely placed at Track 1 on the DAT as it was chosen as the potential single of the planned four-track EP release at the time.
On the original version I always believed that the volume and sound of the bass guitar was too overpowering and contributed to the original recording’s muddiness. However, the remaster appears to have tamed the bass and smoothed it out creating better definition and with less boom. I also perceived that the drums were crisper and more alive overall and I could better detect the reverb on the snare on the remaster. However, I found the crash cymbal on the remastered version to be too trebly. According to O’Neil, some cymbal sounds, particular on the Ben’s Calf demo recordings, were damaged during the original recording and not able to be salvaged. As he writes;
This is a classic example of a tape not being able to handle the amount of dynamic range of a cymbal hit, it is saturated, and it sounds like a really shitty limiter has been used as the tape has run out of headroom and unfortunately no amount of mastering can fix that. When I hear a lot of records that are badly limited, this is the sound I hear (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 28, 2016).
I also thought the vocals overall, both lead and harmonised backing were more prominent and appeared to be brought more forward in the mix on the remaster.
212 Additionally, on the remaster the guitars appeared to exhibit greater presence, particularly in the guitar duo section. Green agreed with my assessment and added that he perceived the remastered version ironed out the volume variants and resulted in a warmer and more uniform sound. For Munt, although he thought the remastered version was brighter and sounded fresher overall, he was concerned that this had come at a cost of some lost warmth of the snare drum, perceiving it sounded thinner as compared to the original recording.
Track 2: The Colour of Stone
I wrote the song The Colour of Stone shortly after a nasty breakup with a girlfriend at the time. Lyrically I was inspired by the Sunnyboy’s song Why Do I Cry that featured the line ‘that’s why you got a heart that’s made of stone’ and adapted this to the woman’s eyes portraying the cold texture and colour of stone. Musically this track evolved from a conscious effort to try and write a “Guitar-Pop” song in a Sunnyboys’ style that incorporated elements of Paul Weller’s distorted Rickenbacker playing and sound he used in The Jam. When I listen to this song I am not transported back to the events that inspired this composition but to the original recording session and can recall the excitement of hearing Green’s harmonising backing vocals throughout the whole song and our guitar lines split hard left and hard right across the two channels.
Similar to Need, I perceived the remaster to have tamed and smoothed the bass while somehow maintaining its punch. Furthermore, the remaster appeared to exhibit a greater clarity and sense of space on the drums (albeit with the same trebly crash cymbal), more presence on both guitars and louder vocals that appeared to be placed further out the front of the mix allowing the harmonies to be heard more easily. In particular, I was impressed to hear clearly my attempt at a Paul Weller chord slide during the lead break that was barely noticeable in the original recording. Green said he enjoyed the greater presence and clarity of the lead vocals and backing harmonies believing this revealed a more powerful performance. For Munt, the remastered version appeared brighter and with more space overall for all instruments.
213 Digital audio analysis
Having sourced and generated accurate digital audio data that in a comparable format that was representative of the recordings by the three bands (as depicted in the methodology), the first piece of analysis undertaken was a waveform comparison as adopted by Barry in his work (2013).
Figure 18 - Waveform view of 1986 and 2016 Jumble Sale recordings
Figure 18 is a screenshot that depicts the loudness/amplitude range over time of the respective waveforms for both versions of the Jumble Sale recording within the Pro Tools digital audio workstation (DAW) software environment. The first track (blue) represents the digital transfer from the 1986 cassette tape and the second track (green) portrays the 2016 remastered for CD version. As shown, each track consists of the individual songs aligned directly above and below each other. The visual representation of the 2016 remastered CD (green) clearly shows a louder and more compressed signal identified by the ‘block’ shape of the files as compared to the 1986 version, which exhibits greater shifts between softness and loudness. This block shape indicates a more solid loudness level maintained throughout the remastered recording, particularly the first song, with fewer quieter passages in comparison to the digitised 1986 cassette tape transfer. Similar to Sunnyboys, this visual representation therefore tends to support O’Neil’s claims of the heavy use of multiple limiters and ‘stacks of compression’ to achieve a modern sound as depicted in the loudness wars (Deruty & Tardieu, 2014; Nielsen & Lund, 1999; Vickers, 2010).
214
Figure 19 – Waveform view of 1988 - 89 and 2016 The Lyres recordings
Figure 19 is a screenshot that depicts the loudness/amplitude range over time of the respective waveforms for both versions of The Lyres recording within the Pro Tools digital audio workstation (DAW) software environment. The first track (blue) represents the digital transfer from the 1988 and 1989 digital cassette tapes transfer and the second track (green) portrays the 2016 remastered for CD version. As shown, each track consists of the individual songs aligned directly above and below each other. The visual representation of the 2016 remastered CD (green) clearly shows a louder and more compressed signal identified by the ‘block’ shape of the files as compared to the 1988 and 1989 versions, which exhibit greater shifts between softness and loudness. The solid block of the 2016 remastered file appears more solid across more songs than the Jumble Sale remaster.
215
Figure 20 - Waveform view of 1995 and 2016 Ben's Calf recordings
Figure 20 is a screenshot that depicts the loudness/amplitude range over time of the respective waveforms for both versions of the Ben’s Calf recording within the Pro Tools digital audio workstation (DAW) software environment. The first track (blue) represents the digital transfer from the 1995 DAT and the second track (green) portrays the 2016 remastered for CD version. As shown, each track consists of the individual songs aligned directly above and below each other. The visual representation of the 2016 remastered CD (green) clearly shows a louder and more compressed signal identified by the ‘block’ shape of the files as compared to the 1995 version, which exhibits greater shifts between softness and loudness. However, the presented image of the non-mastered digital transfer of the DAT (blue) appears to be slightly bigger in size as compared to both Jumble Sale and The Lyres, which suggests that the original DAT recording was created at a greater signal and volume than the cassette tapes. To explore these variances further I recorded left and right true peak level meter readings of the original and remastered versions of the three bands’ recordings, similar to Barry’s analysis undertaken on The Beatles (2013).
216 Band Song Year and format Digital transfer of 2016 CD Remaster of original original version recording Left True Right Left True Right Peak True Peak True Peak Peak Jumble Sale Red Flash 1986 cassette tape -11.76 -10.6 -0.08 -0.13 Jumble Sale Midnite Towers 1986 cassette tape -11.04 -9.88 -0.31 -0.29 Jumble Sale The Good 1986 cassette tape -10.13 -9.62 -0.08 -0.13 Things In Life Jumble Sale (I’m Not Your) 1986 cassette tape -11.93 -11.36 -0.15 -0.16 Stepping Stone Jumble Sale Consolidated 1986 cassette tape -10.13 -9.62 -0.08 -0.13 WAV file of whole demo The Lyres Sad Girl 1989 cassette tape -13.01 -11.86 -0.05 -0.10 The Lyres Liar 1989 cassette tape -12.80 -12.04 -0.08 -0.13 The Lyres Already Gone 1989 cassette tape -12.80 -12.63 -0.08 -0.12 The Lyres What’s Your 1988 cassette tape -11.77 -10.37 -0.09 -0.12 Name The Lyres Come Back 1988 cassette tape -11.21 -9.64 -0.08 -0.14 The Lyres Consolidated 1988 and 1989 -11.21 -9.64 -0.05 -0.10 WAV file of cassette tapes whole album Ben’s Calf Need 1995 DAT -6.06 -4.97 -0.08 -0.13 Ben’s Calf The Colour of 1995 DAT -6.92 -5.10 -0.00 -0.13 Stone Ben’s Calf Falling’ For 1995 DAT -7.37 -4.50 -0.08 -0.11 You Ben’s Calf Stop 1995 DAT -6.44 -4.56 -0.08 -0.13 Ben’s Calf Consolidated 1995 DAT -6.06 -4.50 -0.00 -0.11 WAV file of DAT Table 5 - True peak level measurements for demo recordings
Table 5 represents the left and right true peak level values for the digitised transfer of the original and the remastered version for each bands’ collection of recordings as well as the respective demo recordings in their entirety. The consolidated WAV file remasters highlight a significant increase in peak volume as compared to the original versions of Jumble Sale (10dB), The Lyres (9-11dB) and Ben’s Calf (4-6dB). When you consider that the three commercial releases of Sunnyboys revealed only a 1-2dB difference in peak level [minus the song I Can’t Talk To You (Reprise)] across them, the differences in the demo recordings’ values appear substantial. Furthermore, these true peak level differences of the demos seem even more significant when you consider O’Neil added around 10dB to the signal during both the cassette tape and DAT digital transfer process to make them initially comparable with CDs. The minor variance in the remastered peak level readings across the songs suggests that O’Neil
217 remastered all of the demo recordings purely for CD as opposed iTunes and CD which was the case of Sunnyboys, which resulted in a static -0.13dB reading for all tracks. Although this was helpful in terms of identifying the loudest peaks across an individual track and the entire demo recordings, as well as providing insight into O’Neil’s remastering objectives for these recordings, did not provide an average level for an arguably fairer loudness comparison (Owsinski, 2008). To explore these average variances in loudness I also recorded the left and right root means squared (RMS) level meter readings of the demo recordings digitised transfers and the 2016 remastered CD versions.
Band Song Year and Digital transfer of 2016 CD Remaster format of original version original recording Left True Right Left True Right RMS True RMS True RMS RMS Jumble Sale Red Flash 1986 cassette -25.52 -24.28 -8.83 -7.61 tape Jumble Sale Midnite Towers 1986 cassette -25.06 -23.22 -11.81 -11.00 tape Jumble Sale The Good 1986 cassette -24.17 -23.13 -10.53 -10.05 Things In Life tape Jumble Sale (I’m Not Your) 1986 cassette -27.90 -26.15 -11.72 -10.44 Stepping Stone tape Jumble Sale Consolidated 1986 cassette -25.33 -23.89 -10.44 -9.46 WAV file of tape whole demo The Lyres Sad Girl 1989 cassette -25.87 -23.96 -8.60 -7.12 tape The Lyres Liar 1989 cassette -25.88 -23.64 -9.13 -6.19 tape The Lyres Already Gone 1989 cassette -25.27 -23.44 -7.05 -5.83 tape The Lyres What’s Your 1988 cassette -25.65 -23.52 -6.56 -5.07 Name tape The Lyres Come Back 1988 cassette -25.96 -23.92 -5.99 -4.64 tape The Lyres Consolidated 1988 and 1989 -25.72 -23.70 -7.30 -5.72 WAV file of cassette tapes whole album Ben’s Calf Need 1995 DAT -22.48 -19.93 -9.46 -9.29 Ben’s Calf The Colour of 1995 DAT -23.32 -21.45 -7.06 -8.67 Stone Ben’s Calf Falling’ For 1995 DAT -25.60 -22.51 -9.90 -9.27 You Ben’s Calf Stop 1995 DAT -21.89 -19.95 -8.46 -7.59 Ben’s Calf Consolidated 1995 DAT -23.14 -20.79 -8.81 -8.76 WAV file of DAT Table 6 – RMS level measurements for demo recordings
218 Table 6 displays the RMS levels for both left and right channels across all three demo recordings for original and remastered versions. The calculations for the consolidated WAV whole demo files clearly show that the 2016 remastered CD versions are significantly louder on average than the digitised unmastered demo recordings for Jumble Sale (14-15dB), The Lyres (18dB) and Ben’s Calf (12-15dB). As Sunnyboys registered a 10dB difference in its consolidated WAV file between its digitised vinyl transfer and 2016 remaster version to reach an overall RMS value of -7dB, it is evident that all demo recordings required a significant increase in average volume to reach a similar RMS reading for their respective remastered copies. This appears consistent with O’Neil’s belief that this is normal behavior in the pursuit of creating a modern sounding digital replica. Having established that the 2016 CD remasters for all demo recordings were significantly louder than their respective unmastered digitised versions regarding the RMS, Peak and waveform analysis, the next step was to attempt to ascertain the impact these volume manipulations had on dynamic range (DR).
Band Song Year and Digital transfer 2016 CD format of of original Remaster DR original version DR recording Jumble Sale Red Flash 1986 cassette 12 7 tape
Jumble Sale Midnite Towers 1986 cassette 12 10 tape Jumble Sale The Good Things 1986 cassette 11 9 In Life tape Jumble Sale (I’m Not Your) 1986 cassette 13 9 Stepping Stone tape Jumble Sale Consolidated 1986 cassette 12 8 WAV file of tape Demo Cassette Tape The Lyres Sad Girl 1989 cassette 11 7 tape
The Lyres Liar 1989 cassette 11 7 tape
The Lyres Already Gone 1989 cassette 11 6 tape
219 The Lyres What’s Your 1988 cassette 12 5 Name tape
The Lyres Come Back 1988 cassette 13 4 tape
The Lyres Consolidated 1988 and 1989 13 5 WAV file of cassette tapes whole demo
Ben’s Calf Need 1995 DAT 13 8
Ben’s Calf The Colour of 1995 DAT 14 7 Stone
Ben’s Calf Falling For You 1995 DAT 15 8
Ben’s Calf Stop 1995 DAT 14 7
Ben’s Calf Consolidated 1995 DAT 15 7 WAV file of DAT
Table 7 - Dynamic range measured in decibels (dB) for demo recordings
Table 7 is representative of decibel measurements of dynamic range across both the digitised transfer and the remastered version for each individual song, as well as the demo recordings in their entirety. As shown, the decrease in DR for the 2016 CD remaster for Jumble Sale was 4dB, The Lyres was 8dB and Ben’s Calf was also 8dB. While The Lyres’ and Ben’s Calf’s decreased DR amount was similar to Sunnyboys (8-10dB) it is evident that the Jumble Sale experienced the least decrease in DR. Furthermore, the final DR values for the respective remastered consolidated file versions of the demo recordings for Jumble Sale (8dB), The Lyres (5dB) and Ben’s Calf (7dB) suggest that The Lyres’ remaster is more ‘modern’ sounding as it is consistent with O’Neil’s view that ‘modern sounding recordings have a dynamic range value around 3-4 dB’ and was the closest score to the 2014 Sunnyboys remastered version’s DR value of 5dB (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 9, 2015).
220 As the Jumble Sale and The Lyres’ 1980s cassette tapes respectively form the original musical medium, the elements associated with this format (tape hiss, warble, low recording levels and print through) appear to contribute to its rock aesthetic or ‘sound’ as compared to the alternate ‘sound’ of the newly created remastered CD (Gracyk, 1996). With regards to the Ben’s Calf DAT recordings, as this format was not available to listeners (only copied cassette tape versions) this does not appear to comply with Gracyk’s concept who primarily focuses on formats available to listeners (1996). The impact of changes to the original rock aesthetic through its digital replication was, similarly to the Sunnyboys case study, examined in the results of the listening tests undertaken by the case study participants.
To further examine the characteristics of a significant reduction in dynamic range and increased volume inherent in the digital replica as opposed to the original analogue music artefact, the next measurement undertaken was frequency spectrum analysis (O’Malley, 2015). Two songs were selected from each band for frequency spectrum analysis based upon the most significant and least substantial DR decreases.
Figure 21 - Spectrum analysis image for Red Flash by Jumble Sale - 1986 (blue) and 2016 (green)
Figure 21 presents a snapshot image of frequency and its relationship to amplitude regarding Jumble Sale’s song Red Flash from both the 1986 digitised cassette transfer
221 (blue) and the 2016 remastered for CD version (green). The 1986 version has a smaller frequency range between 28Hz to around 16kHz which lends support to my perceived listening analysis that the 2016 version had more low end rumble and bass at the bottom end as well as greater sparkle and shine at the high end. However, apart from this disparity in frequency range and greater volume increase overall for the remaster with a boost at around 10kHz and above, it appears to be a generally similar shape to the 1986 digitised cassette transfer. This boost around 10kHz and above for the remaster suggests my perception of an added a sense of ‘crispness and depth of the drums’ and Wass’ claim that the ‘added brightness made the hi hats sound a bit trebly’ are feasible. However, as the shape of the frequency spectrum across the range 100Hz to 2kHz appears to be fairly similar across both versions, this brings into question Wass and my view of EQ providing a fatter sounding bass part and greater prominence and tightness in the vocals. Therefore as there appears to be no significant boost in the frequencies within this range of the remaster, this suggests these perceptions were based on volume adjustment only.
Figure 22 - Spectrum analysis image for Midnite Towers by Jumble Sale - 1986 (blue) and 2016 (green)
Figure 22 presents a snapshot image of frequency and its relationship to amplitude regarding the Jumble Sale song Midnite Towers from the 1986 digitised cassette transfer (blue) and the 2016 remastered for CD version (green). Similar to Red Flash,
222 the image depicts a general similar shape overall with the remastered 2016 CD significantly louder across all frequencies. Furthermore, the 1986 digital transfer has a smaller frequency range of 30Hz to around 15kHz which would support my perceived listening analysis that the 2016 version has more low end rumble and at the bottom end as well as greater sparkle and shine at the high end. However, there appears to be some differences including a boost across the range 2kHz to 3kHz of the remaster to portray a significantly lessened slope as compared to the cassette tape transfer. This boost lends support to my sonic perception of a greater crispness, presence and prominence in the vocals, as well as hearing more clearly the chorus effect of the keyboard. Furthermore, this change could also arguably support Wass’ view of greater presence of the digital delay on the guitar. There is also a slight boost between 3.5kHz and 6kHz in the remaster that appears consistent with my claim of a bigger and crisper sounding snare drum.
Figure 23 - Spectrum analysis image for Come Back by The Lyres - 1988 (blue) and 2016 (green)
Figure 23 presents a snapshot image of frequency and its relationship to amplitude regarding The Lyres’ song Come Back from the 1988 cassette tape transfer (blue) and the 2016 remastered for CD version (green). The 1988 version has a smaller frequency range, between approximately 35Hz to around 15kHz, which would
223 suggest that the 2016 version offers more low-end rumble and bass at the bottom end and greater sparkle and shine at the high end. The image portrays a significant boost across the frequency range 6kHz to 9kHz which suggests greater clarity and brilliance and would lend support to Shacallis’s claim that the remaster sounded bigger with the lead vocals way up front where they should be (Shepherd, 2010). Additionally, the smoother shaped boost between 100Hz to 200Hz appears consistent with Shacallis’s perception of the bass sounding punchier and louder overall.
Figure 24 - Spectrum analysis image for Sad Girl by The Lyres - 1989 (blue) and 2016 (green)
Figure 24 presents a snapshot image of frequency and its relationship to amplitude regarding The Lyres’ song Sad Girl from the 1989 cassette tape transfer (blue) and the 2016 remastered for CD version (green). The 1989 version has a smaller frequency range, 35Hz to around 14kHz, which suggests that the remastered version has more low end rumble at the bottom end as well as greater sparkle and shine at the high end. The 2016 remaster also shows a boost between 6kHz and 8kHz with a less significant slope, which lends support to Francis’s claim of greater clarity of the rim shots on the snare drum in the first verse. Additionally, there appears to be a substantial boost at around 100Hz, which appears consistent with Francis’s perception of EQ creating a fatter sounding bass. The perception from Shacallis concerning greater definition of
224 the instruments and vocals, as well as his belief that the ‘voices appeared to pop out of the track’ may be supported by the boost around 2kHz and the overall gain increase across all frequencies.
Figure 25 - Spectrum analysis image for The Colour Of Stone by Ben's Calf - 1995 (blue) and 2016 (green)
Figure 25 presents a snapshot image of frequency and its relationship to amplitude regarding the Ben’s Calf song The Colour Of Stone, from both the 1995 DAT transfer (blue) and the 2016 remastered for CD version (green). The 1995 version has a smaller frequency range, around 50Hz to above 20kHz, which suggests that the remastered version has more low end rumble at the bottom end but similar sparkle and shine applied above 18kHz. The image depicts a general similar shape overall between the two versions, however there are some differences. The 2016 remaster image shows an overall flatter consistent shape between 100Hz and 10kHz as opposed to the more significant peaks and troughs displayed in the original DAT transfer. The difference in shape of the peaks and troughs of the remaster between 100Hz and 200Hz is evidence O’Neil applied greater EQ manipulation in this area, and lends support to my claim that although the bass sounded tamed its punchiness remained. The remaster’s flatter shape between 300Hz and 800Hz as opposed to the gradual upwards slope of the original is consistent with my perception of a greater
225 sense of clarity and depth to the guitar and vocals. Additionally, the significant narrow boost at around 2kHz could evidence both my and Green’s claims of being able to hear my Paul Weller type chord slide, as there appears to be greater presence on the rhythm and lead guitars. Furthermore, this boost also lends support to Green’s and my claim that the vocals appeared to be placed further up the front in the mix and the harmonies seemed louder. The large boost in the frequency range 6kHz to 12kHz lends support to Munt’s claim of the remaster not only sounding brighter, but also having a sense of more space.
Figure 26 - Spectrum analysis image for Need by Ben's Calf - 1995 (blue) and 2016 (green)
Figure 26 presents a snapshot image of frequency and its relationship to amplitude regarding the Ben’s Calf song Need, from both the 1995 DAT transfer (blue) and the 2016 remastered for CD version (green). The 1995 version has a smaller frequency range between 35Hz to above 20kHz, as opposed to the 2016 version that begins at 25Hz and continues to a measurement greater than 20kHz. This discrepancy lends support to my claim that the remaster had a better sense of definition of the bass. The remaster also shows a boost as well as a flatter shape between 200Hz and 600Hz, which appears consistent with my view that it sounded like there was greater
226 prominence on the vocals and guitars against the pre-existing boom and loudness of the bass. Additionally, the remaster has an overall boost between 3kHz and 10kHz with a significant increase between 6kHz and 8kHz. This manipulation appears consistent with my perception that the drums sounded crisper and more alive, and that the vocals and guitars seemed to have greater presence, edge and bite. Furthermore, the image of the remaster lends support to Munt’s claim of it sounding ‘brighter and fresher’, and the lack of proportionate change in the remaster around 150Hz appears consistent with Munt’s observation of the snare drum sounding thinner.
Demo recordings case study conclusion
The primary aim of the qualitative (interviews and listening comparisons) and quantitative (digital audio analysis) data generation and analysis implemented for this case study was to determine if the digital remastering process used for the iconic commercially released analogue recording of Sunnyboys could be successfully applied to the non-released analogue demo recordings of Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf. To determine whether the digitally remastered replica of the respective analogue demo recordings originating from cassette tape and DAT formats could be improved and reside comfortably and sonically alongside the remastered commercial release of Sunnyboys, a qualitative listening assessment was undertaken by former band members as well as quantitative digital audio analysis undertaken by me. Furthermore, the use of multiple case study participants representing the three bands was employed to determine the decision-making process of remastering practice (Baxter & Jack, 2008).
Regarding the critical listening comparison between the 2016 Jumble Sale remaster and the 1986 digital cassette tape transfer, Wass said he was pleased with the remaster as it was significantly louder, even, smooth and bright, and that he could ‘listen to them over and over again without ear fatigue or annoying EQ ear pokes’ (Andrew Wass, personal communication, February 13, 2017). Furthermore, Wass recalled my desire for 1960s style harmonies and was pleased with the improvement of the vocals after remastering, concluding that he could now listen to his singing parts on these recordings more comfortably. I was also impressed by the sonic qualities of the
227 remaster. Being physically involved in the remastering process with O’Neil allowed me the opportunity to provide feedback as well as focus on and try to ‘fix’ certain elements of the cassette tape recordings that had always bothered me. This included removing the inherent tape hiss and noise, increasing the relative low volume on the tape overall (although this was only became evident after the introduction of CDs), creating a smoother and larger sounding bass guitar, slightly reducing the volume of some of the keyboard parts, enhancing definition and crispness of the drums, and tuning the vocals so that the harmonies appeared closer together as well as louder and more prominent in the mix. Furthermore, I was able to adjust the original track listing so that our cover version of (I’m Not Your) Steppin’ Stone was moved from Track 3 to Track 4, as I had previously always felt compelled to fast forward through this song to get to Good Things In Life.
Comparing the remastered The Lyres demos against the unmastered digitised original version, Shacallis was really pleased with the sonic difference of the remastered version and said he thought it was ‘a great outcome with an improved bottom and high end’ and felt the remastered version had ‘really brought the recordings to life’ (Con Shacallis, personal communication, February 9, 2017). Francis was so impressed with the remastered version and said ‘so back to my earlier comment about wishing I could hear how they would sound if were recorded now, I reckon the remastering brings it very close.’ In particular Francis was pleased with the added bottom end, removal of the tape hiss and felt that ‘everything seemed more defined, that is the vocals had more presence which emphasised those great harmonies more, plus the cymbals, high hats and guitars were crisper’ and he conceded that ‘I had no idea that something sourced from cassette tape could ever be made to sound so crisp and alive’ (Paul Francis, personal communication, January 28, 2017).
Regarding the listening comparison for the Ben’s Calf demo recordings, Green was pleased with the remaster overall and felt that the sound was less muffled, the instruments and vocals were much clearer, the reverb felt more uniform and soothing to the ear, and the songs were much brighter and more dynamic and felt the remaster represented the absolute best of Ben’s Calf. Munt, although impressed by the remastered versions in that he thought they sounded better, clearer, brighter, less boxy and were more aurally exciting, felt that this had come at a cost to a loss of perceived
228 warmth embedded in the original recordings. I believe the remaster improved the original recording overall through the removal of tape hiss and static noise, and the increased volume. In particular, I found the remaster to sound more modern through smoothing of the bass, providing greater presence on the guitar parts, adding crispness to the drums and tuning the vocals closer together. However, like Munt, I also found these improvements came at the cost of some loss of perceived warmth. Therefore, the concept of all case study participants sharing a preference for the sonic qualities of the respective remasters, as opposed to the original musical artefact, lends support to Baudrillard’s claim that the remaster is a simulacrum, a digital representation of the real and through the process of replication, the real music artifact becomes ever difficult to identify or is deemed artificial (1983). Furthermore, it is envisaged that over time, this preference for the replica will likely result in the removal of the original cassette tape recordings altogether and that the replica will assume the authoritative role as the definitive version.
The digital audio analysis revealed similar quantitative results to Sunnyboys in terms of the remastered version being louder, possessing a wider frequency spectrum and a reduced dynamic range across all demo recordings. When compared against Sunnyboys it is evident that the proportional increase in average volume (RMS) from the unmastered digital transfer to its remaster was significantly greater and that this was most likely be due to the lower volume staring point of the cassette tape and DAT formats. Although there was a sense of uniformity regarding the general overall shape of the frequency spectrum image upon comparison between the original and the remasters, there were variances (both subtle and significant) within specific frequency ranges that tended to support the perceived sonic differences revealed in the listening tests. The variance in DR values across the remastered demo recordings suggested that The Lyres’ remaster (DR=5) was the most ‘modern’ sounding remastered demo as its score was the same as Sunnyboys (DR=5), with Ben’s Calf next (DR=7) followed by the Jumble Sale remaster (DR=8). However, it is arguable that these calculated differences in RMS and dynamic range are not greatly significant overall as the remastered demo recordings could all still be defined as comprising a modern sound compared to the original. Therefore, as the demo recordings consist of full arrangements in terms of melodies, harmonies and lyrics, the remastered for CD versions could potentially be released as a finished modern sounding recording
229 (Perone, 2013). The ability for digital technology to create modern sounding replicas of old demo recordings to reside comfortably alongside modern digital recordings appears consistent with digital convergence theory. It represents a shift by music hobbyists from the simple consumption of commercially and professionally produced music into creators and distributors of their own musical offerings, often similar in quality to the artists they attempt to imitate through following the templates the professionals established (Manovich, 2009).
This case study was also undertaken to identify the key social, nostalgic, authenticity and technological elements associated with creating these new digital replicas with the researcher in the role of artist/producer for Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf, and that of fan/producer for The Lyres. For Sunnyboys, it was mainly Oxley (artist) and Pittman (fan/producer) who journeyed together back to the time of the original recording and through the course of their social interaction and relationship tried to capture a sense of authenticity and maintain a sense of cultural heritage in the creation of an accurate digital replica of their iconic music artefact. As producer across all demo recording remasters my role was to source as much original recording materials and associated documentation as possible to ensure the digital replication was accurate and occurred from a musical artefact perceived as authentic (Moore, 2009). Socially, this involved engaging with and reforming relationships with those directly involved in the original recordings 20-30 years earlier with the aim of their contribution and participation in the research. Although most of these reconnections were joyous in terms of reacquainting with old mature friends who once shared the same musical dreams and aspirations as young men, in the case of Wass it involved resolving a long-standing conflict and painful relationship breakdown. In his work surrounding the reformation of the band Magnum, Earl was keen to investigate the ‘struggle a group faces when attempting to display their artistic strength and contend with the weight of the past’ (2010, 132). Although Jumble Sale was not reformed and it was never my intention to do this, the social practice of remastering ensured that in order to achieve my present day artistic aspirations regarding the digital replica of the Jumble Sale recordings I would have to contend with the weight of my previous relationship derailment with Wass and try to build positive social engagement with him in the present. Furthermore, while the breakup of Ben’s Calf in 1995 appeared amicable at the time amongst all band members, contacting Green again after an
230 approximate 20-year hiatus was still a challenging process. I felt apprehensive and anxious reaching out to Green as it was unclear at that initial stage whether he would be interested in being involved in my project and working with me again after so many years as mature men. Thankfully Green was not only enthusiastic to be involved in my project but also uncovered a number of Ben’s Calf cassette tape recordings of rehearsals and songwriting sessions that featured songs I had written during that period that I had forgotten about. As I had maintained regular contact with Munt since 1989, I felt the most relaxed about approaching Munt to be involved in my research project. However I was also conscious not being influenced by our friendship and approached our interaction in the same professional manner as all case study participants to ensure integrity with the data and a balanced approach (Larsen & Zubernis, 2012). As previously explored, music-evoked nostalgia can produce both positive and negative responses (Barrett et al., 2010). Upon reflection, my approach to remastering my old song recordings of questionable quality as opposed to producing new recordings in the guise of a more experienced and mature music practitioner with current technology available perhaps also warrants some attention. On the one hand I was aware how unpolished and unskilled my old work is in light of my current practice. However, my belief in the importance of these recordings from a personal heritage and how they capture a moment in time (positive or negative) outweighed any internal feelings of anxiousness I may have experienced regarding their digital replication and distribution.
My sense of fandom felt towards The Lyres and associated anxiety regarding interaction with them was significantly less than that experienced with Sunnyboys. While Jumble Sale often appeared on the same line up at performances with The Lyres back in the late 1980s, sadly there was a failure at the time to establish friendships and relationships between the bands. I was therefore concerned that having identified The Lyres as a critical case study to the research that they would not remember me and/or would not want to be involved. Nostalgia is often prompted by music and has been linked to producing both positive and negative emotions, therefore it is feasible to consider that in some cases, people do not want to revisit the past (Barrett et al., 2010). However, Shacallis did remember me and wanted to be involved. It was a surreal experience communicating within the same physical space as mature family men, physically and mentally different to the young adolescents with
231 large musical dreams, egos and attitude the last time we met. During this meeting Shacallis reflected on The Lyres’ recent reunion show after a 30-year hiatus and said ‘it was a great opportunity to let my mates know how I felt about them in a way that I would never have had the maturity to do when I was 17’ (Con Shacallis, personal communication, February 9, 2017).
Another social element of remastering practice that surfaced during this case study was my working relationship and interaction with O’Neil in his studio. As the studio owner with over 30 years of mastering and remastering experience on iconic albums from U2, INXS, Silverchair, Cold Chisel, Radio Birdman and of course Sunnyboys, I was initially apprehensive regarding O’Neil’s commitment to the project. I was concerned given O’Neil’s experience, formidable credits and comprehensive range of expensive professional studio equipment, how seriously he would apply his impressive skills to the collection of unknown (to him) demo recordings I offered him on cassette tape and DAT. Furthermore, I had to manage my own anxiety and potential embarrassment of exposing my songs and personal heritage (Barratt, 2009) that I valued so highly, to a professional engineer who had worked on high profile international artists (Duchan, 2013). The social interaction during the remastering process proved to be both professional and enjoyable. It was professional and productive in the sense that we both adhered to our designated roles, shared the same goal of trying to achieve the best sounding digital replica as possible, and given my previous experience in music production, communicated effectively regarding techniques, equipment and workflow. Our creative activity and working relationship appeared consistent with Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory in that O’Neil and I assumed the role of individual, with O’Neil also undertaking the roles of domain and field (2015). Additionally, it was pleasant as O’Neil was similar in age, had pursued a similar rock and roll dream, possessed his own demo cassette tapes and genuinely appeared to like the music.
With all of the demo recording case study participants there appeared to exist a ‘bittersweet’ nostalgic reflection brought on through the remastering experience concerning a sense of pride in what was originally recorded all those years ago, and the sense of despair of a once held dream for commercial success and stardom not realised. For Green, the recordings were an authoritative tangible reminder of his
232 fulfilment of a dream, of being part of a rock band that performed original material and transported him back to a ‘wonderful ride he wouldn’t change for the world’ (Thomas Green, personal communication, February 20, 2017). However, he also said that they reduced him to tears as he lamented time had passed. Munt also experienced positive and negative emotions upon listening to the remastered recordings; the comradeship, joy and fun of rehearsals and live performances and the sadness that Ben’s Calf could have been more successful commercially given the right circumstances. For me, listening to the Ben’s Calf songs was sweet as I believed the remastering process improved these recordings I was so proud of, highlighting the “Guitar-Pop” sound I craved, and enhanced the solid song structures and performance. It was also a bitter experience as it transported me back in time to the eventual breakup of the band and demise of my rock and roll dream (Barrett et al., 2010). Shacallis said that The Lyres’ demo recordings conveyed him to both a joyful and sad time and place in that it was ‘really cool to listen to these songs and reconnect with the lads’ and that ‘it was like nothing had changed and we were back in my parent’s garage in Padstow in 1985,’ they also represent a case of what could have been (Con Shacallis, personal communication, February 9, 2017). Similarly Francis, who admitted to not being an overtly emotional person, said the remastering experience made him feel younger and alive but also highlighted his regret at not releasing a single or EP at the time. As a fan of the band, the remastering experience delivered not only the surprise of being able to remember their songs Sad Girl and Liar on first playback (after 30 years of no access to their music), but also the joy in being transferred back in time to a sweaty pub in Sydney in 1987 watching them perform and enjoying all that youth had to offer (Cartwright, Besson & Maubisson, 2013).
Maintaining a perception of ‘authenticity’ through the remastering process, in a sense an ideological theme, was consistent across all demo recording case study participants and closely aligned to the view from Sunnyboys. Similar to Oxley and Burgman’s belief that remastering is acceptable if the main focus is to use the existing technology to make it sound better while still respecting the original intent of the recordings and songs, all demo remastering sessions adhered to this mantra. Being physically involved in the remastering process and being able to provide feedback and input to O’Neil in real-time did allow me the opportunity to focus on and try to fix certain
233 elements of the Jumble Sale and Ben’s Calf demo recordings that had always bothered me, particularly noise, volume discrepancies and track listings. I did however have concerns regarding perceived authenticity before implementing these adjustments, in particular the theory that the removal of inherent cassette tape noise actually removes the noise that authenticates it to a time and place (Link, 2001). However, these manipulations were implemented in line with the original intent of the bands’ performance and to address issues unfortunately inherent with the technology and budgetary challenges from that period. Regarding The Lyres, Shacallis said that although he was initially sceptical of digital interference on an analogue recording and possessed a firmly held belief that analogue sounded better than digital, he was content to have these demo recordings digitally remastered to see if they would stand up against modern sounding recordings. Francis was pleased to proceed with remastering as long as its primary aim was to overcome technological limitations of the recording that could now be remedied to get a result closer to what the artist intended at the time.
The very essence of the social practice of digital remastering from older analogue recordings in this case study implies not only a nostalgic journey to re-join in the original recording sessions with those involved, but also a physical present day reconnection as grown mature family men with teenage and adolescent friends from the past. The case study therefore was consistent with Duchan’s description that the nostalgic potential of a record is greatest for those carrying memories of its creation as all case participants experienced powerful emotions through this process (2013). Furthermore, this sense of nostalgia was not purely restricted to an artistic nature associated with the time and place of the physical original recording session or the rehearsals leading up to them, but enclosed many other instances and interactions of time and place, many non-band related where the focus was on friendship, love and loss, and a desire to heal and resolve the wrongs of the past. In response to the research question regarding whether heritage (personal) and authenticity associated with the original recordings were impacted through the creation of a remastered digital replica, the Demo Recordings case study provided the following response. Similar to the Sunnyboys case study, there existed a united approach from band members that the remaster did not impact personal heritage and authenticity associated with the original cassette tape recordings as they only sought improvement
234 as opposed to change. However, as the recordings were remastered primarily to a format that can sit comfortably alongside modern recordings on modern playback devices, there is a concern that the digital replica will replace the analogue original artefact overtime, thereby impacting any sense of personal heritage and authenticity associated with the original recordings.
235 Chapter 6: Conclusion and further discussion
This project was undertaken in order to reveal the social and cultural elements of digital remastering practice and to provide new and accessible knowledge regarding this phenomenon to compliment the limited research into this area (Deruty & Tardieu, 2014; Nardi, 2014; Shelvock, 2012). In particular, it was designed to research not only the technical, commercial and psychoacoustic attributes of remastering practice, but also the associated social and cultural themes surrounding creativity, cultural heritage, meaning, nostalgia and authenticity all within an appropriate theoretical framework. Remastering practice was defined as representational creativity with clear external references, with a distinct delineation of workflow and decision-making of the individual, domain and field as depicted in Csikszentmihalyi’s systems model theory (2015). Furthermore, the study revealed that although the role of the remastering engineer has evolved through digital technology into a more creative function as opposed to the traditional technical one; there still appears to be a place for a traditional approach to workflow with a blend of both analogue and digital equipment used (Nardi, 2014; Rumsey, 2011; Rumsey, 2011b; Shelvock, 2012).
The case studies identified the direct correlation between the amount of manipulation undertaken to create the new digital replica and the corresponding perceptions of authenticity, meaning, cultural heritage and nostalgia. For example, all case study participants were of the view that the digital replica would maintain a similar sense of meaning, heritage and authenticity as the original musical artefact if remastering practice strictly adhered to sonic improvement and restoration only, as opposed to introducing new musical attributes as in the case with remixing (Bennett, 2009). This theme was explored further implementing Baudrillard’s simulacra and simulation theory and exposed the likelihood that remastered digital replicas of old analogue recordings, consisting of sonic improvements to create a more ‘modern sound’ so as to sit comfortably alongside modern recordings as well as being more assessable through playback on current digital devices, would replace the original musical artefact as the ‘real’ or authentic version, particularly for future generations (1983).
The Sunnyboys’ case study built upon the previous research by Barry regarding his comprehensive digital audio analysis into remastering The Beatles including his
236 methods for comparing digital file formats, waveforms, true peak levels and DR (2013). In particular, it explored the digital vinyl transfer process implemented as opposed to Barry’s reference without description to The Beatles’ ‘archival transfer practice’ (2013, p. 5). It was also closely aligned in design to O’Malley’s study into remastering artist Jeff Lynne, in particular his use of frequency spectrum analysis, RMS measurements and input from Lynne providing an artist’s perspective. The case study revealed that the 2014 remastered release of Sunnyboys was significantly louder across all frequencies and had the lowest DR score compared to the other two releases. Furthermore, it showed that the digital audio analysis generally supported the sonic perceptions of Sunnyboys’ members Oxley and Burgman regarding differences they heard across the three different versions of Sunnyboys. The Sunnyboy’s case study also allowed me to examine fandom, in particular my position as a scholar-fan, and my objective to produce authentic research (Brennan, 2014; Duffet, 2014; Jenkins, 2014; Larsen & Zubernis, 2012; Roach, 2014). I had to carefully manage the duality of the scholar-fan to ensure my pre-existing knowledge of Sunnyboys added a sense of depth and historical understanding to the study as opposed to a purely self-indulgent non-scholarly description. Furthermore, I had to navigate my inner self and the intrinsic conflict within as I generated, gathered and analysed data from Sunnyboys as a scholar, a mature family man and a 13-year-old fan (Scott, 2009). Although there were minor instances mentioned where my fandom and anxiousness affected my ability to collect data, it was also evident that my pre- existing knowledge of the band and autoethnographic approach enhanced the research overall and authenticated it (Larsen & Zubernis).
The demo recordings case study was designed to determine whether the remastering practice and process affiliated with the iconic professionally produced commercial release Sunnyboys, could be successfully applied to the non-released and unmastered low-budget demo recordings from Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf. It extended O’Malley’s research to deliver a detailed account of the social and nostalgic interactions and correlated decision-making process, and the interrelationships between the artists, producer and remastering engineer as they occurred in real-time, as opposed to a purely retrospective report (2015). As evidenced in Duchan’s work that concludes that no one values the worth of the original demo recording music artefact in relation to meaning more highly than those involved in its creation, the
237 case study revealed common themes surrounding nostalgia (2013). Remastering music from 30-years ago required members of Jumble Sale, The Lyres and Ben’s Calf to make artistic and technical decisions in the present as mature men, regarding music they created as adolescents. Consistent with digital convergence theory and participatory culture, the three bands had the opportunity to emulate their idols Sunnyboys through implementing the same remastering process on their respective cultural offerings so that they could reside comfortably alongside Sunnyboys sonically as well as online (Jenkins, 2014; Manovich, 2009). This process brought with it nostalgic reflection not only concerning the creation of the original demo recording, but also the social and cultural aspects and relationship dynamics of the period which transported the respective case study participants back in time to young men performing in fledgling original bands in Sydney in the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s (Cartwright et al., 2013). As evidenced, these nostalgic reflections produced both positive and negative responses relating to behaviour, attitude, relationships, the pursuit of the rock and roll dream, and a sense of what might have been (Barrett et el., 2010). Furthermore, this desire to travel back in time to the pre-digital era also appeared consistent with Baudrillard’s claim that replication makes it difficult to identify what is real, and this brings with it a sense of mourning for the real that leads to nostalgia assuming its full meaning (1983).
The research findings from the two case studies were important for a number of reasons. They challenge any preconceived ideas by artists that lo-fidelity analogue demo recordings stored on cassette tape or DAT may not benefit from commercial remastering. The research has shown through the literature review on demo recordings as well as the listening and digital audio analysis implemented in the case studies that remastering can improve lo-fidelity analogue demo recordings sonically and that listeners can distinguish between the remastered and unmastered version (Paton & McIntyre, 2009). Furthermore, the literature review has also shown that there is a public demand for remastered demo recordings, so artists can potentially take advantage of current music digital distribution platforms to create and distribute their respective sonically improved and modern sounding recordings to a mass audience (Jenkins, 2006; Perone, 2013). The research also suggests that remastering practice can impact cultural heritage and authenticity attributed to the original musical artefact. The removal of noise inherent with technology and practice surrounding
238 recording from 30 years ago, can in a sense remove what authenticates it to a specific time and place (Link, 2001). If we consider rock aesthetics to include all of the elements associated with the vinyl rock recording, it appears that the removal of or manipulation of any of these elements (distortion, fades, instrument timbre, audio levels) could be considered as tampering with the aesthetic of the song overall and its authentication to a specific time and place (Gracyk, 1996). However, I acknowledge that there exist performance and song attributes that also contribute to the rock aesthetic, alongside the vinyl recording elements, which also need to be considered when discussing authentication.
Additionally, there is a view that cultural heritage can be maintained with minimal intervention in line with the context and meaning of how the public originally received them (Sexton, 2009). However, the likelihood that the replica will replace the original as the authoritative text for future generations and the original may in someway disappear altogether, appears to question the relevance and importance of alternating perceptions of authenticity, meaning and cultural heritage associated with the original musical artefact. While this thesis has revealed specific technical and cultural practices of remastering, it does so within a prescribed scope; that of 1980s Australian “Guitar-Pop” sometimes referred to as rock. This scope provides the historical context of a larger technological and cultural setting in which remastering is practiced today.
Although this research project delivered an account of the artistic, social, nostalgic and technological nuances of remastering practice, there were significant limitations to the study that need to be considered. The research project only had the input from one remastering engineer. It could therefore be argued that it was a study of one remastering engineer as opposed to remastering practice in general. However, as the research focused on the comparisons between the remastered and original recordings of the respective bands as well as across the two case studies, using the same remastering engineer is not without merit in producing a true and fair comparative audio analysis. Another consideration was that the case study participants who completed the listening test to identify perceived sonic differences between the remastered and original versions did so on playback devices of their choice and not within a controlled studio environment. As such, the quality and type of playback
239 device used, associated noise of the chosen listening environment and surrounding areas, and variance in time to complete the test could influence the case study participants’ responses. However, the data demonstrated that all case study participants generally yielded similar responses despite their use of alternate and non- disclosed music playback devices. This suggests that the choice of playback device and listening environment was not a primary concern or influence on the outcome. The use of only approximately 25 track recordings in total from only four bands that emanated from a similar vintage and genre may be considered to be a sample size that is too small in number and too narrow in genre to examine and conclude substantial results from research. However, as these limited resources were used primarily to determine a process – in combination with a constructivist ontological position and autoethnographic approach drawing on human experience and interaction as a means for knowledge acquisition – the use of this number of case study participants and song recordings produced an appropriate level of detail, interaction and a nuanced reading (Ansari et al., 2014; Gray & Malins, 2004; Smith & Dean, 2009).
In identifying areas for further research, I believe a study into remastering music in a home studio environment using specialised remastering plugins may make useful contributions to knowledge. This research thesis focused on the process and results of the application of professional remastering on a collection of lo-fidelity budget demo recordings. However, with the constant evolution of digital music technology, aspiring artists and producers have affordable access to quality digital music production tools in their home studios or laptop including semi-automated mastering- specific plugins complete with pre-sets, as well as inexpensive digitisation options to transfer stored analogue materials (De Carvalho, 2012). Therefore, a study into the practice of digitally transferring and remastering old analogue recordings in a home studio environment using these tools would be useful to identify what sonically can be achieved as well as determine the level of remastering skill required by the do it yourself (DIY) remastering engineer. Additionally, research into the sonic outcomes achieved by a professionally trained and experienced remastering engineer using a commercial facility with hi end expensive outboard equipment compared to using a laptop with DAW and mastering plug-in versions of the studio equipment might also prove useful (Cartwright et al., 2013). As the research project only analysed the process of attaining digital transfers from vinyl records, reel-to-reel tape, cassette tape
240 and DAT, perhaps another area of potential research may include examining the digital transfer process from other formats including wax cylinders, 78rpm phonograph discs, four track cassettes, eight-track cartridges and laserdiscs in the preparation of remastering. Another area of further research would be an examination of the differences between a small collection of original and remastered songs as completed by a number of different engineers. This approach could potentially deliver variances in musical and sonic outcomes, remastering workflow and practice and deliver an examination of remastering practice from these alternative perspectives. Finally, a study into the evolving phenomenon of artificial intelligence and machine learning to replicate the human manipulations of recordings undertaken by mastering and remastering engineers, LANDR and eMastered for example, maybe useful in examining remastering practice in the future.
Figure 27 - The Sunnyboys and I backstage in 2017 L-R Peter Oxley, Bil Bilson, Stephen Bruel, Richard Burgman and Jeremy Oxley
For me, the photograph above (Figure 27) – taken by my wife on 3 February 2017 backstage at the NightQuarter performance venue on the Gold Coast, Queensland – is a holistic representation of my research project and the conflicting emotions and
241 nostalgia I experienced. It appears to capture the exhilaration and nervousness of the 13-year old fan being in the presence of his musical idols he never believed he would ever meet, the satisfaction and relief of the scholar having gained access to and been accepted by case study participants critical to the research, and the bittersweet reflection of a mature man on the demise of his rock and roll dream and what might have been. This poignant reflection was illuminated further when shortly before this photograph was taken Peter Oxley said to me ‘Hey, I heard you have a bunch of great songs and I may pop into Rick’s (O’Neil) place for a listen’ (Peter Oxley, personal communication, February 3, 2017). In conjunction with O’Neil’s statement that he would have signed our band back in that period (when he worked for a major label) based upon the quality of the songs, this was a powerful surreal justification, that the recordings of the songs I wrote, sang and played guitar on perhaps had the potential to be of some value to others as opposed to just its creators.
242 Reference list
Alasuutari, P. (1995). Researching Culture. Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies. London: Sage.
Albrecht, M. M. (2007). Mapping the Terrain of Contemporary Popular Music Studies: Reading Authenticity Theory into The Popular Music Studies Reader. Review of Communication, 7(3), 314-321. doi:10.1080/15358590701480721
Analog Audio Mastering Tape Print-Through Technical Bulletin A011194. (1994). Retrieved from Audio Engineering Society: http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/3mtape/printthrough.pdf
Ansari, K., Ansari, S., & Jaffri, S. (2014). The Atypical Creative Arts Research Methodology(s): Integrating Practice with Performance. International Research Journal of Arts and Humanities, 42(42), 141.
Atkinson, P. (2011). The Beatles on BBC Radio in 1963: The 'Scouse' Inflection and a Politics of Sound in the Rise of the Mersey Beat. Popular Music and Society, 34(2), 163-175. doi:10.1080/03007760903268809
Auslander, P. (1999). Liveness performance in a mediatized culture. London ;: Routledge.
Bacon, J. (2010). The voice of her body: Somatic practices as a basis for creative research methodology. Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices, 2(1), 63-74.
Baker, S. (2018). Community custodians of popular music’s past : a DIY approach to heritage. Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge.
Barchiesi, D., & Reiss, J. (2010). Reverse Engineering of a Mix. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 58(7/8), 563-576.
243 Barham, J. (2014). 'Not Necessarily Mahler': Remix, Samples and Borrowing in the Age of Wiki. Contemporary Music Review, 33(2), 128-147.
Barratt, N. (2009). From memory to digital record: Personal heritage and archive use in the twenty-first century. Records Management Journal, 19(1), 8-15. doi:10.1108/09565690910937209
Barrett, E., & Bolt, B. D. (2007). Practice as research: approaches to creative arts enquiry (Vol. 1). New York; London;: I.B. Tauris.
Barrett, F. S., Grimm, K. J., Robins, R. W., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., & Janata, P. (2010). Music-Evoked Nostalgia: Affect, Memory, and Personality. Emotion, 10(3), 390-403. Franzsakoff
Barry, B. (2013). (Re)releasing the Beatles. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 135, New York, USA.
Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.
Benjamin, W. (1969). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 217-251). New York: Schocken Books.
Bennett, A. (2002). Researching youth culture and popular music: a methodological critique. The British Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 451-466. doi:10.1080/0007131022000000590
Bennett, A. (2009). “Heritage rock”: Rock music, representation and heritage discourse. Poetics, 37(5-6), 474-489.
Benzine, A. (2006, April 15). Court hears Apple Corps plan for Beatles digital release. Music Week, 4.
244
Blanc, A., & Huault, I. (2014). Against the digital revolution? Institutional maintenance and artefacts within the French recorded music industry. TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 83(1), 10-23. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.009
Bochner, A. P. (2000). Conference report: Ethnography for the twenty-first century: Alternatives and opportunities. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2)
Bogost, I. (2010), ‘Against aca-fandom: On Jason Mittell on Mad Men’, Ian Bogost: Video game theory, criticism, design, 29 July, http://www.bogost.com/blog/against_aca-fandom.shtml. Accessed 26 June, 2017.
Booth, P. (2013). Augmenting fan/academic dialogue: New directions in fan research. The Journal of Fandom Studies, 1(2), 119-137.
Borenstein, S. (2009). Moon footage cleaned up Hollywood does remastering job; originals are lost. Journal - Gazette.
Bottomley, A. J. (2016). Play It Again: Rock Music Reissues and the Production of the Past for the Present. Popular Music and Society, 39(2), 151 - 174.
Brennan, J. (2014). The Fannish Parergon: Aca–Fandom and the Decentred Canon. Australasian Journal of Popular Culture, 3(2), 217-232.
Brink, R. S. J. (1992). Empirical Methods in Restorative Processing of Historical Recordings. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 92, Vienna, Austria.
Browne, D. (2012). Carol King - The Legendary Demos Liner Notes. Retrieved from http://mediakits.concordmusicgroup.com/p/the-legendary-demos/liner- notes.html
245 Bruno, F. (2013). A Case for Song: Against an (Exclusively) Recording‐ Centered Ontology of Rock. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 71(1), 65-74.
Burr, V. (2005). Scholar/'shippers and Spikeaholics: Academic and fan identities at the Slayage Conference on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 8(3), 375-383.
Busche, A. (2006). Just Another Form of Ideology? Ethical and Methodological Principles in Film Restoration. The Moving Image, 6(2), 1-29.
Camp, R. (2018). Have you ever wondered how much it costs to record a demo in a professional studio? Retrieved from https://www.recordingconnection.com/reference- library/recording-entrepreneurs/how-much-do-music-studios-cost/
Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York and London: Routledge.
Cartwright, P., Besson, E., & Maubisson, L. (2013). Nostalgia and technology innovation driving retro music consumption. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(4), 459-494.
Cheung, C.-k., & Yue, X. D. (2012). Idol worship as compensation for parental absence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 17(1), 35-46. doi:10.1080/02673843.2011.649399
Clarke, E., DeNora, T., & Vuoskoski, J. (2015). Music, empathy and cultural understanding. Physics of life reviews, 15, 61-88.
Clayton-Lea, T. (2009, August 25). The magical remastering tour. Irish Times, p. 12.
Cochran, T. R. (2009). Toward a rhetoric of scholar-fandom. (Dissertation/Thesis), ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
246 Cohen, S. (2016). Decline, renewal and the city in popular music culture : beyond the Beatles . London, [England] ;: Routledge.
Cohen, S., Knifton, R., Leonard, M., & Roberts, L. (Eds.). (2014). Sites of popular music heritage: memories, histories, places. Routledge.
Condon, D. (2014). "Lost" Sunnyboys LP, Thom Yorke's big surprise, new Libertines offshoot. Retrieved from http://doublej.net.au/news/music-news/lost-sunnyboys-lp- thom-yorkes-big-surprise-new-libertines-offshoot
Connell, J. (2003). Sound tracks popular music, identity, and place. London ;: Routledge.
Cousins, M., & Hepworth-Sawyer, R. (2013). Practical mastering: a guide to mastering in the modern studio. Burlington, Mass: Focal Press. Dean, R. T., & Smith, H. (2009). Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts
Cristofari, C., & Guitton, M. J. (2016). Aca-fans and fan communities: An operative framework. Journal of Consumer Culture.
Croci, S., Aydın, T. O., Stefanoski, N., Gross, M., & Smolic, A. (2017). Advanced tools and framework for historical film restoration. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 26(1).
Croll, C. (1981). Sunnyboys Alone With You single photo [Image]. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from https://www.discogs.com/Sunnyboys-Alone-With- You/release/3128183
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). Systems Model of Creativity : The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2014 ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.
Davidson, W. (1977). In The City album photo cover [Image]. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from http://www.thejamfan.net/welcome.htm
247 Davies, S. (1987). Authenticity in musical performance. British Journal of Aesthetics, 27(1), 39-50.
Dawes, A. (1979). 10cc Fan Club Newsletter: Strawberry Records.
De Carvalho, A. T. (2012). The Discourse Of Home Recording: Authority Of "Pros" And The Sovereignty Of The Big Studios. Journal on the Art of Record Production (07).
Dean, R. (1978, July). Strawberry open cutting room. Studio Sound.
Dennis, R. (2000, April). Equalization By The Octave. Mixing Techniques. Retrieved from http://www.recordingeq.com/EQ/req0400/OctaveEQ.htm
Denyer, R. (1979, March). Strawberry Cutting Room. Sound International.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive Interactionism. London: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (2000). Interpretive ethnography. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(3)
Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deruty, E., & Tardieu, D. (2014). About Dynamic Processing in Mainstream Music. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 62(1/2), 42-55.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
248 Douglas, S. (2016). Voicing girlhood in popular music performance, authority, authenticity. London: Routledge.
Doyle, T. (2007). George & Giles Martin: Remixing The Beatles The Making of Love. SOUND ON SOUND (March 2007). Retrieved from SOUND ON SOUND https://www.soundonsound.com/people/george-giles-martin-remixing-beatles
Drake, D. M. (1992). Digital Mastering of the Mercury Living Presence Recordings for Compact Disc Release. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 92, Vienna, Austria.
Draper, P. (2013). On Critical Listening, Musicianship And The Art Of Record Production. Journal on the Art of Record Production(08).
Duchan, J. S. (2013). Recording As Social Practice. Journal on the Art of Record Production(08).
Duffett, M. (2014). Popular Music Fandom: Identities, Roles and Practices. Hoboken: Routledge Ltd.
Earl, B. (2010). The reformer's charter: Setting bloom's anxiety of influence in the context of melodic rock. Popular Music, 29(1), 131-142
Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118-128.
Easton, M. (2013). Down the lane: Sydney's DIY music scene. Lifted Brow, The(17), 42.
Elliott, J. I. (2005). From Demo to Hit: The Biography of Three Songs by Country Songwriter Tom Douglas. Popular Music and Society, 28(1).
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 12(1).
249
Evans, P., & Deehan, G. (1990). The keys to creativity. Grafton.
Evens, A. (2005). Sound ideas: Music, machines, and experience. ( No. 27.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Everett, W. (2010). ‘If you're gonna have a hit’: intratextual mixes and edits of pop recordings. Popular Music, 29(2), 229-250.
Fassin, D. (2013). A case for critical ethnography. Social Science & Medicine, 99, 119-126.
Feldman, S. (1986). Preparation of Master Tapes: A Producer's and Mixer's Guide to Mastering for Analog Disks, Cassettes, and Compact Discs. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 34(11), 914-916, 918, 920, 922-924, 926-928, 930, 934, 936. 938, 940.
Ferrara, A. (1997). Authenticity as a normative category. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 23(3), 77-92. doi:10.1177/019145379702300304
FitzGerald, D. (2013). The Good Vibrations Problem. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 134, Rome, Italy.
Flood, A. (2000). Common threads: the place of the narrative voice in researching artists' lives. Australian Art Education, 23(1), 3-8.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
Foley, D. E. (2002). Critical ethnography: The reflexive turn. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(4), 469-490.
Franz, J. M. (2000). An interpretative-contextual framework for research in and through design. Paper presented at the Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations For the Future, La Clusaz, France.
250
Freeman, C. (2000). Colin Freeman Discography. Retrieved 18 March, 2016 from https://www.discogs.com/artist/443577-Colin-Freeman?page=1
Gander, J. M. (2015). Situating creative production: recording studios and the making of a pop song. Management Decision, 53(4)
Gareus, R., & Goddard, C. (2014). Audio Signal Visualisation and Measurement. Paper presented at the Sound and Music Computing (SMC) Conference, Athens, Greece.
Goldberg, M. (1982, September 1). The Jam. Musician, 21-22, 24, 26, 30, 33.
Gómez, E., Herrera, P., & Ong, B. (2006). Automatic Tonal Analysis from Music Summaries for Version Identification. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 121, San Francicsco, California, USA.
Gracyk, T. (1996). Rhythm and Noise An Aesthetics of Rock. Durham: Duke University Press.
Grainge, P. (1999). RECLAIMING HERITAGE: COLOURIZATION, CULTURE WARS AND THE POLITICS OF NOSTALGIA. Cultural Studies, 13(4), 621-638.
Gray, C., & Malins, J. (2004). Visualizing research: A guide to the research process in art and design: Ashgate Aldershot, Hampshire.
Gritten, A. (2008). Sound Ideas: Music, Machines, and Experience. By Aden Evens. Music and Letters, 89(2), 293-298. doi:10.1093/ml/gcm094
Hainge, G. (2005). No(i)stalgia: On the impossibility of recognising noise in the present. Culture, Theory and Critique, 46(1), 1-10. doi:10.1080/14735780500102348
251 Hamdan, A. (2009). Reflexivity of discomfort in insider-outsider educational research. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill, 44(3), 377-404.
Hanson, J. (2013). Educational developers as researchers: the contribution of insider research to enhancing understanding of role, identity and practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(4), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.806220
Hardt, H. (1993). Authenticity, Communication, and Critical Theory. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10(1), 49-69.
Harland, T. (2014). Learning about case study methodology to research higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(6), 1113-1122.
Harrison, K. (2013). The Sunnyboy. Retrieved 16 December 2015 from http://thesunnyboy.com.au/
Haseman, B. (2006). A manifesto for performative research. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, (118), 98-106.
Hatje, U., & Musialik, C. M. (2005). Frequency-Domain Processors for Efficient Removal of Noise and Unwanted Audio Events. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Conference: 26th International Conference: Audio Forensics in the Digital Age, Denver, Colarado, USA.
Hébert, C. (2015). Knowing and/or experiencing: a critical examination of the reflective models of John Dewey and Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 1-11.
Hengeveld, B., Frens, J., & Deckers, E. (2016). Artefact Matters. The Design Journal, 19(2), 323-337. doi:10.1080/14606925.2016.1129175
252 Herrmann, A. F. (2012). Never Mind the Scholar, Here's the Old Punk: Identity, Community, and the Aging Music Fan. In Studies in Symbolic Interaction (pp. 153- 170).
Hicks, D. (1984). ‘Getting into the field and establishing routines’, In R. Ellen (ed.) Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct, London: Academic Press.
Hills, M. (2004). Strategies, tactics and the question of un lieu propre : what/where is "media theory"? Social Semiotics, 14(2), 133-149. doi:10.1080/1035033042000238286
Hills, M. (2015). The expertise of digital fandom as a "community of practice: Exploring the narrative universe of Doctor Who. Convergence, 21(3), 360-374. doi:10.1177/1354856515579844
Hjortkjaer, J., & Walther-Hansen, M. (2014). Perceptual Effects of Dynamic Range Compression in Popular Music Recordings. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 62(1/2), 37-41.
Hoey, B. A. (2016). What is Ethnography? Retrieved from http://brianhoey.com/research/ethnography/
Holland, M. (2012). An "aesthetic of sorts :" Technological advancement, authenticity and music production practices in Dunedin, New Zealand, Sydney, N.S.W.
Holman Jones, S. L., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C. (2016). Handbook of autoethnography. New York; London;: Routledge.
Houpert, J. (2001). Optimized Workstation For The Transfer Of Large Collections. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Conference: 20th International Conference: Archiving, Restoration, and New Methods of Recording, Budapest, Hungary.
Humphrey, C. (2013). Dilemmas in doing insider research in professional education. Qualitative Social Work, 12(5), 572–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325012446006
253
Isakoff, K. (2012). ‘Interlude 3: Comments and commentaries by industry professionals and producers’. In S. Frith & S. Zagorski-Thomas (Eds.), The Art of Record Production (pp. 273–274). Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2014). RETHINKING 'RETHINKING CONVERGENCE/CULTURE'. Cultural Studies, 28(2), 267-297. doi:10.1080/09502386.2013.801579
Johansson, R., Kth, Samhällsplanering och, m., & Skolan för arkitektur och, s. (2007). On case study methodology. Open House International, 32(3), 48-54.
Jones, S. (2002). MUSIC THAT MOVES: POPULAR MUSIC, DISTRIBUTION AND NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES. Cultural Studies, 16(2), 213-232. doi:10.1080/09502380110107562
Katz, L. (2013). from eros to industry: Creativity theory and practice. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 6(1), 479.
Katz, R. A. (2007). Mastering audio: the art and the science. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier/Focal Press.
Kehew, B., & Ryan, K. (2006). Recording The Beatles. Houston (Tex.): Curvebender.
King, B. (1983). Sunnyboys official photo [Image]. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from http://www.feelpresents.com/sunnyboys-downloads/
King, B. (2014). Sunnyboys official photo [Image]. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from http://www.feelpresents.com/sunnyboys-downloads/
Kirpitchenko, L., & Voloder, L. (2014). Insider research method : the significance of identities in the field . London: SAGE Publications.
254
Klinger, B. (2006). Beyond the multiplex : Cinema, new technologies, and the home (1st ed.). Berkerley: University of California Press.
Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Kot, G. (2009, September 6). Is it worth the price?, Chicago Tribune. p. 4.
Kurttila, S. (2011). Digital Film Restoration and Remastering. (Masters), University of Oulu.
Kushner, S. (2000). Personalizing evaluation. London: Sage.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lagadec, R., & Pelloni, D. (1983). Signal Enhancement via Digital Signal Processing Audio Engineering Society Convention 74. New York, USA.
Larmore, C. (2004). Alessandro Ferrara’s theory of authenticity. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 30(1), 5-9. doi:10.1177/0191453704039394
Larsen, K., & Zubernis, L. (2012a). Fandom At The Crossroads: Celebration, Shame and Fan/Producer Relationships (Vol. 1). GB: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Larsen, K., & Zubernis, L. S. (2012b). Fan culture: theory - practice (Vol. 1). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Lee Harrington, C., & Bielby, D. D. (2010). A life course perspective on fandom. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(5), 429-450.
Legge, B. (1981). Sunnyboys album photo [Image]. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from http://thesunnyboy.com.au/sunnyboys/
255
Leonard, M. (2017). Gender in the music industry : rock, discourse and girl power . London, [England] ;: Routledge.
Leone, M. (2015). Longing for the past: a semiotic reading of the role of nostalgia in present-day consumption trends. Social Semiotics, 25(1), 1-15. doi:10.1080/10350330.2014.950008
Levine, C. (2013). Pay for your pleasures : Mike Kelley, Paul McCarthy, Raymond Pettibon . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewis, G. H. (2006). Some of These Bootleggers, They Make Pretty Good Stuff: Love and Theft from the Dylan Underground. Popular Music and Society, 29(1), 109- 120.
Lewis, L. A. (1992). The Adoring audience: fan culture and popular media. New York;London;: Routledge.
Link, S. (2001). The Work of Reproduction in the Mechanical Aging of an Art: Listening to Noise. Computer Music Journal, 25(1), 34-47. doi:10.1162/014892601300126098
Littlefield, J., & Siudzinski, R. (2011). Is That a Real Song Or Did You Just Make It Up? Styles of Authenticity in the Cultural (Re)Production of Music. Advances in Consumer Research, 38, 1.
Long, P., & Wall, T. (2013). Media studies : texts, production, context (Second edition.). Oxfordshire, England ;: Routledge.
Loyde, L. (2010). Official Website of Lobby Loyde. Retrieved 5 January, 2016 from http://www.lobbyloyde.com/
Lund, T. (2006). Stop Counting Samples. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 121, San Francisco, California, USA.
256 MacFarlane, T. (2013). The Beatles and McLuhan: understanding the electric age. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.
Magaudda, P. (2011). When materiality ‘bites back’: Digital music consumption practices in the age of dematerialization. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 15-36. doi:10.1177/1469540510390499
Manovich, L. (2009). The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass Cultural Production? Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 319-331. doi:10.1086/596645
Marontate, J. (2005). Digital recording and the reconfiguration of music as performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(11), 1422-1438. doi:10.1177/0002764205277647
Marshall, L. & Frith, S. (2004). Music and Copyright: Routledge.
Martin, A. (2014). The Role and Working Practice of Music Producers: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. (Doctor of Philosophy), The University of Hull.
Masnick, M. (2016). This Is Bad: Court Says Remastered Old Songs Get A Brand New Copyright. Retrieved from https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160602/07371934600/this-is-bad-court-says- remastered-old-songs-get-brand-new-copyright.shtml
Mattock, L. K. (2010). From film restoration to digital emulation: The archival code of ethics in the age of digital reproduction. Journal of Information Ethics, 19(1), 74- 85.
Mattsson, J. T., Peltoniemi, M., & Parvinen, P. M. T. (2010). Genre-deviating artist entry: the role of authenticity and fuzziness. Management Decision, 48(9), 1355- 1364. doi:10.1108/00251741011082107
257 Maxwell, I. (2002). The curse of fandom: insiders, outsiders and ethnography. Popular Music Studies, 103-116.
McIntosh, P. (2010). Action research and reflective practice: creative and visual methods to facilitate reflection and learning. New York;London;: Routledge.
McLeod, K. (2014). Bootlegs. Journal of Popular Music Studies, 26(2-3), 397-398.
McIntyre, P. (2012). Creativity and cultural production: issues for media practice. Basingstoke;New York;: Palgrave Macmillan.
McIntyre, P., Fulton, J., & Paton, E. (2016). The creative system in action: understanding cultural production and practice. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire;New York, NY;: Palgrave Macmillan.
McIntyre, P., & Paton, B. (2015). THE MASTERING PROCESS AND THE SYSTEMS MODEL OF CREATIVITY. Perfect Beat, 8(4), 64-81. doi:10.1558/prbt.v8i4.28691
Melton, G. W. (2014). An Examination of the Bootleg Record Industry and Its Impact upon Popular Music Consumption: Bootleg Record Industry. Journal of Popular Music Studies, 26(2-3), 399-408.
Mengel, N. (2013, 01/19/2013 Jan 19). SUNNYBOYS SHINE AGAIN. The Courier - Mail, p. 4.
Micallef, K. (2009, March). The 50th Anniversary of Kind of Blue. EQ, 20, 26-32.
Moore, A. (2017). Rock: The primary text - Developing a musicology of rock (pp. 1– 253). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315209791
Moore, A. (2002). Authenticity as Authentication. Popular Music, 21(2), 209-223.
258 Morey, J. (2009). Arctic Monkeys - The Demos Vs. The Album. Journal on the Art of Record Production (04).
Mueller, C. (2016). Baudrillard's Blues. Popular Music, 35(1), 84-99. doi:10.1017/S0261143015000823
Nardi, C. (2014). Gateway of Sound: Reassessing the Role of Audio Mastering in the Art of Record Production. Dancecult, 6(1), 8-25.
Neumann, M., & Simpson, T. A. (1997). Smuggled Sound: Bootleg Recording and the Pursuit of Popular Memory. Symbolic Interaction, 20(4), 319-341.
Nielsen, S. H., & Lund, T. (1999). Level Control in Digital Mastering. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 107, New York, USA.
Nielsen, S. H., & Lund, T. (2003). Overload in Signal Conversion. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Conference: 23rd International Conference: Signal Processing in Audio Recording and Reproduction, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Now Available For Pre-Order: ‘The Beatles: Live At The Hollywood Bowl’ Album (2016). The Beatles. Retrieved from http://www.thebeatles.com/news/now-available- pre-order-%E2%80%98-beatles-live-hollywood-bowl%E2%80%99-album-be- released-worldwide-september
Nowak, R., & Bennett, A. (2014). Analysing Everyday Sound Environments: The Space, Time and Corporality of Musical Listening. Cultural Sociology, 8(4), 426– 442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975514532262
Nowak, R. (2016). Consuming Music in the Digital Age Technologies, Roles and Everyday Life . London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137492562
O'Hare, P. (2009). Undervalued Stock: Britain's Most Successful Chart Producer And His Economy Of Production. Journal on the Art of Record Production(04).
259 O'Malley, M. (2015). The Definitive Edition (Digitally Remastered). Journal on the Art of Record Production(10).
O’Neil, R. (2016). Turtlerock Mastering. Retrieved from http://www.turtlerockmastering.com/
O'Reilly, K. (2009). Key concepts in ethnography. Los Angeles: SAGE.
O'Shea, H. (2012). 'Get back to where you once belonged!' the positive creative impact of a refresher course for 'baby-boomer' rock musicians. Popular Music, 31(2), 199-215.
Ogg, A. (2012). "Phoney Beatlemania has bitten the dust": The punk generation's love-hate relationship with the Fab Four. Punk & Post Punk, 1(2), 155-173.
Oldham, P. (2012). Lobby Loyde: The G.O.D. father of Australian rock. Thesis Eleven, 109(1), 44-63.
Owsinski, B. (2008). The Mastering Engineer's Handbook: The Audio Mastering Handbook: Cengage Learning.
Owsinski, B. (2011). Mixing and Mastering with IK Multimedia T-RackS: The Official Guide: Cengage Learning.
Oxley, J., & Oxley Griffiths, M. (2015). Here Comes The Sun. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Paterson, J. (2011). What Constitutes Innovation in Music Production? Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 131, New York, USA.
Paton, B., & McIntyre, P. (2009). Audio mastering: experimenting on the creative system of music production. Paper presented at The Second International Conference on Music Communication Science, Sydney, Australia.
260 Pearson, M. L., Albon, S. P., & Hubball, H. (2015). Case Study Methodology: Flexibility, Rigour, and Ethical Considerations for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 1-8.
Pedler, D. (2010). The songwriting secrets of the Beatles: Omnibus Press.
Perone, J. E. (2013). Carole King. The Legendary Demos. Hear Music HRM-33681- 02, 2012. Journal of the Society for American Music, 7(1).
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity - One’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-22.
Pestana, P. D., Ma, Z., Reiss, J. D., Barbosa, A., & Black, D. A. A. (2013). Spectral Characteristics of Popular Commercial Recordings 1950-2010. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 135, New York, USA.
Pittman, T. (2012). Sunnyboys Bio: Guts of Iron. Retrieved 28/11/2015, from http://thesunnyboy.com.au/sunnyboys/
Pittman, T. (2014). Re-issue of Sunnyboy's Debut Album [Press release]. Retrieved from http://robdickens101.com/2014/02/04/re-issue-of-sunnyboys-debut-album/
Pittman, T. (2014b). [Liner Notes] Sunnyboys [CD] Warner Music Australia Pty Ltd.
Pittman, T. (2015). [Liner notes] Get Some Fun Reissue [CD]. Sydney: Feel Presents. Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: theory, history, practice (1 ed.). London;New York;: Routledge.
Redhead, S. (2008). The Jean Baudrillard reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Revill, G. (2004). Performing French folk music: dance, authenticity and nonrepresentational theory. Cultural Geographies, 11(2), 199-209. doi:10.1191/14744744004eu302xx
261 Reynolds, S. (2011). Retromania : pop culture’s addiction to its own past (1st American ed.). New York: Faber & Faber.
Richardson, K. (1997). Still remastering, still dreaming. Stereo Review, 62(9), 96.
Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage.
Roach, C. M. (2014). "Going Native": Aca-Fandom and Deep Participant Observation in Popular Romance Studies. Mosaic: a journal for the interdisciplinary study of literature, 47(2),
Roberts, L., & Cohen, S. (2013). Unauthorising popular music heritage: outline of a critical framework. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(3), 241-261.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.
Rumsey, F. (2010). Mastering in an Ever-Expanding Universe. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 58(1/2), 65-71.
Rumsey, F. (2011). Mastering: Art, Perception, Technologies. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 59(6), 436-440.
Rumsey, F. (2011b). Hear, Hear! Psychoacoustics and Subjective Evaluation. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 59(10), 758-763.
Rumsey, F. (2012). Pound of Cure or Ounce of Prevention? Archiving and Preservation in Action. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 60(1/2), 79-82.
Rumsey, F. (2014). The Vinyl Frontier. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 62(7/8), 559-562.
Rumsey, F. (2015). Technology Trends in Audio Engineering. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 63(3), 204-205.
262 Sandall, R. (2007). Off the record. Prospect Magazine(August 2007).
Schon, D. A. (1983; 2008;). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schutz, A. (1971). ‘The stranger: an essay in social psychology’, In Edited by: A. Broderson (ed.) Alfred Schutz: Collected Papers II: Studies in Social Theory. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Scott, D. B. (2009). The Ashgate research companion to popular musicology: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Sexton, P. (2009, September 12). Repaving 'Abbey Road'. Billboard, 121, 24.
Shelvock, M. (2012). Audio Mastering as Musical Practice. (Master of Arts), The University of Western Ontario.
Shepherd, I. (2010, October 27). 7 crucial EQ bands to help balance your mix. Retrieved from http://productionadvice.co.uk/using-eq/
Simons, H., & McCormack, B. (2007). Integrating Arts-Based Inquiry in Evaluation Methodology: Opportunities and Challenges. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(2), 292-311.
Smith, H., & Dean, R. T. (2009). Practice-led research, research-led practice in the creative arts (Vol. 1). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Soyini Madison, D. (2006). The Dialogic Performative in Critical Ethnography. Text and Performance Quarterly, 26(4), 320-324.
Sparks, A. (2002). Autoethnography: Self-indulgence or something more?. In Edited by A. P. Bochner & C. Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature, and aesthetics (pp. 209-232). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
263 Speck, H. (2016). Everything Old Is New Again? Court Rules Remastering Resets Copyright. Retrieved from https://futureofmusic.org/blog/2016/06/20/everything- old-new-again-court-rules-remastering-resets-copyright
Speers, L. (2017). Hip-hop authenticity and the London scene living out authenticity in popular music. London ;: Routledge.
Spencer, J. (2001). ‘Ethnography after postmodernism’, In Edited by: P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland and L. Lofland (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage, pp. 443–52.
Spikofski, G., & Wilinski, N. (1992). Determining the Psychoacoustic Factors of Loudspeaker Reproduction in Listening Rooms. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 92, Vienna, Austria.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2003). ‘Case studies’ In Edited By N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA, and London: Sage, pp. 134– 64.
Stenhouse, L. (1981). What counts as research? British Journal of Educational Studies, 14(2), 103–114.
Straub, J. (2014). Paradoxes of Authenticity Studies on a Critical Concept. Bielefeld: transcript.
Street, J. (2013). Politics and Popular Culture (1. ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Stuhl, A. K. (2014). REACTIONS TO ANALOG FETISHISM IN SOUND- RECORDING CULTURES. The Velvet Light Trap - A Critical Journal of Film and Television(74), 42-53.
264 Sullivan, C. (2013, 20 December). The Jam: The Studio Recordings – review. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/dec/19/the-jam- studio-recordings-review
Swensen, G., Jerpåsen, G. B., Sæter, O., & Tveit, M. S. (2013). Capturing the Intangible and Tangible Aspects of Heritage: Personal versus Official Perspectives in Cultural Heritage Management. Landscape Research, 38(2), 203-221. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.642346
Tannock, S. (1995). Nostalgia critique. Cultural Studies, 9(3), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502389500490511
Taylor, J. (2011). The intimate insider: negotiating the ethics of friendship when doing insider research. Qualitative Research, 11(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110384447
Temmer, S. F. (1984). The Enjoyment of Recorded Music in a Technologically Oriented Society Audio Engineering Society Convention 1r.
Théberge, P. (1997). Any sound you can imagine: making music/consuming technology. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
Théberge, P. (2012). The End of the World as We Know It: The Changing Role of the Studio in the Age of the Internet. In Frith, S. & Zagorski-Thomas, S. (Eds.), The Art of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field (unpaged). London: Ashgate.
Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography (Vol. 26.). Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.
Thompson, P., & McIntyre, P. (2013). Rethinking Creative Practice In Record Production AND Studio Recording Education: Addressing The Field. Journal on the Art of Record Production(08).
265 Thornquist, C. (2015). Material evidence: definition by a series of artefacts in arts research. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 14(2), 110-119. doi:10.1080/14702029.2015.1041713
Timothy, D. J. (1997). Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 751-754. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00006-6
Tobias, E. S. (2013). Composing, songwriting, and producing: Informing popular music pedagogy. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(2), 213-237.
Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative Research through Case Studies. London: Sage.
Tsang, E. W. K. (2013). Case study methodology: Causal explanation, contextualization, and theorizing. Journal of International Management, 19(2), 195- 202
Uwins, M. (2015, May 7-10). Analogue Hearts, Digital Minds? An Investigation into Perceptions of the Audio Quality of Vinyl. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 138, Warsaw, Poland.
Varga, S. (2012). Authenticity as an ethical ideal. New York: Routledge. van Klyton, A. (2016). All the way from . authenticity and distance in world music production. Cultural Studies, 30(1), 106-128. doi:10.1080/09502386.2014.974642 van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. van der Hoeven, A. (2018). Narratives of popular music heritage and cultural identity: The affordances and constraints of popular music memories. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 21(2), 207-222.
Vickers, E. (2010). The Loudness War: Background, Speculation, and Recommendations. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 129, San Francisco, California, USA.
266 Walser, R. (2007). The Poetics of Rock: Cutting Tracks, Making Records, by Albin J. Zak III . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001. xvii, 259 pp. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 60(1), 253-257.
Walsh, M., Stein, E., & Jot, J.-M. (2011). Adaptive Dynamics Enhancement. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society Convention 130, London, UK.
What it means for a film to be “digitally remastered”: The Economist explains. (2017). The Economist (Online) U6
Williams, J. P., & Jauhari bin Zaini, M. K. (2016). Rude Boy Subculture, Critical Pedagogy, and the Collaborative Construction of an Analytic and Evocative Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 45(1), 34-59.
Wilson, J. L., (2005). Nostalgia: Sanctuary of meaning. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
Wöhr, M., Theile, G., Goeres, H.-J., & Persterer, A. (1991). Room-Related Balancing Technique: A Method for Optimizing Recording Quality. J. Audio Eng. Soc, 39(9), 623-631.
Wu, L., Spieß, M., & Lehmann, M. (2017). The effect of authenticity in music on the subjective theories and aesthetical evaluation of listeners: A randomized experiment. Musicae Scientiae, 21(4), 442-464. doi:10.1177/1029864916676301
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Zak, A. (2001). The poetics of rock: cutting tracks, making records. Berkeley: University of California Press.
267 Appendix A
Selections of the digital transfers of the original recordings alongside their respective remasters used in the case studies are available to access at the following address: https://soundcloud.com/user-171842547/sets/stephen-bruel-thesis
268 Appendix B
Detailed remastering process for The Colour Of Stone
The Colour of Stone, the third track on the Ben’s Calf DAT demo recordings, was chosen for this account as it features an interesting rhythm guitar track comprising not only the playing of chords but also slides and a muted non-chord thumping action, similar to Paul Weller’s playing from The Jam. It is therefore arguably an example of third person authenticity in that my performance would be perceived by an audience as an authentic representation of Weller’s guitar playing and performed by me in an authentic style (Moore, 2009). It also includes a solid guitar solo in line with Sunnyboys, rich male vocal harmonies in line with recordings by The Beatles, and an overall interesting mix of timbre, frequency and volume. O’Neil began the signal processing chain on Colour of Stone by sending the digital transfer housed within the Pro Tools DAW to a Weiss DS1-MK3 digital mastering multiband compressor set to tune into the bass frequencies to clean up the low end rumble and prevent any sound likely to impact the send to a sub-woofer. The signal was then passed through a Fabfilter Pro-L brickwall limiter digital plug in set with a very fast attack to catch any dynamic that maybe too fast for the analogue compressors further down the chain to process. The use of a brickwall limiter so early in the signal chain was perhaps a surprising choice. As he writes;
Most people believe a brickwall limiter should be placed at the end of the mastering or remastering chain, but if you put it at the beginning you can stop any tom or hi hat transient that is 10dB louder for, say, a quarter of a second. This brickwall limiter therefore slows the superfast transients down and lets everything else through, which allows the analogue compressor to work effectively and do what is does best (Rick O’Neil, personal communication, November 28, 2016).
The signal was then sent to a digital Waves PuigChild 670 compressor plugin based upon the well-known Fairchild 670 analogue outboard compressor and processed in lateral vertical mode. According to O’Neil, this mode adds a mono limiter to the
269 middle and to the side channels of the stereo recording and allows manipulation of the level of the vocal on the mid channel as well as addresses the width or stereo image of the recording through the side channels which sit on the edge of the stereo image. O’Neil uses this compressor to further slow down transients in a way which he perceives as musical. At this stage the signal was sent from the digital platform of Pro Tools through a Digidesign (AVID) 192 8X8X8 audio interface and transferred to an analogue signal which was delivered into O’Neil’s customised physical Parkside Sound mastering console.
At this point, O’Neil adjusted the left and right channel by one-quarter decibel steps using a step attenuator line level box until he was confident the recording of Colour Of Stone was centred and with equal amounts of gain on each left and right channel. O’Neil then sent the signal through a Manley Laboratories’ Massive Passive EQ where he boosted around the 27kHz frequency to put some air and sheen on top of the song and boosted around 4kHz to add some presence to the vocal. O’Neil also significantly boosted around 8-9dB at 100Hz, which is massive in terms of mastering where ¼ dB changes are often discussed, to find and recreate the bass so it sounded similar to the bass in the other songs. Where he found a lot of bottom end he boosted 270Hz by a much smaller amount to also add some room. O’Neil then sent this processed signal plus the original signal through an Alta Moda limiter in a blended approach with a 4:1 limiting ratio to soften up and glue the sound and fix any phasing issues. According to O’Neil, although the Colour of Stone was almost completed at this stage all of the limiting changes along the mastering chain had come at a cost to the mix in terms of reduced dynamic range and the EQ that was introduced effected the phase and this needed to be rectified.
From the Alta Moda limiter O’Neil implemented his Neumann switching process to adjust the left and right channels of the blended signal by one-quarter decibel steps using a step attenuator line level box to find the master volume where all of the little segments heard through the switching process sounded the same. This analogue signal was then converted to digital using a Weiss A/D converter and fed into the SADiE mastering DAW program where a limiter was set to act like a brickwall sponge so that when the signal went above -2dB it only became incrementally louder. The digital signal was then sent as a 24 bit audio WAV file from SADiE into an Apogee UV22
270 Super CD Encoder where a NOVA limiter was set to a one sample deadlock to work as a failsafe to capture and process any superfast loud transient that managed to not get caught earlier so that the CD could never be overloaded. Once the CD was burnt O’Neil then listened to Colour of Stone along with the other three tracks in their entirety for the first time. At this stage I provided some input regarding the overall sound, areas I wanted to enhance and the gaps between songs and O’Neil adjusted accordingly before the final CD master was cut.
271