Yeah, I *pay attention* a lot to the information that the labels put out publicly. And I’m only trying to be helpful and informative when I make these posts. So again, what’s your big problem with me doing that?
No you spend to much time on here. You must hit refresh 100 times daily on this site. With all the time you spend on here I highly doubt you are employed.
People have called you out before on here when you claim to have insider knowledge yet you can never provide a legitimate source to vogue for you.
I know this is a John Williams music set and it makes sense to include all three films, but I'm slightly surprised it wasn't limited to Irwin Allen films.
If one were rather loose with the 'distaster film' definiton, one could also have included BLACK SUNDAY and JAWS in the box. But obviously, that's only a thought experiment.
If one were rather loose with the 'distaster film' definiton, one could also have included BLACK SUNDAY and JAWS in the box. But obviously, that's only a thought experiment.
Except there's no satisfying disaster in Black Sunday (more spy flick), and there might be a conflict of studios.
I wonder what Jeff Bond's tweet meant....TV series box set?
That would be a bit of a stretch since there's no disaster in Black Sunday (more spy flick), and there might be a conflict of studios.
Yes, I'm well aware, hence the 'thought experiment'. But the planned blimp attack on Superbowl could be labelled a disaster, as could the shark attacks in JAWS. I often include these two when I talk about how Williams had FIVE disaster movies in the 70s, but obviously -- if one is strict about it, it was only the three represented in this box.
That would be a bit of a stretch since there's no disaster in Black Sunday (more spy flick), and there might be a conflict of studios.
Yes, I'm well aware, hence the 'thought experiment'. But the planned blimp attack on Superbowl could be labelled a disaster, as could the shark attacks in JAWS. I often include these two when I talk about how Williams had FIVE disaster movies in the 70s, but obviously -- if one is strict about it, it was only the three represented in this box.
If you're only trying to connect them by composer, I can sort of see your point, but without Williams, there's a clear difference of genre (or whatever). I mistake EARTHQUAKE as another Irwin Allen film.
All those cineastes like Jim " I luv the 70s" Phelps ,-who romanticize the " personal" films of the era- -always conveniently ' forget" the Decade long disaster film cycle.
All those cineastes like Jim " I luv the 70s" Phelps ,-who romanticize 70s cinema,-always conveniently ' forget" the Decade long disaster film cycle. Not exactly high art. Was it?
Sensurround was ahead of it's time. Now everyone's car stereo sounds like an earthquake.
POSEIDON has been restored and meticulously remastered from original vault materials for improved sound over previous releases.
The Towering Inferno and Earthquake info is very exciting, but I'm cautious about getting too excited about Poseidon. What does "meticulously remastered" mean? Doesn't that apply to everything they remaster? And what are "original vault materials"? "Original" could easily mean the same as they used originally for the previous releases. It doesn't say that it's a new or different source. And "materials" might suggest the possibility of a patchwork of multiple sources. Fingers crossed Poseidon really does feature the substantial sound improvement we hope for.
If it was anyone but Matessino at the helm, I would be cautious too. Anyone but.... We're in good hands- wasn't William's DRACULA a patchwork affair? Could anyone tell??
If it was anyone but Matessino at the helm, I would be cautious too. Anyone but.... We're in good hands- wasn't William's DRACULA a patchwork affair? Could anyone tell??
Yes, the involvement of Mike Matessino always ensures the best possible quality. But he worked on the previous Poseidon release too, and could do only so much with the poor source material.
If it was anyone but Matessino at the helm, I would be cautious too. Anyone but.... We're in good hands- wasn't William's DRACULA a patchwork affair? Could anyone tell??
Well there was that muted bell "glitch" which Basil and I noticed.
If it was anyone but Matessino at the helm, I would be cautious too. Anyone but.... We're in good hands- wasn't William's DRACULA a patchwork affair? Could anyone tell??
Yes, the involvement of Mike Matessino always ensures the best possible quality. But he w
orked on the previous Poseidon release too, and could do only so much with the poor source material.
Bingo! Don't expect any significant upgrade. Same sources.
All those cineastes like Jim " I luv the 70s" Phelps ,-who romanticize 70s cinema,-always conveniently ' forget" the Decade long disaster film cycle. Not exactly high art. Was it?
Sensurround was ahead of it's time. Now everyone's car stereo sounds like an earthquake.
Excited about this set. All the current releases of these scores have some pretty obvious and in some cases severe sound quality issues. "Inferno," for example, has some really bad distortion during some of the more intense moments in the score. Just listen here starting at about 8:17, then particularly the fortissimo trombone at 8:33 - 8:35, then again in the french horns at about 9:25. That's the sound of analog recording levels set way too high, resulting in obvious distortion and compression. My concern is that this may be "baked into" the master recordings, in which case not much can be done about it. On the other hand, it could also be inherent to the source being a copy of a copy of a copy, where these kinds of distortions can get magnified with each duplication. I am hopeful Mr. Matessino has found sources with better sound quality. Fixing this alone would make the set a worthwhile purchase for me:
When the FSM disc first came out I pinged Lukas about it, and he knew exactly what I was talking about and lamented the fact it was inherent in the source material.
Thor, I love you man, but if you can't hear how bad the above sounds, I don't know what to say. Here's a hypothetical for you - if the existing release of a John Williams score was in mono, derived from a source that was literally recorded with the microphone from a portable cassette deck stuck up against a 70's era drive-in speaker, would you still not buy a re-issue that upgraded from that to one with pristine stereo sound derived from the original studio masters?
On the one hand, I can understand why someone might be happy with an original soundtrack release that only features highlights hand picked by the composer. But on the other hand, when there is a new version available that improves upon the old in every single way - particularly sound quality - I can't for the life of me understand why it would not be picked up in an instant (money concerns aside).
That said, Thor, I genuinely appreciate everything else you bring to this Forum
Thor, I love you man, but if you can't hear how bad the above sounds, I don't know what to say. Here's a hypothetical for you - if the existing release of a John Williams score was in mono, derived from a source that was literally recorded with the microphone from a portable cassette deck stuck up against a 70's era drive-in speaker, would you still not buy a re-issue that upgraded from that to one with pristine stereo sound derived from the original studio masters?
Well, what can I tell ya? Never, not ONCE, in the years that I've had the original CDs of these (the FSMs for TOWERING and POSEIDON and the Varese for EARTHQUAKE) have I thought to myself: "This sounds really bad, I can't listen to it". They've sounded fine for the period they're from. Sound quality hasn't even been on my mind; they only thing I've thought about is that I wished POSEIDON and TOWERING were arranged for listening rather than C&C.
Now, I'm not saying there's room for improvement, and I'm sure these new releases are top-of-the-pops in terms of remastering. But as long as I'm fine with the above, I see no reason why I should re-buy these, especially not if they're also C&C.
Well, what can I tell ya? Never, not ONCE, in the years that I've had the original CDs of these (the FSMs for TOWERING and POSEIDON and the Varese for EARTHQUAKE) have I thought to myself: "This sounds really bad, I can't listen to it". They've sounded fine for the period they're from. Sound quality hasn't even been on my mind; they only thing I've thought about is that I wished POSEIDON and TOWERING were arranged for listening rather than C&C.
Now, I'm not saying there's room for improvement, and I'm sure these new releases are top-of-the-pops in terms of remastering. But as long as I'm fine with the above, I see no reason why I should re-buy these, especially not if they're also C&C.
Well, now you can get the album version of the "Inferno" score as part of this release
And there are releases of older scores - dating from the early to late 60s - that sound much better than the previous releases of Inferno / Poseidon / Earthquake, so it's hardly a time period thing.
Note I didn't say "I can't listen to it." Of course I can listen to it. But that doesn't mean I don't want it to sound BETTER. Hopefully a lot better.
And you never did answer my hypothetical:
"If the existing release of a John Williams score was in mono, derived from a source that was literally recorded with the microphone from a portable cassette deck stuck up against a 70's era drive-in speaker, would you still not buy a re-issue that upgraded from that to one with pristine stereo sound derived from the original studio masters?"
Not trying to give you a hard time, I'm genuinely curious. Is it a matter of a release needing to meet a certain threshold in terms of quality improvement, or is it simply a doctrinaire, "line in the sand" stance against these types of re-issues, with no improvement - no matter how drastic - that would change your position?
