Comment by SloopJon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SloopJon | Hacker News Reader

I've always found the idea of master recordings curious. Once a song becomes a hit, the band may perform it almost every day for the rest of their career, but what we listen to through our headphones or speakers is this one particular moment in time. Yes, there are live recordings and bootlegs, but by and large it's this one master recording, which may get dusted off every couple of decades for a remaster.

Some masters are guarded jealously by their owners. For example, I've heard that some of the Stevie Wonder releases aren't even from the masters, because he won't part with them. Some masters may truly capture something irreproducible; say, John Lennon's hoarse voice in "Twist and Shout."

In this particular case, at least, Taylor Swift has put the lie to the uniqueness of the masters. If she has the right to rerecord everything, the old masters aren't so special. But I think the article is also right. After this exercise, she may have made her point, and may force Shamrock Capital to make a deal.

The original masters led to the song sounding "the right way" when you hear it on the radio, instead of sounding different. Sometimes that difference sounds good too, like your favorite live album from some band. But other times that song doesn't sound right, the live version or alternative take just loses that magic. So the original has a lot of value if it hits.

But I think you missed another aspect, the real value is the original master plus the tweaks and additions to make it into what became popular. That production of the song probably wouldn't sound the same if you applied those processes to a slightly different version, say the singer or band's best efforts later.

That can be a big problem for some Pop/Rock bands, in that their fans expect them to play their hits exactly the way they were recorded, down to the exact solos, for decades on end.

In contrast, Jazz vocalists don't get taken as seriously if they reproduce their recordings too exactly, and Jazz instrumentalists don't get taken seriously at all. In that genre, you're expected to bring something new to each performance.

It's also interesting in that if you hear a version that is NOT the master you can easily notice it, even if it's a very close version.

I suspect for lots of "hearing but not listening" as long as you hear the "normal master" version you don't notice, but if it were subtly different it would be noticeable (perhaps only subconsciously).

I wonder if you could do studies on Muzak at stores (original "radio" masters vs live versions vs lounge vs remaster vs ...).

The concept of the master is unhelpful in inhibiting artists from setting out a version of a song in studio conditions once they've had chance to live with it and play it live for a while. Live recordings are more spontaneous but we all know that the sound can be less than ideal.

I've been listening to a few recordings of Little Feat's Rock'n'Roll Doctor [1] - a wonderful song but one where I'm convinced by far the least interesting version is the 'master recording'. How many songs languish because the master is not that great?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-r-qi_cJs0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com