Amoeba Haul, Part 2: Rock LP's/CD's

This is part 2 of larger series of posts about my recent purchases at Amoeba Music in Hollywood. You can scroll down or click here to read part 1.

Like I said before: I was fairly disappointed in Amoeba's jazz section - especially in terms of the "good stuff". I scored a couple of good reissues (that V.S.O.P. record sounds sweet as hell, btw - but there's a fucking skip in the middle of the first song - of a brand new record! grr...), but I wasn't able to finally lay down the money to buy original pressings of my favourite albums. All of those ills could have been cured by some choice finds in the "Rock" section, but that didn't go as planned either.

The resurgence of an interest in LP's that I mentioned in the last post has become especially problematic for fans of rock music. The inventory just isn't there anymore. I used to be able to apply a similar classification system to the one I outlined earlier with jazz LP's to rock LP's as well, but between a slightly more "aware" public and the kitsch value found in contemporary artists releasing their digitally recorded stuff on vinyl (an analog medium), the rock section at most record stores has become either watered down or just plain useless. Just ten short years ago, I could easily waltz into almost any records store and find a copy of a mid-late pressing (usually manufactured long after initial release, thus lower in sound quality, but still better than CD's) of any number of classic rock staples by the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. for between $4 and $15 depending on age and condition. My few recent forays to the PREX, Amoeba, and other record stores have shown me that there is very little left in this regard. Without getting too long-winded (me? never!), I can say that I have now found that ROCK records in most record stores can be broken down into the following categories:

1. The "good" stuff - Classics in pristine condition. $30+
2. Reissues - Same story as jazz records, but the quality of these is often even more problematic (more on that later). $10-25
3. New releases - It is absolutely beyond me why anyone who records their music using Pro Tools or any other digital platform would bother to release stuff on LP. If I am missing something, please tell me! I really have no patience for kitsch so spare me that line of reasoning. These annoy me. $10-20
4. Bargain stuff - (my entire next post will be devoted to not only my foraging in the bargain racks at Amoeba, but bargain records in general, so I won't get too deep here) Cheap, beat up but playable, plentiful, often amusing, never organized beyond genre. $.25 (not kidding) to $3.

For those who read my classification of jazz records you may find the lack of a certain category rather curious. See: the "mediocre to decent condition but still well worth it" stuff seems to have disappeared from so many of the record stores I have been too. I will gladly pay $12 for a playable copy of Cream's "Disraeli Gears", but it's just not there anymore. These racks have long been picked over and left as a carcass of their former glory. I cherish the $13 near-mint copy of Neil Young's "Everybody Knows This is Nowhere" that I picked up about 12 years ago at Subterranean Records in the West Village and, if you come over, will use it as a prime example of why you should listen to this music on vinyl; but I would be hard pressed to make that kind of a find these days. It's taken a lot of the fun out of going record shopping. I don't always have the cash to drop on that $60 copy of "Exile on Main St." (well...) and I am usually underwhelmed by the condition of the old stuff or the sound quality of the late pressings on flimsy vinyl that you can find in the "bargain" section. Where is a man left to turn?!! (melodramsa switch... off)

Where was I? Ah yes. Amoeba's "Rock LP's" section. I was really hoping that this place might be the exception to the rule, but, alas, this supposed mecca was the same old same old. The area was flooded with new releases (grr) and reissues, but I found very few actual used records. Much like my experience with the jazz stuff, it appeared that I would need to formulate a new plan. I doubled checked the racks for the following:

1. Rolling Stones, "Exile on Main St."
2. Rolling Stones, "Sticky Fingers"
   
3. The Beatles, "Rubber Soul" (mono)
4. The Beatles, "Revolver" (mono)
5. The Beach Boys, "Pet Sounds" (mono)
6. The Clash, "London Calling"
7. Pearl Jam, "Vitalogy"

I seriously would have paid anywhere up to $30 for any of these in even decent condition, but, save the $200 copy of "Sticky Fingers" on the wall, they had NO used copies of any of these. *sigh*

They did, however, have a reissue of "Pet Sounds". For those of you not in the know, this album holds a special place in the minds of most rock musos. Widely regarded as a precursor to many of the "concept albums" of the late 1960's, this 1966 release is arguably the pinnacle of the Beach Boys' resident genius Brian Wilson's songwriting, arranging, and producing career. Not only is it lauded for it's colorfully orchestrated recordings of beautiful and breathtaking neo-Baroque pop songs, but is also important in the recording itself. As mono recording was being phased out in favor of stereo (or a few years later, even quadrophonic - aka surround sound's grandad), Wilson hung on tight to the "one-sided" tradition and crafted a veritable "wall of sound" in the model of his idol Phil Spector - even improving on it with a touch of subtlety and clarity often missed or overlooked by the aforementioned eccentric producer. It was truly one of the first records wherein the recording studio was played like a musical instrument - the mixing process proving to be as important as the recording itself. Due to its stature in this regard, both hardcore collectors and casual listeners often seek out the original mono recording (it was later released in stereo as well) in at least excellent condition on LP in order to fully experience "Pet Sounds" as Brian Wilson intended. That's what I was after.

Now what you must understand is that if I am making such a hullabaloo about "mono this" and "original that", then it only makes sense that I would approach the reissue (in mono) of this record with a good deal of skepticism. "But the jazz guy said those reissues are fine," you might say. To which I respond in the affirmative, but in the same breath, insist on reminding you that rock recordings and jazz recordings are incredibly different beasts. The majority of the jazz records I own ('cos those are my tastes and 'cos I can't afford the really nice old stuff) were originally released between 1950 and 1970. While there were significant strides in overall recording technology during that period, aside from using better mic's and better mic'ing technique, there wasn't a sea change in performers' perception of the "studio as creative tool" in the jazz world like there was in the world of rock music during the 1960's. In addition to the info provided in my earlier rant on the recording of "Pet Sounds", the recording studio, which had previously been a place (for all genres) wherein the engineers and producers sought to capture the most accurate representation of a performance on tape, was gradually recognized as a tool that could be used to not only record sounds, but manipulate them in a way to engage or play with the listeners ears. While better general mic'ing technique was being developed, several rock musicians (most notably the Beatles) were rethinking the way instruments and microphones were used in order to create new sounds that were sometimes sonically impossible to recreate with the mechanical manipulation made possible by the different tape machines, mixers, and other sound equipment found in high-end recording studios at the time. The word mechanical here is important because the experimentation and attention to technical details paid in the studio that I speak of was all done using analog technology. The majority of today's recording studios (be they in your next-door neighbors bedroom or in fancy buildings owned by record companies) operate on a largely digital medium wherein all of the "effects", shall we say, that so many of these 1960's musicians/pioneers were creating painstakingly and manually can now be done or undone with a keystroke. Now don't get me wrong, I am one of these "new school" recorders complete with a very meager home studio setup, but just like there is a reason we go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa rather than just use a laser printer to recreate a copy we scanned from an art book, there is an equal reason to want to hear Pet Sounds - in mono - on vinyl.

Now: I keep throwing around the words "digital" and "analog" as if the difference is well known or as simple as the "CD's v. tapes", but it only occurs to me now that this is, most likely, not the case, so allow me to give you a little more info. Analog recording occurs when an actual physical impression of a sound is created in magnetic tape or on pressed vinyl by way of a device (usually a microphone) that is sympathetic to the differences to the four determinable qualities of a sound: frequency (pitch), amplitude (volume), length, and timbre (tone color). Different sound qualities will create different sized or shaped impressions in said tape or record and get "re-translated" when played back on the device for which they are designed. Digital recording is similar in that a microphone is involved, but rather than create actual impressions in a physical object (such as the aforementioned magnetic) tape, the sound is translated into data via a seemingly endless round of "20 questions" wherein every question is "is this sound there?" with the "yes's" and "no's" being represented by binary codes 1 and 0 respectively. This difference is something of a double-edged sword. Digital recordings are posteriorally superior because, as there is no physical product, there is not degradation in sound quality over time. I am sure we all played our favourite cassette tape (mine) to the point where it started to sound shitty when we were younger, so I completely understand the appeal of something that will always sound as fresh as the day I bought it. Digital technology in terms of sound recording has also made the technology to create great sounding recordings much smaller, cheaper, and user-friendly, so I also appreciate it in this regard. However, playback and frequency create something of an issue. (this is where my vaguely intellectual and largely experiential understanding of this issue gets a little fuzzy so feel free to comment a better explanation if you have one) Due to digital's very nature, all frequencies are treated equally. This sounds nice from a musical civil rights standpoint, but, truth be told, that's not how we actually hear stuff. Remember that cell phone ring from a few years ago that only dogs and people under 15 or so could hear? Seemed odd, but it makes perfect sense. That's right: there are certain things human being simply cannot hear. The reason many people (myself included) swear by analog recording and playback techniques is because the frequencies they are able to reproduce more closely resemble the natural frequency range of human hearing. Quite simply put: analog stuff sounds more "real". People also use the terms "warmer" and "rounder" to describe the differences in quality between analog and digital recordings. My interpretation and communication of the "analog v. digital" discussion is admittedly a little naive. Some of that is because I am trying my best to communicate some scientific jargon in a way that makes sense. The other reason is 'cos, quite frankly, there is a limit to how much of that scientific stuff I even understand. I also think there's a certain amount of subjectivity involved here. Odd for science, I know, but I trust my ears. For much better explanations on this topic, you can click here and here. What I do understand about this stuff is the REproduction end of it; and that brings use back to the beginning of this pesky "reissue" topic. If something was recorded on digital equipment and mixed and mastered digitally, then it should be manufactured in a digital medium (CD's). If something was recorded, mixed, and mastered in analog, then is should remain analog. (this should also explain my frustration with contemporary artists - 99% of which record everything digitally - who insist on releasing their stuff on LP) The problem faced in the world of reissues is the remastering process. While I admit that mastering is the part of the recording process that is still the most cloudy to me, I can tell you that the basic idea behind the mastering process is to make sure that an album sounds sonically consistent not only with itself but also with other contemporary and genre-appropriate recordings. When you hear and album is getting remastered, it often means that they are taking out the old "master" tapes, or final mixes, and then double-checking the equalization (treble, mid-range, and bass frequency levels) and making volume adjustments. One of the problems with any remastering is that standards concerning EQ and volume tend to change over time. What was considered an acceptable amount of bass was considerably different in 1965 than in 1995, so when anyone - even the musicians themselves - come back to a recording to remaster it, a lot can change from the original release. What makes some remastering jobs even more troublesome is when an originally analog recording gets digitally remastered. I am sure I have beat this point into the ground already, so why don't you go ahead and tell me how much sense it makes to create a digital version of an analog recording, digitally manipulate it, and then put it back onto an analog medium and release it to the public? If you said, "none whatsoever", or something to that effect, you are correct! I actually have a 6-LP Clapton box set from the late 80's in which everything was digitally remastered before being pressed onto vinyl. While it makes sense that my father purchased it because he didn't yet have a CD player, it still confounds me that the digital treatment would be given to the greatest hits of a performer whose legacy is so entrenched in the age of the LP. Upon rereading that sentence I can see the sense in said artist going digital (somewhat anyway) in an effort to revitalize what was then a flailing career, but it's still no excuse. If you don't believe me, come on over and I will play you the pre and post-digital remastering versions of the same tunes from John Mayall's classic album "Bluesbreakers" (featuring a young Eric Clapton) and you will immediately understand my incessant ramblings.

So I am standing in the middle of the "Rock LP's" section at Amoeba Hollywood with this mono reissue of "Pet Sounds" in my hand trying to decide whether or $18.99 will make all my "Brian Wilson's 1966 vision" dreams come true or if it has suffered the digital treatment when it suddenly occurred to me that my friend Luke - the guy who got me into this album in the first place and shares my love of vinyl - might have this very same version of this very same album. So I called him. After a couple of minutes of rather confusing conversation concerning specific "editions" and packaging and labels and so forth, we figured out that this was, indeed, the disc he had, and that it was well-worth the $19 price tag. It was the only album I took home from this section that day - a sad tale as it stood alone, but bittersweet at least as it sounds fantastic and blows the CD version I have been listening to for all these years out of the water.

Amoeba's strongest suit by far is the Rock CD's section (new and used). Like any great music store, their selection is seemingly endless, with a healthy combination of mainstream radio pop and super-under-the-radar indie releases. The new stuff is competitively priced ($9.99 - $14.99 or so a disc) and meticulously organized. The used section is bountiful, has a wide range of prices ($3.99 - $12.99), and is surprisingly well-organized. Despite my short wishlist of Rock CD's, I spent a lot of time in this section as its sheer volume and neat racks were very inviting. Yes, by the way, I did say short list. It's funny, despite my seemingly anal attention to detail in terms of sound quality when purchasing LP's, I have whole-heartedly given over to the mp3 revolution. While I recognize the vastly inferior fidelity of compressed audio, the ease of purchase, minuscule amount data storage needed, and my possession of an iPod just make it too hard to pass up my eMusic subscription and all of my other mp3 purchases. Occasionally I will still go out of my way to purchase new CD's if it's an instance wherein fidelity is particularly important or if the packaging/artwork is stellar, but in a rather polarized manner, I either listen to LP's or mp3's. One of the few instances, though, where buying CD's is just plain cheaper (and you can always rip 'em to mp3 later anyway) is when buying used; so I spent a good deal of time in the "used rock CD's" section looking not only for the specifics on my list (any Phish studio albums I don't have and Pearl Jam's "11/6/00 - Seattle, Washington" from their series of live show releases - by the way, does anyone out there have my original copy of this? I absolutely treasure it and I can't seem to find mine anywhere) but also for things I have always wanted or had never thought to own but suddenly piqued my curiosity. I was basically browsing with a rather open wallet. If I had stayed another hour, I may have come home with a small pile of CD's, but instead would up with a measley one (1) CD from this section: Phish's "Round Room" for $4.99.

So here's the haul:

LP:












CD:












This seems like an awfully long post for one LP and one CD - and to think!: I haven't even touched upon the rest of the store. Stay tuned for Part 3: Bargain LP's.