XTC Back Porch

favoritething · Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject:

I've got it all, too! So far I've listened to the bonus tracks, read the liner notes, and watched the videos. Thanks, people, for noting the presence of those videos!

Also received the Milk and Honey Band's "Dog Eared Moonlight". Very luscious!

_________________
I'm gonna get a replacement, because I'm so hip.

favoritething · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject:

I don't know if my ears are deceiving me or what, but something seems strange about the demo of "The Affiliated". I have very few of Colin's demos, but why does this sound like his voice does now, rather than the '80s?

_________________
I'm gonna get a replacement, because I'm so hip.

ScienceFriction · Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject:

Yeah, I think that was mentioned on the Ape board too. However, I think Colin always sound a bit like that on his mid-late 80s demos. I can't imagine them re-recording the demos and lying about them, that would be upsetting and XTC have always done right.

Gentleman S. Twitch · Drums and Wires Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 81

With the exception of Shiny Cage, Colin's tracks certainly don't sound like they were recorded back in the mid 80's. Didn't he say he'd been recording for these releases when he did his Rundgren Radio slot?

So "demo" or "cover version" - whatever the story behind them I'm pleased to have them to listen to.

_________________
"You can't give horse tranquilisers to a midget"

ScienceFriction · Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:16 pm Post subject:

It's all very confusing if you ask me, they don't give us very straight answers. I'm glad we have "demos", but I'd be very angry with XTC if they weren't original demos. I think we have a right to be angry if they are new recordings, because they are being marketed and sold as original demos from the 1980s. I have no problem with the original recordings being touched up sonically, but adding to them or re-recording them ruins the historical value they are supposed to have. If they are new recordings, that's cool, just state in the press and on the packaging that is what they are.

Excuse me, I had to rant sorry.

Spastic Minnow · Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:07 am Post subject:

ScienceFriction wrote:

It's all very confusing if you ask me, they don't give us very straight answers. I'm glad we have "demos", but I'd be very angry with XTC if they weren't original demos. I think we have a right to be angry if they are new recordings, because they are being marketed and sold as original demos from the 1980s. I have no problem with the original recordings being touched up sonically, but adding to them or re-recording them ruins the historical value they are supposed to have. If they are new recordings, that's cool, just state in the press and on the packaging that is what they are.

Excuse me, I had to rant sorry.

Most of the Colin home demos I've heard are VERY poor quality. He has said before that his demos are supposed to be rough sketches, unlike Andy's. So if these are rerecorded in bits I think I can understand why, he didn't want to release crap cassette home demos. It should be mentioned in the advertising though, and I really wish he would have given his thoughts on the tracks in the album notes.

I guess we could also be technical on how they're listed on the album, as "Demo Versions" not "Home Demos" the argument could be made that there's a difference. A home Demo is basically untouched, maybe cleaned up-- a Demo Version just has to reflect the song as it was when it was a Demo but could maybe be played with more?

_________________
...in my pants

Thomas Walsh · Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:02 am Post subject:

ScienceFriction wrote:

just state in the press and on the packaging that is what they are.

Well they haven't said in the press that they aren't, and they haven't said on the sleeve-notes that they aren't.....so they are then.....no?

T.

_________________
I don't wanna' be here.....!!

ScienceFriction · Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject:

Spastic Minnow wrote:

ScienceFriction wrote:

It's all very confusing if you ask me, they don't give us very straight answers. I'm glad we have "demos", but I'd be very angry with XTC if they weren't original demos. I think we have a right to be angry if they are new recordings, because they are being marketed and sold as original demos from the 1980s. I have no problem with the original recordings being touched up sonically, but adding to them or re-recording them ruins the historical value they are supposed to have. If they are new recordings, that's cool, just state in the press and on the packaging that is what they are.

Excuse me, I had to rant sorry.

Most of the Colin home demos I've heard are VERY poor quality. He has said before that his demos are supposed to be rough sketches, unlike Andy's. So if these are rerecorded in bits I think I can understand why, he didn't want to release crap cassette home demos. It should be mentioned in the advertising though, and I really wish he would have given his thoughts on the tracks in the album notes.

I guess we could also be technical on how they're listed on the album, as "Demo Versions" not "Home Demos" the argument could be made that there's a difference. A home Demo is basically untouched, maybe cleaned up-- a Demo Version just has to reflect the song as it was when it was a Demo but could maybe be played with more?

Yes same here, they aren't always high quality. I suppose I don't mind some touching up. I admit I got a little bit upset (I'm a history major, maybe you can understand), but you can see my point. I just think yeah, we should be told what is what, as fans we deserve that. I don't Colin even wrote anything for Psonic Psunspot did he? In the end I'm just glad we have the demos.

It would have been nice to see more new recordings, I think Andy could have easily fleshed out a song like Nicely Nicely Jane. I'm not complaining though, I'm just saying that because I like the demos. Smile

favoritething · Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 1:16 pm Post subject:

Thomas Walsh wrote:

ScienceFriction wrote:

just state in the press and on the packaging that is what they are.

Well they haven't said in the press that they aren't, and they haven't said on the sleeve-notes that they aren't.....so they are then.....no?

T.

Well, it's true that Colin did say in the Rundgren Radio interview that they fixed up some demos, so I guess that qualifies as fair warning? (It is a nice version of "The Affiliated"!)

_________________
I'm gonna get a replacement, because I'm so hip.

ScienceFriction · Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 2:15 pm Post subject:

favoritething wrote:

Thomas Walsh wrote:

ScienceFriction wrote:

just state in the press and on the packaging that is what they are.

Well they haven't said in the press that they aren't, and they haven't said on the sleeve-notes that they aren't.....so they are then.....no?

T.

Well, it's true that Colin did say in the Rundgren Radio interview that they fixed up some demos, so I guess that qualifies as fair warning? (It is a nice version of "The Affiliated"!)

I suppose so, but that's really vague you know? What demos, how much, etc. I think I was having a bad day that day, sorry. Embarassed

I agree, I enjoy The Affiliated, but my favorite is What In The World?, classic!

favoritething · Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:12 am Post subject:

ScienceFriction wrote:

favoritething wrote:

Thomas Walsh wrote:

ScienceFriction wrote:

just state in the press and on the packaging that is what they are.

Well they haven't said in the press that they aren't, and they haven't said on the sleeve-notes that they aren't.....so they are then.....no?

T.

Well, it's true that Colin did say in the Rundgren Radio interview that they fixed up some demos, so I guess that qualifies as fair warning? (It is a nice version of "The Affiliated"!)

I suppose so, but that's really vague you know? What demos, how much, etc. I think I was having a bad day that day, sorry. :oops:

I agree, I enjoy The Affiliated, but my favorite is What In The World?, classic!

Yes, it's fascinating how he completely re-wrote the lyrics—even the years!

_________________
I'm gonna get a replacement, because I'm so hip.

ScienceFriction · Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject:

Haha, yeah, who knows maybe those really are the earlier lyrics?

favoritething · Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 5:24 pm Post subject:

ScienceFriction wrote:

Haha, yeah, who knows maybe those really are the earlier lyrics?

I'll trust him on that one!

_________________
I'm gonna get a replacement, because I'm so hip.

ScienceFriction · Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject:

So when are we up for another round of reissues? Info please Andy, info, lol.

favoritething · Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject:

Hearing the Dukes reissues, particularly "What In The World??", gave me an irresistable urge to go back and listen to my "In The Year 2525" single. Do you know there's actually a video for that song?

I'm ready for the next round of reissues whenever they come!

_________________
I'm gonna get a replacement, because I'm so hip.