how come iggy pop's vocals in "search and destroy" sounds like a totally different singer?!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

it is a mystery.
from the 2nd track forward in "raw power", it is iggy for sure,
so what's the deal with "search"?
something in the mix?!

― ever green, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 08:21 (twenty years ago)

are you listening to the original version or the lame iggy remix?

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 08:33 (twenty years ago)

original.
i know pop and bowie claimed that there were problems with the bad production,but it is not an excuse, cause it sounds totally different.
compare it to "gimmie danger" and you can obviously see the diference.

― ever green, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 08:35 (twenty years ago)

well, "gimme danger" is a ballad where iggy's doing his jim morrison thing, of course it's gonna be different! i think "s&d" sounds a lot different in the remix, you might want to check that out.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 08:45 (twenty years ago)

it is a mystery.

Only to you. Listen to more vocalists on heavy and hard rock albums from the Seventies.

― George 'the Animal' Steele, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 08:54 (twenty years ago)

The only mystery here is why you, for some bizarre reason, think the singing on "Search and Destroy" doesn't sound like Iggy Pop.

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 09:55 (twenty years ago)

Seconded w/Dada

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 10:13 (twenty years ago)

"Look out baby 'cos ah'm usin' technolo-jaiiiyyyyyyyy"

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 10:17 (twenty years ago)

I know it isn't a cool thing to admit, but am I the only person who loves the new mix?

― JB Young (JB Young), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:04 (twenty years ago)

i like it, so it must be cool.

but then i don't believe i've heard the original.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:08 (twenty years ago)

ooh, YSI!?!?!?!?!?!?!

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:08 (twenty years ago)

I like the new mix too but then i haven't heard the old one in years - is there much difference? More bass (a good thing, obviously)

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:10 (twenty years ago)

I heared the orig mix in 1977, thought it dull/boring.

I like the new mix.

But I may well have liked the old mix if I'd heared it more recently.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:12 (twenty years ago)

the new 303 breakdown was a mistake...

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:13 (twenty years ago)

The old mix I remember as being ludicrously trebly and with no bass at all - it was great in a kind of avant garde way but not in a rock way so much

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:15 (twenty years ago)

yeah i'd always heard that the orig was a bit sukcy, but i'm not a big bowie-as-producer fan, really.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:17 (twenty years ago)

really

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:17 (twenty years ago)

Bowie didn't produce it tho (according to the Igster), he merely mixed it... so he ruined the album at the mixing stage, you might say

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:22 (twenty years ago)

there is no swordfighting in the iggy remix, sadly.

― armalite roffle (haitch), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:26 (twenty years ago)

haven't heard the new mix, but i LOVE the way the guitars JUMP out of this track in the bowiemix. is that different in the 'new mix'?

― willem -- (willem), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 11:57 (twenty years ago)

I remember reading that there were just two channels, instruments on one and vocals on the other, so there really wasn't much for Bowie to mix. I haven't heard the new mix. The old one certainly lacks a bit of bass but I quite like that. I have a feeling added bass might 'normalise' it a bit too much.

― jz, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 12:29 (twenty years ago)

It's a lot heavier. I really like it on the slower moodier cuts - "Gimme Danger" and (especially) "I Need Sombody".

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 12:30 (twenty years ago)

but i'm not a big bowie-as-producer fan, really.

What's wrong with The Idiot, Lust For Life or Transformer?

― jz, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 12:31 (twenty years ago)

i dunno, it's probably bad cd mastering.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 12:33 (twenty years ago)

Guitars have teh jumpage even now.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 12:33 (twenty years ago)

Vermouth.

― Suedey (John Cei Douglas), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 13:27 (twenty years ago)

mmmm, a heavier "I Need Somebody" sounds good...

― willem -- (willem), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 13:58 (twenty years ago)

Bowie cut out the bass because the bass performance was kinda clunky. He spent more time tracking Pop all-over-the-place vocal performance. Orginal mix sounds best if you crank it loud.

― senseiDancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 14:12 (twenty years ago)

The bass playing isn't clunky tho, it's fine. It's The Stooges after all, Dave Alexander played on the first two albums.

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 14:15 (twenty years ago)

dude the new mix is so much better than the old one it's ridiculous.

reasons it's better: a) audible bass and drums that happen to be played really fucking well ("clunky?" uh ok), which is really nice because i'm way more into "the stooges" than i am "iggy pop's voice and james williamson's guitar with a little bit of anemic noise in the background."

b) you can hear the celeste on "penetration" and it kicks ridiculous ass.

c) the whole mess is about seventy times heavier, and that makes a very very big difference on slower tracks like "i need somebody," the aforementioned "penetration" and "gimme danger" and also makes "your pretty face is going to hell" sound like it wants to eat your soul.

d) it's mastered louder than any other cd i've ever heard save maybe for jet generation so even when you've got it on kinda quiet it still physically assaults your eardrums.

the bowie mix isn't bad - i mean it's still raw power we're talking about, but you know, it's more an "interesting" weirdo cokey 70's arty pop mix than it is a rock one. that's cool and all, but you know, it's the fucking stooges and if there's one band whose rockiness should be emphasized to its zenith it's that one.

― wangdangsweetpentangle (teenagequiet), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 14:43 (twenty years ago)

the new 303 breakdown was a mistake...

It is NEVER a mistake to include a 303 breakdown.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 15:07 (twenty years ago)

mastered louder than any other cd i've ever heard

You bet. Just ripped a couple of samples of both the CD's:
Original = Columbia CK 32111
Remixed = Columbia/Legacy 485176 2

http://www.zshare.net/download/raw_orig-rmx-zip.html

This (hopefully non-expiring) 5.4 Mb zip file contains:

I Need Somebody_original-remixed.mp3
Penetration_original-remixed.mp3
Search And Destroy_original-remixed.mp3

NOT the full tracks, mind, the mp3s are:

- the first 30 seconds of the original, .5 seconds of silence and then the first 30 seconds of the remix

- ripped as uncompressed wav files with exact audio copy (exact same settings on both the disks), normalized to 98% (the new version would be clipping even more if I'd ripped at 100%) and cut + pasted together with the Audacity editor

- compressed to 256 Kbps mp3 with LAME. ( -b 256 -h -q 2 )

- no fiddling with volume at all except for that "normalize to 98%" setting in EAC.

enjoy!

― StanM (StanM), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 16:59 (twenty years ago)

"The only mystery here is why you, for some bizarre reason, think the singing on "Search and Destroy" doesn't sound like Iggy Pop. "

might be true - but at least i get the credit for giving you all something to blah about...

― ever green, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 18:00 (twenty years ago)

for completeness' sake & for the "original vs. remix/remaster" crowd:

http://www.zshare.net/download/thefirsttwo_orig-rmstr-zip.html

is the same setup (half a minute of the original + half a minute of the 2005 remastered version) for Down On The Street and Real Cool Time.

― StanM (StanM), Tuesday, 28 February 2006 18:22 (twenty years ago)

I know it isn't a cool thing to admit, but am I the only person who loves the new mix?
-- JB Young

I thought BOTH mixes were lousy, just in different ways! But at least the '97 version restores about 30 seconds to "Hard To Beat" and reinstates "Raw Power"'s opening grunt, so I kept that one and sold the original. Musically, of course, it's beyond criticism. And yeah, Iggy did experiment with a few different vocal styles, for some reason.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Saturday, 4 March 2006 08:41 (twenty years ago)

there totally needs to be a good new mix that's a happy medium between the extreme overcompressed loudness of the iggy mix and the tinniness of the bowie mix.

― latebloomer: keeping his reputation for an intense on-set presence (latebloomer), Saturday, 4 March 2006 12:12 (twenty years ago)

blah blah Rollins mix blah blah master tapes etc

― kit brash (kit brash), Saturday, 4 March 2006 22:49 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.