Boston 1, remastered

vvv · Post by **vvv** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:00 pm

... by Scholz!

It'z the start of "corporate rock"!

It's, it's, it's BOSTON!

And it's very well done.

He Who Records Voices · Post by **He Who Records Voices** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:08 am

Well, I have an original vinyl version that I picked up for laughs (and a $1.00 or so) at a flea market maybe 10 years ago, while on one of those "ha ha" nostalgia kicks. But I ended up going on a listening jag with this album just a couple months ago, it's a very funny album, esp. if you get high. The production on it is done very well, in a super slick special effect kind of way. It's sort of the "anti-Albini" style of recording, which is to say that it sounds completely unreal/effected, which is part of the fun of it (this is not meant as a dig on Steve Albini at all, he's one of my favorite recording engineers. Just that it is different than his "document a band as they are in the best fidelity possible" approach.)

Yeah, and I like to remind people that Nirvana's "Smells like Teen Spirit" is a re-working of Boston's "More Than a Feeling".

E-money · Post by **E-money** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:32 pm

Yeah, and I like to remind people that Nirvana's "Smells like Teen Spirit" is a re-working of Boston's "More Than a Feeling".

I like to remind people that "More Than a Feeling" borrows generously from The James Gang "Tend My Garden"

vvv · Post by **vvv** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:44 am

Well, of all of the re-masters I have been suckered into, this is as well done as the Zepplins and maybe Back in Black and Night Moves and the Television records.

And I'm still not sure about Back in Black.

He Who Records Voices · Post by **He Who Records Voices** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:22 am

I find my original vinyl copy of Back n' Black sounds better than a friend's remastered cd. My tastes, though. I have a couple of the Eno remasters (Tiger Mountain and Warm Jets.) First off, I was pissed to find that while they had been remastered in DSD, they were NOT hybrid SACDs, but cd layer only. What a rip! I mean, you transfer analog masters to the best sounding hi-rez digital out there, and instead of doing a dual layer for those of us who own SACD players, you give us only cd. I read that Eno was not happy with this (of course!), and would not comment much about it (record company bullshit, I'm sure.) Anyways, the new Eno cds sound very good, a bit more in the clarity department, but still not as enjoyable as my vinyl copy. The Jefferson Airplane reissues, done by Bob Urwin, are another story. Those sound great, I probably enjoy them as much as my vinyl originals. Have also thought about the Television reissue, but I dunno, is it going to sound better than my vinyl copy? Well, Four Men With Beards (who did the Television reissue, at least on vinyl), did a great job with the Slits, Dusty Springfield, etc), so maybe I should try it.

Well, my vinyl of Boston sounds fine, but of course I'm tempted to get the CD just to see what Tom Scholz did to it. Gotta find an "unhip" record store to get that one, ha ha ha!

mingus2112 · Post by **mingus2112** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:33 am

I love this damn album. I'm sure i'll get slammed by kentothink about that but I just DO. It's just a reminder that yoou CAN record a great record in your basement (he did).

He Who Records Voices · Post by **He Who Records Voices** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:36 am

I think that's a kick that the album, which was presented as a demo to the record company, was rejected even though it sounded great due to the fact that Tom Scholz recorded it himself in his project studio. I believe that all the band did was to dump the tracks that Tom had recorded onto a 24 track machine in a "real" studio, then some overdubs were put on and new vocals so they could say they had "re-recorded" the album.

mingus2112 · Post by **mingus2112** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:17 am

He Who Records Voices wrote:I think that's a kick that the album, which was presented as a demo to the record company, was rejected even though it sounded great due to the fact that Tom Scholz recorded it himself in his project studio. I believe that all the band did was to dump the tracks that Tom had recorded onto a 24 track machine in a "real" studio, then some overdubs were put on and new vocals so they could say they had "re-recorded" the album.

That's exactly what they did. He added some more guitars and had Delp do the vocals. . .and that was that!

Ivon · Post by **Ivon** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:32 pm

mingus2112 wrote:
He Who Records Voices wrote:I think that's a kick that the album, which was presented as a demo to the record company, was rejected even though it sounded great due to the fact that Tom Scholz recorded it himself in his project studio. I believe that all the band did was to dump the tracks that Tom had recorded onto a 24 track machine in a "real" studio, then some overdubs were put on and new vocals so they could say they had "re-recorded" the album.
That's exactly what they did. He added some more guitars and had Delp do the vocals. . .and that was that!

That's awesome. I never knew that. That makes me smile broadly.

Aj · Post by Aj » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:42 pm

I've always thought Boston's first was perhaps the ultimate TapeOp album. In its day, it was the biggest selling record of ALL TIME... and it was mostly recorded at home! (By someone working on it part time, while keeping a "day" job!) Love that. Plus, lots of the gear was DIY stuff built by Scholz.

Also, I get a kick out of the fact that, as I understand it, they weren't really a "band." It was mostly just Tom Sholz and a few buddies (one other guy? or two?) building tracks. The way I heard it, he and Brad Delp had to essentially 'create' the "band" Boston in order to support the record (tour, etc.) once it became clear they had a record deal.

Given the above, it makes the lyrics to "Rock & Roll Band" sound all the more funny, almost like an in-joke.

Adam

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:52 pm

iwokojance wrote:
mingus2112 wrote:
He Who Records Voices wrote:I think that's a kick that the album, which was presented as a demo to the record company, was rejected even though it sounded great due to the fact that Tom Scholz recorded it himself in his project studio. I believe that all the band did was to dump the tracks that Tom had recorded onto a 24 track machine in a "real" studio, then some overdubs were put on and new vocals so they could say they had "re-recorded" the album.
That's exactly what they did. He added some more guitars and had Delp do the vocals. . .and that was that!
That's awesome. I never knew that. That makes me smile broadly.

It gets better. The "producer" the record label assigned to the band understood that the record needed to be made in Scholz' basement, so he gave half his producer's fee to Scholz, left him to work on the record in his basement, and took the rest of the band to L.A. and booked time in a studio where they spent a few months recording Brad Delp's solo record in order to fake out the label.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:38 pm

dwlb wrote:
iwokojance wrote:
mingus2112 wrote:
He Who Records Voices wrote:I think that's a kick that the album, which was presented as a demo to the record company, was rejected even though it sounded great due to the fact that Tom Scholz recorded it himself in his project studio. I believe that all the band did was to dump the tracks that Tom had recorded onto a 24 track machine in a "real" studio, then some overdubs were put on and new vocals so they could say they had "re-recorded" the album.
That's exactly what they did. He added some more guitars and had Delp do the vocals. . .and that was that!
That's awesome. I never knew that. That makes me smile broadly.
It gets better. The "producer" the record label assigned to the band understood that the record needed to be made in Scholz' basement, so he gave half his producer's fee to Scholz, left him to work on the record in his basement, and took the rest of the band to L.A. and booked time in a studio where they spent a few months recording Brad Delp's solo record in order to fake out the label.

Now THAT I didn't know. Hilarious!

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:58 pm

yeah, wow. i never heard that either. that's kind of amazing, really.

ledogboy · Post by **ledogboy** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:54 pm

It's a damn good album. The songs are great, the tones were interesting and original (if not "good" by the terms of the time). Corporate rock? I guess maybe, but it seems more like a slap in the face to the way records were being made by the...erm... corporations...
Whatevs, I like it.
Ryan

cgarges · Post by **cgarges** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:23 pm

While I certainly dug rocking to the sounds of the Bean-town boys in high school, I can't really get all that into them any more. I suppose it's cool stuff on a lot of levels, but I'm just sort of done with them.

I did get to record what was apparently the actual B3 used on that first album a few months ago. I guess a guy in this area who's an avid Hammond collector bought it. It sounded great.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

Message Board

Boston 1, remastered

Boston 1, remastered

Back in Black

Yeah, in his basement

Re: Yeah, in his basement

Re: Yeah, in his basement

Re: Yeah, in his basement

Re: Yeah, in his basement

Who is online