Album Reviews

Editor's note: this review has caused quite a dust-up, in part because of the sonic description and in part because of this, which you'll find further down in the text:

"...but the mastering is just plain weird.

A layer of crunchy ice has been added on top and the bass has been boosted, producing a garish sonic mix. The result is an unpleasant edgy grit to Wonder’s voice. You know something's wrong when the triangle on "Love's In Need ..." is louder than Wonder's voice! And believe me, it is.

One would hope an analog source was used, but whatever was the source, this reissue sounds nothing like the original and represents an unnecessary, unwarranted revision that I’m sure would appall Stevie Wonder."

Mastering engineer Maarten de Boer has responded, first on the Steve Hoffman forums:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?p=4213023#post4213023

and then to me personally. Here's what he wrote:

"Being the engineer who mastered and cut this record I think I am the only one who can put this record straight.

1. never will a digital source be used as a master for Speaker Corner records

2. the master is an analog copy run at 30 ips on virgin tape. So if the copy is done correctly it will be pretty close to the original.

3. I did use a very slight touch of EQ, 0,5dB at 700 Hz with a Q of 2.5. Just to enhance depth a bit . This is a typical 70's recording so it is very dry and lacks depth. I had to use the de esser so anybody could play the album without distortion.

4. No dolby has been used and the copy was obviously from a non dolby tape. Believe me after 30 years of disc cutting and mastering I can tell the difference.

5. If I EQ an old analog master there has to be a good reason for that otherwi9se I won't and if I EQ it it will be minimal and it will probably most of the time midrange. EQing low and top is totally useless and ruins practically everything.

What bothers me about this discussion is the amount of presumptions instead of knowledge and fact. One of the problems with vinyl is the playback system and difference in quality and sound between all these systems. I'm glad Mr Grant shows the right way to approach the record as it was cut and mastered. As long as you haven't heard the real master tape and we probably never will you will never know what the truth is. What I can tell you is that for a lot of cuts I do get the absolute original and when I compare these to the original release I am glad they masterd it originally before cutting it."

Maarten de Boer

Emil Berliner Studios

There were many posts on the thread, some accusing me of having "an agenda" (not spelled out, of course) and others telling people that my word shouldn't be taken "as gospel" (no shit!).

My response was this:

"Now that I have Mr. de Boer's email address, I will ask him before presuming anything. However, I don't think my review presumes anything and I don't think Mr. de Boer had aimed that at me. I don't think it's fair to say that I "trashed" the Wonder reissue. I reported on what I heard, comparing the original, the Japanese copy I have and the Speakers Corner reissue.

In my experience, when a reissue sounds very different from an original, it is the reissue that is the revision. This is not always the case, but usually is. If you read a lot of reviews of reissues, you will find that there are many reviewers who are biased against reissues, and of course there are the usual dingbat re-sellers of original pressings who say the same thing, and then accuse me, who sells no records, of having an "agenda."

I have no "agenda" here. There are also reviewers who love everything. I am not one of those reviewers either.

I have never asked anyone to take my word as "gospel," so when I read posters saying "why are you taking Fremer's word as 'gospel' " I agree with them, though I defy them to show me where I've ever claimed to be the light.

I state my opinion and I don't mince words---or at least I try not to.

In this case, the Speakers Corner reissue is much brighter than the original. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. And the brightness is in this one narrow zone.

Now, I am also sure Mr. deBoer has no agenda here other than the truth.

Then the issue becomes, as it has always been, is the master tape "the truth" that should pretty much be transferred to lacquer or DMM untouched? Or is it merely a tool to be manipulated to achieve a particular result.

Often, master tapes include original "notes," wherein the original mastering engineer explains what he did AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ARTIST OR PRODUCER to create the original lacquer from which the original pressing was created.

In that case, an original pressing, not the master tape, should be considered the "original document."

For instance, Sundazed's Bob Irwin told me when he mastered Love's "Forever Changes" for vinyl reissue he consulted the original notes he found. Arthur Lee insisted that the first song on the record start out very low in level and build. It's what Arthur Lee wanted. The tape wasn't produced that way but when Irwin remastered it, he conformed to the artist's intentions.

So if you compare an original gold label Elektra pressing to the Sundazed reissue, you will hear that same slow fade-up (along with dozens of other subtle "moves" found in the notes).

There was a later Elektra "butterfly" pressing mastered by someone who simply rolled the tape. The level is higher at the beginning, more uniform throughout and the cut misses all of what Arthur Lee intended for his record to sound like.

Yet I've read message boards and reviews claiming THAT was the best version of the album because it was the loudest and most dynamic and whatever....too bad it wasn't what Arthur Lee intended.

Now, as for the Stevie Wonder album under discussion here: clearly the Speakers Corner reissue is brighter in one particular region than the original, that produces an icy crust over Wonder's voice and over the voices of the background singers. It literally makes the triangle on the opening tune sound louder than Wonder's own voice!

I have no doubt Mr. de Boer's transfer is faithful (with the exception of the minor EQ tweaks he mentions) to the tape copy he was given to use as a source and we can assume it was a flat transfer and that his mastering produced a result faithful to that tape.

That does not mean, however, that the result is necessarily what Stevie Wonder, or his producers, or whoever was originally responsible for the final vinyl's sound, wanted!

Is everyone with me on this?

So in conclusion:

1) The Speakers Corner reissue was cut from an analog source

2) The Speakers Corner reissue was not a wild "revision" of that source (my wrong presumption that I will revise in my review)

3) The Speakers Corner reissue sounds much different than either an original RCA/Motown or Japanese pressing, being icier and brighter, perhaps in the "Aural Exciter" range (presumption warning) than either of those and also having a more robust bottom end.

4) Without consulting either the original mastering engineer, the original engineer Mr. Orazabal or Stevie Wonder himself (who was at CES in the Venetian Towers and who I have been told will soon take delivery of a pair of Hansen King speakers), it is impossible to determine whether the sound of the original pressing was their intent and that they desired to tame and soften the edge around Wonder's vocals and curtail the bottom end a bit, OR whether those changes happened as a result of sloppy mastering, or technical limitations of the gear at the time (neither of which I believe to be true).

5) I was present at the mastering for Classic's reissue of "Tommy." I brought along an early UK Track original for them to compare to the tape (which was the original master---photo available upon request) and as we rolled the tape and played the record in real time, we discovered that in the original mastering, the tape playback speed was actually increased at certain points to add "excitement." It was decided to reproduce that speed differential in the reissue to remain faithful not to the tape, but to the original LP, which was considered the "document of record."

5) In conclusion: I stand by what I heard as the major tonal differences between the original and reissued "Songs in the Key of Life" --it's not opinion, it is FACT.

6) How these differences will play out on your system or how your senses will react to them, is something I obviously don't know.

7) It was not my intention to trash the reissue. it was my intention to honestly tell you what it sounded like compared to an original and that's what I did.

8) As I wrote in the review, the reissue is pressed on much better, quieter, thicker vinyl. It is a meticulously done reissue in every way and well worth the money if you like the music and if you are prepared for an edgier sound than you might be used to.

9) I DON'T HAVE A FRIGGIN' AGENDA other than trying to be truthful and informative.

I'm Michael Fremer and I approved of this message"

So here's the original review, please consider what Mr. de Boer has written above as "gospel" and discard my conjecture below.

However, I stand by the sound of the reissue. It was never my intention to "trash" the reissue. Just be prepared for it to sound edgier an grittier around the vocals than you might have become accustomed to on the original, that is for sure. And be prepared for far quieter surfaces and improved dynamics.-MF (2/21/09)

Unfortunately, at the time Stevie Wonder released this sprawling career pinnacle in the fall of 1976, RCA’s pressing quality had reached its nadir. It was a Dynaflex world of paper thin, flexible records pressed from what sounded like recycled BIC pens. Yikes! Some youngsters reading this might not even know what a BIC pen is/was!

Tamla/Motown had used RCA’s mastering and pressing facilities from the label’s inception and during the great pressing days of the 1960’s Motown released some great sounding records, thanks to the mastering, pressing and the engineering.

Beginning in the mid 1960’s, most of Motown’s releases were issued in both mono and stereo, which was unusual for a label catering to the “youth market.” Still, the mono releases were more important and often, the stereo versions were delayed and sometimes featured alternative takes. But I’m rambling and writing in the passive tense. Sorry.

It took Wonder over an hour’s worth of material that filled two LPs and a four song 7” EP to get off his chest what was occupying the music of his mind between 1974’s introspective, some would say dark and definitely neglected Fullfillingness’ First Finale and this, his most acclaimed and accomplished work. Mr. Wonder never regrouped after this album to produce anything as masterful as this or the four great albums that preceeded it.

With the state of the world and the tribulations of his people on his mind, Wonder moves between the opener, in which he says that even love is in need of love in 1976 (and that the listener had better send some in “right away” because hate’s going around), and the bleakness of “Village Ghetto Land.”

Wonder doesn’t point fingers: he merely asks “Tell me would you be happy in Village Ghetto Land?” Side one ends with Wonder’s passionate tribute to music generally and Duke Ellington specifically.

The album veers between the personally joyous and tuneful (“Isn’t She Lovely”) to the non-militant pride of “Black Man.” Throughout, Wonder produces wondrous melodies, particularly on the slow movers like “Joy Inside My Tears.”

Both the music and the arrangements move away from the rock and funk of earlier albums towards more complex mainstream jazz and pop.

As with many productions of the era, there was a noticeable decrease in sound quality on this album compared to earlier Wonder releases, though no doubt the engineers thought they were making better sound here with “more”: more compression, more use of effects, more tracks and newer, more complex boards, but what was really happening was less transparency, diminished dynamics, narrower and flatter soundstages and especially less extension. This production sounds closed in, distant and listless. Bass lacks real thrust and extension and there's little shimmer from the cymbals. "Boxy" is the operative adjective.

Add the noisy Dynaflex (or whatever RCA was or was not calling it at the time) and despite the superb music making, I remember being disappointed by the clogged, flat sound, though had I known how bad sound was going to get a few years later, I would have been more than happy with it!

When a Japanese edition arrived at my local vinyl emporium back then I snapped it up and it produced a big improvement in every way. Unlike many Japanese pressed albums, the mastering did not brighten the top and/or cut the bottom and of course the pressing quality was superb.

I wish I could say that this Speakers Corner reissue was revelatory or even excellent but it’s not. Of course the Pallas 180g pressing is perfection and the packaging is absolutely stellar (complete with full-sized booket and 7" 4 song EP), but the mastering is just plain weird.

A layer of crunchy ice has been added on top and the bass has been boosted, producing a garish sonic mix. The result is an unpleasant edgy grit to Wonder’s voice. You know something's wrong when the triangle on "Love's In Need ..." is louder than Wonder's voice! And believe me, it is.

One would hope an analog source was used, but whatever was the source, this reissue sounds nothing like the original and represents an unnecessary, unwarranted revision that I’m sure would appall Stevie Wonder.

It’s very “hi-fi” and might sound exciting or “lively” on a dull system, but it’s plain wrong and difficult to recommend. Speakers Corner usually gets it right. Unfortunately, on this wonderful album, SC gets it very wrong.

In a misguided attempt to inject some life into what was a relatively dull production to begin with Mr de Boer has injected too much bass on bottom and way ice in a very thin region on top.