Simply random stuff

[barfle]

I suspect I may be alone here...but I prefer when a remix just tries to approximate the sound of the original mix rather than matching it perfectly...because that allows for the mix to be improved substantially instead of sounding like the original mix but in surround. That's revisionist practice though, so it's heresy! Of course, it all comes down to how tasteful it is. I won't ignore the revisionist mixes gone wrong...

I think a remix of a classic song or album ought to be recognizable and stir those old memories, but not have glaring differences.

Case in point: The original 45 of “Kind of a Drag” by The Buckinghams had a far lower mix of the horns than anything you can get these days. To me, that’s a mistake. There was also a reissue of “Love Potion #9” that added a few lines about “going back again for love potion #10.”

Why mess with perfection?

 

[mandrix]

I think a remix of a classic song or album ought to be recognizable and stir those old memories, but not have glaring differences.

Case in point: The original 45 of “Kind of a Drag” by The Buckinghams had a far lower mix of the horns than anything you can get these days. To me, that’s a mistake. There was also a reissue of “Love Potion #9” that added a few lines about “going back again for love potion #10.”

Why mess with perfection?

Oh man I remember The Buckinghams and for sure Kind Of A Drag. 60's baby!

 

[QuadEyes]

I think a remix of a classic song or album ought to be recognizable and stir those old memories, but not have glaring differences.

Case in point: The original 45 of “Kind of a Drag” by The Buckinghams had a far lower mix of the horns than anything you can get these days. To me, that’s a mistake. There was also a reissue of “Love Potion #9” that added a few lines about “going back again for love potion #10.”

Why mess with perfection?

The longer version of "Love Potion #9" has been around since 1970. That's when I first found it on a golden-oldies compilation. Perhaps the original single from the 1950's was edited down before it was released?

 

[barfle]

The longer version of "Love Potion #9" has been around since 1970. That's when I first found it on a golden-oldies compilation. Perhaps the original single from the 1950's was edited down before it was released?

I'm pretty sure they aren't the same recording, and the endings are quite different.

 

[inspclouseau]

Many years ago I actually made my living by working in various fields of photography. At one point I had the pleasure of working with two photographers from The Missoulian. They were publishing a "coffee table" book of the beauty of Montana. As you might expect it was strongly outdoor & wild life shots.They came to KC because, thanks to Hallmark cards, we had a thriving industry of photography, pro photo labs, color sep houses, and the country's leading fine art publisher, Lowell Press. And coming to KC meant they could be involved directly with every step of the process. Like going into a restaurant's kitchen to tell them exactly how much salt you want.

My main point I'm slow to getting around to, is that so many of your pics remind me of that project. Just casual shots on a phone? I'd say it looks great on my monitor. I really enjoy your photography & I hope you blow up some of them for wall display.

Edit: Then again I guess you can just step outside your back door & see it even bigger, eh?

I grabbed the camera and snuck around the back of the shop to get a nice close pic! He startled me~ a bit too close ~August 2019.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

I grabbed the camera and snuck around the back of the shop to get a nice close pic! He startled me~ a bit too close ~August 2019.

Beautiful hi-res antler velvet there.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I grabbed the camera and snuck around the back of the shop to get a nice close pic! He startled me~ a bit too close ~August 2019.

Depth of field tells me you were using a pretty long tele. But still you must have been pretty close. Surprised the deer held still long enough to compose & shoot!

 

[ar surround]

I think a remix of a classic song or album ought to be recognizable and stir those old memories, but not have glaring differences.

Case in point: The original 45 of “Kind of a Drag” by The Buckinghams had a far lower mix of the horns than anything you can get these days. To me, that’s a mistake. There was also a reissue of “Love Potion #9” that added a few lines about “going back again for love potion #10.”

Why mess with perfection?

That's what I love about being able to do one's own demixes / remixes this day in age. If there is something I want overemphasized I just do it. (Then a year later I listen to it again and say, "What the heck did I do? )

 

[barfle]

I grabbed the camera and snuck around the back of the shop to get a nice close pic! He startled me~ a bit too close ~August 2019.

What is it? The antler base is way too thick for a deer, but it doesn’t look like a moose. Maybe an elk? Not real familiar with those.

 

[inspclouseau]

Depth of field tells me you were using a pretty long tele. But still you must have been pretty close. Surprised the deer held still long enough to compose & shoot!

yup very close. Had to back that lens way off.. The deer around our place in the summer get very comfortable with us because we're out working and running around pretty much every day, all day. We can get very close~.....but try not TOO close

 

[inspclouseau]

What is it? The antler base is way too thick for a deer, but it doesn’t look like a moose. Maybe an elk? Not real familiar with those.

A Mule Deer in the 'velvet'. August 6th~

 

[inspclouseau]

yup very close. Had to back that lens way off.. The deer around our place in the summer get very comfortable with us because we're out working and running around pretty much every day, all day. We can get very close~.....but try not TOO closeView attachment 114570

What they think of my picture taking~

 

[inspclouseau]

 

[JohnN]