Universal Vault Fire: HUGE loss to historical master recordings, including GN'R

[RussTCB]

4 hours ago, vloors said:

Unreleased songs, alt versions, outtakes will also be lost.

And the fact that most remasters will need the original masterrecording to be able to seperate and redo individual sound parts.

Massive loss here.

I know. That's what I keep trying to make sure people understand. This is an ENORMOUS loss. 

3 hours ago, FRANSAD said:

Since GnFnR released the Overpriced For Destruction box and some remastered video clips around that release, we might have hope not everything GnFnR burned because one would expect the source material used for those releases would be stored in the same place??????

If you look at the wording on the AFD releases, you'll see the were careful not to say "original master tapes". That's a small picture into how much Uni was trying to get away with by not making the loss public. 

[Lim666]

We need a list!

That being said, we might be safe with lots of artists music master tapes being transfered high quality (f.e. 24bit/192khz indiviually tracks) already over the years. It's an huge amount of work, but over the years that's what had to be done and be stored seperately digitally. Hell, that's what we fans do since end of the 90s! Also, and maybe there is some hope here, when there are copies of individual masters, they'd be 1 generation lower in quality but still be very good quality!

[shotsfired cro]

21 hours ago, RussTCB said:

a "copy" yes, but there's only one "original master recording" 

what is the difference between 'master recording' and a 'copy of master recording'?

Same thing like a cd and a burned cd.

Do you honestly think they had something there those guys don't have sitting at home?

[WhazUp]

25 minutes ago, shotsfired cro said:

what is the difference between 'master recording' and a 'copy of master recording'?

Same thing like a cd and a burned cd.

Do you honestly think they had something there those guys don't have sitting at home?

In terms of actual audio quality, I believe it made a bigger difference back pre-digital where for example with each newer generation it would be like recording to a cassette to another cassette, where you would get more unwanted transient noises and tape hiss which is why a lot of 80's CD's of 60's and 70's sounded not ideal, because they were using copies of copies in some cases.  

With digital technology you can get a great and very high resolution transfer of the original analogue digital tape but it is still recorded and captured at a finite resolution rate cutoff, such is the nature of digitally captured audio

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by WhazUp

[Azifwekare]

11 hours ago, RussTCB said:

You're talking about a massive amount of time, enegery and resources to be able to do something like that. Mostikelt such a thing wouldn't exist. 

I would have hoped copies would be made around the same time as the original recordings, but I fear you may be right, especially with the older material.

Record companies aren't exactly known for preserving their material - it wasn't long ago they would simply trash tapes to make room for new stuff... criminal.

So much history lost.

[RussTCB]

3 hours ago, shotsfired cro said:

what is the difference between 'master recording' and a 'copy of master recording'?

Same thing like a cd and a burned cd.

Do you honestly think they had something there those guys don't have sitting at home?

You answered your own question: one is the master and one is a copy of a master. As far as analogue goes, a second generation copy will not sound as good as the original.

And yes, I honestly think that. I can't think of any artist who would have kept their original master recordings or even a second generation copy of their masters anywhere. 

[Lim666]

Russ, this is GN'R.....

[RussTCB]

22 minutes ago, Lim666 said:

Russ, this is GN'R.....

Yes, and? lol

[shotsfired cro]

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

You answered your own question: one is the master and one is a copy of a master. As far as analogue goes, a second generation copy will not sound as good as the original.

And yes, I honestly think that. I can't think of any artist who would have kept their original master recordings or even a second generation copy of their masters anywhere. 

Honestly...who says the 'master' is the one at Universal and not the one at Axl/Slash/Duff/Izzy home?

There are so many copies made and the recording company keeps one as 'master'.

On the sidenote, Billy Corgan made the reissues of all Smashing Pumpkins albums remastered.

Guess what?  To this day, no fan, me included, could tell the difference.  How can you then tell a difference between a master and a copy of a master? 

[RussTCB]

4 minutes ago, shotsfired cro said:

Honestly...who says the 'master' is the one at Universal and not the one at Axl/Slash/Duff/Izzy home?

There are so many copies made and the recording company keeps one as 'master'.

On the sidenote, Billy Corgan made the reissues of all Smashing Pumpkins albums remastered.

Guess what?  To this day, no fan, me included, could tell the difference.  How can you then tell a difference between a master and a copy of a master? 

Not to be an asshole about it, but it really sounds like you don't understand what an original master tape is. It's been explained several times in the thread 

[smiley]

Wow... I figured more people on this board would understand what a master recording was and and what even a 1 gen copy means in loss from the original. Along with owning the rights to the recordings and storing the actual masters. This loss is unimaginably huge.

There is one 1 master recording - any copy of it would include loss. Early gen copies might be better than nothing - but absolutely nothing compares to the one and only master.

And I doubt we will ever know the extent. It said multiple times that there was no good inventory. Even items that were "inventoried" were commonly found to be mis-labeled... and many items not really labeled to begin with.

[RussTCB]

3 minutes ago, smiley said:

Wow... I figured more people on this board would understand what a master recording was and and what even a 1 gen copy means in loss from the original. Along with owning the rights to the recordings and storing the actual masters. This loss is unimaginably huge.

There is one 1 master recording - any copy of it would include loss. Early gen copies might be better than nothing - but absolutely nothing compares to the one and only master.

And I doubt we will ever know the extent. It said multiple times that there was no good inventory. Even items that were "inventoried" were commonly found to be mis-labeled... and many items not really labeled to begin with.

I've been very surprised to see a lot of people not getting it, to be honest. 

[FuriousStyles]

14 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I've been very surprised to see a lot of people not getting it, to be honest. 

"Breaking news: The original Mona Lisa was damaged in a fire, a monumental los...."

"....It's ok guys, I took a picture of it in during my last vacation!"

 

[-W.A.R-]

Its clear people in this thread rip their CD's at 128kbps.

 

[NeonKinight]

Maybe Oklahoma, Seven, Atlas Shrugged are gone forever...

[MaskingApathy]

3 hours ago, smiley said:

Wow... I figured more people on this board would understand what a master recording was and and what even a 1 gen copy means in loss from the original. Along with owning the rights to the recordings and storing the actual masters. This loss is unimaginably huge.

There is one 1 master recording - any copy of it would include loss. Early gen copies might be better than nothing - but absolutely nothing compares to the one and only master.

And I doubt we will ever know the extent. It said multiple times that there was no good inventory. Even items that were "inventoried" were commonly found to be mis-labeled... and many items not really labeled to begin with.

 

3 hours ago, RussTCB said:

I've been very surprised to see a lot of people not getting it, to be honest. 

Yes very disappointing that a lot of people don't understand the impact and huge loss that this is.

[WhazUp]

5 hours ago, shotsfired cro said:

Honestly...who says the 'master' is the one at Universal and not the one at Axl/Slash/Duff/Izzy home?

There are so many copies made and the recording company keeps one as 'master'.

On the sidenote, Billy Corgan made the reissues of all Smashing Pumpkins albums remastered.

Guess what?  To this day, no fan, me included, could tell the difference.  How can you then tell a difference between a master and a copy of a master? 

Original master tapes aren't something just laying around someone's house like a Grammy though lol original analogue tape needs to be stored in an appropriate climate for preservation (ideally also not set on fire also helps preserve it)

I also believe contractually the label is in control of the master tapes in many cases which is why you see that list of so many famous and legendary albums stored there in the first place - in the case of this fire per the article these were master recordings owned by UMG

 

And per the second point - it may be gear?  With audio, if you are comparing masterings with sub-optimal playback like laptop speakers or random earbuds, or also fairly lossy audio it can hinder the ability to judge the masterings themselves.  But I did a quick search on the Steve Hoffman forums which is an audiophile forum, and indeed there are a few threads there of people comparing and contrasting Smashing Pumpkins remasters to the original issue CDs

Edited June 13, 2019 by WhazUp

[shotsfired cro]

5 hours ago, RussTCB said:

Not to be an asshole about it, but it really sounds like you don't understand what an original master tape is. It's been explained several times in the thread 

I for one, happen to be in the music business and not to be an ashole, know what 'master tape' is.  Every label stores one of each album, it doesn't mean it is THE master of all masters.

The 'master' that you reffer too can be at Ax, Slash, Duff, Iz, Adler or Mike Clink place, or long chucked away.

Master is there to make future copies of it, but, the only reason it is called 'master' is because it is one copy of the final work kept in archives.

There you go.  Feel free to ask more questions if you have them.

[Tom-Ass]

2 hours ago, NeonKinight said:

Maybe Oklahoma, Seven, Atlas Shrugged are gone forever...

How would we survive?

[RussTCB]

8 minutes ago, shotsfired cro said:

I for one, happen to be in the music business and not to be an ashole, know what 'master tape' is.  Every label stores one of each album, it doesn't mean it is THE master of all masters.

The 'master' that you reffer too can be at Ax, Slash, Duff, Iz, Adler or Mike Clink place, or long chucked away.

Master is there to make future copies of it, but, the only reason it is called 'master' is because it is one copy of the final work kept in archives.

There you go.  Feel free to ask more questions if you have them.

 I wasn't asking you questions in the first place, so I'm all set

[RONIN]

Universal Music Group is what the French call "Les Incompetents".

On a brighter note, whether the GnR masters exist or have been destroyed in the fire, it's not like we were going to get shit from Axl either way.

Edited June 13, 2019 by RONIN

[EvanG]

5 hours ago, FuriousStyles said:

"....It's ok guys, I took a picture of it in during my last vacation!"

You know what, people taking pictures in museums piss me off so much. I don't even understand why you want to take a picture when you can google it and find, maybe, hundreds of pictures of it online, that probably have a much better quality. It makes no sense. Once a lady stood in front of me and it took her 5 minutes to take a picture of the painting I was trying to look at, and I'm not a violent man, believe me, but I almost punched her in the face.

Sorry, had to get that out of my system, back on topic now...

Edited June 13, 2019 by EvanG

[shotsfired cro]

56 minutes ago, WhazUp said:

Original master tapes aren't something just laying around someone's house like a Grammy though lol original analogue tape needs to be stored in an appropriate climate for preservation (ideally also not set on fire also helps preserve it)

I also believe contractually the label is in control of the master tapes in many cases which is why you see that list of so many famous and legendary albums stored there in the first place - in the case of this fire per the article these were master recordings owned by UMG

 

And per the second point - it may be gear?  With audio, if you are comparing masterings with sub-optimal playback like laptop speakers or random earbuds, or also fairly lossy audio it can hinder the ability to judge the masterings themselves.  But I did a quick search on the Steve Hoffman forums which is an audiophile forum, and indeed there are a few threads there of people comparing and contrasting Smashing Pumpkins remasters to the original issue CDs

LOL..I believe all members by now would know how to handle the reels   ie. not in the shower, above the fireplace...

did you miss the guy who had shit load of demo reels picked up from his home in April or something?

not many, but ALL albums have a 'master copy' stored by the label that is untouched, but that is the reel that goes in the archive. It can be a 100th copy of the master that Russ is talking about.

Theoretically speaking, my cd from '87, 95  or 2018 of AFD, could have been printed in LA, Austria, Tokyo, Sydney...you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.  Once it comes from label's 'master', that serves for all the reprints anywhere in the world.  From there on, they could make a reprint from my, your or Russ cd without any change in sound.

You should not mix rights with master. Every master has the sound that is featured on every and each reprint of a cd, vinyl, casset reproduced.

Therefore, nobody bothered saying anything for all these years.

Every band has its own label and their individual contract about rights.  Nirvana rights were not same as Aerosmith or GNR, despite the fact they come from same label - Geffen.

That is something only the two parties know for a fact.

37 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

 I wasn't asking you questions in the first place, so I'm all set

always glad to help out a fellow forum member

[Swampfox]

1 hour ago, shotsfired cro said:

I for one, happen to be in the music business and not to be an ashole, know what 'master tape' is.  Every label stores one of each album, it doesn't mean it is THE master of all masters.

The 'master' that you reffer too can be at Ax, Slash, Duff, Iz, Adler or Mike Clink place, or long chucked away.

Master is there to make future copies of it, but, the only reason it is called 'master' is because it is one copy of the final work kept in archives.

There you go.  Feel free to ask more questions if you have them.

I have a legit question.  I have the ultradiscs that were put out several years back and they were supposed to be taken from the original master recordings.  Could they now become the best possible recordings left?

[Lim666]

If they backed up the masters in a proper and professionell way like 24/384 or DSD, then it doesnt matter THAT much if some are lost.  That's the ultimate quality these days, all releases are downsampled from that. We wouldnt hear the sound difference at all - even it's a copy from a copy.

Do we know for fact, by the way, if the Sound City Demos are from the master reels?