Articles by Mark Pearce
Articles by Mark Pearce
Below you will find excellent articles written by fellow ABBA fan and audiophile Mark Pearce. Mark has a YouTube account (http://www.youtube.com/markpmus) where he has uploaded his monumental ABBA Gold anomolies series. Mark has given kind permission to reproduce his articles on this site. Please enjoy!
ABBA Song Analysis
Take A Chance On Me and Honey Honey
Both these songs address the topic of unrequited love, and use different musical and lyrical devices to convey this emotion.
Honey Honey is a perfectly constructed a boy/girl duet. It harks back to the 1950’s with it’s rock and roll backing rhythm, blues chord pattern (F, D minor, B flat and C) and “wah wah hoo” backing vocals. Agnetha’s verses are the musings of a teenager in love for the first time, and the simplistic chord structure affirms the naïveté of her emotions. There is evidence that the boyfriend in the song has had more experience in love than she – “I know what they mean, you’re a love machine”. Newfound sexual freedom bubbles under the lyrics to Agnetha’s second verse, yet all too soon a discordant C11, resolving to C major announce Bjorn’s Middle 8 passage.
Here the key changes to B flat major. This is related to Agnetha’s F major key, although the key chord is not arrived at until Bjorn sings, “I don’t wanna see you cry.” The effect is one of ambiguity – things are not quite as they should be. It is this tension that lifts the song out of the twee, “I love you, you love me”, and adds to the song’s enduring qualities.
Bjorn is too kind to have a one night stand with someone who obviously feels that more will come of the liaison, yet he plans to enter the relationship and leave it just as quickly – “I don’t wanna hurt you …. so stay on the ground, girl”. It is here that Agnetha pulls her killer punch. Despite being in awe of Bjorn’s sexual prowess during the verses, her reply to his cautionary lines implies that she knows exactly what kind of relationship Bjorn is contemplating. Moreover it is her sexual wiles that will win him over and secure the longevity of the relationship. The key here is F minor. Although this is distantly related to the F major “happy” key of the verse, it is very different in tonality. The “scrunchy” Gm7sus4 chord that lands on “…rather would BE” indicates that all in this relationship is not perfect, yet the following C7 chord leads the song effortlessly to Agnetha’s happy-go-lucky verses.
The song fades out, leaving its audience speculating on how the relationship will progress.
Take A Chance On Me is the more “developed” of the two songs for a number of reasons. Firstly it was written and released at the peak of their career, and Bjorn and Benny had gained enough confidence to experiment. Indeed, the LP from whence it derives – ABBA The Album – was the group’s most experimental to date. Arguably only The Visitors surpassed it for innovation. Secondly the songwriters’ grasp of the English language had improved since the Waterloo LP – no longer were they simply choosing English words to fit the melodies. (Honey Honey’s “thrill – kill” rhyme is a rather corny example of their early ineptitude.) Thirdly the tensions in the song are often as a result of superimposing darker lyrics over happier-sounding music, and vice versa.[1] If Honey Honey represents the white and black halves of Yin & Yang, Take A Chance represents the black dot in the white and the white dot in the black. Hence it much more closely resembles life experience, where the choices we make in love are not always the ones that make common sense to others or even ourselves.
The song begins a capella – vocals only. The story goes that the “Take a chance, take a chance, take a chick a chance chance” rhythm came to Bjorn while he was jogging – it was the rhythm of his feet as they hit the ground! Although the chords are simple in the chorus (B major to F sharp major), tension is created by the irregular number of bars to chord changes. One would expect a catchy pop song such as this to contain a number of bars per section that is divisible by 4, such as the oft-used 12 bar blues pattern. This song’s chorus has 21 bars, the odd bar being split into two 2/4 bars – at the words, “to go when you’re…” and “the test if you” respectively. Halfway through the chorus, the band enters, setting up a straight 4 to the floor dance rhythm. A sequencer-style synthesizer complements the backing vocal rhythm and a subtle country guitar wails plaintively in the background. Euro-Disco mixed with country – experimental indeed, yet the hardship in love and work often embodied in country contrasts with the more hedonistic disco lifestyle.
Lyrically the character in the song fantasises about a relationship with a partner who in reality is not interested in her. The chorus basically begs for the man to end the relationship(s) he’s in and get with her – “if you’re all alone when the pretty birds have flown.” To add to the pain she is feeling, she pledges to remain “free” until such a day. There is the unspoken assumption that our protagonist feels inferior, not as attractive as the other women her intended is dating.[2] Certainly the singer believes in “what goes around comes around” – he will be in her position one day, and when he does, she will make herself available. To win him over, Agnetha seductively speaks the lines “That’s all I ask of you honey”, and in chorus two, “Come on, gimme a break, will ya!” This technique is oft used on her solo material, but nowhere is it more effectively employed than here, where her double tracked voice is panned so that the headphone listener feels her speak right into both ears.
The mood changes for the verse – musically and lyrically. Even the more subtle details such as EQ and reverb change. There is an edit where this can clearly be heard out of phase at 0:38 where the opening chorus is joined to Verse 1. Lyrically this is pure idyll – the character lists all the activities that she and her intended could enjoy together. “It’s magic!” But it would be kitsch were it not for the minor key that the song has moved to by this point. Minor keys and chords have a “sadder” feel to them than major chords/keys.
So the tension between the fantasy and the pain that this fantasy is unlikely to become reality is expressed thus:
“We can go dancing, we can go walking” (Minor chord)
“As long as we’re together” (Major chord – a quick burst of optimism)
“Listen to some music, maybe just talking” (Minor)
“You’d get to know me better cos you know I got” (Major)
“So much that I wanna do” (Minor- it’s just not going to happen!)
“When I dream I’m alone with you” (Major, but lyrics express some acceptance of the situation.)
“It’s magic!” (Minor, followed by 2 major chords in quick succession – pure tension!)
Benny’s “fluttering” synthesizer that carries us off into the singer’s daydream has not finished before we are brought down to reality:
“You want me to leave it there” (Minor)
“Afraid of a love affair” (Major – is she calling his bluff?)
“But I think you know” (Minor – he doesn’t know or care! Followed by major chord)
“That I can’t let go” (Minor – and she puts her finger on the frustration of her situation.)
The second verse expresses the fantasy/reality situation in the same way.
I appreciate that the above analyses are pure “after the event” speculation. I make no claim that Benny, Bjorn and Stig Anderson[3] ever sat down and analysed every chord progression and lyric in the way that I have done. Indeed, both songwriters professed to a lack of knowledge of musical theory. But I have no doubts that, however empirical their approach to song writing, they were mindful and knowledgeable of the effect of the combined words and music on its audience. This is comparable to the skill of a romantic novelist – a love story that doesn’t make its readers cry has failed. Therefore its author must use conflict and resolution, amongst other devices, to make sure that tears will flow at a carefully planned point. I believe that, whatever the desired audience reaction, the most successful songwriters possess similar skills.
Mark Pearce, January 2009
[1] This directly contrasts with Honey Honey’s “happy lyrics with happy music, darker lyrics, darker music” construction.
[2] Thanks to Rudolf Ondrich for pointing this out!
[3] Stig is credited as co-writer of Honey Honey.
Since I began the ABBA Gold Anomalies series of videos on YouTube, I have become intrigued by the mystery of the ABBA stereo positions. I noticed that particular ABBA songs, such as Fernando and Money Money Money had had their stereo positions inverted on the UK edition of ABBA Gold. Until recently I assumed that this had somehow occurred as a result of Tretowʼs digital remastering for what became the Gold compilation and Thank You For The Music box sets. The reason why this should have happened is uncertain. However, two discoveries have somewhat muddied the waters - leaving the situation not as clear cut as first thought.
Discovery number one:
A discussion with Rudolf Ondrich revealed that the Australian Polydor edition of Super Trouper contains the same stereo mix of The Winner Takes It All as the UK Gold edition. This was released before Gold, and is the inverse mix of the version of TWTIA that appears on the UK Polydor Super Trouper. Incidentally, both UK and Australian Polydors share the same serial number.
Discovery number two:
The UK Epic Vinyl Greatest Hits Volume 2 (released in 1979) also contains some songs with inverse stereo positions, compared to the original UK vinyl releases on their parent albums. However, this doesnʼt account for all of the songs that appear on GH Vol. 2 and Gold. For example, Dancing Queen is inverted on Gold, but not the GH Vol. 2 version. To date, I have not compared Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! and Summer Night City as I do not possess other vinyl editions of these singles. Regardless, it clearly shows that there were stereo variations in existence long before the Tretow digital remasters.
I deliberately conducted my test using vinyl, to rule out accusations such as CD player and turntable being wired differently in my hi-fi set up. If both records sounded different, they were different! I also used good quality headphones as itʼs easier to hear the differences on these than loudspeakers. For those interested to try out my experiment, the following chart lists those songs on Greatest Hits Volume 2 with inverse stereo positions, and the signs to look out for when discerning whether the mix has inverted stereo panning:
It is worth pointing out that my vinyl copy of Greatest Hits Volume 2 has unacceptable levels of vinyl print-through, especially intrusive on the ballads.
Also, the songs have not been cut as obviously “loudly” as on their parent albums. Despite this, the mastering is clearly superior on the original LPʼs. I believe that all of the above anomalies are due to the long playing times - roughly half an hour on each side. The optimal playing time for an album is roughly 22 minutes per side, before compromises have to be made that adversely affect sound quality.
Mark Pearce 20th January 2009
Visit my channel MarkPMus on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MarkPMus
Well well well! I never thought I'd see the day when I'd say this, but the vinyl record is "louder" than both the 1980’s Polydor and Polar editions of the Arrival album! Not in a Jon Astley compressed way, but in an open, spacious, acoustically "live" way. I did some side-by-side comparisons of vinyl/Polydor/Polar playing My Love My Life. I switched my MiniDisk recorder into record mode, with the recording level control at 0dB. Both CD's sounded and "looked" identical, in that the peaks were reached at around -8dB on the level meters. If they are not exactly identical they are very close. The vinyl peaked out at around -2dB. But the levels were not "stuck" at -2dB in the manner that a compressed recording would be. The meters fluctuated in sympathy with the beat of the music. Heavily compressed music (Jonsson's Deluxe/CSR I Wonder for example) doesn't do this. The stereo positions are also the same on all 3 editions.
Both CD's are very civilised, and "nice" to listen to, although they lack a bit of bite. Crucially songs like Dancing Queen are detailed, but don't make you wanna dance! They lack reverb and sound “shut-in” in comparison with the original.
On both editions of the CD, Agnetha's lead vocal in My Love, My Life is a tad thin, although some of the emotion in her voice, especially in verse 2 is rendered. Although she is very clearly centre stage on CD, the record does a much better job of solidifying her presence - partly because it's a bit louder, but also because the recording is much more acoustically present. Closing your eyes, playing on a quality deck, it is possible to imagine her physically there, opening and closing her mouth. The slight mispronunciation of the word “phrase” in verse 1 goes by largely unnoticed on CD, and one can put it down to her accent. On record it sounds so cute (and deliberate!) it is impossible not to sympathise with her!
The real test is the point where the first chorus ends and verse 2 begins. On CD, you are aware that there is an edit in the middle of the second syllable of "[still my one and] onLY...". On the record, that edit point is still present, but the syllable is carried on for much longer than you think. It continues into a burst of reverb and still goes on - Agnetha is well into the first line of verse 2 before you stop marvelling at how wonderful it is. Neither Polar or Polydor CD capture this moment as effectively.
Agnetha is clearly about to break down in verse 2. This is the fate Bjorn predicted for their marriage - see also Knowing Me Knowing You - and it really shows here. “I watched you look away" is sung with a gulp and a quiver. Her voice cracks ever so slightly during "so hard to say". There is an intake of breath as the word "say" leaves her lips, and she is shaking like a leaf on the words "longest day". CD and vinyl alike convey this vocal interpretation beautifully - the difference is that on record, you can reach out and touch it. On CD you are merely a spectator.
Having said all this, I still believe the 80's transfers of all the ABBA LP's to CD remain the most faithful to the vinyl versions and are clearly superior to later editions of the LP's. Astley's 2001 edition somehow manages to make Agnetha sound both loud and even more vague and shut in than the Polydor/Polar versions. Jonsson's edition regains some of Agnetha's presence, but is marred by the over-use of compression - to the point where you think, "if it's as loud as this in the verse, what's coming in the chorus?" - and it's the same old story, meters stuck at 0dB. This translates sonically into heavy limiting, a feeling that it just couldn't get any louder even when the music dictates that it should do. "You are still my love, and---- my life---" being a perfect case in point.
Mark Pearce February 2009
ABBA Song Analysis - So Long
These notes accompany the video I made discussing the song “So Long” and the anomalies in the recording, available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIg1SN6GHSc&fmt=18
The song is about a woman whose potential suitor thinks that all he has to do to win her over is spend money on her. The singer points out in no uncertain terms that money alone is not enough to persuade her to be his partner. The build up to the chorus suggests that the singer is well aware that all this pampering is leading up to a quick one night stand (“You won’t have me tonight....”).
There is a sense in which the song is a companion song to “Man In The Middle” from the same LP - “ABBA” (1975). In “MITM” the commentator is singing about a similar type, who again thinks that money will buy him all he needs, except, apparently an “honest friend”.
In both songs the lyrical tension is built up by the contrasting values of the singer and the subject of the song. In “MITM” the singer addresses his social peers. Whereas in “So Long” the singer addresses the man in question, giving him, as I say in the video, “a bloody good telling off”!
The introduction is characterised by the tension built up by a long (6 bar) glissando (slide) consisting (I think!) of vocals synth and brass - similar in its effect to the introduction to The Beatles’ version of “Twist ‘n’ Shout”. This is made up of 3 bars of D7 with the added 7th appearing in the bass in the 2nd bar. The following 3 bars alternate between C and D7. I imagine the glissando to be the effect of a good dressing down in full flow - the delayed resolution to the key chord of G adds to the “when is this going to end” effect! The glissando plays a key role in this portrayal of a telling off - it appears in other guises throughout the song, for example “all right, all right, all right, all right” and naked in the instrumental.
When the key chord is finally reached in bar 7, the rhythm section launches into a full-blooded boogie rock beat. This romp in a major key suggests that the protagonist is actually rather looking forward to this confrontation!
The first two lines of the verses consist of a cadence (a sequence of chords comprising the close of a musical phrase) that is repeated. The cadence is D (the chord built on the 5th note of G scale), C, (the 4th chord) and G (the key chord). When I was a music student studying classical harmony the text books discouraged the 5-4 chord progression - “ungainly” being one of the terms used to describe it. However part of what makes the “blues” scale “blue” is the use of this chord progression. Hence its use, not once but twice consecutively in the opening lines of “So Long” make it faintly unsettling on the listener. No sooner has the ear settled down to the key of G major than we are jolted into the related minor key (although actually G major and G minor are 2 separate entities).
In both verses the lyrics make the contrasting values apparent - “They say that money’s got a magic touch, but not to me...” and “The girls might fall for everything you’ve got, but I’m not one of them...” So lyrics that contrast, in a contrasting key. There follows the damning line denying sexual gratification to the man at the other end of the rant!
The glissando/reprimand motif, again based on the D chord plus extra notes, leads up to the chorus. This is a joyous affair - the singer is gloating here. It ends with two cadences (‘So Long, So Long, So Long!”) based on the chords of C - D - G. This 4th chord, 5th chord, key chord progression is approved of by the classical text books. It’s implication is proper closure - there is no changing the singer’s mind!
After a repeat of the verse/chorus, the instrumental passage again implies the key of G minor, although here the glissando is played on the instruments in unison - there is no chord structure. Here is a naked re-iteration of the “telling off” theme which only resolves 6 bars later (similar to the intro) when we reach the chorus.
The final chorus is actually the second half only with the “So Long” cadences repeated. The instrumental playout superimposes all the discordant elements of the song in one boogie rock jamming session. The glissando is reduced to 2 chords only, as played by the brass section. There is a chord consisting of the discordant notes Bflat and C sharp, played simultaneously with the rhythm section vamping on a G major chord. This resolves a bar later with the brass playing B and D, which harmonise with the band’s G major. As the song fades out, a piano overdub is heard improvising around a scale based on G with the added Bflat and Csharp - a really groovy touch! The result of all this discord and tension is a whirlwind of a song that whooshes in, states its message and leaves its recipient dumbfounded and well and truly reprimanded!
This analysis was undertaken with the aid of the sheet music as arranged by Milton Okun in the compilation “The Great Songs Of ABBA”. Sadly this volume has been long since been out of print, but it is worth tracking down as the arrangements are often more comprehensive and “realistic” than that in other volumes.
Mark Pearce April 2009
(This article was writen by Mark in a Facebook group regarding Remasters, and he has given me permission to publish it here)
What Is Wrong With Remasters?
Why don't we want our favourite albums remastered on CD? Surely with the latest technology, the best music should sound even better?
This is not simply a re-hash of the digital/analogue debate. Both mediums have strengths and weaknesses and at the end of the day, most people have not heard the VERY BEST each has to offer. So it comes down to what people prefer.
Let's examine the argument against remastering - in doing so, we will not be totally one-sided - remasters don't have to be all bad.
Firstly, and this is more crucial than it might appear, many record producers from times gone by have either gone into retirement or passed on, so to speak. This means the job of remastering is given to someone, probably younger, who most likely will not have been present at the recordings, will not share the same philosophy and most importantly does not have the same ears as the original producer. In order to remaster faithfully, the monitoring equipment should also be as near to the original as possible. All loudspeakers and amplification systems have their own sonic signature, and if today's engineers are not hearing the same thing as yesterday's then the results will be different. We rely on the engineer's sensitivity to the original sound, hence bizarre EQ choices on Jon Astley's 97 & 2001 ABBA remasters or the 2000 remasters of Stevie Wonder LP's.
But this is where the philosophies today are different from years ago. When George Martin restored the Beatles music for release on CD, he iterated a truism. If you just make a straight copy of an LP cutting tape, the CD results are awful. Vinyl grooves are cut with a predetermined reduction in bass and increase in treble (this is a crude description of the RIAA curve). This is corrected during playback, and is one reason why record players need their own phono inputs and cannot be plugged into the same sockets as CD players. So for CD, some modification to the original is necessary, just to produce anything remotely bordering on sonically acceptable.
George Martin therefore, decided to revisit the original 4 track and 8 track tapes and reconstruct them for CD, playing to the strengths of the new medium. Exactly as he did 20 years before with the vinyl cuts. He knew that 60's mono turntables had dirt cheap ceramic cartridges with poor treble, so on the singles and mono LP's he exaggerated this at mixdown stage. These cheap cartridges would jump at the slightest hint of any deep bass, so this had to be reduced, with the upper bass over emphasised to compensate. This kind of mix had the added advantage that it would stand out as "loud" on the radio. Stereo records and record players were too expensive for much of their audience. Nevertheless, these masters were slightly more civilised treble/bass-wise. Martin freely admits that his early-mid 60's stereo mixes were experiments. The bizarre stereo positions were to exaggerate the effect on commonplace "glorified furniture cabinets" where the speakers were not far enough apart for conventional stereo positions to be obvious!
For his 80's CD transfers, Martin sensitively played to CD's strengths, ie, strong bass, good dynamics, reduced wow & flutter, at least compared to cassette, and guaranteed 20Hz-20Khz frequency range at source stage. Amps on cheap systems with reduced frequency range (read all-in-one systems/ghetto blasters/cheap active PC speakers and the like) will all create a bottleneck. He tweaked the EQ and adjusted the stereo mixes slightly, as the originals sound weird to the post 60's ear. The results were mixes that gave the impression of the originals, albeit with greater fidelity. Diehard 60's fans were not happy, including myself at first. However my first CD player was exceptionally crude - as were most players at the time. As my wages have improved to be able to allow myself the luxury of budget hi-fi esoterica and CD player technology has improved I have grown to appreciate the Martin CD transfers. The point is, Martin aimed his transfers at those who could afford CD players in the early 80's when this new technology was priced very highly. These would most likely have been audiophiles used to really fine recordings. It took till the early 90's for the sophisticated technology of audiophile players to trickle down to prices the masses could afford.
The problem these days is that engineers who are catering for the mass market face commercial pressure to make MONEY more than ever. So much so that very little commercial music is optimised for the best (or even merely) "better" quality systems. Rather, it is optimised for today's equivalent of the cheap mono record player with the ceramic cartridge - i.e. the iPod/MP3 player and the PC.
I love my iPod. It has replaced the wodge of CD's that usually ended up littering my car during my daily crawl to work. However, I am under no illusion about the sound quality. The headphone amp is poor, therefore volume is weak, even at high settings that stress the circuitry. Stress=poor quality. The headphones on these things are even poorer and many people never replace them. Downloads from online music stores actually throw musical data away. The computer algorithm thinks we won't notice, but we do! I once played a 128kbps download of Prince's 1999 to my non-audiophile brother on my Rega system. He said straight away: "That sounds like a tinny radio". I played the same commercial CD next, and the difference, even to him, was like night & day. Thankfully Apple are upgrading the quality of their downloads, but even so the bitrate is less than a third of an average lossless file.
The temptation then, is to master music that flatters iPods and computers. And in true subtle as a brick fashion, the philosophy is simply, "let's make it as loud as possible". Loud sells. I love loud music, but what has been forgotten is that you cannot have loud without quiet. Let's imagine a beat of a drum. The initial strike of beater against skin is the loudest bit. Then the sound rapidly trails away. It is this often imperceptible volume change that helps us feel the rhythm. The problem is (and has always been) - how to record that huge gulf between loud and soft without distorting the loudest peaks, or the quiet signals being buried among noise. Today's answer is simple. Greatly limit the amplitude of the peaks, so they never reach distortion point. Then increase the gain of the rest of the signal, to give the impression of loudness. The trouble is, then even the quiet passages are loud. This sets the listeners nerves on edge. Because if the quiet parts are THIS LOUD, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO MY EARDRUMS WHEN IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOUD? And people stop listening.
To use an analogy, it is like a giant who is too tall to enter a room. Rather than making the door bigger, the solution is to chop off his upper body and throw that away. This is essentially what happens to the loudest peaks in today's mastering methods. Once the giant is inside the room, we can recreate the illusion of a big person by stretching his legs so they touch the ceiling. Or can we? The very personality and heart and soul of the giant is in the bin.
A hifi reviewer recently remarked that it is ironic that those who care about sound quality are now searching out non-remastered CD transfers for eBay and charity shops. And it is not only remasters of older LP's that suffer. Modern CD's suffer all the more so, because they have been conceived in this way form the ground up. Everyone from Michael Buble to Leona Lewis to Coldplay to The Kooks to Kanye West to Razorlight are suffering. Even the Metallica fans are complaining about it.
So how can this practice be stopped? People love their iPods and rightly so. Arguably they turn more people on to music than ever, and that is a Good Thing. But I would like to see an audiophile version on the market, one that used a high grade DAC, a decent headphone amp and high grade headphones. This will cost. But I believe with the right market push (and Apple have got that bit right!) it will sell. We have had an iPod that makes phone calls. Now let's have one that makes a decent fist of playing music!
Secondly I would like to see (and hear!) CD's being optimised for the strengths of CD players again. That is, to re-iterate, a high dynamic range. Yes you heard me! CD players do loud and soft very well indeed, with music that still has this data intact. Passable treble (although not as good as SACD), firm bass and virtually zilch wow & flutter. But this can only be appreciated if the peaks are not as heavily limited. This will mean that engineers will have to use lower recording levels, but hey! The dynamic range will be intact! If it needs to be a little louder, turn it up! On the best systems with low residual noise, this means that the dynamic range will be appreciated all the more. The quiet passages will stay quiet, the louder parts will increase in scale, rather than making your ears bleed. Proper loud music is a pleasure to listen to! However, if you want real rhythm and gut wrenching emotion, I am afraid it is the black stuff played on quality equipment that will win out. Sorry digi-fans!
For those who need it, LOUD masters could be the preserve of low bitrate downloads. If you are on a busy commuter train or jogging through the park, you may need the benefit of a dynamically compressed recording so that quiet parts are not obscured by traffic noise and the like.
Thirdly, and most emphatically, I would like to see more people getting to hear for themselves what well-reproduced music sounds like. This means comparing with the live concert. Although I would warn against using music at an outdoor gig where people are chattering, getting plastered and constantly going off to the loo as a yardstick for serious listening. However, a good pop gig, in an acoustically acceptable venue where it is possible to concentrate will reveal the substandard CD master/remaster for what it is! Classical fans often have no real need to worry about mastering quality, even on older recordings. But in this context, it will be possible to judge how well or not a system is performing. There are also hi-fi separates shops that are happy to demonstrate their equipment. It all sounds different, and one man's meat is another man's poison. Any dealer worth their salt will be happy enough to show this - if not, find one who is, and don't buy from someone who won't let you try before you buy. I think that most people will be amazed at what even a system priced similarly to a mid-range laptop (or low range MacBook!!) is capable of. It will blow you away! Who needs unnaturally LOUD (re)masters????
More information: http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/kozinn.htm (Interview with George Martin)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVnmM_XyDuE (I quote the hi fi press on this issue.)
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/ (Find out about the quality of remastered recordings before you buy! Join in the forums.)
http://www.rega.co.uk (This is my favourite mid-range hi-fi manufacturer. Basic engineering done well, focussing on sonics rather than cramming in features. Check out their Apollo CD player and P3-24 record player. Audiophile quality at very sensible prices. Well sensible in an industry where people will often pay 3 figures plus for a bit of cable to hook the lot together anyway!)
Overall , I enjoyed listening to this concert on BBC Radio 2. Most acts did justice to the material. In particular, both of Kylie Minogue's songs, Super Trouper and when All Is Said And Done were superb. The slower, more pianistic arrangement of the latter, I think, suits it better than the synthesised version on the Visitors. Also I enjoyed The Feeling, especially their take on Does Your Mother Know. The excerpts from Chess, though, were stunning. Maybe it's just me, but ABBA songs without Agnetha and Frida lose a lot of their magic qualities. With the Chess songs, you kind of get used to the fact that many different artistes will sing them. Perhaps with the exception of I Know Him So Well, which is definitely Elaine And Barbara's song, the songs are not "owned" by any particular performer. This makes it easier for the psyche to accept the songs as songs, rather than bound up with the personalities and emotional nostalgia.
Benny was greeted with tumultuous applause and chanting of Benny, Benny, Benny etc... The applause became a bit muted after he revealed that he was going to play a piece of music that was about 100 years old, which is a bit of a shame for English audiences, as, were they to open their minds a bit, there is much to be gained from Benny's particular brand of folk music on both an emotional and pure enjoyment level. Rowing On The Serpentine was beautiful - it must have been great to be in Hyde Park itself, with this gorgeous piece floating past your eardrums.
Disappointments? I've left these till last.
1. Where was Annie Lennox? I thought Benny wanted to hear her sing The Day Before You Came?
2. Jason Donovan. Was he drunk? I Have A Dream just sounded off-key and gravelly beyond belief.
3. Likewise I ask the same of Chaka! What in tarnation was that? I appreciate she was trying to be a Diva and improvise etc... But The Winner Takes It All is hardly the right song to get this treatment. Because the girls in ABBA sang relatively straight, in other words, the notes as they are written, all that screaming just ruined it. Especially when she tried to rise to higher notes in the verses, it just sounded wrong, horribly off key. It became a paean to Ms Khan's ego - quite the opposite of the self-effacing way Agnetha sang the song.
4. I am bound to say this. Having the boys up on stage for a few words towards the end was very touching. If only Agnetha and/or Frida had bothered to acknowledge the fans in some way. If they could not get to the event, maybe a pre-recorded video would have been nice. Or even just a few words sent by e-mail, and read out on the night. That would not have killed them. After all, they do stand to benefit, as ABBA records (sadly I mean CD's!) will now pour out of the shops, thus keeping their bread well buttered.