This approach to 'remastering' old promo videos from the standard definition era really irritates me.

In an ideal world, they'd have access to all the original physical film elements and be able to scan them in true HD, then re-edit all the relevant pieces into new versions of the promo videos, but obviously this all costs a lot of money and time, and relies on the original film takes still existing. A lot of bands/record companies choose to (or have to) resort to upscaling the standard definition master tapes instead. Now, the upscaling can be done very carefully and faithfully, like is done for the Doctor Who classic series Blu-rays, and the results can be very good, but again this costs money and time, and takes people who care about the process to be involved every step of the way to make sure the outcome is successful.

The quicker and cheaper option is employing a company that has a restricted timescale to get it all done. They could have still got away with it... just... but then the situation was taken to whole new levels of crazy by deciding to make 4K versions as well. Now again, if you have the original film elements you can scan in 4K etc.. etc... but that's more expensive than an HD scan, and clearly not the case here anyway. So, if you only have access to a standard definition master tape, to upscale that to 4K, you need to employ some serious AI guess work, and that's unfortunately the approach we've got here. It's crazy! At that resolution, the original source material only constitutes about 10% of the final image and the other 90% is invented by the computer! No wonder it looks so odd. I guess, being kind, it's a wonder it looks like anything resembling the original, considering the process the footage has gone through.

And yes, you can switch the quality on YouTube to whatever you want, but if the source file is AI upscaled 4K, when it gets downsampled to lower resolutions (1080, 720, 480 etc.), it looks even more rubbish than if they'd just uploaded the original standard definition files and left it as that.

It's such a shame that it seems the band weren't consulted about it closely. I'm sure Jarvis, as a former film student, wouldn't have allowed such a lazy approach.

Anyway... apologies, rant over. I just wish things could have been different.

-- Edited by sbazb on Saturday 2nd of September 2023 11:53:00 AM

-- Edited by sbazb on Saturday 2nd of September 2023 01:58:41 PM

makes sense that Island/Universal are taking the cheap route because for them its all about clicks. If they get us watching these videos in a slightly better quality than what was previously available then all is well. Yeah its lazy work for them but at the end of the day, they dont care. Like you said its a shame Pulp didnt get more closely involved with it but Im still grateful were getting this as this time 2 years ago i wouldnt have thought this wouldve happened.

Pip wrote:

---

hawalius1 wrote:

---

Like a Friend (in better quality than I've seen before)

---

And yet, for me at least, it still looks terrible. The band shots were clearly originally recorded on film (filmising video was pretty crude back in 1998) then mastered as SD video, so the upscaling is trying to recover detail that simply isn't there. Add to that excessive edge enhancement, over-smoothing (adding an unnatural waxy/smooth effect to faces, making them look like an oil painting) and crushed blacks and you're left with an over-processed mess . And the clips taken from the film are horribly soft in comparison, like sub-DVD quality. I'm grateful the band/label are making an effort, don't get me wrong, it's just a pity we don't have a better result.

This video on the subject by Tom Scott is well worth a watch, if you're interested in such things.

-- Edited by Pip on Friday 1st of September 2023 12:45:15 PM

---

 

Yes! Thank you, I keep thinking about that Tom Scott video too.

Blowing up videos from a tape master to 1080 is bad enough. Blowing it up to "4k" is some serious brass neck. Weird waxy shite and the cinephiles in the band should be ashamed, honestly, if they had any say in it.

I had a listen this morning. Again, it has been years since I listened to the remixes.

Firstly, the A-sides. I think that "The Trees" is a nice song and it works great within the context of the album but a single, it is not. "Sunrise" doesn't sound like a single when taken at face value but from August 2000 and into 2001, it did get rave reviews so I think it would have worked earlier in the year. By the time they actually released it, all this momentum had gone.

Sure, "Something Changed", "Help the Aged" and "This is Hardcore" weren't obvious singles but Pulp's popularity at the time enabled them to get these songs into the top 20. Given the relative drop in sales of "This is Hardcore" this single really needed to be a big comeback. There were 4 better alternatives (Weeds, Minnie, Birds in your Garden and Bad Cover Version).

I don't think that the double A-side concept worked this time round. Both songs were played on the radio but "The Trees" was unlikely to be noticed and as I said previously, "Sunrise" would have worked better at least a few months earlier. I remember that Island guy in Sturdy's book saying how the double A-side was a compromise because the label wanted "The Trees" and the band wanted "Sunrise" as the single. One possible theory for the label wanting "The Trees" is its structure; some of the other songs (Weeds, Minnie, I Love Life, Bad Cover Version and Sunrise) veer off into an entirely different section half way through the song which is great but "The Trees" has a verse/chorus/verse/chorus/instrumental/chorus/outro structure. Either way, they could have possibly settled the dispute and sold more records by choosing a totally different song as the single. We'll never know.

Matters weren't helped by the CD:UK performance which I believe was the band's first appearance on UK TV to promote the single and album. Cutting the song short was one thing (and probably not their decision) but the obvious lack of desire to be on stage was painful to watch. Not a good way to promote a comeback single after 3 years.

The Fat Truckers' remix of "Sunrise" is fun and unlike some of the previous remixes, it doesn't last too long, which works in its favour. The All Seeing I remix is also fun and it's interesting to hear the spoken word vocals. The I Monster remix of "The Trees" is quite relaxing and sounds like something that would appear on an Air album. The Lovejoy remix is pretty boring but 3 good remixes out of 4 is better than most of the previous singles have managed.

My main problem with this single is that there were no proper B-sides. I asked Alex from Pulp People at the time and she said that everything Scott Walker produced was included on the album so there were no extra tracks. Well, I'm sure others will agree here but were we really bothered who produced the B-sides? Jarvis said in interviews at the time that some of the Chris Thomas tracks were recorded to a very high standard so surely someone could have finished them off to be used as B-sides here (as per the "Bad Cover Version" B-sides). I already had all 3 versions of "Sunrise" on the promo from earlier in the year and had heard "The Trees" on the Homelands radio broadcast so I actually considered skipping this single and waiting 2 weeks for the album.

The video for "The Trees" leaves plenty to be desired. For starters, it's too dark and the "Gap" effects were a kind of novelty thing at the time. Pulp's music videos were always great, even the low budget Fire ones and "Something Changed" which, all told, featured some impressive camera work. There's just nothing special about this one at all.

Overall, whilst it was nice to hear fresh new material and the remixes weren't too bad, this is the closest Pulp came to a disaster single. I'm really not surprised that it only reached number 23 and spent a week in the charts. We couldn't have realistically expected anything better.

I second that, Eamonn. Let's have a book from that member too whoever it is! Enjoying their writing and stories. Hearing from the other members also calls to mind for me a Jarvis interview I listened to the other day, don't ask me which one, think it was a Covid era one because it was online and Jarvis mentioned that in later years it has transpired that other members of the band could sing unbeknownst to him. Was wondering who. I mean I know Candida did some backing vocals and we've heard Russell's voice but who else.

Edit: I just checked - it's the interview with a YouTube channel called The Current at the part where they're discussing the call and response vocals on Beyond the Pale and he mentions how in Pulp he was the vocalist and since discovered some of the others could but never volunteered. Just curious who.

-- Edited by Jean on Saturday 9th of September 2023 01:20:19 PM

-- Edited by Jean on Saturday 9th of September 2023 01:45:54 PM

Eamonn wrote:

---

The commentary for the Party Hard single is finally up.

Who writes these, is it Mark? They're so great, whoever it is, I want them to write their story of Pulp.

---

 I'm missing something here, sorry. Where are these commentaries?! Thank you!

Eamonn wrote:

---

The commentary for the Party Hard single is finally up.

Who writes these, is it Mark? They're so great, whoever it is, I want them to write their story of Pulp.

---

 The use of the word "inept" in the post about Party Hard would suggest so. Also Mark was the last known person to have the "keys" to the twitter account after Tim Burgess's listening party. 

Jean wrote:

---

They're on Facebook and Instagram, Sleeve. Thanks, Sarah - that's all news to me. Haven't heard of any of that. Always curious to hear a bit more about the other members too.

---

 Many thanks. They're really good. Pretty sure it's Mark.

They didnt check the rule for singles chart. I mean. speechless.

If anyone is interested, I have made a YouTube playlist of Pulp's singles.

There are a couple of omissions as not all the pre-Island B-sides are on there. I will add "Bad Cover Version" when available.

music.youtube.com/playlist

So in an hour and a few minutes, the Pulp Island singles rerelease will be over. Wonder what's next to fill the 2 month gap between now and the South American shows?