Album Reviews

Given a choice of great mastering and pressing or packaging true to the original, which would you choose? Yes, I know, why not produce a definitive reissue that offers great mastering and pressing and the original triple gatefold jacket and the original limited edition booklet? But clearly that wasn't in the cards for whoever was in charge in order to bring this project to market within budget so it could be sold at a particular price point, which in this case is $39.00 for the double LP set.

Had historical accuracy, not price point been paramount, this would have been a triple-gatefold, triptych-style folded panel package that paid homage to Pete Townshend's friend Mike McInnerney's spectacular cover art.

Unfold an original American Decca or U.K. Track, turn it over and you see not the flat latticework cover but the full curvature of a lattice globe floating dramatically in space. Buyers of this reissue won't be able to appreciate the artwork and its induced sensation of floating, which is something the music too produces, because part of it's been tossed to fit it into a double gatefold. Maybe the reissue producer doesn't like sconces.

On the other hand, even Track cheaped out early on, eliminating the original's sumptuous, glossy cover lamination for a far less dramatic opaque paper.

When Classic Records reissued Tommy, label owner Mike Hobson went to fanatical lengths to recreate the original U.K. Track cover art and he succeeded completely down to the cloth-like paper used on the right hand most panel under which both LPs slid, one accessible from a left opening pocket and one from the right. It was a complex construction but Classic reproduced it.

Universal chose not to. But Universal, like Classic, did reproduce the limited edition booklet. And Universal had Kevin Gray, not "A. Nonymous" cut lacquers and this was very well pressed at QRP. So I'm willing to cut Universal some packaging slack to get QRP quality pressings.

So now we get to source. There's been so much confusion around Tommy right from the start. The photo at the top is one I took at Bernie Grundman's when Classic reissued Tommy (Chris Bellman did the actual cutting). Near the top you'll find U.S. Decca catalog numbers not UK Track numbers. That's odd.

More unusual actually is that the tape actually exists at all. The story went that producer Kit Lambert brought the tapes to America, had Decca master them and then he set them on fire or destroyed them in some kind of nihilistic rage. Maybe he just destroyed the tape box?

In any case, the tape existed in fine condition back in 2006. One interesting fact discovered playing the tape against the original pressing was that the tape had been purposely sped up during mastering for at least one tune, to add excitement or make it flow better. For whatever reason or reason, that was the case and when Chris Bellman cut lacquers for the Classic reissue he did likewise, so the reissue would faithfully duplicate the original. Do I now remember the track or tracks on which this occurred? No I don't. Do I know if the original Decca followed suit? No I don't.

This reissue was cut by Kevin Gray from 96/24 files source from? No one is talking so the only way to find out was to listen. Apparently a 2003 stereo reissue was sourced from an alternative master long thought to have been lost that had less echo and fewer vocal overdubs. That's what I've heard but I haven't heard it. This reissue was not cut from that source. If this is a new stereo remix it was done with fanatic attention to the original—at least based upon the tracks I auditioned.

What? I didn't listen to the entire thing? Well, here's what I compared: two U.S. Decca originals, a Track original, and a Track second pressing, Classic's reissue, this new one and the HDTracks 96/24 version, which I'm sure was sourced from the same files used here.

That's seven copies so I hope you'll cut me some slack for not listening completely to all of them. I also have Track volumes 1 and 2 which were sold separately and which makes no sense considering that this is a fully integrated work unless you realize how expensive the double LP set must have been for the average poor kid in the U.K. at the time. What also didn't make sense was the alternate version of "Eyesight to the Blind" that appeared on the separate Volume 1. It also was the one on the Mobile Fidelity gold CD version of Tommy. Are you yet thoroughly confused? if not, read on!

I started by listening to this new pressing. I listened to the "Overture", "It's a Boy" and then "Sally Simpson," "I'm Free" and "Welcome" (because once I start with "Sally Simpson" I can't stop listening—and that's after 45 years of listening!).

I'd played the 96/24 download when it first arrived and didn't care for the drum sound, particularly the cymbals, which sounded more like air brakes than metal being bashed by Mr. Moon. That original Track is locked into my brain. However, I came away from these LPs thinking that you'd have to be a complete knucklehead to not like how this Tommy sounded. Yes, it was a bit "overextended" on top, but the cymbals shimmered and the skins had the texture and elasticity that you crave from well-recorded drums.

I paid particular attention to "Welcome", which has that ethereal background vocal falsetto and a fine mix of acoustic instruments as well as some of Moon's more delicate playing on the record. The instrumental and vocal three-dimensionality was impressive. When I played the same tracks on the HDTracks download, not so much! Was my DAC not as good as Kevin Gray's? No doubt that's part of it but perhaps part of it is also the lacquer cutting process and/or what he did to the raw decoded files in his final mastering.

Whatever it was, the vinyl cut from the same files was more sonically satisfying and by a wide margin.

Then it was on to the U.S. Decca, which I'd not played in years. Sometimes as your system changes your assessment of various pressings changes. Not this time. The original Decca has no bass. Well not "no" bass, but not much of a foundation and the mids and upper mids had been boosted too, producing an unlistenable swill of hard and bright. The second copy was as bad as the first. The bass cut is not surprising. Decca did the same thing to Elton John's eponymously titled album. The Dick James Music (DJM) original has thunderous bass. The UNI original, none below around 80Hz.

On to the Track original pressing. It was every bit as good, even magical, as I always though it was, particularly in terms of three-dimensionality. On "Welcome", the falsetto voice floated eerily untethered in three-dimensional space, as did all of the other elements in the mix. It's as if the original Track achieves phase and time perfection. Not on every track, but on most. And w'ere talking about an original pressing I've played dozens if not a hundred times. The magic in those grooves was also in grooves of the Track second pressing only, slightly diminished.

Then it was on to the Classic reissue cut from that pictured tape and plated and pressed at RTI. Now this was a big surprise! Even though the Classic cut referenced an original I brought with me, it was warmer and richer sounding than the original almost in ways that made it less sonically appealing than the original and the 96/24 sourced cut by Kevin Gray.

The Classic reissue was smooth and suave sounding, with very good resolution of inner detail, but it was flat-sounding and was lacking individual image three- dimensionality compared to the original Track. That was the biggest surprise. Then I went back and forth between the original Track pressing and this new one, which is advertised as having been "re-mastered" but not "re-mixed".

My conclusion is that this new reissue is sourced from the original mix used for the Track original and for Classic's reissue too. It's from the tape you see at the top of this page. So why does the Classic sound so different? I don't know. Perhaps somehow, when this tape was remastered from that tape they were able to restore and enhance in the digital domain some of what age had destroyed? Again, I don't know.

But comparing the original and this reissue back to back was the most interesting. They were more similar than they were different, tonally, dynamically and spatially but one was "organic" and effortlessly transparent while the other had a feel that was "reconstructed" or "reconstituted" even as its overall contours were nearly identical.

Would I have liked to hear what Kevin Gray could have done with the tape? Would I really like to hear what Kevin and Chris Bellman each could do with the tape now that BG's chain has been rebuilt (as has Kevin's)? You betcha! Maybe we could Kickstarter fund it. But it's also possible that only in the digital domain could the restorative efforts have been made that produced a result so close the original LP. Just speculating.

Back in the real world, despite the mediocre packaging, sonically this is a very good vinyl reissue of Tommy. I'd have to be a knucklehead to write otherwise.