Guess who?

[Deege]

I agree. I am STILL bummed about Randy Castillo. He was an amazing talent.
I think that Brian Tichy should join Ozzy's band on drums, he's a killer drummer. I love Mike Bordin in Faith No More, but his style, in my opinion, hasn't fit Ozzy's band since he's been in it. He doesn't "flow" well enough, he's more of a funk type of drummer and it doesn't mesh well enough.

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by jpaudio
I always felt Inez/Castillo/Wylde represented Ozzy's music best... the next band, Holmes/Trujillo/Bordin, didn't quite do it for me in the same way (snip)...

I was partial to the Rhoads/Sarzo/Aldridge lineup...

[Sofa King]

Originally posted by blackcatdigi
I was partial to the Rhoads/Sarzo/Aldridge lineup...

agreed.




.

[Deege]

Well I visited Michael's studio like mentioned earlier in the thread. After hearing his recordings, I will never be able to hear Ozzmosis the same way again. Michael, your recordings put the final album to shame. Ozzy should never have released Ozzmosis with Michael Beinhorn. Big mistake, in my opinion. Damn label execs!
Also, if you guys want to hear some more work that Michael Wagener recorded for Ozzmosis, the 2 b-sides "Aimee" and "Living With The Enemy" that were released are 2 of the 7 songs he recorded for Ozzy, the ones that are released are the same versions.

[robocop]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by alphajerk
i have a question about production from back then that i cant seem to repro... the verb on the snare. wtf?!? how do you get the massiveness of it while still keeping the snare relatively foward? it ALWAYS pushes mine back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

it's kinda of a gated verb. if you keep the snare kinda thin and then add some beef to the verb {150 to 300} it's easy to get that sound. the verb fills the depth in. same with a kick.

[SoftlySpokenMag]

Hi! Your version of Ozzmosis is great Mr. Wagener! Do you think Ozzy or his label would ever be interested in putting out a different version of Ozzmosis with your recordings on it? Of course, the main example I'm referring to is The Beatles' latest release, "Let It Be-Naked" a stripped down version of their "Spectorized" back- to- basics album. I know I would definitely be interested and many others. The main thing I have listened to on the Prince of Darkness box set is the See you on the other side demo. Ozzmosis-Naked?

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by blackcatdigi

I was partial to the Rhoads/Sarzo/Aldridge lineup...

Same here.. maybe I am just getting old I guess......
fuuck

[jerdude]

hey that wagener guy is pretty freekin cool!!

serious!

[mwagener]

yeah the Darkmaster himself finally put it into writing on his boxset that he liked the "original" version of "See You..." better, seems like they are letting little bits come out over time

[Deege]

That's awesome although I don't agree with it being labeled a "demo." When I listen to the album version and your version back to back...the album version sounds like the demo.

[FireMoon]

Hmmmmmmmmm i think my hair back combed and gelled itself just listening to that.
Im in agreement about his voice on there, sounds way more like the dude we all know and love.

However, whislt not *condoning* what was done after i can see more than simple commercial reasons for the idea to change the mix. There was a definite backlash against the percieved *grandeur* of a lot of rock records. And, if i may be so bold as to say, rock had v become formulaic and hidebound by a certain *style*,

The irony of course being, we have now entered a phase where it is repeating exactly the same problem. That is, guitarists have become well, for want of a better phrase, merely *generic cyphers*.

In te 80s it was dial a sqeuaky pointy headstock tone, the 00s are dial a generic humbucker *punky* tone.

Nio matter how superbly produced there is that awful feeling in your gut that , "Hang on we've been here before so many times ,can someone please breakout of this straight jacket we have zipped ourselves into"?.

At what point do you look up from the desk and wonder.?? There has to be something fresh somthing that makes me think.......OMFG Yessssss this is what i got into this for.?


Did that Ozzy album really stretch you artistically, or as i suspect , was that another day at the office time? Its all there, each carefully contsructed sound, it fair rolls over you like a steamroller stuck in turbo going downhill. But, and forgive me my forwardness but i dont get that many opportunites to ask these questions openly. even now do you listen to it and think shame that wasnt 1985?


And there lies the quandry, at what point did Oz become routine rather than slightly out there? As perfect a recording as it is, this to my ears is the Ozmeister by numbers. I'm minded of the poem by Browning about that renaissance artist who was consdiered to have *perfect technique* but no heart.

Part of his charm was that always slightly shambolic side to his output. He's like the talented kid who rushes his homework in the morning in bed before school. The teachers know he's doing it but you can never quite pin anything disaterous on the guy so he always gets away with it. And thats maybe why his fans love him he is them, they can relate to him.

Personally, and this is totally my own take. Oz should be working with the likes of M Mansun and Trent Reznor, not trying to ape Soundgarden or prolly right now, Green Day. There i believe he might find something truly of his own heart, something dark yet witty, something that is truly him.

Anyway, thanx a lot for letting us in on this piece of rock histroy Mike, Its a true privilege t o get to hear it. Finaly ,if i might be so bold might i PM you with a question?

[JDinBNA]

Geeez. That's just absolutely..... HUGE.

Thanks Mr. Wagener!!!

[kats]

At what point do you look up from the desk and wonder.?? There has to be something fresh somthing that makes me think.......OMFG Yessssss this is what i got into this for.?

Naahhh.

Painters have been stuck with the same damn colors for centuries. In audio we're getting close to the point where sonics and the emotional attachment to the different styles are pretty much laid down. It's a matter of matching styles that compliment the music the best.

Gridding, sampling, triggering, digital, analogue, live room, dead room etc are all just sonic styles. The "freshness" comes from the music itself and how well it's mated with the sonic style.

[mwagener]

Originally Posted by FireMoon

Hmmmmmmmmm i think my hair back combed and gelled itself just listening to that.
Im in agreement about his voice on there, sounds way more like the dude we all know and love.

However, whislt not *condoning* what was done after i can see more than simple commercial reasons for the idea to change the mix. There was a definite backlash against the percieved *grandeur* of a lot of rock records. And, if i may be so bold as to say, rock had v become formulaic and hidebound by a certain *style*,

The irony of course being, we have now entered a phase where it is repeating exactly the same problem. That is, guitarists have become well, for want of a better phrase, merely *generic cyphers*.

In te 80s it was dial a sqeuaky pointy headstock tone, the 00s are dial a generic humbucker *punky* tone.

Nio matter how superbly produced there is that awful feeling in your gut that , "Hang on we've been here before so many times ,can someone please breakout of this straight jacket we have zipped ourselves into"?.

At what point do you look up from the desk and wonder.?? There has to be something fresh somthing that makes me think.......OMFG Yessssss this is what i got into this for.?


Did that Ozzy album really stretch you artistically, or as i suspect , was that another day at the office time? Its all there, each carefully contsructed sound, it fair rolls over you like a steamroller stuck in turbo going downhill. But, and forgive me my forwardness but i dont get that many opportunites to ask these questions openly. even now do you listen to it and think shame that wasnt 1985?


And there lies the quandry, at what point did Oz become routine rather than slightly out there? As perfect a recording as it is, this to my ears is the Ozmeister by numbers. I'm minded of the poem by Browning about that renaissance artist who was consdiered to have *perfect technique* but no heart.

Part of his charm was that always slightly shambolic side to his output. He's like the talented kid who rushes his homework in the morning in bed before school. The teachers know he's doing it but you can never quite pin anything disaterous on the guy so he always gets away with it. And thats maybe why his fans love him he is them, they can relate to him.

Personally, and this is totally my own take. Oz should be working with the likes of M Mansun and Trent Reznor, not trying to ape Soundgarden or prolly right now, Green Day. There i believe he might find something truly of his own heart, something dark yet witty, something that is truly him.

Anyway, thanx a lot for letting us in on this piece of rock histroy Mike, Its a true privilege t o get to hear it. Finaly ,if i might be so bold might i PM you with a question?

All true, BUT the label asked me to do THE SAME album/sound as "No More Tears", which was very successful at that time. That's what I did, until they (the label, not Oz) decided in the middle of the production that it NOW should sound like Soundgarden. And as mentioned before, Oz liked the first version better

[Leo Badinella]

Originally Posted by mwagener

Here is a little morsel from a not-to-be-named artist. It's the original mix of a song that never made the album release. Keep in mind that this is unmastered and was mixed in the very early 90s when we still were allowed to put reverb on snares

I faded it for obvious reasons

I realize it's been some time since this thread died, nevertheless I wanted to say thank you very much Mr. Wagener for sharing this snippet with us, it sounds so much better than the version that got released...the guitar sound is amazing and the rhythm section really bounces. Brilliant. If I'm ever around your neighbourhood I'll drop in to take a listen to the other tracks.
That is of course if I can get passed the driveway and I don't get eaten by dogs or something.

Thanks you, thank you, thank you.

[Dahmen]

Hello Michael.

Thank you very much for that snippet. Vielen Dank! If i would not live in germany i would be one of the next guys to show up at your studio and listen to these original versions! Haha. I grew up with 'Ozzmosis' in my player but never liked the sound. Your mix would have fitted the whol OZZY-thing a lot better.

[Deege]

Just so you all know,
on Ozzy's recent Box Set, the song labeled as the "See You On The Other Side (Demo)" is Michael's production from these recordings. It's far from a demo, it sounds more produced than the final version LOL Also, the Ozzy b-sides "Living With The Enemy" and "Aimee" are also the same recordings from Michael's sessions. So, the only songs not released are "Perry Mason" (in full), "Old L.A. Tonight," "Tomorrow," and "Slow Burn" (which is not released in any form).

[Sounds Great]

Oh, I thought it was the Guess Who.

Great work.

[alnico]

The No More Tears chorus always sounded liked a slowed down version of a riff in UFO's (Michael Schenker) "Mother Mary" from their "Force It" album. Anyone else ever notice that?!

[Oscar]

I had to stop lurking to jump on this one. I've been listening to the album cut & Michael's version back to back for the last 30 minutes, and wow. Michael's version is so much better that the album cut becomes unlistenable when played next to it (at least to my ears). No disrespect to the people who engineered & mixed the album cut, because I'm sure they're much better at what they do than I would be, but if I was in their shoes I would have felt uncomfortably aweful knowing that my version was going to be on the album when a more musical sounding, sonically superior version was going to end up shelved, possibly forever.

This is coming from the perspective of someone who was very young when Ozzmosis came out, appreciates & enjoys Ozzy's music, but doesn't consider himself an Ozzy fanatic. I understand where the label was coming from when they decided people might think Michael's version of the album was boring because it sounds like the same old formula, or played out, but the true test of an album is how good it sounds outside its "time". There have been a lot of albums that were good when they came out, but have all but disappeared now. Then there are the classics that will never sound bad in any context. I'm not trying to group Michael's version or the released version of Ozzmosis in either of those categories, but it seems to me that the label sacrificed some of the album's long range appeal in order to make it sound more current. At the time, the released version may have sold more albums than Michael's version would have. But me, listening to the two versions in 2006... no contest.

Comparitively, the drums on the released version sound lifeless and, well, just lame. Sonically the album version sounds harsh and muddy to me after listening to Michael's version. Also, there are little musical elements in certain guitar parts that are pushed WAY further back in the mix on the album version. When Ozzy is dead and sales figures and relevancy don't matter anymore, it's truly a shame that Michael's version is just a "demo" that Ozzy's fans don't get to hear.

Edit: I think my post sounds more serious than intended. The seriousness stems from anger with label execs choosing profit over integrity and making the "product" as in demand as possible over making the music as good as possible.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally Posted by mwagener

All true, BUT the label asked me to do THE SAME album/sound as "No More Tears", which was very successful at that time. That's what I did, until they (the label, not Oz) decided in the middle of the production that it NOW should sound like Soundgarden. And as mentioned before, Oz liked the first version better

I know we go through this kinda thing all the time...

The label wants it like blah & we do blah...then they want blee so we do blee...

And yet in most cases the artist has SO little say in the matter, most of the time they're mearly pawns.

But I dunno...

Does a guy like Ozzy have to 'bow' to the whims of the label as they spend his money?!?

Couldn't someone in his position tell 'em to stuff it 'cause he likes 'X' better then 'O' and thats what HE wants HIS record to be?

[NeoVXR]

why don't they sell all that on itunes, as "remixes" ? after all the time it won't compete against the old album but add to sales...

[roxxon]

KILLER!

Sounds unreal!

You Rock, M.W.!

[Mike Jasper]

This is a geat sonic example of why I always pay attention to what Michael says. He walks his talk.

Jasper

[stagefright13]

Wow that sounds awesome. The Guitars are MASSIVE and the background vocals are stunning! Almost gives me chills lol. The version on the cd isn't even close. And that is an mp3. Must really be great in another format. Thanks Michael!!! I'm sure me and alot of others would like to hear some more "Snippets". (Hint Hint)

[Psychoguitarz]

Originally Posted by blackcatdigi

I was partial to the Rhoads/Sarzo/Aldridge lineup...

Bob Daisley = Da Man!!!


Rhoads/Daisley/Aldridge get my vote for the ultimate line-up

And this track sounds great! I'm a bit late catching up here LOL

[Marjan]

Originally Posted by Oscar

No disrespect to the people who engineered & mixed the album cut, because I'm sure they're much better at what they do than I would be, but if I was in their shoes I would have felt uncomfortably aweful knowing that my version was going to be on the album when a more musical sounding, sonically superior version was going to end up shelved, possibly forever.

May be it will be realised one day... We've seen that happen before with other bands.

[Danny Danzi]

Originally Posted by mwagener

Here is a little morsel from a not-to-be-named artist. It's the original mix of a song that never made the album release. Keep in mind that this is unmastered and was mixed in the very early 90s when we still were allowed to put reverb on snares

I faded it for obvious reasons

Michael, first off I've been a huge fan since the Dokken days and appreciate that you spend time here helping us and giving incredible insight. It shows despite your success, you're very grounded and sincere and I can't stress enough how great it is to have you here. I'd like to ask a few questions if I may if you have the time to answer please?

You mention above " when we were still allowed to put reverb on snares." Why would they stop you from doing that when it just sounds better? I mean, ok some of the 80's sounding "hangar" type snares may have been a bit harsh (though they worked for the times) but what's wrong with using a tight little gated snare to make it shine? Seriously man, did someone literally tell you not to use that? I find it amazing that the industry takes production type issues out of the mix. Most of the buying public doesn't even know what a gated snare is or if it's even used. They don't get passed the melody, the lyrics and the beat of a song, know what I mean?

I know we have to change and evolve with the times (though I'm still a die-hard 80's rocker and always will be) but just because the times are changing doesn't mean we as producers have to follow as well, do we? I mean, listen to that Metallica album that that other producer (who shall remain nameless) did...you know, the St. Anguish album lol. (that's what I call it) Could you have lived with a drum sound like that with your name on it?

I think the late 80's into the 90's produced some of the best drum sounds known to man and it's a shame we have to move on from that when the majority of the buying public doesn't even know or care what a good drum sound is for the most part. Look at country music today...do you hear 80's drums and hooks of the 80's minus the heavily distorted guitars? LOL!! It's just pop rock to me with some slick production in my humble opinion.

One last thing if I may? When you go to record a guitar or drum sound, what makes it big? The mics, the pre's you're using, any special effects at all? A bigger bit rate than 24/48? I've heard albums that have this incredibly huge guitar and drum sound. Like the damn things sonically engulf the entire stereo spectrum yet there is room for the other instrumentation and they don't seem to walk on anything. How is it possible to achieve a sound like this, and what steps would I take to get something like that and then control it? Thanks in advance if you have the time.

Sincerely,

Danny Danzi
Welcome to www.DannyDanzi.com
MySpace.com - Danny Danzi Band - WILLIAMSTOWN, New Jersey - Rock / Metal - www.myspace.com/dannydanziband

[capricornsound]

14 years later, I discover another vision of "Ozzmosis", with this sample of Perry Mason.

Amazing (piece of) track Mr Wagener, congratulations !

I worked on the version that was released as a tape operator / assistant engineer back in 1994 and now I can put a name on the "previous producer" M Beinhorn told me about during the sessions.

I could tell you a lot about these sessions but what makes me write this post is that I read all the drums were trashed to put samples instead... What a pity !

Spending so many days trying to find the best possible drum sound with Paul Northfield an Deen Castronovo... Testing Tama, Sonor, DW in numerous versions and various ways of miking. We ended with an incredible sound, recording the drums on a 2" eight tracks.

All this straight to the trash bin ? I can't believe it.

But once again, this little sample of what could have been "Ozzmosis" is a masterpiece.