Back in nashville box set

[elvisfan4-ever]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

[SteveT]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

Yes, I have to agree with you.

[drjohncarpenter]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

In most cases an undubbed master take means just Elvis and the studio band. The backing vocalists are overdubbed at another session.

It's noted on the packaging the tracks are presented this way, and a big clue is the cover photo used for the set.

Just Elvis and the studio band (and RCA staff).

What part of this confuses you?

[SteveT]

It’s my understanding that the backup vocalists for these sessions in 1971 were live in the studio so a true undubbed master should include them. Elvis’ vocal performance and the way he arranged his vocal in some songs related to the back up vocalist singing live with him. For example , ‘That’s what you get for lovin’ me’ sounds like something is missing without the back up vocals. Same with ‘Its Only Love’ (on some tracks you can hear the backup vocals faintly as they bleed into Elvis’ microphone).
It was a different case with ‘From Elvis in Nashville’ because there were no backup vocalist live in the studio.

[Alexander]

True, some of the backing vocals were done live in the studio and you can hear them bleeding through other microphones.
Despite all of that I like the album and the set made me reappreciate some of the masters as quite a few masters collapsed under the weight of production in my opinion.

[SteveT]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

In most cases an undubbed master take means just Elvis and the studio band. The backing vocalists are overdubbed at another session.

It's noted on the packaging the tracks are presented this way, and a big clue is the cover photo used for the set.

Just Elvis and the studio band (and RCA staff).

What part of this confuses you?

I think you might be referring to the ‘From Elvis in Nashville’ set on which you would be correct.
The topic author is talking about the ‘Back in Nashville’ set were the back singers were live in the studio.

[drjohncarpenter]

I think you might be referring to the ‘From Elvis in Nashville’ set on which you would be correct.
The topic author is talking about the ‘Back in Nashville’ set were the back singers were live in the studio.

Okay, but even still this was not true for every session.

No backing singers at all:

May 15 session
May 16 session

On the May sessions including backup singers, several of the selections did not feature them. On the three June session dates there were just a few songs per day, mostly for the gospel project.

So the same things I wrote apply to the follow-up set, right down to the very first sentence describing the contents:

Elvis: Back In Nashville is the definitive presentation of Elvis Presley's May-June 1971 Nashville studio sessions, showcasing Elvis and his core band as they sounded during the actual sessions without orchestral overdubs and vocal accompaniment.

https://www.elvisthemusic.com/music/elvis-back-in-nashville/

So if a person believes this "ruins the whole set" I'd say they're a victim of opaque shopping.

[Lee Wood]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

I like the way it was done and it makes the set for me.

[Wayfarer]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

I found the difference quite refreshing.

[SteveT]

I think you might be referring to the ‘From Elvis in Nashville’ set on which you would be correct.
The topic author is talking about the ‘Back in Nashville’ set were the back singers were live in the studio.

Okay, but even still this was not true for every session.

No backing singers at all:

May 15 session
May 16 session

On the May sessions including backup singers, several of the selections did not feature them. On the three June session dates there were just a few songs per day, mostly for the gospel project.

So the same things I wrote apply to the follow-up set, right down to the very first sentence describing the contents:

Elvis: Back In Nashville is the definitive presentation of Elvis Presley's May-June 1971 Nashville studio sessions, showcasing Elvis and his core band as they sounded during the actual sessions without orchestral overdubs and vocal accompaniment.

https://www.elvisthemusic.com/music/elvis-back-in-nashville/

So if a person believes this "ruins the whole set" I'd say they're a victim of opaque shopping.

Yes, it’s not true for every session of the 71 Nashville recordings.
I think the dates you refer to above are where mostly Christmas songs were recorded without live backup singers and I actually enjoy listening to these tracks on this set.

However, whilst the general removal of backup vocals doesn’t necessary ruin the whole Back in Nashville set, I do think (in my opinion) that several songs require the back vocals to work (at least for my enjoyment anyway). I’ve gone back to the dubbed masters for songs such as TWYGFLM ,Early Morning Rain ,I’m Leaving and It’s Only Love (for example) as the undubbed masters without the live backup singers don’t work for me on those songs. I know this opinion has been expressed by other fans. Some fans enjoy the vocals being removed. Each to his own.

It’s interesting that this set does include the backup vocals for the gospel songs (removing these would have completely ruined these songs). So yes, the whole set is not ruined.
We also get ‘We can make the Morning’ with and without backing vocals. As opposed to my opinion above I actually enjoy ‘We can make the Morning’ without back up vocals lol!

[mmoie]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

Totally agree with you 100 percent.
Another bad decision .
Should have been left as it was recorded in the studio.
Hopfully when they get around to releasing these sessions on FTD they will leave well alone and release them as recorded live in the studio

[LSP-4445]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

I found the difference quite refreshing.

Agree 100%

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

I like the way it was done and it makes the set for me.

Same here

[DakotaKid]

I didn't buy this set or it's companion set. I prefer my Elvis music with horns, strings, voices, etc,

[lucio]

I Don't like the way it was done cutting out the backing vocalists from the undubbed masters it ruins the whole set.

Totally agree with you 100 percent.
Another bad decision .
Should have been left as it was recorded in the studio.
Hopfully when they get around to releasing these sessions on FTD they will leave well alone and release them as recorded live in the studio

Wow, the best part of these releases for me was removal of the backing vocalists. Best decision ever and the only reason I bought the Nashville sets.

Amazing how our viewpoints can be so different. Fortunately we can agree on how great Elvis was.

[dougkapp]

In my opinion, Box Back In Nashville sounds better than From Elvis In Nashville.
I think the purpose of a remix is to offer a new perspective on listening to a recording and Back In Nashville fulfills this objective.
For me, on some tracks, the new mixes surpassed the originals, a rare case when it comes to Elvis.

[minkahed]

It’s been quite awhile since I played this set and I think it has to do more with the revisionist mixes done by Matt Ross Spang than the actual content and concept itself.

[drjohncarpenter]

It’s been quite awhile since I played this set and I think it has to do more with the revisionist mixes done by Matt Ross Spang than the actual content and concept itself.

RCA would not have hired the man if his mixes mirrored the originals made 50 years ago.

[minkahed]

It’s been quite awhile since I played this set and I think it has to do more with the revisionist mixes done by Matt Ross Spang than the actual content and concept itself.

RCA would not have hired the man if his mixes mirrored the originals made 50 years ago.

I’m aware of that, Thanks.

[drjohncarpenter]

It’s been quite awhile since I played this set and I think it has to do more with the revisionist mixes done by Matt Ross Spang than the actual content and concept itself.

RCA would not have hired the man if his mixes mirrored the originals made 50 years ago.

I’m aware of that, Thanks.

Writing "revisionist mixes" tells us you are not aware of that.

[bajo]

Imo, they should have left the real live studio recordings as they were. Ok without later OD'S. Early Morning Rain is good as it was. No tampering needed!

[pmp]

There are other issues with this box, in that it was edited like an FTD (with endless amounts of banal studio chatter before most tracks) but released at retail. Once again, the producers lost sight of who their audience was.