advertisement


Beatles - Remastered

Review on Pitchfork here including some interesting looking Audacity screenshots that indicate the limiting used.

Tony.
 
hifi_dave said:
The CD set is now available in stereo or mono if you desire but when will the vinyl be available and will it be stereo or mono or what ?
Click to expand...

There is speculation of a tentative release date of 14/11/09 for the vinyl , i believe they will be available as the Beatles on vinyl has never been out of print.

Quite unique really , since 1987 you can only get the DNM digital remastered versions ,it seems a logical progression to me to put out the new one's !
 
Surely it's not the mastering that was terrible with the Beatles it was the original mix. Hard panned L+ R musicians is fine on a Dansette/dad's Radiogram/AM radio but was crap on stereo. I believe the US got better mixes than the UK.
 
I used to like the Beatles but haven't played them for decades - not really my sort of thing anymore, but what amazes me is their importance to the development of modern music from a career that spanned just 5 years, and how much they themselves changed in that time. Mind-blowing.
 
All you have to do is listen to the harmonies on "Love Me Do".

Paul was/is one of the best white blues singers around.

John was just John, a bit screwed up but with a savage wit and a mad song writing style. The guy could have made a living as a stand up comedian - watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkGRC5EL7gw
 
I figured I stir some disagreement. Feeling curmudgeonly this morning and short of time, but I stand by my statements.

Concessions: Yes they were marginally more interesting than most of the early sixties beat combos that could be considered their peers, yes they wrote a few (and only a few) inspired, perceptive songs (in a huge songbook of "She Loves Me, Yeah, yada yada" type trash that was I am sure less naive sounding in its day), yes they were part of a huge cultural movement that changed the face of western society.

No, they were not leaders of men, or great thinkers, or influential musicians (though the noises at adorned the more elaborate of their works were - at least in popular music terms - fresh and influential). Ringo could barely hold a beat, Paul was never a great bass player, John had no pretentions at great musicianship and George was - well - there, I suppose.

They behaved - for much of their career - and lived in a millieu not dissimilar to Take That or other faddish pop groups. Many of their contemporary fans didn't give a shit about the music, they boys had cute smiles and moddish haircuts and shouted "Yeah" a lot. Groovy.

John developed into a mildly interesting artist in his own right - none of the others did anything worth a dime afterwards.

They caught the zeitgeist, rode the cultural roller-coaster, dreamed up a few pretentious stunts, made a lot of records none of which has ever held my attention for more than the odd song.

I just find it frustrating that so much effort, money and emotion get invested in rehashing all this, when new music is treated as the unwanted, unloved and inconvenient bastard grandchild.

At best this is someone tinkering with history (good intentions or not). More realistically a money-making ploy on the part of whoever it is owns the rights to the back catalogue these days.

Clearly I am in a minority, and I wish you every enjoyment from whatever music floats your boat. And no, neither Elvis nor Dylan do much for me, but both are at least as important in cultural terms.
 
MarkW said:
I figured I stir some disagreement. Feeling curmudgeonly this morning and short of time, but I stand by my statements.

Concessions: Yes they were marginally more interesting than most of the early sixties beat combos that could be considered their peers, yes they wrote a few (and only a few) inspired, perceptive songs (in a huge songbook of "She Loves Me, Yeah, yada yada" type trash that was I am sure less naive sounding in its day), yes they were part of a huge cultural movement that changed the face of western society.

No, they were not leaders of men, or great thinkers, or influential musicians (though the noises at adorned the more elaborate of their works were - at least in popular music terms - fresh and influential). Ringo could barely hold a beat, Paul was never a great bass player, John had no pretentions at great musicianship and George was - well - there, I suppose.

They behaved - for much of their career - and lived in a millieu not dissimilar to Take That or other faddish pop groups. Many of their contemporary fans didn't give a shit about the music, they boys had cute smiles and moddish haircuts and shouted "Yeah" a lot. Groovy.

John developed into a mildly interesting artist in his own right - none of the others did anything worth a dime afterwards.

They caught the zeitgeist, rode the cultural roller-coaster, dreamed up a few pretentious stunts, made a lot of records none of which has ever held my attention for more than the odd song.

I just find it frustrating that so much effort, money and emotion get invested in rehashing all this, when new music is treated as the unwanted, unloved and inconvenient bastard grandchild.

At best this is someone tinkering with history (good intentions or not). More realistically a money-making ploy on the part of whoever it is owns the rights to the back catalogue these days.

Clearly I am in a minority, and I wish you every enjoyment from whatever music floats your boat. And no, neither Elvis nor Dylan do much for me, but both are at least as important in cultural terms.
Click to expand...

Who is your favourite artist/band?
 
Back on track, I will buy the lot both CD's and vinyl if they are better than the original pressings.
 
Not really on topic but wouldn't such remasters be a good thing for the Stones catalog too.

I'd walk miles for a halfway decent sounding version of Get Off Of My Cloud.
 
"Paul was never a great bass player" Whaaattt!!!!

Paul is and is recognised as one of the most influential and inventive and melodic bass players ever. As a bassist myself I think he is up there with James Jamerson, or maybe he wasn't much cop either...?
 
He played great, fluid bass lines but he was neither a sexy bass player like Bernard Edwards or Bootsy Collins (even Bill Wyman was sexier), nor was he technically as proficient as the slappers who came in the 80's. Other than that I agree he was among the best during the '60s.
 
Hello!
Am I right that the mono box edition goes up to White Album only, but the stereo has all records?
 
Tony L said:
I thought the Stones had been done a couple of years ago on SACD?

Tony.
Click to expand...
Oh great.

It's been a while since I've last read this four-letter word. Digital Audio Disc anyone ?

That reminds me, much of the Stones catalog has indeed been remastered on CD in the mid-nineties. Still, new 180g versions of properly sleeved Banquet/Bleed/Sticky/Exile (including the zipper of course) wouldn't be a bad thing to have. Neither would a vinyl version of the excellent Singles Collection that could be had in 1989 or so.
 
Cheese said:
Not really on topic but wouldn't such remasters be a good thing for the Stones catalog too.

I'd walk miles for a halfway decent sounding version of Get Off Of My Cloud.
Click to expand...

Well since you mentioned it, I'd love EMI to do the same with Badfinger's back catalogue as well.;)
 
Cheese said:
Not really on topic but wouldn't such remasters be a good thing for the Stones catalog too.

I'd walk miles for a halfway decent sounding version of Get Off Of My Cloud.
Click to expand...

It may be hard to beat the "MFSL" London CDs that are not too hard to find.

Pretty much direct copies of the master AIUI.

Tim
 
Zombie said:
Am I right that the mono box edition goes up to White Album only, but the stereo has all records?
Click to expand...

That seems to be the case, which is a real shame, they should have put the stereo copies of YS, AR & LIB in the box, but I guess they are trying to get the fans to buy both. Twunts.

Tony.
 
MarkW said:
No, they were not leaders of men, or great thinkers, or influential musicians (though the noises at adorned the more elaborate of their works were - at least in popular music terms - fresh and influential). Ringo could barely hold a beat, Paul was never a great bass player, John had no pretentions at great musicianship and George was - well - there, I suppose.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to ignore that comment but just can't.

The Beatles were the sum of their parts. That's the whole point.

I suggest you ask a modern drummer to replicate the wee little fills Ringo would do. He would lead with his left hand (even though he used a right handed drum setup) and that made them idiosyncratic. It was all part of the package.

John wasn't a great musician technically but I doubt many would refuse to have him in their line-up playing rythym guitar. The guy had attitude. His lack of proficiency is what makes the structure of some of his songs so weird and great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top