Author Topic: Beatles remasters  (Read 12592 times)

yesno

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3426
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #45 on: September 09, 2009, 01:36:16 PM »
But do they say that Yellow Submarine "might have been a Halloween record"?

Steve of Bloomington

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2262
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #46 on: September 09, 2009, 05:30:18 PM »
Damn. I need to get the Mono box now.

I won't break down the exact issues because I think that these new remasters are probably the best but here's what I prefer when it comes to mono/stereo for each album:

Please Please Me: I've been mono on this one, but the songs I've heard from the new stereo master are really well done. But, I think mono is probably still the best because a lot of times you still get the voice separation.

With the Beatles: Not even close. Mono.

A Hard Days Night: Another easy choice for mono.

Beatles For Sale: I prefer the stereo on this one. The voices aren't as separated as other albums and mono mix lacks the fullness of the other mono releases.

Help!: Very close, but I like the stereo release. I like the vocals a little more in mono even though the stereo doesn't suffer from separation, but the instruments really shine on the stereo mix.

Rubber Soul: After two solid stereo albums, Rubber Soul takes two steps backwards in the stereo department which isn't surprising since this is the album that the Beatles started doing some studio experimentation creating a challenge to create a stereo mix on only four tracks.. But oh that mono mix is so, so good. If the whole world only heard this in mono it might just be considered the Beatles masterpiece.

Revolver: Still experimenting with moving things around in 2 channels and still failing miserably. Mono by a landslide.

Sgt. Peppers: If Rubber Soul took two step backwards, Sgt. Peppers took two more. Voices, handclaps, instruments seem randomly placed in one channel and it's especially annoying to listen to on headphones. Like Lennon said, you haven't heard Sgt. Peppers until you've heard it in mono.

Magical Mystery Tour: While not perfect, you can tell that they are almost there on getting stereo to work well with complex studio production. I could go either way here... some songs sound better in mono, some in stereo but if I was listening to the whole thing I think I'd choose stereo.

White Album: A lot of people think that the mono release was actually a fold down to please mono enthusiasts. Either way, mono is for collectors only because of the different mixes, the White Album finally gets stereo right and of course becomes the last album the Beatles release in both formats.



nec13

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2397
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #47 on: September 09, 2009, 08:20:24 PM »
Thanks, gilly. Like Steve, I think I need to find a way to get the mono box.

BTW, I picked up Magical Mystery Tour and The White Album today. They were well worth the price. The packaging is very nice and the sound quality exceeds the '87 issues by leaps and bounds. My only complaint were the cardboard sleeves, which made it somewhat difficult to remove the CD's from the packaging.
Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.

pscan

  • Policemans heel
  • Posts: 78
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2009, 09:11:50 AM »
Posted on my infrequently-updated blog middle8.blogspot.com, but pasted here for your convenience/comment:

I don't know what your sense of Sgt Peppers is, but before about 40 minutes ago, I would have put it in the "important to be sure, but not really all that great song-for-song" category. My experience was based pretty much completely on the '87 cd, of course. While the album is front- and back-loaded with undisputed masterpieces, the middle wavered much more than an album with such a classic reputation probably should. I mean, no one ever put "Good Morning, Good Morning" or "Fixing A Hole" in their top ten list. Gimmicky, needlessly shrill, too in love with goofy effects over genuine emotion. That's pretty much my old opinion of this album.

Well, I also read that quote variously attributed to John and George Martin that "if you haven't heard Pepper in mono, then you haven't heard Pepper," and thought, "well, maybe, but that's a bit of hyperbole." It's not. The mono version of this album is A. Whole. New. Ballgame. For the first time in my life, this record feels utterly revolutionary today, not retro-revolutionary. There is so much more going on here, and it's not just a case of hearing new effects. Take "Good Morning, Good Morning." The old CD made the horns so shrill sounding, that I usually rushed to forward to the next track. Now I feel like the song may hold the key to the whole record. In this mono mix, those "shrill" horns are really over-saturated and kind of slowed down. You know what this song is? It's the perfect morning song between the twin classic John's "I'm Only Sleeping" and "I'm So Tired." It's got the same sense of woozy disorientation and hits me emotionally in an entirely new place.

This happens at least 7 more times in different places, but I don't want to spoil it for you. I'll point out a couple more tiny bits: the background vocals (for the first time throughout you get to hear separate voices, and it's obvious that the Beatles did not deploy their vocals cavalierly) in "When I'm Sixty-Four" no longer descend from space. Now they sound like their coming from over Paul's shoulder, right where they would be if it was sung by the old-timey band they meant it to sound like. The only thing more fucked-up sounding than the "tape solos" in "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," is the slower, heavier ending to "Lovely Rita." The "each song is played by a different band, none of them the Beatles" conceit makes complete sense for the first time.

Before I go, let me just say a quick word about the sense of presence I get here. This record feels so made, so labored over. It's not just about the clarity of mix, but the spaces you can now hear around the voices and instruments make you feel the clarity of purpose. The difference is like seeing a photo of a painting on the one hand, and then seeing the original. What looked flat (but colorful and framed well and all that) in the photo, now looks like what it is: layers of paint painstakingly (or maybe even haphazardly, but still) put there by someone.

I don't really know what this is meant to signify yet, but I feel like I can hear this thing the way it must have sounded the summer of '67. I don't mean the "pop music used to sound like this, now it sounds like THIS" thing that I've always imagined. I mean emotionally. A real revolution in the head. What was once over-rated is now, finally, earning (sorry) its stripes. I cannot fucking believe it.

DanFromBrooklyn

  • Achilles bursitis
  • Posts: 111
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #49 on: September 10, 2009, 01:23:09 PM »
Awesome post, pscan.  Glad I chose mono!

masterofsparks

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3323
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2009, 03:16:18 PM »
I'm really hoping I can find a way to swing the mono box. It kinda bothers me to pay more for less (13 CDs in the mono box vs. 17 in the stereo but mono costs $40-$50 more?), but I'd really rather have these the way they're meant to sound.

I did pick up the remasters of Abbey Road and Let It Be and they sound GREAT.
I'll probably go into the wee hours.

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2009, 07:53:53 PM »
I'm really hoping I can find a way to swing the mono box. It kinda bothers me to pay more for less (13 CDs in the mono box vs. 17 in the stereo but mono costs $40-$50 more?), but I'd really rather have these the way they're meant to sound.

I did pick up the remasters of Abbey Road and Let It Be and they sound GREAT.

I got a good deal on the stereo box because I had a bunch of Best Buy certificates so I decided to jump on a mono box when more became available.  Of course at the moment they're both back-ordered so I've got more waiting to do.

Stupornaut

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 796
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2009, 04:23:20 PM »
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/thelife/news/story?id=4474313

Quote
I'd much rather listen to Oasis than The Beatles. Oasis, or any band that came after The Beatles, learned from The Beatles, improving on their work by listening to, building on and perfecting the styles pioneered by The Beatles. The result: The arrangements used by Oasis are more complex, the sound is denser, the production is better. Claims that Oasis is nothing more than a Beatles tribute band do little to disprove my theory. There is no question that Oasis was influenced by The Beatles -- most rock bands are. That influence was likely heavier with Oasis, but even Oasis -- brash as the band is -- understands the power of what came before. After all, Oasis named an album "Standing On the Shoulders of Giants."


For that, I'm going to ask my editors at shovel.com if I can write an article about how Cole Hamels is a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.
twitter.com/natepatrin //\\ natepatrin.tumblr.com

scratchbomb

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 786
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2009, 04:37:14 PM »
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/thelife/news/story?id=4474313

Quote
I'd much rather listen to Oasis than The Beatles. Oasis, or any band that came after The Beatles, learned from The Beatles, improving on their work by listening to, building on and perfecting the styles pioneered by The Beatles. The result: The arrangements used by Oasis are more complex, the sound is denser, the production is better. Claims that Oasis is nothing more than a Beatles tribute band do little to disprove my theory. There is no question that Oasis was influenced by The Beatles -- most rock bands are. That influence was likely heavier with Oasis, but even Oasis -- brash as the band is -- understands the power of what came before. After all, Oasis named an album "Standing On the Shoulders of Giants."


For that, I'm going to ask my editors at shovel.com if I can write an article about how Cole Hamels is a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.

I'm sure someone somewhere could make a valid "Beatles = meh" argument, but it shouldn't rest on the idea that Oasis "improved" on the Beatles. If Oasis is an improvement on the Beatles, then a xerox of a first printing of "The Great Gatsby" is better than the original.
scratchbomb.com: a potentially explosive collection of verbal irritants

PatrickChew

  • Achilles bursitis
  • Posts: 180
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2009, 05:36:27 PM »
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/thelife/news/story?id=4474313

Quote
I'd much rather listen to Oasis than The Beatles. Oasis, or any band that came after The Beatles, learned from The Beatles, improving on their work by listening to, building on and perfecting the styles pioneered by The Beatles. The result: The arrangements used by Oasis are more complex, the sound is denser, the production is better. Claims that Oasis is nothing more than a Beatles tribute band do little to disprove my theory. There is no question that Oasis was influenced by The Beatles -- most rock bands are. That influence was likely heavier with Oasis, but even Oasis -- brash as the band is -- understands the power of what came before. After all, Oasis named an album "Standing On the Shoulders of Giants."


For that, I'm going to ask my editors at shovel.com if I can write an article about how Cole Hamels is a better pitcher than Sandy Koufax.

I'm sure someone somewhere could make a valid "Beatles = meh" argument, but it shouldn't rest on the idea that Oasis "improved" on the Beatles. If Oasis is an improvement on the Beatles, then a xerox of a first printing of "The Great Gatsby" is better than the original.

Scratchbomb, you hit the nail on the head. This article is unbelievable. Another quote:

Quote
There's almost no way that someone from my generation can listen to the primitive hackings of "Eleanor Rigby" finish, and then listen to "November Rain" and say, "Yeah, 'Eleanor Rigby' is the better piece of music."

 ???

Matt

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1021
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2009, 05:44:58 PM »
So you're saying that ESPN isn't the authority on music?
It ain't ego, it's my love for you.

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2009, 06:00:09 PM »
So you're saying that ESPN isn't the authority on music?

I used to read Shirley's diaries when he was talking about his experiences as the Suns 12th man but I had no idea he now writes solely about music for ESPN.  I glanced back at a few of his other articles and wasn't impressed.  He does provide a great defense of Nickelback though...

scratchbomb

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 786
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2009, 06:40:22 PM »


Scratchbomb, you hit the nail on the head. This article is unbelievable. Another quote:

Quote
There's almost no way that someone from my generation can listen to the primitive hackings of "Eleanor Rigby" finish, and then listen to "November Rain" and say, "Yeah, 'Eleanor Rigby' is the better piece of music."

 ???

Wow. I didn't even notice that. Insane.

Not even worth savaging this guy anymore, since he obviously knows nothing about music. Also, I was unaware he was a basketball player (don't follow hoops nearly as obsessively as baseball).
scratchbomb.com: a potentially explosive collection of verbal irritants

ian

  • Achilles bursitis
  • Posts: 216
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2009, 07:48:42 PM »
it's weird that he cites some california band as "faking" a southern rock sound as part of his what the fuck ever rock credentials, and then in the same article mentions creedence as a favorite band

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: Beatles remasters
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2009, 07:54:14 PM »
Also, I was unaware he was a basketball player (don't follow hoops nearly as obsessively as baseball).

He was a 12th man who bounced around the league some, eventually landing on the Suns a few years back.  If I remember correctly, he had a blog or something on nba.com and Simmons picked up on him and turned him into a minor sensation.  He wrote a book a couple years ago about life on the NBA bench that was actually a pretty entertaining read (he's also played in Russia and Europe).