Wrigley
Footballguy
Well worth the $$$
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Beatles (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter saintsfan
- Start date
Are you guys listening to the mono or stereo re-masters? I've read some articles that say the mono versions are much more "authentic" becasue those are the versions that were released back in the day and the ones that George Martin and the other engineers worked on with Paul and John.
Remember that early transistor radios were not stereo and most teenagers had portable record players and not fancy hi-fi stereos. And I don't even know if you can make a stereo 45.
Remember that early transistor radios were not stereo and most teenagers had portable record players and not fancy hi-fi stereos. And I don't even know if you can make a stereo 45.
saintsfan
Footballguy
I have the stereo remasters.Here's the thing about the stereo vs mono thing. Yes, the mono was the standard back then and much more time was taken to create the mono then the stereo master back in the day until Let It Be and Abbey Road which had no mono masters. Some of the albums are quite a bit different between the mono and the stereo, specifically Revolver, Pepper and the White Album. I have heard both and I prefer the stereo. I know there are some sounds and such on the mono that's not on the stereo, but you know what, there are sounds on the stereo that aren't on the mono. For example, the fade down and "I've got blisters on my fingers" doesn't appear on the mono Helter Skelter. I have heard the stereo my entire life and it's what I am used to. To me, Pepper sounds lifeless in mono, whereas, it sounds spacious in stereo. Once again, personal preference.Here's something else, though. The first two albums should be in mono. Those are two track recordings and as such, you can't really make a true stereo image out of them. They probably are better in mono, but unless you are listening with headphones, it doesn't make a HUGE difference. I wish I could buy the first two albums in mono, then I would feel like I have everything I want. I already have the mono stuff on my computer ripped from vinyl, but I'm sure the remastered mono sounds better.DCThunder said:Are you guys listening to the mono or stereo re-masters? I've read some articles that say the mono versions are much more "authentic" becasue those are the versions that were released back in the day and the ones that George Martin and the other engineers worked on with Paul and John.Remember that early transistor radios were not stereo and most teenagers had portable record players and not fancy hi-fi stereos. And I don't even know if you can make a stereo 45.
daddo39
Footballguy
First of all I want to thank Saintsfan for what is in my opinion the best thread this year.As much as i love the Beatles and have read about them i learned a lot of things i never knew. Big shout out to Godsbrother as well.I'm thinking of buying the Rockband game just so i can watch the videos on it.Great job gentlemen.
Jaysus
Good times!
No mention in this thread (that I remember) of George & Giles Martin's Love. What's your take on it?
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Revolver could be a great album but there is one thing that sinks it literally. Yellow Submarine has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and it doesn't fit with the flow of the rest of this record. It would be addition by subtraction, but that inclusion pushes Revolver further down the list to me.I am starting to come to the conclusion that Rubber Soul is the most perfect of any Beatles album. I really like Abbey Road too.
bentley
Footballguy
As a big fan of both Cirque and The Beatles, it's my favorite Cirque show. They did a fantastic job of putting together a soundtrack that absolutely worked. And I still listen to the CD a lot. No idea what someone that hadn't seen the show would think about it.Maurile Tremblay said:
I've never seen the show, but I enjoy the CD. I especially like the transition from Mr Kite to I Want You, with a little Helter Skelter thrown in. I thought the Drive My Car/The Word/What You're Doing combo worked out well too.
Wrigley
Footballguy
Drop a few tabs, and watch yellow sub............greatest trip movie of all time :happy:
Godsbrother
Footballguy
The funny thing is that, due to Ringo's popularity, Yellow Submarine was the "A" side of the "Eleanor Rigby" single! When you consider that it was intended as a children's song and a vehicle for Ringo it isn't too bad. It is also a fun recording to listen to because of the sound effects. Certainly not one of my faves but I like it.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
I really like the score that George Martin wrote for "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".The best track on the LP, IMO.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Certainly you can make a stereo 45 (I have many) but you are right: the Beatles and George Martin were much more concerned about the mono mixes than stereo. Even still, I think the stereo mixes sound better than the mono.I have been really on the fence with the remasters. I would like to have the mono set because I hear the packaging is much nicer and it would be great to finally have all of the mono versions on CD. However the set does not have all 13 LPs and is more expensive.I would love to have the stereo set but I have read that in reality they don't sound all that much better than the original 1987 CDs and not nearly as good as the Capitol sets, Let It Be Naked, and LOVE. I also can't help but think that LPs are going to be rematstered again on SACD or Blu-Ray in a higher sampling rate.However they REALLY look nice and I would like to have them. Someone please talk me into buying!Are you guys listening to the mono or stereo re-masters? I've read some articles that say the mono versions are much more "authentic" becasue those are the versions that were released back in the day and the ones that George Martin and the other engineers worked on with Paul and John.Remember that early transistor radios were not stereo and most teenagers had portable record players and not fancy hi-fi stereos. And I don't even know if you can make a stereo 45.
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
very very
I think its the best rendition of that song. I too like how they do the transitions between songs on that CD. Martin did a great job.
saintsfan
Footballguy
It really was my pleasure. I have been a Beatles fan for 30 years and I love talking about them.
Controller
Footballguy
Quick question: I thought that Michael Jackson owned the rights to all of the Beatles songs. So who owns the rights now?
saintsfan
Footballguy
I don't know what to tell you. GB. I think the sound is much better than the originals. I thought I would have to play them back to back to hear the difference. I could hear it immediately without having to compare. Bass is much fuller, drums are more distinct. You can hear detail you never heard before.As far as the sound on Love, Yellow Submarine Soundtrack, and Let It Be...Naked, I don't know what to tell you. Those are remixes and therefore, to my ears, sound different, not any better or worse. They sound more modern, for sure. I'm not sure that's what I want, though. I listen to them occasionally, but not like I listen to the original catalogue. Yeah, the vocals in some instances are more centered, but I've listened to the originals for years with no complaints about the stereo image. The Capitol sets?? I've never really liked the sound of the Capitol stuff so I just find it hard to believe they sound better than the EMI stuff. Those that grew up with the Capitol stuff might like it better because it's what they are used to, but I just have a hard time believing they sound better. I haven't heard this at all.Will they be released on SACD or Blu Ray?? Maybe. I have a hard time believing it will be any time soon, though. IMO, the reason why it took so long to remaster the original CDs is because they still sold so well. These are selling so well, it's hard to imagine them going through this process again within the next decade. EMI is SO conservative. Just my personal opinion.Certainly you can make a stereo 45 (I have many) but you are right: the Beatles and George Martin were much more concerned about the mono mixes than stereo. Even still, I think the stereo mixes sound better than the mono.I have been really on the fence with the remasters. I would like to have the mono set because I hear the packaging is much nicer and it would be great to finally have all of the mono versions on CD. However the set does not have all 13 LPs and is more expensive.I would love to have the stereo set but I have read that in reality they don't sound all that much better than the original 1987 CDs and not nearly as good as the Capitol sets, Let It Be Naked, and LOVE. I also can't help but think that LPs are going to be rematstered again on SACD or Blu-Ray in a higher sampling rate.However they REALLY look nice and I would like to have them. Someone please talk me into buying!Are you guys listening to the mono or stereo re-masters? I've read some articles that say the mono versions are much more "authentic" becasue those are the versions that were released back in the day and the ones that George Martin and the other engineers worked on with Paul and John.Remember that early transistor radios were not stereo and most teenagers had portable record players and not fancy hi-fi stereos. And I don't even know if you can make a stereo 45.
saintsfan
Footballguy
Michael's heirs own the Beatles publishing catalogue, as far as I know.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Paul owns the rights to the songs on the first two Beatles singles: Love Me Do/P.S. I Love You & Please Please Me/Ask Me Why. I am pretty sure that George and Ringo own the rights to their later Beatles material as well because they split from Northern Songs in 1967 or 1968.All of the other Beatles songs are still owned by SONY/ATV music of which Jackson had a 50% share at one time. I am not sure how much of it he still owned when he died. Pretty sure he was up to his eyeballs in debt and was selling a lot of his assets.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
The Capitol sets definitely are different but to me they have a liver sound than the 1987 CDs, IMO.I trust you and if you say they sound that much better then I am going to have to give them a listen. The weird thing is that is cheaper to buy them all individually than to get them in the box. Is there anything besides the box that makes it worth the extra $$$.I don't know what to tell you. GB. I think the sound is much better than the originals. I thought I would have to play them back to back to hear the difference. I could hear it immediately without having to compare. Bass is much fuller, drums are more distinct. You can hear detail you never heard before.As far as the sound on Love, Yellow Submarine Soundtrack, and Let It Be...Naked, I don't know what to tell you. Those are remixes and therefore, to my ears, sound different, not any better or worse. They sound more modern, for sure. I'm not sure that's what I want, though. I listen to them occasionally, but not like I listen to the original catalogue. Yeah, the vocals in some instances are more centered, but I've listened to the originals for years with no complaints about the stereo image. The Capitol sets?? I've never really liked the sound of the Capitol stuff so I just find it hard to believe they sound better than the EMI stuff. Those that grew up with the Capitol stuff might like it better because it's what they are used to, but I just have a hard time believing they sound better. I haven't heard this at all.Will they be released on SACD or Blu Ray?? Maybe. I have a hard time believing it will be any time soon, though. IMO, the reason why it took so long to remaster the original CDs is because they still sold so well. These are selling so well, it's hard to imagine them going through this process again within the next decade. EMI is SO conservative. Just my personal opinion.Certainly you can make a stereo 45 (I have many) but you are right: the Beatles and George Martin were much more concerned about the mono mixes than stereo. Even still, I think the stereo mixes sound better than the mono.I have been really on the fence with the remasters. I would like to have the mono set because I hear the packaging is much nicer and it would be great to finally have all of the mono versions on CD. However the set does not have all 13 LPs and is more expensive.I would love to have the stereo set but I have read that in reality they don't sound all that much better than the original 1987 CDs and not nearly as good as the Capitol sets, Let It Be Naked, and LOVE. I also can't help but think that LPs are going to be rematstered again on SACD or Blu-Ray in a higher sampling rate.However they REALLY look nice and I would like to have them. Someone please talk me into buying!Are you guys listening to the mono or stereo re-masters? I've read some articles that say the mono versions are much more "authentic" becasue those are the versions that were released back in the day and the ones that George Martin and the other engineers worked on with Paul and John.Remember that early transistor radios were not stereo and most teenagers had portable record players and not fancy hi-fi stereos. And I don't even know if you can make a stereo 45.
saintsfan
Footballguy
I got mine through Amazon for $187 including shipping. I'm not sure you could get them individually for that cheap. It might be cheaper to buy them individually if you go to Best Buy or something, but Amazon has it cheaper, of course, you'll have to wait.If you're unsure whether or not to buy them all, go download a couple and listen to them. IMO, the best sounding ones are the White Album, Revolver, Abbey Road, and, believe it or not, Beatles For Sale (which sounds spectacular in stereo).The Capitol sets definitely are different but to me they have a liver sound than the 1987 CDs, IMO.I trust you and if you say they sound that much better then I am going to have to give them a listen. The weird thing is that is cheaper to buy them all individually than to get them in the box. Is there anything besides the box that makes it worth the extra $$$.I don't know what to tell you. GB. I think the sound is much better than the originals. I thought I would have to play them back to back to hear the difference. I could hear it immediately without having to compare. Bass is much fuller, drums are more distinct. You can hear detail you never heard before.As far as the sound on Love, Yellow Submarine Soundtrack, and Let It Be...Naked, I don't know what to tell you. Those are remixes and therefore, to my ears, sound different, not any better or worse. They sound more modern, for sure. I'm not sure that's what I want, though. I listen to them occasionally, but not like I listen to the original catalogue. Yeah, the vocals in some instances are more centered, but I've listened to the originals for years with no complaints about the stereo image. The Capitol sets?? I've never really liked the sound of the Capitol stuff so I just find it hard to believe they sound better than the EMI stuff. Those that grew up with the Capitol stuff might like it better because it's what they are used to, but I just have a hard time believing they sound better. I haven't heard this at all.Will they be released on SACD or Blu Ray?? Maybe. I have a hard time believing it will be any time soon, though. IMO, the reason why it took so long to remaster the original CDs is because they still sold so well. These are selling so well, it's hard to imagine them going through this process again within the next decade. EMI is SO conservative. Just my personal opinion.Certainly you can make a stereo 45 (I have many) but you are right: the Beatles and George Martin were much more concerned about the mono mixes than stereo. Even still, I think the stereo mixes sound better than the mono.I have been really on the fence with the remasters. I would like to have the mono set because I hear the packaging is much nicer and it would be great to finally have all of the mono versions on CD. However the set does not have all 13 LPs and is more expensive.I would love to have the stereo set but I have read that in reality they don't sound all that much better than the original 1987 CDs and not nearly as good as the Capitol sets, Let It Be Naked, and LOVE. I also can't help but think that LPs are going to be rematstered again on SACD or Blu-Ray in a higher sampling rate.However they REALLY look nice and I would like to have them. Someone please talk me into buying!Are you guys listening to the mono or stereo re-masters? I've read some articles that say the mono versions are much more "authentic" becasue those are the versions that were released back in the day and the ones that George Martin and the other engineers worked on with Paul and John.Remember that early transistor radios were not stereo and most teenagers had portable record players and not fancy hi-fi stereos. And I don't even know if you can make a stereo 45.
saintsfan
Footballguy
That might be true. I haven't heard the Capitol box sets because I don't like the Capitol mixes, especially the duophonic mixes. I have most of the Capitol stuff on my PC from ripped vinyl and I just don't like the mixes. I'm sure they sound better than the '87 CDs because they were just made a few years ago.I think you will find that the EMI set is better, but that's just my opinion.The Capitol sets definitely are different but to me they have a liver sound than the 1987 CDs, IMO.I trust you and if you say they sound that much better then I am going to have to give them a listen. The weird thing is that is cheaper to buy them all individually than to get them in the box. Is there anything besides the box that makes it worth the extra $$$.I don't know what to tell you. GB. I think the sound is much better than the originals. I thought I would have to play them back to back to hear the difference. I could hear it immediately without having to compare. Bass is much fuller, drums are more distinct. You can hear detail you never heard before.As far as the sound on Love, Yellow Submarine Soundtrack, and Let It Be...Naked, I don't know what to tell you. Those are remixes and therefore, to my ears, sound different, not any better or worse. They sound more modern, for sure. I'm not sure that's what I want, though. I listen to them occasionally, but not like I listen to the original catalogue. Yeah, the vocals in some instances are more centered, but I've listened to the originals for years with no complaints about the stereo image. The Capitol sets?? I've never really liked the sound of the Capitol stuff so I just find it hard to believe they sound better than the EMI stuff. Those that grew up with the Capitol stuff might like it better because it's what they are used to, but I just have a hard time believing they sound better. I haven't heard this at all.Will they be released on SACD or Blu Ray?? Maybe. I have a hard time believing it will be any time soon, though. IMO, the reason why it took so long to remaster the original CDs is because they still sold so well. These are selling so well, it's hard to imagine them going through this process again within the next decade. EMI is SO conservative. Just my personal opinion.Certainly you can make a stereo 45 (I have many) but you are right: the Beatles and George Martin were much more concerned about the mono mixes than stereo. Even still, I think the stereo mixes sound better than the mono.I have been really on the fence with the remasters. I would like to have the mono set because I hear the packaging is much nicer and it would be great to finally have all of the mono versions on CD. However the set does not have all 13 LPs and is more expensive.I would love to have the stereo set but I have read that in reality they don't sound all that much better than the original 1987 CDs and not nearly as good as the Capitol sets, Let It Be Naked, and LOVE. I also can't help but think that LPs are going to be rematstered again on SACD or Blu-Ray in a higher sampling rate.However they REALLY look nice and I would like to have them. Someone please talk me into buying!Are you guys listening to the mono or stereo re-masters? I've read some articles that say the mono versions are much more "authentic" becasue those are the versions that were released back in the day and the ones that George Martin and the other engineers worked on with Paul and John.Remember that early transistor radios were not stereo and most teenagers had portable record players and not fancy hi-fi stereos. And I don't even know if you can make a stereo 45.
daddo39
Footballguy
Man i feel old as i've been a fan since 1968. First album i ever bought with my own money was Beatles 65. Got Something New a few weeks later. To this day I still sing at least one chorus of I Want to Hold Your Hand in german.
Encyclopedia Brown
Footballguy
It is amazing to see how much they changed in such a ridiculously short span of time.
The contrast between these two concert clips is stunning. It is not even four and a half years.
Look at how exuberant and randy they are before and as they take the stage at Shea Stadium in 1965:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUnYoAc0T8
And then at how weary, fatigued, wrung out, they looked at the rooftop concert in January of 1969:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn7KbyZ726Q
The contrast between these two concert clips is stunning. It is not even four and a half years.
Look at how exuberant and randy they are before and as they take the stage at Shea Stadium in 1965:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUnYoAc0T8
And then at how weary, fatigued, wrung out, they looked at the rooftop concert in January of 1969:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn7KbyZ726Q
Jaysus
Good times!
same question still applies.
saintsfan
Footballguy
Yes it is
PIK95
Footballguy
So I bought Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road at Starbucks, lol. Anyway they both sound incredible. I think "With a Little Help from My Friends" is the best sounding track on either. I always thought it was a cool tune but this time it blew me away. Ringo was gold here. "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" and "When I'm Sixty-Four" were great also. I can't put into words how good these sound now. Buy it!
Pretty cool stuff here imo.
http://blogcritics.org/tag/the-beatles-remasters/
Pretty cool stuff here imo.
http://blogcritics.org/tag/the-beatles-remasters/
Last edited by a moderator:
saintsfan
Footballguy
saintsfan
Footballguy
Thanks. Cool link!!!!So I bought Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road at Starbucks, lol. Anyway they both sound incredible. I think "With a Little Help from My Friends" is the best sounding track on either. I always thought it was a cool tune but this time it blew me away. Ringo was gold here. "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" and "When I'm Sixty-Four" were great also. I can't put into words how good these sound now. Buy it!
Pretty cool stuff here imo.
http://blogcritics.org/tag/the-beatles-remasters/
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
A few random thoughts:
I'll add my thanks to saintsfan for the thread. I wanted to participate more as it went, but never seemed to find the time. However, we had both of our resident Beatle experts laying the wood in here along with some other good commentary from others.
In regards to the new remasters, if I buy them it'll be more because I'm a completist than for the enhanced sound. I've never been an audiophile, but I must have done some serious damage to my ears in my misspent youth because I cannot recognize sound quality anymore unless I have on headphones & there's zero ambient noise. Using headphones just isn't practical for my listening most of the time, so I probably wouldn't get the thrill out of the reissues that you guys do. I can probably trace back whatever my aural problems are to seeing AC/DC & P-Funk concerts - I can't imagine sticking my head in a jet turbine could've been much louder.
It drives me nuts when some claim that the Beatles were a "pop" band early on (as if that's somehow "lesser" but that's besides the point) & only became radical/influential later on. It could be argued, IMO, that the Beatles acually became more pop as they went along (and, again, that's not a dis). They certainly moved further away from their roots - pure rock&roll/r&b - in many songs from their more "adult" period. And I'd submit that the Beatles in 1964 created as much larger schism that anything they did later. Nobody sounded anything like them when they conquered America. Most of that had to do with the fact that there were British - no white American band could have done what they did at the time and been nearly as popular - and that distance from America was crucial. A lot is written and said about the British class system & how it slots people, but the USA comes with its own set of preconceptions & limits. Bands like the nascent Rascals (then backing Joey Dee) would never have been able to have their brand of r&r/r&b heard by the masses without the Beatles kicking the damned door down. To me, "She Loves You", "Money", "I Saw Her Standing There", "Please Please Me" and all the rest of those early big ones should be considered "Art" as much as anything on "Pepper" or Abbey Road".
I find it interesting & ironic that the Beatles are often credited with creating the concept of "art" in rock and roll as being done by a self-contained group. Yet, with very little digging, it's easy to see just how important guys like Geoff Emerick and - especially - Sir George Martin were to the Beatles success. I am absolutely convinced, though there's no way to prove it, that the Beatles would not have had nearly the success they did without the work of those behind-the-scenes people. Look, I think Lennon/McCartney were amonst the greatest (maybe THE greatest) composers in rock history along with Lieber/Stoller, Goffin/King, Barry/Greenwich, Smokey, HDH among many others. But the greatest, most unique thing about the Beatles was the sound and they couldn't have done that without Martin. I think they were too good to wallow forever as a bar band, but without Sir George (& Brian Epstein for different reasons) I'd bet my house they wouldn't have become THE BEATLES.
Oh, and I'd rank Rubber Soul as their best. It's the only LP of theirs that never makes me want to reach for the FF button. "Michelle" comes close, but Paul's bass redeems it. Every other album has at least one moment where I'd want to replace one or more songs with something off of Past Masters.
I'll add my thanks to saintsfan for the thread. I wanted to participate more as it went, but never seemed to find the time. However, we had both of our resident Beatle experts laying the wood in here along with some other good commentary from others.
In regards to the new remasters, if I buy them it'll be more because I'm a completist than for the enhanced sound. I've never been an audiophile, but I must have done some serious damage to my ears in my misspent youth because I cannot recognize sound quality anymore unless I have on headphones & there's zero ambient noise. Using headphones just isn't practical for my listening most of the time, so I probably wouldn't get the thrill out of the reissues that you guys do. I can probably trace back whatever my aural problems are to seeing AC/DC & P-Funk concerts - I can't imagine sticking my head in a jet turbine could've been much louder.
It drives me nuts when some claim that the Beatles were a "pop" band early on (as if that's somehow "lesser" but that's besides the point) & only became radical/influential later on. It could be argued, IMO, that the Beatles acually became more pop as they went along (and, again, that's not a dis). They certainly moved further away from their roots - pure rock&roll/r&b - in many songs from their more "adult" period. And I'd submit that the Beatles in 1964 created as much larger schism that anything they did later. Nobody sounded anything like them when they conquered America. Most of that had to do with the fact that there were British - no white American band could have done what they did at the time and been nearly as popular - and that distance from America was crucial. A lot is written and said about the British class system & how it slots people, but the USA comes with its own set of preconceptions & limits. Bands like the nascent Rascals (then backing Joey Dee) would never have been able to have their brand of r&r/r&b heard by the masses without the Beatles kicking the damned door down. To me, "She Loves You", "Money", "I Saw Her Standing There", "Please Please Me" and all the rest of those early big ones should be considered "Art" as much as anything on "Pepper" or Abbey Road".
I find it interesting & ironic that the Beatles are often credited with creating the concept of "art" in rock and roll as being done by a self-contained group. Yet, with very little digging, it's easy to see just how important guys like Geoff Emerick and - especially - Sir George Martin were to the Beatles success. I am absolutely convinced, though there's no way to prove it, that the Beatles would not have had nearly the success they did without the work of those behind-the-scenes people. Look, I think Lennon/McCartney were amonst the greatest (maybe THE greatest) composers in rock history along with Lieber/Stoller, Goffin/King, Barry/Greenwich, Smokey, HDH among many others. But the greatest, most unique thing about the Beatles was the sound and they couldn't have done that without Martin. I think they were too good to wallow forever as a bar band, but without Sir George (& Brian Epstein for different reasons) I'd bet my house they wouldn't have become THE BEATLES.
Oh, and I'd rank Rubber Soul as their best. It's the only LP of theirs that never makes me want to reach for the FF button. "Michelle" comes close, but Paul's bass redeems it. Every other album has at least one moment where I'd want to replace one or more songs with something off of Past Masters.
saintsfan
Footballguy
Great post, Uruk-Hai.
I agree 100% with everything you posted, except my fav album is Revolver, but choosing between Revolver and Rubber Soul is like choosing between steak and lobster, you really can't go wrong either way.
As far as the early Beatles, in a way, I think the early Beatles are UNDERRATED, if it's possible for the Beatles to be underrated. I don't think people realize how revolutionary those early singles sounded compared to what was on the radio at the time. As I said, She Loves You was almost TWO YEARS before Satisfaction by the Stones. As far as the Beatles "pop" image compared to the Stones "rock" image, all of that was just that, image, and had nothing to do with reality.
I agree 100% with everything you posted, except my fav album is Revolver, but choosing between Revolver and Rubber Soul is like choosing between steak and lobster, you really can't go wrong either way.
As far as the early Beatles, in a way, I think the early Beatles are UNDERRATED, if it's possible for the Beatles to be underrated. I don't think people realize how revolutionary those early singles sounded compared to what was on the radio at the time. As I said, She Loves You was almost TWO YEARS before Satisfaction by the Stones. As far as the Beatles "pop" image compared to the Stones "rock" image, all of that was just that, image, and had nothing to do with reality.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
bookmarked...i can vouch for uruk-hai's contention that ac/dc & p-funk were ear-splittingly loud in concert (especially the cannon shots!)...So I bought Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road at Starbucks, lol. Anyway they both sound incredible. I think "With a Little Help from My Friends" is the best sounding track on either. I always thought it was a cool tune but this time it blew me away. Ringo was gold here. "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" and "When I'm Sixty-Four" were great also. I can't put into words how good these sound now. Buy it!
Pretty cool stuff here imo.
http://blogcritics.org/tag/the-beatles-remasters/
i'll echo the props to saintsfan... i checked this thread out AFTER buying some of the remasters, but the combination of being passionate & well informed is powerful... you make a hyperbole-lite, articulate, eminently lucid & intelligible guide/narrator & provide a helpful road map of what is some pretty expansive turf (the entire beatles catalog)...
this has made me want to break out my DVD copy of yellow supmarine, as well as rent some movies/docs from netflix...
i already had abbey road, the white album & yellow submarine (NOT the one in the re-master series, but the film soundtrack that has songs in the movie like eleanor rigby)...
got re-master versions of those three, as well as revolver, sgt. pepper, MMT & white album...
it seems to me that in addition to the hearing damage alluded to by uruk hai (
), another possible (more common) explanation of difference of opinion in any purported enhancement of sound quality... could be attributed to variance in playing equipment?yesterday i wanted to play the classical stuff from YS re-master... i would characterize my stereo as neither great nor terrible, probably pretty average (excepting FBGs that have B & W nautilus speakers that go for $20,000+ a pair)... i didn't have a baseline or prior recording to compare it to, but the sound leapt out of the speakers... the clarity & resolution were exemplary, and stood out, compared to other beatles recordings i have had in the past... noticed after a second play details present that i missed before (hearing the bell struck with an initial percussive sound like i was in the studio... or the musician was in my living room)... the corny-sounding cliche i heard repeatedly (such as hearing it for the first time again) sounds over-the-top, but the sound was for me a revelation, marked & pronounced...
listened to revolver next... like many others seemingly, my taste had gravitated towards latter beatles (especially abbey road, which i always thought was a masterpiece since i was first exposed to it around 30 years ago ((agree the duelling guitar solo on the end is the greatest ever)), & the white album, in a brillinatly eclectic way... no doubt reflecting the fragmented state of their partnership... really amazing they were able to forge such a work of beauty in the crucible of such trying circumstances... a testament to their individual perhaps more then their usual, typical ensemble brilliance)... i had revolver & sgt pepper before that (as well as yellow submarine sound track)... don't think i ever had MMT, & did have the red (early) & blue (latter) greatest hits double albums... latter among my first albums, got heavy play back in the day...
on the strength of so many beatles cognoscenti championing revolver as one of the best (if not THE best), gave it another spin... glad i did! eleanor rigby was always one of my favorites, vaguely remembered here there & everywhere being its all too much-like (maybe my single favorite beatles SONG... if i counted the medley at end of abbey road, that would be it... blackbird is a great song... i was reminded of how little these songs have dated, if at all)... thought it would be interesting to hear a buch of other songs i hadn't heard in a long time (some songs like got to get you into my life i had seemingly heard so many times i had them committed to memory, but i still listened to them with fresh ears)... as noted above, i like to play music for my child (miles, p-funk, bach & mozart, film composers like rosza, morricone, goldsmith, whatever)... to say these melodies are catchy is like saying everest is pretty high... it gave him a smile...
next listened to abbey road... definitely sounds better... not just superior clarity & resolution, but in the separation & distinction of the instruments within the mix... & not just the instruments, but in the harmonization of the vocals... the beatles were arguably the best ever at that (C, S & N were pretty good in their own right)... ringo's drums are more noticeable in some songs... imo, they definitely did more than just make the bass punchier...
just put on sgt. pepper... sound on first song far more pristine than i recall... even a simple, hummable, almost child-like song like get by with a little help from my friends (my favorite by ringo) contains vocal details & separation i don't recall hearing before... the bass is more prominent in songs, & that isn't a bad thing... it doesn't overpower the other instruments in the mix... can't wait to check out sound, mix & details on MMT & white album...
incidentally, some review talked about how they prefered some of the later re-masters like abbey road because they mixed down from a larger number of tracks... i think early beatles were 2 track, circa revolver-era 4 track (?) and abbey road 8 track? lee perry used to use minimal tracks when mixing down some of his dub variants (you can't back up when you layer in track after track onto the source tapes... & it gets a very dense, not necessartily unpleasant sound)... as saintsfan noted, earlier beatles may have had cases where all the instruments are in one channel, & vocals in the other... by the time they had 8 track, it was easier to separate the instruments & vocal harmonies in the mix down... not to dis the earlier stuff, but a possible partial explanation for why some can hear a bigger difference in some of the latter stuff...
maybe a metaphor for why i find the re-masters instantly identifiable as superior in sound... certain big screens (and blu-ray transfers) are better than others because of the contrast enabled by having blacker blacks (a non-obvious factor)... certain kubrick films (like the shining comes to mind for me) have a kind of hermetically sealed quality in the sound, like when danny is wheeling around the hallways of the doomed hotel... kubrick was a master of silence as well as sound, & in some sections there is NO ambient, unintended sounds... in that context it was claustrophobic (probably intended for the mood of that picture)... in a good way these re-masters have that quality of hearing the sounds pop out of a sea of silence... with less hum & buzz & unwanted distortion that i recall from before... without ALTERING the sound or making it sound compressed with sonic equivalents of DNR in the video world, which can do more harm than good & leave nasty, unwanted artifacts of the clean up process...
these re-masters reminded me the beatles don't have any bad songs... some are just better than others...
* the beatles figured prominently in outliers by malcolm gladwell (tipping point, blink)... he talks about some kind of neuromuscular law where classical musicians need to practice about 10,000 hours to become experts (it crops up in other areas like programming with bill joy & gates, who benefitted in a huge way from a similarly unusual confluence of events... having early & great access to computers, then rare, etc.)... coincidentally, the beatles unusual (for a rock band) stint in hamburg enabled them to hone their chops & music writing prowess in front of live audiences (playing for 6 hours a day sometimes?) to a far greater degree than other bands (i think they crossed the 10,000 hour threshold), & may have been their X-factor in transforming & morphing them from a promising act to the most seminal band in rock history...
Last edited by a moderator:
Steady Mooobin
Footballguy
Beatles noob here looking for advice.
I have always wanted to give the Beatles a go, but every time I look at their cd's, I'm intimidated by how many different albums they have. Remastered versions, originals, compilations, etc... I know a bunch of their songs, but never owned any of their stuff.
What I am wondering, is where should I start? Should I start at the beginning?
2nd question.... this seems like a good place to get a good answer.... I have just started buying (used) CD's again after a long layoff. I grew tired of the crappy compressed quality of MP3's. My question is, is it even possible for a MP3 to sound as good as a CD or Vinyl?
Thanks guys.
I have always wanted to give the Beatles a go, but every time I look at their cd's, I'm intimidated by how many different albums they have. Remastered versions, originals, compilations, etc... I know a bunch of their songs, but never owned any of their stuff.
What I am wondering, is where should I start? Should I start at the beginning?
2nd question.... this seems like a good place to get a good answer.... I have just started buying (used) CD's again after a long layoff. I grew tired of the crappy compressed quality of MP3's. My question is, is it even possible for a MP3 to sound as good as a CD or Vinyl?
Thanks guys.
SlaX
Footballguy
I'm not sure if this applies or would even interest anyone, but...
If anyone has a Borders or Waldenbooks in their area that sells CDs or Videos Games (or anything else that the coupon is good for, actually), this coupon may interest you. Here is a link to a 30% off the list price of any item for Borders Rewards members, so that may be the Beatle's Remastered Box Set or The Beatles: Rock Band video game, which some stores sell and I have confirmed the coupon is good for. I think the membership is free, so you can sign up and get the 30% off.
Print your coupon here
I don't work at any of these stores, but I thought it may interest you guys that are interested in purchasing the box set or game in the near future.
If this doesn't interest you, move on and pretend you didn't hear this. Unfortunately, I only have one Waldenbooks in my area and they don't sell digital media - only books. So I wasn't able to take advantage of the deal like I hoped I could.
If anyone has a Borders or Waldenbooks in their area that sells CDs or Videos Games (or anything else that the coupon is good for, actually), this coupon may interest you. Here is a link to a 30% off the list price of any item for Borders Rewards members, so that may be the Beatle's Remastered Box Set or The Beatles: Rock Band video game, which some stores sell and I have confirmed the coupon is good for. I think the membership is free, so you can sign up and get the 30% off.
Print your coupon here
I don't work at any of these stores, but I thought it may interest you guys that are interested in purchasing the box set or game in the near future.
If this doesn't interest you, move on and pretend you didn't hear this. Unfortunately, I only have one Waldenbooks in my area and they don't sell digital media - only books. So I wasn't able to take advantage of the deal like I hoped I could.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
it's nice to see a high publicized EVENT-type release such as the tandem release of the game & the remasters bringing the beatles to the attention of many more listeners from younger generations than would otherwise have been likely...
if their sound resonates so well with the present (& will in the future, at least for a forseeably very long time), it is no doubt partly (primarily) related to the fact that their astonishing talent (and far ahead-of-their-time production & engineering)makes them timeless & enduring... but also maybe because so much music today is tedious, formulaic shlock put together by talentless hacks & unimaginitive flacks...
point taken about beatles probably being unprecedented & peerless in creative evolution... though, off the top of my head, floyd made massive advances from barrett-penned, psychedelic fuelled pop ditties like arnold layne to a masterpiece like DSOM (with gilmour an inspired pinch hitter for front man/guitarist acid casualty syd) in little more than a half decade...
while probably not on the same playing field... king crimson & rush, in their own way, changed their sound considerably at times within a few years...
steely dan advanced, but they sort of had a fully formed sound to begin with, & were really good from the start...
completely different genre, but miles sound evolved heavily and quickly, almost morphing from night to night, in approx half decade from late '60s-mid-'70s (in a silent way to agharta/pangaea compresses decades of sunjective creative evolution into a small fraction of actual time)...
if their sound resonates so well with the present (& will in the future, at least for a forseeably very long time), it is no doubt partly (primarily) related to the fact that their astonishing talent (and far ahead-of-their-time production & engineering)makes them timeless & enduring... but also maybe because so much music today is tedious, formulaic shlock put together by talentless hacks & unimaginitive flacks...
point taken about beatles probably being unprecedented & peerless in creative evolution... though, off the top of my head, floyd made massive advances from barrett-penned, psychedelic fuelled pop ditties like arnold layne to a masterpiece like DSOM (with gilmour an inspired pinch hitter for front man/guitarist acid casualty syd) in little more than a half decade...
while probably not on the same playing field... king crimson & rush, in their own way, changed their sound considerably at times within a few years...
steely dan advanced, but they sort of had a fully formed sound to begin with, & were really good from the start...
completely different genre, but miles sound evolved heavily and quickly, almost morphing from night to night, in approx half decade from late '60s-mid-'70s (in a silent way to agharta/pangaea compresses decades of sunjective creative evolution into a small fraction of actual time)...
Last edited by a moderator:
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
If you can afford it, get the new remastered box set with all of the albums.If you'd rather just stick a toe or two in the water, you can go with the "Red" & "Blue" compilation albums. Red covers 1962-1966 & Blue goes 1967-1970. For years & years, these were THE Greatest Hits pakcages, though many Beatles' hits are missing. You could also try the album "1", which has all of the Beatles' #1 records on it.I know many Beatles' fans who don't like the early stuff that much & rarely listen to the '63/'64 albums, so it really depends on if you're locked into an era. Otherwise, I'd suggest for the more daring Beatles' newbies just starting with "Please Please Me" and go forward.However, you decide to collect make sure you also get "Past Masters" vols 1 & 2. The Beatles had many non-album hits (in their Brit configurations, which are "official" nowadays). For instance, neither "She Loves You" or "Hey Jude" - two of their biggest & most well known songs - were on British albums. Past Masters gathers all of them up & puts a decent bow on your collection.Side note: the Stones are long past due to settle on an official catalog. Completeists have gone broke for decades trying to collect all of their releases.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
I agree with this to a point. George Martin is a great producer and both Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick great engineers and they deserves a ton of the credit but it was the Beatles that were largely responsible for their sound. The first LP was basically their live set and they did lean on Martin more on the early LPS but with every record the Beatles exerted more and more control until they were essentially producing themselves.Don't get me wrong: Martin was invaluable but for the majority of songs the Beatles knew the sound they were going for. According to Emerick, McCartney would usually come in knowing exactly what he wanted where Lennon was more abstract (I want to sound like a hundred chanting Tibetan monks) and left it up to Martin/Emerick to figure it out technically. Either way the Beatles were calling the shots when it came to their music.
As far as the Beatles becoming THE BEATLES, I think Brian Epstein doesn't get nearly as much credit as he deserves. He knew nothing about music and kept out of it but he polished their image and sprang the group on America at exactly the right time. He wasn't exactly the greatest business manager but he kept that side away from the Beatles so they didn't have to worry about it. Once he died and the Beatles were left to make business decisions things began to fall apart rather quickly.
saintsfan
Footballguy
bookmarked...i can vouch for uruk-hai's contention that ac/dc & p-funk were ear-splittingly loud in concert (especially the cannon shots!)...So I bought Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road at Starbucks, lol. Anyway they both sound incredible. I think "With a Little Help from My Friends" is the best sounding track on either. I always thought it was a cool tune but this time it blew me away. Ringo was gold here. "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" and "When I'm Sixty-Four" were great also. I can't put into words how good these sound now. Buy it!
Pretty cool stuff here imo.
http://blogcritics.org/tag/the-beatles-remasters/
i'll echo the props to saintsfan... i checked this thread out AFTER buying some of the remasters, but the combination of being passionate & well informed is powerful... you make a hyperbole-lite, articulate, eminently lucid & intelligible guide/narrator & provide a helpful road map of what is some pretty expansive turf (the entire beatles catalog)...
this has made me want to break out my DVD copy of yellow supmarine, as well as rent some movies/docs from netflix...
i already had abbey road, the white album & yellow submarine (NOT the one in the re-master series, but the film soundtrack that has songs in the movie like eleanor rigby)...
got re-master versions of those three, as well as revolver, sgt. pepper, MMT & white album...
it seems to me that in addition to the hearing damage alluded to by uruk hai (
yesterday i wanted to play the classical stuff from YS re-master... i would characterize my stereo as neither great nor terrible, probably pretty average (excepting FBGs that have B & W nautilus speakers that go for $20,000+ a pair)... i didn't have a baseline or prior recording to compare it to, but the sound leapt out of the speakers... the clarity & resolution were exemplary, and stood out, compared to other beatles recordings i have had in the past... noticed after a second play details present that i missed before (hearing the bell struck with an initial percussive sound like i was in the studio... or the musician was in my living room)... the corny-sounding cliche i heard repeatedly (such as hearing it for the first time again) sounds over-the-top, but the sound was for me a revelation, marked & pronounced...
listened to revolver next... like many others seemingly, my taste had gravitated towards latter beatles (especially abbey road, which i always thought was a masterpiece since i was first exposed to it around 30 years ago ((agree the duelling guitar solo on the end is the greatest ever)), & the white album, in a brillinatly eclectic way... no doubt reflecting the fragmented state of their partnership... really amazing they were able to forge such a work of beauty in the crucible of such trying circumstances... a testament to their individual perhaps more then their usual, typical ensemble brilliance)... i had revolver & sgt pepper before that (as well as yellow submarine sound track)... don't think i ever had MMT, & did have the red (early) & blue (latter) greatest hits double albums... latter among my first albums, got heavy play back in the day...
on the strength of so many beatles cognoscenti championing revolver as one of the best (if not THE best), gave it another spin... glad i did! eleanor rigby was always one of my favorites, vaguely remembered here there & everywhere being its all too much-like (maybe my single favorite beatles SONG... if i counted the medley at end of abbey road, that would be it... blackbird is a great song... i was reminded of how little these songs have dated, if at all)... thought it would be interesting to hear a buch of other songs i hadn't heard in a long time (some songs like got to get you into my life i had seemingly heard so many times i had them committed to memory, but i still listened to them with fresh ears)... as noted above, i like to play music for my child (miles, p-funk, bach & mozart, film composers like rosza, morricone, goldsmith, whatever)... to say these melodies are catchy is like saying everest is pretty high... it gave him a smile...
next listened to abbey road... definitely sounds better... not just superior clarity & resolution, but in the separation & distinction of the instruments within the mix... & not just the instruments, but in the harmonization of the vocals... the beatles were arguably the best ever at that (C, S & N were pretty good in their own right)... ringo's drums are more noticeable in some songs... imo, they definitely did more than just make the bass punchier...
just put on sgt. pepper... sound on first song far more pristine than i recall... even a simple, hummable, almost child-like song like get by with a little help from my friends (my favorite by ringo) contains vocal details & separation i don't recall hearing before... the bass is more prominent in songs, & that isn't a bad thing... it doesn't overpower the other instruments in the mix... can't wait to check out sound, mix & details on MMT & white album...
incidentally, some review talked about how they prefered some of the later re-masters like abbey road because they mixed down from a larger number of tracks... i think early beatles were 2 track, circa revolver-era 4 track (?) and abbey road 8 track? lee perry used to use minimal tracks when mixing down some of his dub variants (you can't back up when you layer in track after track onto the source tapes... & it gets a very dense, not necessartily unpleasant sound)... as saintsfan noted, earlier beatles may have had cases where all the instruments are in one channel, & vocals in the other... by the time they had 8 track, it was easier to separate the instruments & vocal harmonies in the mix down... not to dis the earlier stuff, but a possible partial explanation for why some can hear a bigger difference in some of the latter stuff...
maybe a metaphor for why i find the re-masters instantly identifiable as superior in sound... certain big screens (and blu-ray transfers) are better than others because of the contrast enabled by having blacker blacks (a non-obvious factor)... certain kubrick films (like the shining comes to mind for me) have a kind of hermetically sealed quality in the sound, like when danny is wheeling around the hallways of the doomed hotel... kubrick was a master of silence as well as sound, & in some sections there is NO ambient, unintended sounds... in that context it was claustrophobic (probably intended for the mood of that picture)... in a good way these re-masters have that quality of hearing the sounds pop out of a sea of silence... with less hum & buzz & unwanted distortion that i recall from before... without ALTERING the sound or making it sound compressed with sonic equivalents of DNR in the video world, which can do more harm than good & leave nasty, unwanted artifacts of the clean up process...
these re-masters reminded me the beatles don't have any bad songs... some are just better than others...
* the beatles figured prominently in outliers by malcolm gladwell (tipping point, blink)... he talks about some kind of neuromuscular law where classical musicians need to practice about 10,000 hours to become experts (it crops up in other areas like programming with bill joy & gates, who benefitted in a huge way from a similarly unusual confluence of events... having early & great access to computers, then rare, etc.)... coincidentally, the beatles unusual (for a rock band) stint in hamburg enabled them to hone their chops & music writing prowess in front of live audiences (playing for 6 hours a day sometimes?) to a far greater degree than other bands (i think they crossed the 10,000 hour threshold), & may have been their X-factor in transforming & morphing them from a promising act to the most seminal band in rock history...
I appreciate the praise. Trust me, it was my pleasure.I love your insight into the sound of the remasters and I agree 100%. I'm still listening to them. This is my second time going from beginning to end and I'm still hearing things I didn't notice before.
saintsfan
Footballguy
I couldn't have put it any better. The Red and Blue Greatest Hits give a great overview of the Beatles career. They were first Beatles albums I owned. Lots of hidden gems on the Beatles albums that aren't on these, but no 3 or 4 double albums could give you all of the Beatles great songs.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
Yeah, I was speaking more about Martin's influence on the early stuff. As time went on, there was less and less of a monlithic Beatles "sound" and the guys were much more experienced in getting what they wanted anyway.I read somewhere that an audit of Apple reported that something like 37 cars (Rolls Royces, I think) were unaccounted for - that's how bad things were with the Beatles trying to run their own business.Godsbrother said:
Power Monster
The Midnight Stalker
Great thread- appreciate the effort(s). makes me want to go buy a turn table and pluck down the half speed master recordings that I have of Abbey Road and Magical Mystery Tour--- Blue Jay Way....
Similar threads
