OT: Beatles Remastered

[DHallerman]

So, just got the released today remastered Beatles catalogue, the stereo version.

Trying to get work done, but when I've stolen time to listen, the songs I've heard sound more detailed and clear, substantially so, than the original 1987 CD release.

Anyone else been listening?

Dave, who is grateful that the living room he shares with his lovely wife is set up well for the stereo just as he's grateful that the basement is home to his and her bikes and parts and tools

[jmeloy]

So, just got the released today remastered Beatles catalogue, the stereo version.

Trying to get work done, but when I've stolen time to listen, the songs I've heard sound more detailed and clear, substantially so, than the original 1987 CD release.

Anyone else been listening?

Dave, who is grateful that the living room he shares with his lovely wife is set up well for the stereo just as he's grateful that the basement is home to his and her bikes and parts and tools
While I have most of their library, from what I've heard, the sound is amazing!

[Kevan]

I met at the Golden Apple ride? A lover of all things steel?

Re: the Beatles, WFUV was all over this topic this morning and played some of the songs from the new digital cut. They also played from the SP album a goofy sound bit that didn't make the original album. Least I think that's where it came from. I'm guessing these new albums have some added bits, if not music.

[DHallerman]

I met at the Golden Apple ride? A lover of all things steel?

Re: the Beatles, WFUV was all over this topic this morning and played some of the songs from the new digital cut. They also played from the SP album a goofy sound bit that didn't make the original album. Least I think that's where it came from. I'm guessing these new albums have some added bits, if not music.

The music is the same, the same tracks, same albums -- but much richer in sound, more detail, more fullness.

But I've just listened to a few tracks so far.

And yes, we met at the Golden Apple ride. Although I'd describe myself as a lover of all things steel, most things titanium, and even a bit of carbon on my forks.

[max_powers]

Local radio played 10 tracks, even on FM into earbuds, the remastering sounds great!

[gregclimbs]

meh, I still have the original mono LPs I stole from my mom...

:banana:

g

[Jeff N.]

I still remember Beatlemania. I was about 14, the perfect age. The Kennedy assassination had just happened November '63. The country was in a sad state of mourning. Then The Beatles were on the Ed Sullivan Show in January of '64. They were a shot-in-the-arm. A gift from God. Then the Stones, the Animals, the Kinks, and the rest of the British Invasion...I feel lucky to have gone through that period as a teenager. Jeff N.

[mcteague]

I had most of the albums in my youth. Never liked the CD sound and had moved to classical music anyway. My state of the art audio system (Linkwitz Orion+ speakers, Tact RCS preamp, Rotel 8 channel amp & Sony NS999ES CD player) really made the old masters sound hard and glassy. The "Love" CD really amazed me but that was remixed as well as remastered.

Anyway, I just picked up "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Abbey Road". I would rather have the mono originals of the first two but the limited edition set is just too $$, not to mention pretty much sold out.

They sound better, mostly more open and no hard edge. Some extra bass can be heard but they really don't sound all that different to me.

Tim

[pdmtong]

I just bought both the stereo and mono box sets off amazon...what the heck, it's only money.....

[rwsaunders]

My kids turned me on to the promo video...

http://www.thebeatlesrockband.com/videos/cinematic

[Louis]

Steps up to soapbox.

The Beatles are overrated. Too much saccharine - sweet, but little substance.

Steps down from soapbox and dons silver-coated anti-flame suit.

[mcteague]

Steps up to soapbox.

The Beatles are overrated. Too much saccharine - sweet, but little substance.

Steps down from soapbox and dons silver-coated anti-flame suit.
I'm a fan but tend to agree. In the context of what was being produced at the time they stand out. Listening again, after many years, I enjoy the music but it does tend to seem a bit lightweight.

Tim

[14max]

*****

[jpw]

So who owns the rights to the music? What's their angle, and why...now? Big tax bill to pay?

It's the same music as before, just given a bit of pr 'gloss'.

[DHallerman]

So who owns the rights to the music? What's their angle, and why...now? Big tax bill to pay?

It's the same music as before, just given a bit of pr 'gloss'.

Actually, the overall sound quality is substantially better.

Have you actually listened to the music, or just the PR?

However, that better quality is likely most appreciated by:

* someone who has listened regularly to the original, 1987 Beatles CDs (so they have a ground for comparison);
* someone who has a good stereo; and
* someone who actually sits and listens, rather than it playing as background music.

Dave, who says okay okay sure he fits those three standards

[Ken Robb]

So who owns the rights to the music? What's their angle, and why...now? Big tax bill to pay?

It's the same music as before, just given a bit of pr 'gloss'.

I'm not sure but did Michael Jackson own the Beatle's library?

[paczki]

Steps up to soapbox.

The Beatles are overrated. Too much saccharine - sweet, but little substance.

Steps down from soapbox and dons silver-coated anti-flame suit.

I agree, but Rubber Soul is a great album.

[Nathanrtaylor]

I'm not sure but did Michael Jackson own the Beatle's library?

Michael Jackson owned the publishing rights. The masters were/are owned by EMI. This release is all due to the masters being released. (can't do much remastering without them)

I think I have that right. I had a conversation with a friend in the music biz here in Nashville who works for EMI. They had a big party the other day and gave out copies of the Beatles Rock Band game.

[flickwet]

Bought Rubber Soul, amazing improvement to my ears, every instrument including vocals is extraordinarily well defined. However, early pop stereo recordings are not ready for todays expectations in layering, spaciousness and imagery. Definatly worth the purchase, Sgt Peppers is next. BTW I listened on my porch/patio "rock it out system" nothing great, Sunn monitors (efficient commercial horns), sony cd, NAD amp. lastly one of the few who got the Beatles "Love" on LP, that one stays in the house to lay on the Linn

[sc53]

I just loved Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's. Played the grooves off the LPs but still own them, too many memories to toss them. I might try one or two of the remastered versions.

[flickwet]

The remasters are even better than my mofi 1/2 speed masters, yes that good.

[uno-speedo]

This is a good interview of Ken Stone a sound engineer for the Beatles.

http://www.fm949sd.com/morning/story.aspx?ID=1138806

[rwsaunders]

My kid's were holding my weathered copy of the Sgt. Pepper's record jacket in their hands while looking for messages in the mirror to see if Paul was indeed dead. I actually still have the cutouts inside of the jacket...sgt. stripes, moustache, etc.

The Beatles rock imho.

[Ray]

Steps up to soapbox.

The Beatles are overrated. Too much saccharine - sweet, but little substance.

Steps down from soapbox and dons silver-coated anti-flame suit.
Naaaahhhh, not overrated. MAYBE too saccharine, maybe too sweet - those are just a matter of personal taste. I feel pretty much the same about their early stuff, but don't hear any of those same weaknesses in their later stuff, which became much more hard edged, sophisticated, interesting, I'd say mature.

But personal likes and dislikes aside, you can't even begin to over-rate the impact they had on music, on culture, on hair and clothes, etc. Their impact was HUGE. They changed EVERYTHING!!! Its hard to see that from a recent perspective because we just take for granted all of the changes in music since the early 60s, but go back and listen to ANYthing else from before them and then you start to get how great the Beatles were. They thought and wrote and played completely outside the box that existed at that time. They redefined the box - made all sorts of things possible that hadn't been before.

They've never spent as much time on my music system as some other bands because I came later too - I was a very little kid when they were starting out. But I like pretty much everything from Rubber Soul forward, and love the White Album and beyond, and have a compilation of their early stuff just to appreciate the pure pop of it all.

You can like 'em or not, but you can't possibly over-rate how amazingly important they were.

-Ray

[bluesea]

As long as what was originally released in mono, remains mono.

[Louis]

you can't even begin to over-rate the impact they had on music, on culture, on hair and clothes, etc. Their impact was HUGE. They changed EVERYTHING!!!

Ray, I agree that much depends on your generation. My "formative" high-school years were in the mid to late seventies, (Disco RULES !!!) so I missed the Ed Sullivan show stuff and its aftermath. All I can do is listen to music from the past and respond to what moves me. In this case, for me, music by folks like Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix or later, Pink Floyd, have a lot more to say than the Beatles.

[DHallerman]

In this case, for me, music by folks like Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix or later, Pink Floyd, have a lot more to say than the Beatles.

Of course, that says everything about you and nothing about the music.

No negative there, that's just true for anyone's reaction to any music (or any other art form, or likely their choice in bicycles, too).

Dave, who grew up with The Beatles and who likely would not have listened to them the past few days if not for the remastered reissues

[Louis]

Of course, that says everything about you and nothing about the music.

Agreed, but if not mine, whose criteria should I use when assessing the music? Yours? Yanni's? There is no useful objective standard out there.

[Jeff N.]

"If The Beatles or the 60's had one message, it was 'Learn to swim'. And once you've learned,...SWIM!" -John Lennon

[DHallerman]

Agreed, but if not mine, whose criteria should I use when assessing the music? Yours? Yanni's? There is no useful objective standard out there.

Of course. Entirely. No useful objective standard.

Which is why when anyone -- not you, Louis, but perhaps other on this thread or talking about bikes, say -- says something or someone artist or some framebuilder is "the best" I have a bunch of salt I need to ingest.

I s'pose I wasn't entirely responding to you, before. Sorry if miscomm'd.

[Louis]

Of course. Entirely. No useful objective standard.


Shimano is the greatest. Campy suks. ;)

[DHallerman]

Shimano is the greatest. Campy suks. ;)

Jeez, most of my bikes mix Campy and Shimano.

Where am I to go?

(Shimano STI is a distant fifth to Campy Ergo shifters.)

[Treetop]

... The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds", the Stones "Between the Buttons" and Dylans "Blonde on Blonde" as groundbreaking as "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver".

The so-dubbed Earth-changing Sargent Pepper LP would not have happened without these other artists pushing music during that era. Particularly "Pet Sounds".

That last part is not my opinion but that of one George Martin. He should know.

I just think we should not put all of the owness on the Beatles as the sole groundbreakers of the era. It was a collective artistic boundary pushing effort. They just seemed to benefit from their early commercial success and great PR more than the others.

Great music no matter how you slice it - enjoy!

[rounder]

The part i remember was before the beatles it was somgs like duke of earl (from whoever) and night train from james brown. The Beatles came out with i wanna hold your hand (lame to me), when i saw her standing there (wild) and others. To me they sort of came to redefine the music of the day and changed everyone's outlook of what was going on. Meanwhile, i hadn't given the beatles much credit and was listening mainly to the rolling stones and thought they were what it was all about. The stones were great but the beatles kept evolving. Others came on the scene and went...doors, cream, ccr, jimi hendrix et al, still the beatles could hold their own with any of them until they decided to hang it all up. I know that this all may seem pretty narrow minded by todays's standards, but believe that it was the way many fealt at the time,

[Ray]

Ray, I agree that much depends on your generation. My "formative" high-school years were in the mid to late seventies, (Disco RULES !!!) so I missed the Ed Sullivan show stuff and its aftermath. All I can do is listen to music from the past and respond to what moves me. In this case, for me, music by folks like Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix or later, Pink Floyd, have a lot more to say than the Beatles.
Sounds like we're about the same age, or within a couple of years (I got out of HS in '76) and my tastes are very similar to yours. Big into Dylan and Hendrix, big into the Stones and the Dead and Springsteen. A bit into Pink Floyd. Not all that into the Beatles at the time. But my brother and sister are a lot older than me, so I was exposed to Beatles hysteria as a little kid and a lot of that music was kind of burned into the recesses of my brain SOMEwhere. So I 'got' the '64-65 impact even if I didn't experience it personally. And later explored the music more and got pretty into some of the later stuff.

But my larger point, to steal an analogy, is whether you liked 'em or not, the Beatles kind of invented the derailure and then the whole 'who do you like better' thing got like Campy vs Shimano. But you have to remember that Tullio invented the damn thing!

-Ray