I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
What's the hold up? Does anybody have any information?

fizzcaraldo (Justin M), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:07 (eleven years ago) Permalink

up to where?

jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:11 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I still listen to old LPs. Are the currently in print CD versions that horrible (and, if so, why not just buy them on vinyl)?

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:12 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it's paul's fault. bless him.

but yeah you're right it takes the fckng p-ss doesn't it?

latest word is that magical mystery tour is coming out on dvd with all sorts of extra stuff. as if the actual movie isn't like 1 big 'extra' already.


piscesboy, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:13 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"it's paul's fault"

What isn't, really?

OK, why is it Paul's fault?

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:18 (eleven years ago) Permalink

well i mean it must be paul/ EMI's dithering and arsing around that's to blame, the other fabs are either
a) dead or b) couldnt *really* care less.

maybe it's a question of who's up to the job, george martin sure as heck isn't. god don't let them get ELO=guy in again.

meanwhile, this ere beatles 10-dvd anthology unofficial bootleg edition can be yours for $150 :

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Original-BEATLES-Anthology-Directors-Cut-Real-10-DVDs_W0QQitemZ6430061859QQcategoryZ617QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

must say i'm tempted

piscesboy, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:00 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Well, there was that first-five-American-Beatles-albums-before-the-band-demanded-UK-US-consistency-in-the-tracklistings box set which was some sort of start...although the purist in me rather just have proper remasters/issues of the original British albums/track listings w/ the surrounding singles as bonus tracks.

That said, Macca, Ono, the Harrison family, and Da Ringosta can take their time settling this. I plan to finally digitize and sell off the CDs while I can get 'em for at least $4+ each back.

donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:15 (eleven years ago) Permalink

seven months pass...
Looks like it's coming:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,70658-0.html?tw=rss.index

Brakhage (brakhage), Thursday, 13 April 2006 17:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Vague but sort of promising, I guess. The catalog does need CD remastering, badly, as the in-print CDs (except Let It Be Naked, and maybe that Yellow Submarine "songtrack" from a few years ago?) are all from that late-80s batch of early-generation CDs that gave CDs such a bad name. Mind you, I do think it's a wasted opportunity if they don't take the chance to delete Past Masters and Anthology, and just put all the singles and bonus stuff on second discs packed with the remasters...

Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:10 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters," he said in a written statement submitted to the High Court in London earlier this month.

But it's not wrong to continue to sell them on cd?

Agree re Past Masters/Anthology but they're such cash cows that they're not going to do it.

Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:26 (eleven years ago) Permalink

god remember the whole "anthology" phenomenon? those were awful.

amateurist0, Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:28 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I like the Past Masters CDs. Don't like the idea of Beatle albums being treated as mere collections of electronic data stuffed onto a compact disc. The problem, of course, is that CDs are too expensive. (Solution: buy old LPs.)

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:31 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I kind of like the anthologies sets, too, especially the first one.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:31 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Yeah, the anthologies are great. Second one for me, though.

everything, Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:34 (eleven years ago) Permalink

A good thing about the "anthologies" is they are a good depository for the alternate mixes/takes etc., which--let's be realistic here--most people really don't want to hear (or have piggy-backed onto pricey new editions).

Chairman Doinel (Charles McCain), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:42 (eleven years ago) Permalink

George isn't around to veto the inclusion of 'Carnival of Light' this time round.

Bob Six (bobbysix), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

there is no reason to put the singles and alternate takes on the albums. if they just follow the capitol box model and do mono and stereo mixes of the albums (with better packaging of course) that will suffice.

kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:48 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I vote for Badmotorscooter.

QuantumNoise (Justin Farrar), Thursday, 13 April 2006 19:36 (eleven years ago) Permalink

How in the hell...Am I wasted?

Ah yes, the Beatles. I say buy the albums.

QuantumNoise (Justin Farrar), Thursday, 13 April 2006 19:37 (eleven years ago) Permalink

The Past Masters comps on their own are fine - I think I'd rather listen to the first one than anything up to Revolver at least. If they are to re-issue the lot, The White Album is going to need a box set all to itself.

Lotta Continua (Damian), Thursday, 13 April 2006 20:09 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I'm sure Paul will get it out all again eventually so he can ramp the price up to another ridiculous extreme. And turn himself up in the remastering process.

It would be nice if they released the red and blue anthologies so that they were in modern slimline 2CD cases rather than the FUCKING MASSIVE and HORRIBLE ones that they are in now.

Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Thursday, 13 April 2006 21:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

And in the case of the Red album, compiled on to a single, less overpriced, CD - the total running time of the 2CD set is just over 60mins. The asking price of £20-£30 is a piss take.

Michael Lambert (Michael Lambert), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

which--let's be realistic here--most people really don't want to hear (or have piggy-backed onto pricey new editions)

Are the people not interested in paying for pricey new editions of things really the target market for remastered versions of CDs that are available in droves in used CD stores the world over?

Seriously, I don't see what's so much better (and less cash-cow-ish) about retaining Past Masters and Anthology. OK, so it's kind of cool to have all the singles in one place, but it also robs them of context AND presents a somewhat confusing picture for buyers, who can't figure out which album it is that has "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on it. The PM sets are also really oddly-balanced, anyway - not quite a greatest hits, not quite an odds-and-sods. The Anthologies are just plain obnoxious, especially the first one with all the talky-talky bits.

I guess I'm just coming from a perspective where, if they just remaster the CDs I'll take a pass because I have the LPs already. But if they sweeten the deal I just might think it over, at least for a couple, assuming they went ahead and added more outtake/live stuff. Granted, they would still be kind of weirdly-sequenced albums with one or two singles at the front followed by a bunch of obscurities.... okay, maybe keep Past Masters after all. But I REALLY think it makes more sense to get the unreleased and live material wedded on to the appropriate albums - if nothing else, it means getting MORE of it, right?

Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:13 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"turn himself up in the remastering process"

What is an example where he has ever done this?

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:19 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Firstly, as any fule kno, Beatles CDs are not very common 2nd hand, except for the Anthologies and the BBC thing.

Secondly, Paul has little need to turn himself up anyway. He took a lot of care, recording his bass lines on a single track and spent ages getting the sound right. Why not? It's his friggin songs for fuxake!

everything, Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:24 (eleven years ago) Permalink

wow I had no idea the Anthologies were so hated. I only have the 2nd and 3rd ones and think they're fantastic - where else would I hear this stuff? Surely its the highest quality source for "What's the New Mary Jane" or "You Know My Name Look Up the Number" and a host of other rarities.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:27 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I don't understand it either. Maybe it's just too much Beatles for some people? I've only got a couple of tiny quibbles with them and it's usually just those times when it gets a bit self-indulgent, like those different version of the Fool On The Hill. Paul is obviously so proud of them but I just can't take it.

everything, Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:31 (eleven years ago) Permalink

ppl just like to complain about the beatles, i guess.

anthology 2 is the best, what with the stoned cracking-up version of and your bird can sing and the gorgeous demos of strawberry fields. 3 is good for the white album stuff, and 1 is probably the only time any americans (me included) will ever hear any morecambe and wise.

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:38 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"as any fule kno, Beatles CDs are not very common 2nd hand, except for the Anthologies and the BBC thing."

Well, they are getting slightly more plentiful. In fact, I got most of my collection used. But, then again, I've been lucky. The worst thing about used Beatle cds is that stores priced higher than average (i.e. in the US 10-12 dollars vs. 7-9). Shopping around helps, and the prices have leveled off (and no doubt will continue)

I will concur regarding the Anthologies and the BBC, but--to cite my earlier post--alot of the people who bought them probably realized that they didn't listen to them as much as the regular LPs.

Chairman Doinel (Charles McCain), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:40 (eleven years ago) Permalink

The live stuff at the end of disc 1 and the beginning of disc 2 of Anthology 1 is really cool.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:41 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it's paul's fault. bless him.

Neil Aspinall is probably the one to blame.

Anyway, seems like some good news is finally coming up.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Man, I'm not hating on any of the contents of the Anthologies (aside from, again, the talky stuff on Anth1) - I LOVE the music on those discs, the glimpses into the recording studio, etc. And when I was 16 me and my Beatle buddy developed a substantial secret language out of the miscellaneous bits of studio chatter. "Sugar plum fairy, sugar plum fairy..."

Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 13 April 2006 23:03 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Vague but sort of promising, I guess. The catalog does need CD remastering, badly, as the in-print CDs (except Let It Be Naked, and maybe that Yellow Submarine "songtrack" from a few years ago?) are all from that late-80s batch of early-generation CDs that gave CDs such a bad name.

While I agree that they need remastering, I don't neccessarily agree with your version of what they sounded like. The first four, sure, but the rest, particularly from "Sgt. Pepper" onwards, used state of the art remastering technology at the time, and sounded really impressive back then.

Only this is 20 years ago and a lot has happened since then.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 13 April 2006 23:08 (eleven years ago) Permalink

the Pepper cd sounds horrible against the vinyl version. The White Album stacks up ok but I got the 30th anniversary reissue not the original cd.

tremendoid (tremendoid), Thursday, 13 April 2006 23:25 (eleven years ago) Permalink

abby road still sounds really good. I'm sure a remastering will make it sound better but I listened to it yesterday carefully with headphones and was pretty blown away by how good it sounded.

I think the Anthologies are a pretty good distillation of the best stuff that makes up the two major bootleg series (ultra rare trax and, uh, whatever the other one is called; they have most of the same stuff on them). I could do w/out the talking on the first cd.

kyle (akmonday), Friday, 14 April 2006 17:44 (eleven years ago) Permalink

The Beatles are really smart to make people wait for every new issue. Keeps the interest up. When they are finally remastered it'll probably be on the cover of Time.

Mark (MarkR), Friday, 14 April 2006 19:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I assumed it was just a question of having to sort out all manner of legalities before anything happened in the Beatle world.

Lotta Continua (Damian), Friday, 14 April 2006 20:34 (eleven years ago) Permalink

What was interesting about the Anthology releases/phenomenon is that a lot of kids who were first getting into the band around that time all bought the Anthologies as if they were Greatest Hits Collections. I often see volumes of the Anthologies in people's collection as the only Beatles representation. "Just the b-sides, demos, and alternative takes for you eh?" They were hoodwinked!

ryan_w, Friday, 14 April 2006 20:46 (eleven years ago) Permalink

coincidentally (or perhaps not), michael jackson is also giving up his ownership of the publishing rights to sony this week, I think, to deal with some of his debt.

kyle (akmonday), Friday, 14 April 2006 20:52 (eleven years ago) Permalink

yeah i can imagine people getting suckered into the anthologies as some kind of definitive look at the beatles... that bluesy version of helter skelter is really wonderful. and the acoustic "across the universe".

xpost

dave k, Friday, 14 April 2006 20:56 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty sure The White Album will always sound best on vinyl.

billstevejim (billstevejim), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:57 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Are there any Beatle albums that don't?

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Okay, so in that case, why does there need to be such a rush to get them remastered?

billstevejim (billstevejim), Saturday, 15 April 2006 00:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I for one hear absolutely no difference.

Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Saturday, 15 April 2006 01:05 (eleven years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

i mean it does take the piss doesn't it?

pisces, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 12:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

lo-lo-lo-looooots of piss, sir! :(

t**t, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 15:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

I bought Help for £1 in a charity shop the other week. It was cheap because the cover was ripped (and taped up again) and the vinyl's a bit crackly, but it's not scratched at all. Even with the crackles it sounds great - a lot better than the CD versions, The Night Before especially gaining an awful lot of character and energy. I too am amazed there's no proper CD remaster, I guess because people are still buying the current shonky versions.

The Wayward Johnny B, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 17:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

four weeks pass...

This footage
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=compleat+beatles
of 'The Compleat Beatles' (snappy 1984 cheaply-made proto-ANTHOLOGY movie, shot on film and narrated by Malcolm Mcdowell) is
making me anticipate this happening all the more.

pisces, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 13:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

It will happen before or since, but apparently at still takes time.

I expected they'd at least do "Sgt. Pepper" in June this year to coincide with its 40th anniversary, but they did't.

Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 13:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

But at least, with the current trend for remasters, the ultimate edition will be better. I hope they will do like The Bee Gees and Monkees remasters, and put out 2CDs with the stereo version + bonus tracks in stereo on one and the mono version + bonus tracks in mono on the other one.

Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 13:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

Hmmm, what would be an example of a Sgt. Pepper song that you think works in spite of its production?

timellison, Saturday, 22 April 2017 17:21 (two days ago) Permalink

Tim, do you really think the production is essential to these songs and that they don't stand up when shorn of their production?

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 17:24 (two days ago) Permalink

I'd say the production is definitely essential to a few... Good Morning Good Morning, Lovely Rita, Fixing a Hole, Getting Better

Darin, Saturday, 22 April 2017 17:28 (two days ago) Permalink

or perhaps I should say the ARRANGEMENTS are essential

Darin, Saturday, 22 April 2017 17:30 (two days ago) Permalink

Y'see, that's where I'd disagree, because if the production was really that essential, the songs would fall to pieces without it. For example, the only thing added to 'Good Morning Good Morning' was animal noises and horns, and the song still works without them. The rest of them could be sung with just an acoustic guitar and voice and it would still hold up.

The production is probably the most essential on 'A Day In The Life', but most of the record is just standard Beatles material with a couple of things grafted on that the song would equally work well without.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 17:45 (two days ago) Permalink

IMHO the songs would all "work" with more basic arrangements, but it'd be a very very different listening experience, and much less of a thrilling mind-expanding journey or gauzy dreamy good trip or whatever.

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:05 (two days ago) Permalink

I'd argue that the production on Sgt. Pepper's ceased to be "mind expanding" decades ago, as advances in recording technology have rendered it more and more of an antique with each passing year. Also, as much as a lot of these songs would work/hold up well when shorn of their production, I also think it's the weakest collection of material they put out post-Help! ...

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:11 (two days ago) Permalink

it would have been expensive to try 'She's Leaving Home or 'Within You Without You' live

string quartet can play SLH. hire Indian musicians a la Concert for Bangladesh. the problem is 1967 concert sound technology vs. uncontrollably screaming crowds.

I'd say the production is definitely essential to a few... Good Morning Good Morning, Lovely Rita, Fixing a Hole, Getting Better

― Darin, Saturday, April 22, 2017 1:28 PM (thirty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

or perhaps I should say the ARRANGEMENTS are essential

Fixing and Hole and Getting Better both feature cool minimalist syncopated New Wave guitar arrangements that were written by rehearsing the songs over and over again. the upcoming box set will have a lot of these early takes, and you can hear for yourself. i think if they rehearsed Getting Better a bunch (and they did) that it would sound pretty futuristic, especially in 1967.

a lot of the production was simply amplification. you can't play acoustic guitar w no accompaniment quietly while singing at Shea Stadium with no monitor. it was technologically impossible in 1967, regardless of whether it is 2017 now.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:17 (two days ago) Permalink

Oh man, now there I've gotta differ, YS and LIB fall farrr short, and it at least ties with AR. As for mind expanding, I partly was thinking in the context of imaginary 1967 live performances and what they'd be like, and I do think it'd have been far less of an experience without all the sonic embellishments (ditto the Revolver songs imo). But also my own listening experiences... this album has a lot of flavor and mood and color, very warm, very enveloping. Doesn't feel antiquey to me but YMMV.

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:18 (two days ago) Permalink

Xpost to turrican

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:19 (two days ago) Permalink

xpost:

Well firstly, what makes you think that Beatles audiences in late 1967 or early 1968 would have been full of people screaming uncontrollably? Different times, people would surely have calmed their tits by then.

Was there any screaming when Lennon played Toronto in '69? When Wings played universities in the early '70s? If The Beatles had played in front of an audience instead of on the rooftop in '69, I'd put a safe bet on there being no screaming then, either.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:22 (two days ago) Permalink

Fixing and Hole and Getting Better both feature cool minimalist syncopated New Wave guitar arrangements

Hmm. Yeah, no.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:27 (two days ago) Permalink

i am torn between wanting to demonstrate that the guitar plucks of getting better really are forward-thinking vs the conversation that all of this is ludicrous

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:32 (two days ago) Permalink

conversation = realization

zen koan #2379

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:34 (two days ago) Permalink

xp you a pro at harshing the Beatle buzz

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:35 (two days ago) Permalink

I also think it's the weakest collection of material they put out post-Help! ...

You honestly rate Let it Be higher than Pepper?!

Darin, Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:35 (two days ago) Permalink

Oh man, now there I've gotta differ, YS and LIB fall farrr short, and it at least ties with AR.

I don't really consider Yellow Submarine to be a proper album, and I think Abbey Road is a superior collection of material and has aged better. Let It Be could have been a better final product than it is, but I prefer to listen to it over Sgt. Pepper's these days without a doubt.

As for mind expanding, I partly was thinking in the context of imaginary 1967 live performances and what they'd be like, and I do think it'd have been far less of an experience without all the sonic embellishments (ditto the Revolver songs imo). But also my own listening experiences... this album has a lot of flavor and mood and color, very warm, very enveloping. Doesn't feel antiquey to me but YMMV.

― long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:18 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It probably sounded incredible to 1967 audiences, but that was 50 years ago. From where I'm sitting now, in 2017, it sounds like a record made in 1967, and there's no real getting around that.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:36 (two days ago) Permalink

well congrats on your ability to perceive the passage of time

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:36 (two days ago) Permalink

what do you think is better than the Beatles? honestly curious, give us an album.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:37 (two days ago) Permalink

if there is a 2017 album that is better than "Sgt. Pepper" i'd like to hear it!

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:37 (two days ago) Permalink

on multiple levels, what is the point? the strawman idea that without cool production techniques, the sgt pepper's songs would fall apart? i probably missed it upthread but i don't know who is arguing that. and then the idea that the beatles should have played live in 1967 because their audience was totally different than the one the year and would have stayed quiet? well...ok, i mean yeah. maybe they would have been cool. or maybe they would have screamed their guts out. but...who cares?

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:37 (two days ago) Permalink

let's now hypothesize alternate realities where Lennon doesn't get shot

Darin, Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:39 (two days ago) Permalink

Karl, you've missed the point completely. The point was that, if indeed the production was essential to the tracks, then the tracks would fall apart if shorn of the production. The songs on Sgt. Pepper's would still work without the production, even if they aren't particularly the Beatles best batch of songs.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:43 (two days ago) Permalink

no, this is exactly what i'm talking about.

"The songs on Sgt. Pepper's would still work without the production"

who is arguing otherwise?

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:44 (two days ago) Permalink

hey, you see that barge over there? if you add another 20 pounds of cargo to it, it still floats.

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:45 (two days ago) Permalink

Adam Bruneau now exhibiting classic symptoms of someone who genuinely believes that The Beatles are the be-all-and-end-all of everything. Yawn.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:47 (two days ago) Permalink

Karl, it's all up there ^ if you can be arsed to read it. But since you can't, there was some discussion of how easy it would have been for the band to play the Sgt. Pepper's tracks live in 1967. The idea was then put forward that the production isn't essential and that the tracks could have been performed in the standard way and still come across well.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:53 (two days ago) Permalink

I saw someone try to play Xenakis' Persepolis once with just an acoustic guitar and voice. Totally couldn't pull it off. That record is now invalid.

Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Saturday, 22 April 2017 18:56 (two days ago) Permalink

Again, completely missing the point.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:00 (two days ago) Permalink

I feel like each of us in this thread is slowly transforming into different aspects of Geir.

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:01 (two days ago) Permalink

"Fixing a Hole" would lose almost nothing if it was played live with Lennon on keys. They could pretty much pull off the whole thing.

timellison, Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:02 (two days ago) Permalink

^ Exactly!

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:03 (two days ago) Permalink

Maybe if they were playing it at a house show and you could hear said keys. (Also, who's going to play rhythm guitar then?)

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:04 (two days ago) Permalink

(Harpsichords are also kinda, uh, large. Did any bands tour with that kind of gear/overhead back then?)

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:07 (two days ago) Permalink

I think Vox and Farfisa organs had harpsichord settings. Lennon's playing, what, a Vox at the '65 Shea Stadium show?

timellison, Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:08 (two days ago) Permalink

Rhythm guitar on "Fixing a Hole" - where is it??? Wikipedia says there's an acoustic on there...

timellison, Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:10 (two days ago) Permalink

Again, completely missing the point.

― ...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, April 22, 2017 3:00 PM (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Sure, I think most of us are. What difference does it make if the songs "stand up" with or without production? The record's great as it is, and the whole reason they made it (and the only reason George didn't quit) is for the record to take the place of touring.

And what are we considering "production"? Additional instrumentation? Arrangements? Compression? How much compression? Overdubs? Which overdubs? Tape effects? Suggestions made by Emerick and/or Martin regarding how close the singers should stand to the mics?

Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:13 (two days ago) Permalink

The Shea instrument is indeed a Vox Continental. It had some sliders to adjust the sound but no 'instrument' patches like you'd see in synths later on. Wiki gives a nice lineup of famous tracks on which it can be heard - it's the California Sun/Light My Fire/I'm A Believer/Sir Douglas Quintet sound.

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:25 (two days ago) Permalink

Meh. The record has some occasionally stunning moments - 'A Day In The Life' being the real achievement. As a collection of songs, though? Meh.

Odessey and Oracle still remains a far stronger record, as does the two LP's Small Faces did for Immediate.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, 22 April 2017 19:32 (two days ago) Permalink

I've read that the double manual Vox Continental had a harpsichord setting. They're the red buttons. I think it was just reeds and flutes for the single manual. Farfisas had a row of voice buttons.

timellison, Saturday, 22 April 2017 20:12 (two days ago) Permalink

There was an American band called the Mandrake Memorial who were signed to Poppy/MGM. I seem to recall that their first album has lots of fake harpsichord on it.

My suggestion, though, is that the Beatles could have made do with compact organ and/or electric piano on a certain amount of their material from this period, but Lennon would probably have had to be the guy a lot.

timellison, Saturday, 22 April 2017 20:26 (two days ago) Permalink

huh, didn't find anything about that other version of the continental, my bad!

apparently with a little modding you could get god knows what sounds out of these things. clearly they should have just hired this guy along to back them up:

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 April 2017 22:26 (two days ago) Permalink

Well firstly, what makes you think that Beatles audiences in late 1967 or early 1968 would have been full of people screaming uncontrollably? Different times, people would surely have calmed their tits by then.

― ...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:22 PM (five hours ago)

this is kind of an interesting question because the beatles would seem like such a different band if they'd kept playing live. it's really hard to picture them playing, like, white album songs to screaming audiences. i can sort of imagine them doing really elaborate sgt pepper live performances, with sets and props and costumes, but not a full tour with stadiums and everything. maybe the audiences really would have calmed down by then. in retrospect it's bizarre to think of the beatles recording revolver, with songs like "tomorrow never knows," and then going on tour and playing chuck berry covers for kids who were still flipping out and making noise like it was 1964.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 22 April 2017 23:41 (two days ago) Permalink

Totally. And it's not like screaming fans stopped being a think right away - pretty sure the Monkees got at least some of that.

long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 23 April 2017 00:11 (yesterday) Permalink

two LP's Small Faces did for Immediate.

as a guy who has held many CHALLENGING OPINIONS in his life, I bow respectfully to "the two LPs Small Faces did for Immediate are better than Sergeant Pepper"

People like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr, and (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Sunday, 23 April 2017 00:31 (yesterday) Permalink

Hah!

Stupefyin' Pwns (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 23 April 2017 00:49 (yesterday) Permalink

idk Ogden's is p great

Οὖτις, Sunday, 23 April 2017 00:52 (yesterday) Permalink

They're both great. The self-titled Small Faces album from '67 in particular is sorely underrated and the equal of Ogden's, IMO. Ogden's is best in its mono mix, but you can tell they deliberately went out of their way to make the stereo mix as interesting as possible, and as a result it seems like far more thought went into it than any of The Beatles stereo mixes.

...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Sunday, 23 April 2017 01:05 (yesterday) Permalink

Here I am, again, to say

A mono mix is more difficult to do than a stereo one.

Each instrument and sound combination needs to have the appropriate audibility, which is harder to achieve in one audio source.

Also, if the mono mix is done, what's left to do is to spread out 'guitar over there a bit, bass over there a bit, vocal 1, 2 etc slightly left and right, and don't alter any levels. There you go, stereo mixed.

Mark G, Sunday, 23 April 2017 09:40 (yesterday) Permalink

how are the DeAgostini releases currently in whsmiths? i noticed the white album was out yesterday.

ditto the RSD version of S Fields / P Lane?

koogs, Sunday, 23 April 2017 14:22 (yesterday) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.