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 (7 years ago) Permalink

up to where?

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

7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

― amateurist0, Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:28 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

― everything, Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:34 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

I vote for Badmotorscooter.

― QuantumNoise (Justin Farrar), Thursday, 13 April 2006 19:36 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

― billstevejim (billstevejim), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

Are there any Beatle albums that don't?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:58 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

I for one hear absolutely no difference.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Saturday, 15 April 2006 01:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

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

― pisces, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 12:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

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

― t**t, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 15:19 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink

4 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 2111 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

tarfumes, do you have any links to impressions?

― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:34 (7 months ago) Permalink

Yep, the Steve Hoffman forums: part 7, and towards the end of part 6. More favorable impressions are being posted, but the big hangup is that these were not mastered at 24 bit/96kHz. Which is apparently a thing.

― 5-Hour Enmity (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:38 (7 months ago) Permalink

some initial Hoffman postings did claim the same about the CDs; that they were 'a botch' etc. i wonder if these are considered better/worse.

― piscesx, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:44 (7 months ago) Permalink

Here's a bunch of Beatles nerds comparing various pressings on a http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-12/entertainment/ct-ent-1113-beatles-vinyl-20121112_1_beatles-nostalgia-beatles-catalog-beatles-lps65,000 system. Verdict seems to be that, overall, the new pressings are just fine.

― 5-Hour Enmity (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:09 (7 months ago) Permalink

Wow, fucked that up. Anyway, there's the link.

― 5-Hour Enmity (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:09 (7 months ago) Permalink

thanks for the links, man it's hard to parse the discussions of mastering engineer dorks

― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:11 (7 months ago) Permalink

haha, seriously.

― tylerw, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:13 (7 months ago) Permalink

the chicago tribune thing is funny, too, because they basically can't come to consensus.

fuck it, i might just buy sgt peppers or something and check one out

― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:26 (7 months ago) Permalink

i mean i'd love original pressings too, oh for a world where beatles UK orig pressings were just laying around in used record shops for 25 bucks

― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:26 (7 months ago) Permalink

mm copies of the white album that are tatty but play ok go for 100 quid in Mono, excellent copies you're looking close to £200.

― piscesx, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:40 (7 months ago) Permalink

The Chicago Tribune story is pretty useless when you consider that the listening test was done on a $165,000 stereo system. Most of us don't hear music that way.

― Jazzbo, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:50 (7 months ago) Permalink

Bought a $1 copy of "Yesterday and Today" last weekend. It's a little bit warped but there is like one skip on the entire record and it sounds damn fine anyways.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:55 (7 months ago) Permalink

i feel so dumb, in the 90s when i first started buying records you used to see beatles shit around more, just figured they'd always be around for a decent price, should have bought them all up

not to mention the literal fortune i could have made if i would have bought up every dollar bin prog record in like 96/97

― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:56 (7 months ago) Permalink

As I read more posts on the Hoffman forums, the problems seem to mostly center around the quality of the US pressings themselves, rather than the mastering. Lots of reports of warping, off-center records, and something called "non-fill" which, according to wikipedia, is "where the vinyl biscuit does not sufficiently fill a deep groove during pressing (percussion or vocal amplitude changes are the usual locations of these artifacts). This flaw causes a grinding or scratching sound at the non-fill point."

― 5-Hour Enmity (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 15 November 2012 21:43 (7 months ago) Permalink

http://www.tonepublications.com/analogaholic/review-the-new-beatles-box/

― scott seward, Friday, 23 November 2012 22:43 (6 months ago) Permalink

"Lots of reports of warping"

i see this a lot with new vinyl in general. don't know if its because people are rushing things because of high demand for vinyl or if its because people putting out vinyl now are getting sloppier but its pretty common with new reissues and new underground records i see. like, to the point where i am used to it.

― scott seward, Friday, 23 November 2012 22:47 (6 months ago) Permalink

Thanksfor that link skot, seems like a pretty rational assessment

― U.S. State Department, Office of Rare Psych (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 23 November 2012 23:18 (6 months ago) Permalink

Thanks for posting that review, Scott.

The majority opinion on the Hoffman forums seems to be that EMI cheaped out by going with Rainbo for the US pressings, which is (apparently) the source of warping, surface scuffs/noise, and off-center pressings. Supposedly, in order to get this out by x-mas, corners were cut. I suspect it's less about the high demand for vinyl than it is about rushing things to make sure the box got on the market asap.

If EMI was serious about chasing the audiophile market with these, they would have gone all-analog with the mastering/pressing process, and they wouldn't have used George Martin's much-maligned 1986 stereo remixes of Rubber Soul and Help! (which, to me, is the biggest problem with this new set). But going all-analog would have cost money, and EMI knew that most potential buyers wouldn't necessarily know or care that these are, for all intents and purposes, vinyl copies of CDs.

There's a similar vinyl Who box out now, and while I'd love to hear Endless Wire on vinyl (which puts me squarely in a tiny subset of the distinct minority of those who would love to hear Endless Wire, period), I can't for the life of me imagine that, like this Beatles set, it's anything more than a rush-job cash-grab by the record company.

― and I scream Fieri Eiffel Tower High (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Friday, 23 November 2012 23:22 (6 months ago) Permalink

Endless Wire was released om vinyl, btw. I think it's easily attainable.

― Thus Sang Freud, Saturday, 24 November 2012 03:17 (6 months ago) Permalink

I haven't heard any of the new vinyl but anyway. The Beatles remasters rock, both the stereo and mono boxes. They did it right. Hard to complain, really, about any of it. There might be a thing or two, ok, like the funky intro to the stereo version of A Hard Day's Night, but whatever. There is more bass overall, on the stereos, but that's a good thing. The vocals and the ambience are vastly improved across the board, I think.

Past Masters is still a thing (versus including the singles etc. on the appropriate albums) and I'm cool with that. I would have been cool if they'd put the singles on the albums but ultimately, that sort of compromises the integrity of the album as a unit, a standalone statement. The singles likewise were standalone statements, but collecting them together (with the EP-only tracks) does make sense. Listening to PM gives an accelerated experience of the growth of the Beatles, which isn't a bad thing, in fact the opposite, it can be quite mind-blowing.

The Anthologies are still out there, for them that wants them. I got each of mine on release day, vinyls and CDs. It was a big deal at the time, at least the first one (talky bits and all). Honestly? Some of the bootlegs sound better but the official versions are extremely welcome, after-the-fact fuggery and all. The iTunes versions of the Anthology stuff seem to be remastered, they sound better. It would be nice if the series could be remastered for cd also. Maybe a good excuse to include some more stuff, Carnival of Light, 104-minute version of Helter Skelter, etc.? Who knows.

― Doctor Flange, Saturday, 24 November 2012 04:23 (6 months ago) Permalink

Wow, didn't realize that it was/didn't think to look; thanks!

― and I scream Fieri Eiffel Tower High (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Saturday, 24 November 2012 04:34 (6 months ago) Permalink

these shitty new ones will just make a decent original White Album in mono go even *higher* in price then i guess.

― piscesx, Saturday, 24 November 2012 12:07 (6 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

Volume One of the triple volume Mark Lewisohn biog expected in October, and due to clock in at 1856 pages in the special 'author's edition'!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beatles-Complete-Story-Special/dp/1408704781

more here
http://www.examiner.com/article/beatles-author-lewisohn-says-epic-group-bio-will-go-where-none-has-gone-before

― piscesx, Friday, 1 February 2013 21:06 (4 months ago) Permalink

lol vol. 1. does the first one go up to 1962 or so?

― tylerw, Friday, 1 February 2013 21:07 (4 months ago) Permalink

ahahaa, i was kidding but: "He said the first volume, which will be out around this time next year, will cover up through 1962."

― tylerw, Friday, 1 February 2013 21:08 (4 months ago) Permalink

Hahahaha

― hibernaculum (Jon Lewis), Friday, 1 February 2013 21:21 (4 months ago) Permalink

He is the George RR Martin of rock biographers. Poor dude.

― hibernaculum (Jon Lewis), Friday, 1 February 2013 21:22 (4 months ago) Permalink

1856 pages that take you up until the music starts getting made! that 'authors cut' will set you back £120, normal edition; £30.

― piscesx, Friday, 1 February 2013 21:24 (4 months ago) Permalink

How much is that in people money?

― Gollum: "Hot, Ready and Smeagol!" (Phil D.), Friday, 1 February 2013 21:37 (4 months ago) Permalink

He is the George RR Martin of rock biographers. Poor dude.

Can't wait for the sexposition in the film version. Also, this probably means he'll keel over half-way through the volume that covers '66.

― HAPPY BDAY TOOTS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 1 February 2013 21:39 (4 months ago) Permalink

I'm excited to find out how many olives the Beatles ate.

― EZ Snappin, Friday, 1 February 2013 21:42 (4 months ago) Permalink

irl lols

― HAPPY BDAY TOOTS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 1 February 2013 21:44 (4 months ago) Permalink

Ringo = inordinately fond of "neeps"

― hibernaculum (Jon Lewis), Friday, 1 February 2013 21:49 (4 months ago) Permalink

Chapter 6
Harrison's cousin was born and raised in Shropshire, the only child of a couple who owned a local pub called ...

― tylerw, Friday, 1 February 2013 21:52 (4 months ago) Permalink

Great detail about the color of all the assistants' ~~tunics~~ shirts at each Abbey Road session.

― HAPPY BDAY TOOTS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 1 February 2013 21:53 (4 months ago) Permalink

Holy crap what.

blah blah RELEASE Carnival of Light! blah blah blah

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 2 February 2013 04:07 (4 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Stereo Vinyl box set review from Stereophile.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-123

spoiler: not as good as the absolute best releases of the Beatles on vinyl.

Mono box set still out there in the either, waiting for that algorithm at Apple corps. to decide when we're all ready to spend silly money on Beatles stuff again...

looking forward to the Sterephobe review.

― my opinionation (Hamildan), Thursday, 21 March 2013 11:01 (2 months ago) Permalink

Like most Americans at the time, I first heard the Beatles on Capitol vinyl that wasn't displaced by CDs until the late '80s, and Capitol though nothing of mucking with the music (adding tons of reverb, wildly altering the stereo mix, etc.) as well as the album titles and tracks. All of the "real" British CDs, LPs, and downloads sound dry compared to what I grew up with.

I don't know how legit some of the Stereophile points are - yes, a modern vinyl reissue doesn't sound like an original 1960s pressing played on modern equipment, but what was there to play it back upon their original release that compares to what we have now, in terms of phono cartriges, turntables, amps, speakers? What 1964 turntable/cartridge combo could capture the nuances of a good post-'80s setup?

― Lee626, Thursday, 21 March 2013 12:24 (2 months ago) Permalink

yeah hard to say. haven't bought this yet because of reservations like that article.

i did think White Album sounded like absolute shit on the CD reissues for whatever reason, esp the Mono version (which i generally liked the mono CDs esp on the early albums)

― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 21 March 2013 19:26 (2 months ago) Permalink

there were lots of great turntables in 1964! most people didn't own them though.

― scott seward, Thursday, 21 March 2013 19:36 (2 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

So what was it that people didn't like abt the 2009 white album remaster exactly?

― folsom country prism (Jon Lewis), Monday, 10 June 2013 19:15 (1 week ago) Permalink

Should have been a single album.

― everything, Monday, 10 June 2013 19:30 (1 week ago) Permalink

sounds pretty fucking marvelous to me. (then again, it always sounded good)

― tylerw, Monday, 10 June 2013 19:40 (1 week ago) Permalink

I think the Mono White Album is one of the best of the remasters. People are tripping.

― EZ Snappin, Monday, 10 June 2013 19:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

I only have the stereo one but it's awesome. "Helter Skelter" never sounded so crushing. That bass!

― Nate Carson, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 01:03 (1 week ago) Permalink

I don't have anything against "helter skelter" and love many Macca's bass lines but I've always found the sound of the bass on "helter skelter" not satisfying. too thin, I dunno...

― AlXTC from Paris, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 14:33 (1 week ago) Permalink

Lennon played the bass on "Helter Skelter" iirc

― Sir Lord Baltimora (Myonga Vön Bontee), Tuesday, 11 June 2013 14:35 (1 week ago) Permalink

I completely agree, especially when you listen to the isolated track.

But that said, isn't it John playing bass on that? Makes sense, since the track is played like The World's Greatest Rhythm Guitarist (On Bass).

― pplains, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 14:36 (1 week ago) Permalink

Paul never got into the hugely loud, distorted bass sounds of Entwistle or Bruce. Odd in this case, since this song's goal was to out-Who the Who.

― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 14:38 (1 week ago) Permalink

ah, that would make sense if that was John playing !

― AlXTC from Paris, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 14:51 (1 week ago) Permalink

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