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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2311 of them)

So should my rubbish floppy 80s vinyl Revolver sound better than my badly mastered 90s CD Revolver?

Actually there is no 90s "Revolver". "Revolver" was issued on CD in early 1987 and that version is still the one that can be bought in shops today. I don't even think they remastered anything from before "Sgt. Pepper" (which was remastered and released exactly 20 years after its first 1. June release date)

Considering remastering technology has developed a lot since then, chances are they will sound better, yes.
For me, the most important thing will still be the ability to have "proper" stereo versions of the first four albums, not burned CDs like now. Although it must be added that those Purple Chick "Deluxe Editions" are rather amazing.

Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

Considering remastering technology has developed a lot since then, chances are they will sound better, yes.

They couldn't sound a great deal worse.

If you have doubts, listen to 'Love', that newly-remastered Cirque du Soleil/Beatles tie-in album that was released last year. Gorgeous sound.

ŒƔƛƺȸɚɮʥᶄⱤstⱥ അുൠᚥ௸௵ⵞৠﬗѬ҈҉Ԋੴߥᚔଫ (Autumn Almanac), Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I was kidding. But that's the thing with remasters - do they sound better even half the time?

― Mark, Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:47 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the cirque du soleil "love" CD that came out last year or two years ago was sort of ... revelatory in how much better it sounded than the other CDs

gr8080 (max), Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

I remember everyone thought that "Sgt. Pepper" sounded absolutely fantastic. But this was in 1987 and people still didn't realise how much better remastering technology would become from the late 90s onwards in particular.
I believe it is those Jimi Hendrix remasters that really opened up people's eyes to how great remasters could sound with the right technology and the right tape sources. That being said, I believe the back catalogues by Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd haven't been remastered since 1994 or something, and those remasters still sound great.

Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

it absolutely depends on who is remastering and how it's remastered. there is no across-the-board rule that remastering is bad or good. and even then it's ultimately up to your ears. for instance: I personally think the new versions of the Genesis albums sound like shit. Some of this is due to mastering, most of it has to do with stuff done while they were being remixed though (compression and level adjustments happened at the remix stage and not the remastering stage). Those Bee Gees albums, which are remastered, sound amazing though.

We are talking about the Beatles here and this is probably the most valuable and historically important music catalogue in existence. I have confidence they are doing this correctly and they'll sound great, but you know, they could always fuck it up.

I know everyone hates the 87 cds but I think pretty much all of them from Rubber Soul on sound fine.

Love is a remix (even the bits that aren't mashups) and yeah those do sound amazing. I think the Yellow Submaring Songtrack release (also a remix) sounds pretty excellent too. This is why, I think, they are doing both stereo remixes for everything, and also re-releasing the 87-era mixes but remastered.

akm, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

As for the Genesis mixes, I agree they didn't do a good job with the first batch, but the batch released last autumn sounded not at all bad. "Genesis" sounds a lot better than the older version. Just hopefully they have learned from the mistakes done on the first batch when the new ones are being released now, because fucking up dynamic range would be a bad idea with early Genesis.

Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

god yeah those Bee Gees remasters are fucking amazing

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

Listen to the Sgt. Pepper stuff on Disc 02 of the Anthology 02, it sounds AWESOME compared to the released tracks. Not sure if that's just because it's so stripped down or the remastering... Hope it's the later...

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 18 September 2008 00:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Well here comes Carnival of Light! http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/nov/16/paul-mccartney-carnival-of-light

Gets the hype for the '09 ITunes release/ Catalogue remaster started early.
Fine by me!

piscesx, Sunday, 16 November 2008 04:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm a huge beatles fan but i couldn't give a flying fuck about carnival of light. does anyone really want to hear the beatles "jam"? no.

ILX MOD (musically), Sunday, 16 November 2008 04:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

BARCELONA!

piscesx, Sunday, 16 November 2008 04:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh and some genius has uploaded the entire uncut/ director's cut version of ANTHOLOGY off the bootleg dvds =
http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Beatles+Anthology+Director%27s+Cut&search_type=

piscesx, Monday, 17 November 2008 02:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm a huge beatles fan but i couldn't give a flying fuck about carnival of light. does anyone really want to hear the beatles "jam"?

yes

what U cry 4 (jim), Monday, 17 November 2008 02:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

The Beatles have such a place in history that anything unreleased has historic interest. Even if it's some useless "Revolution #9"-like crap.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 17 November 2008 02:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Once released it should offer proof that the Fab Four, and McCartney in particular, were much more avant-garde in their tastes than many gave them credit for.

What a strawman. Would newly released tapes of Nixon acting paranoid prove that he was "not the kind-hearted idealist some charge him to be"?

Cunga, Monday, 17 November 2008 03:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

He isn't?!?!?

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 04:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

if the Beatles jam is anything like that awesomely awkward Dirty Mac thing from RocknLol Circus, then i am all for it.

the table is the table, Monday, 17 November 2008 04:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

let's face it, if it were any good it would have been released by now. they haven't been shy about releasing outtakes and demos. they're just looking for SOMETHING new to release to justify the ridiculous amount of time it took to release a remastered catalog.

miss precious perfect (musically), Monday, 17 November 2008 04:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

nonsense, Thumbs tried to get it on Anthology (where it would have belonged) and grumbles in an interview every 11 months about Harrison blocking it, "they're" not looking for anything at this point.

numismatic factory (sic), Monday, 17 November 2008 05:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

some useless "Revolution #9"-like crap.

DOES NOT COMPUTE

Sara Sara Sara, Monday, 17 November 2008 06:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

There are whole bunches of outtakes that would have been better ones than the ones they released on "Anthology", only one or other Beatle said no as they were particularly crap on that one.

"Yes it is" take one, for instance.

Often, if George's first take guitar solo was somewhat wonky because he hadn't figured it out, he wouldn't want that one on the anth, because people would laugh and say he was a crap soloist. Which would hardly be fair. Still, that take one version of "Hard days night" is more interesting than the one they mangled together for the anthology.

Mark G, Monday, 17 November 2008 08:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

After being sorely disappointed by the outtake "Helter Skelter" on Anth 3(?), I'm never approaching a Beatles rarity ever again with anything other than despair.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 17:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Anthology series didn't premiere anything that hadn't already been bootlegged hundreds of times over. But I don't know anyone who's ever heard 'Carnival of Light', it's been pretty closely guarded.

Even if it's just a lot of tape echo, I'll probably love it:

1001 What's The New Mary Jane - RS4 6:38 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 7 11/17/08
1002 What's The New Mary Jane - RS5 7:05 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 7 11/17/08
1003 What's The New Mary Jane - RS6 2:28 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 7 11/17/08
1004 What's The New Mary Jane 5:43 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 7 11/17/08
1005 What's The New Mary Jane 6:40 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 6 11/17/08

Milton Parker, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

mccartney says this every year or so, i'll believe it when I see it. they say LOTS of things (like yearly claiming the remasters are coming out...which I'm sure they will at some point, but it's beyond me what the actual hold up is since they're obviously done if that mojo article was to be believed). this is probably just incidental to the mccartney album that just came out.

akm, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

yeah this'll be rad what are you people talking about

tylerw, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

i mean whatever, it won't change your life, but i'd like to hear it. there's plenty of crappy beatles shit out there, why not some more crappy beatles shit? funny that it's never been bootlegged before? hasn't everything been bootlegged? is the master tape kept in a vault in switzerland?

tylerw, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Milton brings up "What's the New Mary Jane?"

In theory, I should love this piece, but I've listened to it over a dozen times, and it just isn't memorable at all.

I know "Carnival" is over twice as long, so the idea of it fitting probably figured most into its exclusion from the Anth series, but if the not that great "WTNMJ?" was accepted and "Carnival of Light" was vetoed, this doesn't really bode well, does it?... especially given that, if the piece were that great, it could have been released on an exclusive Anth bonus disc (alongside the now officially gone 27+ minute "Helter Skelter")

I'd rather hear the still-not-officially-released extended version of "Something" out of all of this.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'd rather hear rad 14-minute crazy Beatles pretending to be Stockhausen than the 5,000th Mono closet mix of "And Your Bird Can Sing"

Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

it would have been rad had it been released on Magical Mystery Tour as a bonus 12" disc back in 1967 (alongside the studio tracks that would end up on Yellow Submarine)

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

if they need a gimmick to sell the remasters i like this gimmick more than LOVE ... but yeah, sir paul should just put this out on 12". biggest selling avant-garde track EVER.

tylerw, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

the anthology version of Something is slightly > the final version

I'd rather hear the still-not-officially-released extended version of "Something" out of all of this.

i have a 9min version of it...it must be the early stages because the guys were just making up lyrics as they went along, I can email it to you if you'd like.

miss precious perfect (musically), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

I have the one on the "Abbey Road Anthology" CD. I don't think it's 9 minutes, but the missing "Something" coda kinda reminds me of that excellent coda on the single version of the Monkees' "Porpoise Song"

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

i heard a minute of what is supposedly carnival of light (just google) and it was pretty good.
apparently that's all there is out there. so i was pleased by this news.

Shacknasty (Frogman Henry), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

if the not that great "WTNMJ?" was accepted and "Carnival of Light" was vetoed, this doesn't really bode well, does it?

Well, Harrison was the one who vetoed it -- Wonderwall Music aside, he's always been disdainful of the avant-garde. It wasn't vetoed because it didn't meet the standard set by WTNMJ.

Sara Sara Sara, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Harrison had no problem with Electronic Sound being released - or contributing mucho babbled nonsense to "Revolution #9"

Myonga Vön Bontee, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

True, but 25-30 years on he apparently revised his view of their avant-garde leanings somewhat.

Sara Sara Sara, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

BUT WHAT DOES RINGO THINK

tylerw, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

"PS - in England we do have amusement parks, but we call them carnivals!"

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 22:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

ringo probably only cares if he's going to make some money off it

akm, Monday, 17 November 2008 22:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

sir paul should just put this out on 12". biggest selling avant-garde track EVER.

― tylerw, Monday, November 17, 2008 3:43 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest

HELL YES. I would totally buy this. Otherwise it's looking the other way...

And Electronic Sounds sucks because it is insanely boring. Maybe I need to re-listen to it with minimalism in mind, but it's really a horrible song.

Adam Bruneau, Monday, 17 November 2008 22:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

My favorite lost "Beatles" track. Produced by George Harrison, its the Remo Four and it sounds like Circulatory System

Adam Bruneau, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

The flip side of the Carnival of Light 12" needs an EYE remix

Adam Bruneau, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'd rather hear rad 14-minute crazy Beatles pretending to be Stockhausen than the 5,000th Mono closet mix of "And Your Bird Can Sing"

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, November 17, 2008 8:21 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

^^^Truth bomb

And if there's nothing of that lying around, well, Paul, you better get off your ass right now and start making some gold avant-garde Beatles 'rarity'! Seriously, seeing this news being headlined all over the world gives me all kinds of diseases. We know already how they got their songs together, we know the works. There is no historic value in releasing all those mixes and takes on songs we already know, no other value than feeding the obsessive collector's of this world. If there's nothing there, if there's not this jam or song opening up some new idea about the Beatles getting it off when not recording an album: fine, but just say so. Don't bother. It'd save me and a bunch of others time anticipating that musique concrete Beatles masterpiece.

Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

what I would like to see is them opening up their catalog to remixed...a pilooski re-edit of i feel fine, frankie knuckles doing a dadhouse rmx of lady madonna, the freemasons turning hey jude into a big stomper, etc. in general they need to lay off the litigation sauce and let people have some fun with their songs.

miss precious perfect (musically), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

EYE remix of each album.

Adam Bruneau, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

Wednesday 22 February 1967
The Beatles were especially keen to sit in on the remixes of `A Day In The Life', mono and stereo, and these were done next, utilising the two tape machines in sync, as invented by Ken Townsend on 10 February. But there was still some time left at the end of this session so the Beatles set about recording another of their experimental tapes. Ringo was to the fore in this one, the tape being 22 minutes and 10 seconds of drum beat, augmented by tambourine and congas. Quite what is was meant for is not clear. It was certainly never used, nor was it remixed.

Monday 20 March 1967
Also taped on this day was `Beatle Talk', another spoken word recording. Quite what was said is not known for neither the recording sheet nor the tape box are very revealing and the tape itself was taken away by George Martin and never returned.

Tuesday 9 May 1967
Studio Two: 11.00pm-6.15am. Recording: `Untitled' (take 1). P: George Martin. E: Geoff Emerick. 2E: Richard Lush.
A somewhat unproductive session: more than seven hours of instrumental jamming with little more than 16 minutes being committed to tape. Although the music seemed to lack any direction at least the Beatles knew how to follow each other, though whether this was pure instinctiveness or whether the "song" was preplanned is not clear. The instruments used — all well out of tune, incidentally — were an electric guitar, another guitar with a vibrato effect, drums and a harmonium.

Wednesday 7 June 1967
Studio Two: 7.00pm-2.00am. Recording: `You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)' (SI onto take 9, takes 20-24). P: George Martin. E: Geoff Emerick. 2E: Richard Lush.
More crazy `You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)' recordings! After returning to take nine, taped — and at that stage overlooked — on 17 May, and overdubbing various bits and pieces, the remainder of the session was spent working out further ideas. These grew so far apart from the song in hand that the `You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)' title on the tape box has since been deleted and marked ` Instrumental — Unidentified' instead.

A study of the tape itself reveals almost 20 minutes of rhythm track recording, beginning with take 20 and consisting of an amateurish flute track (played, presumably, by a Beatle), electric guitar, drums, organ and tambourine. At one point Paul McCartney can be heard discussing the chord structure with George Harrison, suggesting the music was preplanned. But when the playing starts that is the last impression one receives.. .

All from the landmark Beatles Recording Sessions book. Do they make you salivate or nauseate?

Adam Bruneau, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

And if there's nothing of that lying around, well, Paul, you better get off your ass right now and start making some gold avant-garde Beatles 'rarity'!

numismatic factory (sic), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 01:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

^pow.

staggerlee, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 02:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

God, I loved the Recording Sessions book at the height of my teenage Beatlefandom.

Doctor Casino, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

mmmm.

What up for that "Something" 9 min version? Me too?

Mark G, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:06 (6 years ago) Permalink


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