has anyone ever noticed that the ebbetts bootlegs sound like crap on headphones?. especially yellow submarine and magical mystery tour.
― Creeztophair, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 05:29 (eight years ago) Permalink
the stereo of those albums (some of them) is very wide so that's why; ebbetts did cd versions of almost everything though, including weird shit like canadian stereo versions, etc, which differ slightly. I think the regular cd stereo versionns of MMT and Pepper are alright (and really don't have any serious problems with white album or abbey road either; I think abbey road is a pretty glorious sounding cd). the early records are a mixed bag; these days I prefer the capitol box versions (anyway I grew up with the US versions of the albums, so it's kind of nice to return to the admittedly fucked up tracklistings...though I do think 'the second album' is pretty awesome).
anyway yeah the purple chick stuff is pretty exciting, it seems to have just popped up in the past few months? or at least that's where I heard about it. and being distributed completely free so no evil bootleggers making money. it makes official remasters kind of irrelevant.
today i listened to all the 'sessions' mixes of tracks off the anthology,critically and without the 'oh wow new beatles songs' luster...these really do sound like shit, emerick should be embarrassed.
― akm, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 06:05 (eight years ago) Permalink
but also yeah, i'm pretty much ready to sell all my parlophone beatles cds once I can get ahold of all the purple chick stuff; i usually only listen to digital files anyway, and I have a blue box vinyl set, so there's no need to keep the crappy pressings with bad artwork.
― akm, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 06:10 (eight years ago) Permalink
also, while I agree that the mono pepper is interesting, i really disagree that it's the better of the mixes. I think the novelty of it is kind of cool but there are bits and pieces that just sound sloppy. I know it's allegedly the mix they approved and they apparently didn't have much to do with the stereo version, but maybe that just shows the beatles were the best people to mix their material
― akm, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 06:14 (eight years ago) Permalink
the purple chick version of the white album is really really amazing. i'm working on just downloading the albums (no bonus tracks) and converting them to mp3, for my ipod. the only problem is that some of the tracks are switched around. like...penny lane is on the purple chick version of sgt pepper's. it's kinda confusing when dealing with torrents.
― Creeztophair, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 06:17 (eight years ago) Permalink
The Purple Chick stuff is impressive though really it's just collating already available stuff in one place. It does that very very well though and as well as the main albums they've also done releases of Hollywood Bowl, The Songs The Beatles Gave Away, the fan club records, the Star Club tapes, the BBC sessions and the 92CD complete Get Back rehearsals (also check out their 10CD complete Buddy Holly and S&G's alternate Bookends)
The mono and stereo versions of the albums on the Purple Chick sets are just the UK Ebbetts versions. There is a version of the white album released by Darthdisc (? - i think) which is from a 'direct metal master' that may even be better.
The mono Pepper is sloppy in places but certainly Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds sounds better (more phasing).
Has anyone else heard the multitracks of A Day In The Life, With A Little Help From My Friends, Sgt Pepper and She's Leaving Home that were released as an addendum to the PC Sgt Pepper? Incredible to hear.
― cheasyweasel, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 13:07 (eight years ago) Permalink
itll sound shit remastered. cant you just enjoy the originals?
― titchyschneiderMk2, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 13:53 (eight years ago) Permalink
you mean the 1st pressing UK vinyl? sure, we can all enjoy those.
― ian, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 13:57 (eight years ago) Permalink
well, I can, anyroad.
― Mark G, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 14:25 (eight years ago) Permalink
no way are these the same as the ebbet's version. especially not mmt.
― Creeztophair, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 23:27 (eight years ago) Permalink
Found this bootleg stereo remaster of what's probably my favorite Beatles album. It blows the original CD version out of the water and I think it's more impressive than any of the purple chick stuff.
Here's a mono version for you old-schoolers. Didn't download it, though, so I can't vouch for it.
― Jazzbo, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 18:04 (eight years ago) Permalink
Creeztophair, there are multiple Ebbett versions of each album: UK, US, Mono, Stereo, strange pressings from other territories. He's pretty much transferred them all so it depends what Ebbett version of MMT you've heard.
I have the PC Magical Mystery Years sleevenotes in front of me now and the stereo MMT tracks are taken from the Ebbett German MMT except for I Am The Walrus which is from the Ebbett UK EP Collection. The mono tracks are all from the Ebbett EP Collection.
I think this is the only one of the PC releases that doesn't take the main album tracks from the Ebbett transfer of the UK releases. IIRC this is because the German MMT vinyl release was in true stereo whereas the US LP was not.
― cheasyweasel, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 22:27 (eight years ago) Permalink
these PURPLE CHICK people should be knighted.
― piscesx, Sunday, 13 July 2008 01:36 (eight years ago) Permalink
Okay here we go then.
MOJO (who else?) exclusively reports this month that the original albums have been remastered and will hopefully be coming out in 2009, in a full on splurge of mono and stereo 2 disc versions, with fancy hardback book style packaging. Sorry but as a huuuuge Beatles fan since a kid this may well be the first time i queue up outside a record shop the morning it opens.
The piece in the mag says"For today's playback, stereo remastering engineer Guy Massey has synchronised the remasters with the original 1987 CD masters, allowing us to flip between the two. It's like we've been hearing them under glass all these years..."
― piscesx, Monday, 15 September 2008 12:59 (eight years ago) Permalink
It will be interesting to see if these sound as good as the bootlegs.
― Jazzbo, Monday, 15 September 2008 14:37 (eight years ago) Permalink
Looks like Apple may have more to say about it tomorrow. No 5.1 mixes — guess we'll be buying those down the road.http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/apple-to-confirm-beatles-itunes-deal-and-new-ipods-on-tuesday-172271
― Jazzbo, Monday, 15 September 2008 14:41 (eight years ago) Permalink
that was last tuesday right? and there was no fabs news i don't think.
― piscesx, Monday, 15 September 2008 16:24 (eight years ago) Permalink
Yup, my bad.
― Jazzbo, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 12:55 (eight years ago) Permalink
something is allegedly going to be in rolling stone in the next few weeks, and apple should be offically announcing in the next week as well, from what I read elsewhere.
― akm, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 13:12 (eight years ago) Permalink
Hopefully they'll take a leaf out of Radiohead's short-lead-time example, and pump them out in two weeks time.
― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 13:15 (eight years ago) Permalink
i think the rumored plan was to do the white album first to coincide with the 40th anniversary, then roll out the others. but it was just a rumor so no idea if that's what'll happen.
― akm, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 17:10 (eight years ago) Permalink
― cheasyweasel, Tuesday, May 6, 2008 9:07 AM (4 months ago) Bookmark Suggest
Man, this shit is thrilling, I could not believe my ears when I found out about it. I haven't gotten any of the other masters that have come out recently (Nirvana & Queen are very appealing tho...). The most amazing part was having the affirmation that Sgt. Pepper was recorded on 4 tracks. You listen to these and say, wow, crap, I guess they must have bumped down/premixed a TON of stuff. If you have experience with home recording on 4-tracks you realize just how much care went into making sure these mixes were as tight as they were. Such a cool thing to have..
Any decent new bootlegs surface lately? I've been out of the loop for a while. I don't care about the remasters cos it sounds to me like nothing new will come out just the whole 'alternate mixes' scheme. Which is one of the reasons I stopped paying attention to bootlegs in the first place. I dont care about alternate mixes give me Carnival of Light or the Beatles jamming on one chord stoned for half an hour! Anything but "Oh, this is the german stereo 1984 remix". Ugh....
― Adam Bruneau, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 20:33 (eight years ago) Permalink
I think those multitracks are the only "new" things to appear. The Purple Chick series is widely available though via torrent sites, they are very very very comprehensive .flac files of the best sources of both mono and stereo versions of each album and assorted outtakes studio sessions...nothing that wasn't already around on past masters or ultra rare trax, but everything has been compiled together with the best sources for once. but it took me like, days to get all the white album stuff, and I've not even been able to listen to it.
― akm, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 20:41 (eight years ago) Permalink
I've not been able to listen to *any* of it... yet.
Oh, but by the way, I have that german stereo 1964 LP, and was dead pleased to get the CD 'facsimile' when it came out: We were living in Germany at the time...
― Mark G, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 21:08 (eight years ago) Permalink
5.1 mixes might have been a waste, considering everything up to "Sgt. Pepper" was max 4 tracks. A 5:1 mix consisting of 4 mono tracks becomes a bit pointless, really.
If there was ever a way to relocate the 2 tracks of "Love Me Do", "PS I Love You", "She Loves You" and "I'll Get You" to be able to create stereo versions. But I guess that is a lost case by now, and that whatever existed was being mixed into stereo in the late 60s already.
― Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 21:40 (eight years ago) Permalink
i think the rumored plan was to do the white album first to coincide with the 40th anniversary
Sounds like a pointless idea considering the white album is actually the only (full) album to have been relatively newly remastered.
― Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 21:42 (eight years ago) Permalink
it wasn't remastered, it was just pointlessly reissued in (albeit nicer) packaging
― akm, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 22:04 (eight years ago) Permalink
OK. I never bought it. Had it not been one of my least favourite Beatles albums, they might have fooled me to buy it.
― Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 00:37 (eight years ago) Permalink
Hopefully they'll master them to hit hard on radio, like that Zep comp from last year.
― Mark, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 00:42 (eight years ago) Permalink
You mean, with lots of compression? Preferrably not!
― Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 00:47 (eight years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I was kidding. But that's the thing with remasters - do they sound better even half the time?
― Mark, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 06:47 (eight years ago) Permalink
you mean the 1st pressing UK vinyl? sure, we can all enjoy those.
Ian, or Mark or anyone else: So the initial pressings were all mono up to a point, which was when? And all the later stereo vinyl pressings are from the same masters as the first, or not? So should my rubbish floppy 80s vinyl Revolver sound better than my badly mastered 90s CD Revolver? What about the 60s issue Sgt Pepper that I stole off my parents with the red and white inner sleeve? And I recently got a nice UK White Album, but I'm not sure exactly when its from. In summary: are all the stereo versions the same? Have there been mono represses? Were any of the albums never issued in stereo on vinyl?
Any links to stuff on all this would be most welcome.
― Jamie T Smith, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 15:43 (eight years ago) Permalink
Can open. Worms everywhere.
― nate woolls, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 15:47 (eight years ago) Permalink
I heard the reissues are coming from the original master tapes... of Jeff Lynne's covers of the Beatles catalogue.
Paul: "Well, you know, I always trusted him to know the Beatles better than even us. 'Free as a Bird' was lovely."
― Mackro Mackro, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 15:52 (eight years ago) Permalink
― Jamie T Smith, Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:43 AM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I suggest the Usenet Guide to Beatles Recording Variations, which will answer all of your questions as well as many questions you didn't even think about. Depends on how long you want to spend reading about this:http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/
One thing about the Love album was that it showed how good they could make some of this stuff sound!
― Adam Bruneau, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 17:04 (eight years ago) Permalink
'a day in the life' (which I think is the only 'non-edited, non mashup') piece on there) sounds absolutely incredible on Love.
from what I've gathered, there are going to be up to three versions of the albums made available, stereo, mono, and stereo remixes. but that mojo article is a little unclear
― akm, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 17:08 (eight years ago) Permalink
So the initial pressings were all mono up to a point, which was when?Up to Sgt Pepper. Actually, the first couple were mono first, then stereo alongside the mono, but the mono ones had more work done on the mixing. That's because mixing for mono is more difficult.
And all the later stereo vinyl pressings are from the same masters as the first, or not? Yes, pretty much. I believe the 2LP "Rock and Roll" set had remixes for better stereo. But later issues went back to the 'voices on one, band on the other' 2 channel mixes...
So should my rubbish floppy 80s vinyl Revolver sound better than my badly mastered 90s CD Revolver? Possibly, yes.
What about the 60s issue Sgt Pepper that I stole off my parents with the red and white inner sleeve? Worth at least £150 if it's top notch condition and mono.
And I recently got a nice UK White Album, but I'm not sure exactly when its from. In summary: are all the stereo versions the same? Yes.Have there been mono represses? Yes there have, mid eighties I believe.
Were any of the albums never issued in stereo on vinyl? No. Let it be and Abbey road were never issued in Mono, except for a Reel-to-reel tape issue of both.
― Mark G, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 17:13 (eight years ago) Permalink
just listened to one of those sgt. peppers multitrack bootlegs -- fun stuff! both demystifying and mystifying. as for other bootlegs, that Get Back (Final Glyn Johns Mix) thing that emerged is really enjoyable, much much much better than the Let It Be Naked thingamajig. I got it here: http://theheatwarps.blogspot.com/2008/06/beatles.html
― tylerw, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 17:24 (eight years ago) Permalink
Listening to Ringo's solo vocal track on "With a Little Help From My Friends" is sort of a painful experience!
I think as far as bootlegs go "From Kinfauns to Chaos"/"Unsurpassed Masters 4"/whatever White Album demos you can get your hands on is pretty solid. They really were having alot of fun taping all of those acoustic demos in George's house and it's a shame there are only a handful of the pristine quality ones on the Anthology. They should just put out a disc of those!
Lately I've been a sucker for early live stuff. Purple Chick has some awesome releases in the 2CD "Live Before America" and "Star Club" releases.
― Adam Bruneau, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 19:30 (eight years ago) Permalink
haha, yeah that's sort of what i like about these multitracks. makes them sound all the more human. and then you go back and listen to actual released track and you wonder how it could end up sounding so good! so that early live stuff is worth tracking down? i've always been a little disappointed by the Star Club things I've heard, since they're sort of presented as this "When the Beatles Were RAW & NASTY" kinda thing. And they don't sound all that raw and nasty.
― tylerw, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 20:00 (eight years ago) Permalink
My experience with recent 60s remasters is they tend to sound rather OK. Maybe the need the extra beef, dunno. But like, for instance, Bee Gees and The Monkees have sounded fantastic. And it looks like the Beatles remasters are planned in roughly the same format (CD1: mono + bonus, CD2: stereo + bonus) as the Bee Gees ones. They should of course involve Rhino somewhat (like EMI/Virgin have done with the Genesis remasters) to ensure the job is being done in a good way.
― Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:36 (eight years ago) Permalink
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 (eight 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 (eight years ago) Permalink
― 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 (eight 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 (eight 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 (eight 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 (eight years ago) Permalink
god yeah those Bee Gees remasters are fucking amazing
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 21:51 (eight 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 (eight years ago) Permalink
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 (seven years ago) Permalink