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

Skipping 3114 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

listened to this mono master, not different to my ears from the 2009 one, but still good. I was a bit high and listened to it in bed while drifting off to sleep.

― akm, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 17:39 (one month ago) Permalink

it's still weird to me that the mono mix is considered the 'approved' one because the beatles supervised it. some things are just better in the stereo mix; like the good morning clucks into the guitar squeal. they really spent more time on this splice on the mono than on the stereo? because it sounds very natural in the stereo mix and sloppy in the mono

― akm, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 17:40 (one month ago) Permalink

yeah I definitely noticed that. for a record I know so well it was the obvious changes that stood out and almost all of those had to do with tape editing - the cluck/guitar squeal, the placement of audience sounds, the vocal effect on Lucy.

but yeah idk if it's really "better"

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 17:42 (one month ago) Permalink

They did.

Because it sounds like an additional sqawk.

They ran the tape slow for a fraction of a second, then sped it up to normal. On purpose.

They didn't do that on the original stereo, the new stereo, I don't know the new mono.

― Mark G, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 17:43 (one month ago) Permalink

Xpost, obv,

― Mark G, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 17:44 (one month ago) Permalink

new mono is the same as old mono; it's not a mono remix, it's just a remaster

― akm, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 18:00 (one month ago) Permalink

So, it'll have the squark then.

― Mark G, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 18:04 (one month ago) Permalink

Australian Broadcasting Corporation just did some good interviews with Geoff Emerick and Richard Lush that are up on Youtube. I think it was the Lush one where he talks about how they did a lot of their mix planning without even knowing they would be doing a stereo mix after, so they had to try to remember how they did certain things when they were asked to do the stereo.

― timellison, Thursday, 1 June 2017 00:07 (one month ago) Permalink

I think both of them much prefer the mono.

― timellison, Thursday, 1 June 2017 00:08 (one month ago) Permalink

Way late to this, but just wanted to chime in with my love for the doc Tarfumes mentioned up thread. I watched the hell out of that as an impressionable 12 year old.

― Moodles, Thursday, 1 June 2017 00:12 (one month ago) Permalink

One thing that strikes me watching it now is how upbeat George seems, at least relative to his general glumness through the Anthology. There's nary a hint of any negative feelings about Sgt Pepper, while in Anthology he basically says it was no fun.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 1 June 2017 00:26 (one month ago) Permalink

Really digging Giles Martin's new mixes *except* for "Penny Lane". Somehow it's lost it's psychedelic powah in this new mix. The outtakes for PL are wonderful, though as are most of the rest (though still don't care much for "Mr Kite" and now really love "Rita").

― Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Thursday, 1 June 2017 01:04 (one month ago) Permalink

Re-watching the 1987 tv documentary It Was Twenty Years Ago Today

Is this the one that starts out with the title track, and all the figures on the album cover start rocking back and forth in cutting-edge 1987 cardboard animation?

― pplains, Thursday, 1 June 2017 01:24 (one month ago) Permalink

Yep, that's the one. They later used that same animation in Anthology.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 1 June 2017 02:17 (one month ago) Permalink

Ha, I'd wondered where that was from!

― ﴿→ ☺ (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 1 June 2017 04:55 (one month ago) Permalink

The 'Good Morning Good Morning' transition into the reprise of the title track is more jarring on the mono version, agreed. You can hear the tape edit, whereas it's smoother on the stereo edition.

― The Anti-Climax Blues Band (Turrican), Thursday, 1 June 2017 06:33 (one month ago) Permalink

xp I agree that George did seem rather upbeat about the era. It's a strange documentary, I didn't really think they actually managed to make any real connection between the Beatles making Sgt. Pepper and the American counterculture other than it being a soundtrack, but it does get loads of good contributions in it, most notably Derek Taylor.

Also love that animation with the cardboard heads. Feels canonically Beatlesy for some reason.

― in twelve parts (lamonti), Thursday, 1 June 2017 08:06 (one month ago) Permalink

is that documentary on youtube or something ?

*except* for "Penny Lane". Somehow it's lost it's psychedelic powah in this new mix.

really ? I don't really hear a difference with the previous remaster or the 87 version, I mean regarding the psychedelic aspect.
I find this remaster great.
I'd like to hear the mono remaster but unfortunately it's only either on the mono box remaster or on the deluxe anniversary pepper and I'm not gonna drop 100€ just for that !

― AlXTC from Paris, Thursday, 1 June 2017 08:21 (one month ago) Permalink

I enjoyed the one disc of outtakes, yeah I'd like to hear the other outtakes particularly the SFF take 1 mixed properly, but yeah not for £100

― Mark G, Thursday, 1 June 2017 08:46 (one month ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ARMRFoLcBU

― piscesx, Thursday, 1 June 2017 09:59 (one month ago) Permalink

the book looks like some crappy rush job thing. posters look good. not 100 quid's worth of good like.

― piscesx, Thursday, 1 June 2017 10:00 (one month ago) Permalink

definitely.
I'm only interested in the rest of the outtakes and the mono remaster. and I can live without these !

― AlXTC from Paris, Thursday, 1 June 2017 10:04 (one month ago) Permalink

is that documentary on youtube or something ?

Parts of it are, yes:

https://youtu.be/HWriMsTALF4?list=PL6208F5F8D1A8868F

The aforementioned animated sequence is missing. The documentary starts with Allen Ginsberg talking briefly about each track, with cutaways relating to said track. The doc on youtube is missing some of these, and opens with one such cutaway to musicologist Wilfred Mellers singing "She's Leaving Home." He appears later in the doc to talk about it more in depth.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 1 June 2017 13:56 (one month ago) Permalink

xp I agree that George did seem rather upbeat about the era. It's a strange documentary, I didn't really think they actually managed to make any real connection between the Beatles making Sgt. Pepper and the American counterculture other than it being a soundtrack, but it does get loads of good contributions in it, most notably Derek Taylor.

Also love that animation with the cardboard heads. Feels canonically Beatlesy for some reason.

― in twelve parts (lamonti), Thursday, June 1, 2017 4:06 AM (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I remember not liking it much at the time, but mainly because I wanted more "when we did 'Lucy In The Sky,' Ringo put this tea-towel on that drum and then we all got super baked" kind of stuff. Now, I want less of that. We know all the stories, and they're good stories, but what's missing from most of the 50th anniversary retrospective pieces is any measure of contextualization. That is, Abbie Hoffman and Ed Sanders don't talk about Sgt. Pepper much, but they're essential to understanding its significance in its time.

As for George, he hadn't put out a record since 1982 (Cloud Nine was still months away). It had likely been years since he'd done a filmed interview, and he hadn't yet been subject to the endless repetition of the same questions to the degree that Paul had (but Paul never seemed to mind). By the time Anthology rolled around, he'd done tons of interviews and seemed sick of it.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 1 June 2017 14:11 (one month ago) Permalink

isn't that doc what's in the box set? also PBS is running a doc this weekend; maybe the same one?

― akm, Thursday, 1 June 2017 14:14 (one month ago) Permalink

re: penny lane remix. I wish he'd been balsy and just put the horn over the ending. it's a remix after all, why not do something different.

― akm, Thursday, 1 June 2017 14:15 (one month ago) Permalink

Ah, that's the alternate "Capitol" version, on the "super" version, right?

― Mark G, Thursday, 1 June 2017 14:22 (one month ago) Permalink

I haven't seen the doc in the box, but I believe that one is from 1992. The PBS doc appears to be new, and (based on the trailer) much more about the Beatles and the record than about 1967.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 1 June 2017 14:23 (one month ago) Permalink

OK I've watched the parts available on youtube. Most of it was in the Anthology, though (but not some of the contemporary interviews).

― AlXTC from Paris, Thursday, 1 June 2017 14:39 (one month ago) Permalink

I quite like Derek Taylor's tie-in book that accompanied the doc...talks about the album in the context of 1967 as a whole, with reminiscences of folks like Roger McGuinn, Sir Joseph Lockwood, Ed Sanders talking about the march on the Pentagon (happened on the day I was born), etc

― Wet Pelican would provide the soundtrack (Myonga Vön Bontee), Thursday, 1 June 2017 15:32 (one month ago) Permalink

I remember watching that doc on PBS when it originally aired, but it felt like a pale shadow of the superior Compleat Beatles to me

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 1 June 2017 15:36 (one month ago) Permalink

I thought the Compleat Beatles was decent, but this '87 doc is a different beast. Compleat didn't get much into what was happening in the world in '67 (or at any other time).

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 1 June 2017 15:42 (one month ago) Permalink

yeah it's not as focused on the cultural moment of '67, but as a Beatles document I just liked it more

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 1 June 2017 16:00 (one month ago) Permalink

Here's the intro, but without the audio due to a claim made by the copyright holder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOI1fb18jMg

Not just cardboard animation. You've got some cutting-edge California Raisin claymation as well.

― pplains, Thursday, 1 June 2017 16:13 (one month ago) Permalink

The new non-Apple doc (featuring er.. Pete Best!) is
this one, and is not featured in the box

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Was-Fifty-Years-Today-Beatles/dp/B06Y2D59PV

― piscesx, Thursday, 1 June 2017 16:43 (one month ago) Permalink

yeah that was an amazing opening. so, is that doc NOT what's in the box?

― akm, Thursday, 1 June 2017 17:04 (one month ago) Permalink

Correct. The 1987 documentary with Abbie Hoffman and Ed Sanders and Derek Taylor and Roger McGuinn is NOT in the box.

A different documentary, from 1992 (I think), is in the box.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 1 June 2017 17:10 (one month ago) Permalink

bah. how many fucking documentaries do we need on this record

― akm, Thursday, 1 June 2017 17:13 (one month ago) Permalink

Enough to fill the Albert Hall

― Wet Pelican would provide the soundtrack (Myonga Vön Bontee), Thursday, 1 June 2017 18:10 (one month ago) Permalink

The whole version of It Was Twenty Years Ago Today is embedded on a vimeo link on this page, but I don't know how to link to the vimeo page directly

http://www.diggers.org/it_was_twenty.htm

― in twelve parts (lamonti), Thursday, 1 June 2017 19:33 (one month ago) Permalink

I still impressed by how heavy the remix version of "good morning" is.
from the first kickdrum it's so in your face. I think it might be the heaviest track on the album now which, finally, gives it a purpose !
it might have even been better if they had played on a key allowing Lennon to scream/sing more aggressively...

― AlXTC from Paris, Friday, 2 June 2017 12:46 (one month ago) Permalink

yeah that has become one of my favorite songs on this album in the past few years. really benefits from the remix.

― akm, Friday, 2 June 2017 15:57 (one month ago) Permalink

Not blown away by this, but it's all right. I like fresh takes on old classics while they're still fresh.

I don't like hearing the studio chatter during the reprise intro. Also a couple other places where it gets cute, like boosting the fuck up on that WYWY laugh.

― pplains, Friday, 2 June 2017 17:39 (one month ago) Permalink

a beatles maniac who works at a local library ran an evening program on the 50th ann., where he played a handful of tracks in 5.1 surround. they were spectacular, in a gosh-wow sort of way, with that calliope in mr. kite spiraling every which way. but with all that clarity and detail, it was almost like there was too much to focus on. i'm not sure it really helped the songs qua songs. first impressions and all that, but who knows if i'll ever hear the 5.1 mixes again.

― Thus Sang Freud, Saturday, 3 June 2017 13:16 (one month ago) Permalink

Wow @ rhythm section on Pepper remaster

― Tomorrow Begat Tomorrow (Sund4r), Saturday, 10 June 2017 11:40 (one month ago) Permalink

that richard goldstein review is interesting. like, maybe the beatles intended there only to be one song on that album, and nicely bookended all the others between the two versions of sgt pepper, as prelude and pastiche. going with that for a moment, maybe they left off "penny lane" & "strawberry fields" so as not to divert attention.

― Thus Sang Freud, Saturday, 10 June 2017 16:03 (one month ago) Permalink

Yeah, I mean, achieving one really 'profound' moment on a pop record seems like a pretty solid accomplishment to me.

― Tomorrow Begat Tomorrow (Sund4r), Saturday, 10 June 2017 17:44 (one month ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

For me the audience laugh at the end of the line "we're sorry but it's time to go.. " in the Reprise is the 'Han Shot First' moment in this whole remix caper. What the hell is a *laugh* doing there?? Makes no sense and isn't present on the Mono or the Stereo. Why would an audience laugh at that?? Seems typical of the 'hey you can't hear it in the original.. so let's have it in this new version!' thinking that blights the project.

I think, speaking of Star Wars, that in much the same way as the 1997 special editions of those movies were initially greeted with praise and approval ("It's just like the original Star Wars .. but with loads of extra stuff that wasn't there before! Fantastic!") there will ultimately be a realization that we've been had and the clamour for the preservation of the originals will begin in earnest in about 10 years' time.

I say again, a *laugh* at the end of that line!? Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

― piscesx, Tuesday, 27 June 2017 11:38 (three weeks ago) Permalink

ah I haven't noticed that. but was it in the original recording or did they add it ? if it was there all the time but you couldn't really hear it, I don't have a problem and it's fun to discover new things (it's different from adding new stuff, like the awful star wars re-editions !).
I haven't listened to the album much since the release but I found they did a great job. And for people who don't like the new remix, the old ones are still there...

― AlXTC from Paris, Tuesday, 27 June 2017 11:46 (three weeks ago) Permalink

OK, I listened to it and to the "old" mix and although you can hear that crowd noise clearer in the new mix, it's also there in the old one...

― AlXTC from Paris, Tuesday, 27 June 2017 12:34 (three weeks ago) Permalink

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