Beatles remasters are here!

[bigideas]

Usually, people seem to write off the early stuff and begin to say everything was great starting with Rubber Soul.

 

Of course, we had a different tracklist. And we got Yesterday and Today.

 

there's something special about Hard Days Night to me - all originals i guess.

 

i would probably say HDN is my favorite pre-Revolver.

 

maybe we don't agree on Rubber Soul then - Nowhere Man through The Word is kinda weak to me - and then the finale.

Michelle is beautiful imo. quite like Girl, too.

[imsjry]

The stereo mixes we are hearing now were done by George Martin in the 1980s.

 

Well, did he actually change the panning and stuff in the 80's or just clean them up? I was referring more to the "effects" of the stereo in post-Rubber Soul stuff.

 

Also, what is the deal with the '65 stereo mixes included on the mono Help and Rubber Soul? Are these somehow deemed better than the '80's mixes? If so, why weren't they used on all of the stereo remasters?

[Analogman]

Well, did he actually change the panning and stuff in the 80's or just clean them up? I was referring more to the "effects" of the stereo in post-Rubber Soul stuff.

 

Also, what is the deal with the '65 stereo mixes included on the mono Help and Rubber Soul? Are these somehow deemed better than the '80's mixes? If so, why weren't they used on all of the stereo remasters?

 

 

I have not read all of this (yet)- but it looks like there are some answers here:

 

Help (a pretty lengthy breakdown - track by track)

 

A 1987 interview with George Martin by Allan Kozinn

 

Fest for Beatles fans sheds light on remasters

 

George Martin tweaked both “Help!” and “Rubber Soul” when the albums were issued on CD back in 1987. Although “Rubber Soul” was recorded on a four-track machine, most of its songs have severe stereo separation with vocals on one side and instruments on the other. George Martin completely remixed the album to bring the vocals down the center. The stereo remasters use the 1987 George Martin stereo mixes rather than the original 1965 mixes. But for those who want to hear the original 1965 stereo mixes, they will be available in the mono collection.

 

 

Wog Blog

 

In 1987, as the Beatles catalog was due for their first CD release, producer George Martin wanted to go back and remix the sixties version of stereo to something a bit more updated for the modern ear. Because of a rushed release schedule, he couldn't do this for the first four albums, Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale and A Hard Day's Night, as they were due for release in February 1987. So, as a compromise, they were released in mono, which were mixes the producer was satisfied with. The next batch of releases were Help!, Rubber Soul and Revolver, due out in April 1987, and this time, Sir George had time to prepare updated mixes for these. He had a listen, and while he thought Help! and Rubber Soul needed remixing, he was satisfied with the sixties stereo mix of Revolver and all the albums that followed. So he remixed Help! and Rubber Soul, and when they were released on CD they had an "eighties" stereo soundscape. (Except for some Canadian pressings of these CD's where the original sixties stereo mixes had been used by mistake.)

 

Over the years, Beatles fans and music lovers have been rather critical to the 1987 mixes of those two albums, especially because they brought in an amount of echo and reverb which hadn't been present on the sixties stereo mixes. Then, when the remasters were announced, these fans were shocked that they were once again to use these inferior 1987 remixes for the general release of the remastered catalog (albums available individually and as part of the stereo remasters boxed set).

 

In a telephone interview that Detroit's Classic Rock station's (FM 94,7) Deminski and Doyle conducted with Giles Martin, son of Sir George, the producer unexpectedly was able to shed some light on why the eighties mix was re-used.

 

Deminski and Doyle had made several erraneous assumptions, first of all they thought that Giles was involved in the remasters project, secondly they assumed that the remasters were also remixed, not just remastered. As these assumtions were both untrue, the interview do provide an insight into the narrow world behind the walls of Abbey Road studios and the hap-hazard manner in which things happen. Giles Martin was in the studio, remixing the Beatles songs that were going to be used in the The Beatles:Rock Band game, singling out specific instruments from otherwise interlocked studio tapes, so he was able to talk a bit about that process. But he was also involved in the "Love" project, and he was an insider at Abbey Road, so he was also able to listen in to the remasters project that was going on at the same time as he was mixing for RockBand. Here's what he said (transcripted by me from the podcast of the interview) about those infamous 1987 remixes:

 

Giles Martin: Rubber Soul and Help! were remixed by my dad in 1988 or '87 for CD. And when we did "Love", we got to do Yesterday, and I couldn't understand why there were so much echo and reverb on the voice 'cause it was very non-Beatles. And it was only when I came back and I was listening to the remasters I asked "how come this is the case?" and they said "well we are remastering the eighties versions of [Rubber Soul and Help!]" and I said "why aren't we remastering the originals, we should remaster what came out then [in 1965]?"

---

And they said "Well, your father wouldn't be very happy with us not remastering the versions he did in the eighties."

So I spoke to my dad and I asked "Do you mind if they remaster the sixties version?" and he went "I don't even remember doing them in the eighties!"

 

Allan Rouse in an interview with Record Collector: "The remasters were based on the master-tapes, with the exception of two albums: George Martin's 1987 mixes of Help! and Rubber Soul. People are questioning why we used those. George Martin is the fifth Beatle. He chose to do it. You can argue with him, but I'm not going to."

 

So there you have it! The stereo remasters are the 1987 remixes out of the involved remastering engineers' misguided respect for Sir George!

 

Now, the original 1965 stereo mixes are not lost to the world, because they are an added bonus on the mono remasters of those albums, but these are only part of the mono boxed set, and are not for sale to the general public as individual albums.

[LouieB]

I really would like the mono box set, but honestly I doubt I would listen to most of it very often.

 

LouieB

[imsjry]

I have not read all of this (yet)- but it looks like there are some answers here:

 

Help (a pretty lengthy breakdown - track by track)

 

A 1987 interview with George Martin by Allan Kozinn

 

Fest for Beatles fans sheds light on remasters

 

 

 

 

Wog Blog

 

Thank you and just.....wow. This project is so damn confusing.

[imsjry]

I really would like the mono box set, but honestly I doubt I would listen to most of it very often.

 

LouieB

 

Since I never heard some of these in mono, it is fun to check them out as a curiosity. After the thrill has died, I'd bet I go for the stereo's most often....

[Moss]

Do I hear the rumblings of a consensus on my take on Rubber Soul?

 

"Drive My Car" - Nice bouncy tune, but shows evidence of the band's growing pains. Not quite here or there, and not a proper opener for an album that contains "In My Life".

"Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" - Brilliant. Second track perfection.

"You Won't See Me" - Brilliant. Only quibble is we should have more grooving before the fade out.

"Nowhere Man" - The a cappella intro bugs me to this day. Besides that, a great tune, with Lennon adding to the foundation (wall?) he started to build with the song "Help!"

"Think for Yourself" - Rockin'. George unleashed!

"The Word" - Another great groove, maybe the best on the album.

"Michelle" - Umm. Stupidest Beatles song?

"What Goes On" - Dull & ordinary. Though I find it in my head a lot. Damn you Ringo!

"Girl" - This one's alright, though a little too sophomoric lyrically. On its own, strong, but doesn't quite beef up the album like it should.

"I'm Looking Through You" - A bit pedestrian, but does what it needs to do. Not the best tune on the album, but a worthy rocker.

"In My Life" - Flat out brilliant genius best song ever.

"Wait" - Another great one. The album could use more of these.

"If I Needed Someone" - Love it.

"Run for Your Life" - Oh, wait. This is the stupidest Beatles song.

 

Now can you do this for all the albums? I highly enjoyed it. It's so funny to hear someone talk about the least favorite album and still have statements like "Flat out brilliant genius best song ever". But now that you brought it up, you might be right. Beatles for sale might be a little weaker for me but only because of all the cover tunes on it but I don't know. Beatles for sale is one of my favorite album covers though. I like how it looks like Beatlemania has taken it's toll on them by that point.

[Sir Stewart]

Now can you do this for all the albums? I highly enjoyed it.

 

Thanks Mo'.

[Littlebear]

Now can you do this for all the albums? I highly enjoyed it.

 

Well, anyone can do the same with short statements about any song. It's essentially pointless.

 

I mean, I think "Drive My Car" is a cool opener, and I was never impressed with "In My Life". Who cares?

 

The fact is that we change of mind with pretty much every listen. Every week, every month, every year.

 

Last time I listened to Abbey Road (two days ago), I favoured the Paul songs, whereas I used to prefer the John ones before.

[Winston Legthigh]

Well, anyone can do the same with short statements about any song. It's essentially pointless fun.

 

yes.

[Sir Stewart]

Well, anyone can do the same with short statements about any song. It's essentially pointless.

 

I mean, I think "Drive My Car" is a cool opener, and I was never impressed with "In My Life". Who cares?

 

The fact is that we change of mind with pretty much every listen. Every week, every month, every year.

 

Last time I listened to Abbey Road (two days ago), I favoured the Paul songs, whereas I used to prefer the John ones before.

 

Oh, go stick your nose up somewhere else.

[Moss]

Well, anyone can do the same with short statements about any song. It's essentially pointless.

 

 

 

 

Being a Moss of little mind, I enjoyed it.

[Littlebear]

yes.

 

no.

[gogo]

no.

How about "pointless for you, fun for other people"?

 

Really, what's the harm in it?

[Littlebear]

How about "pointless for you, fun for other people"?

 

Really, what's the harm in it?

 

The harm is that I was bored reading it. It's an offense to me.

 

And if you take THIS seriously, then I'll get me some fun at least. To each his own fun.

[Sir Stewart]

The harm is that I was bored reading it. It's an offense to me.

 

[bigshoulders]

I really would like the mono box set, but honestly I doubt I would listen to most of it very often.

LouieB

 

I feel the same way, Louie. I nearly pulled the trigger on buying the Mono box, but then thought better of it. I think I'll cherry-pick a few of the new stereo remasters and be happy with that.

[gogo]

How is that not in your sig line yet?

[Sir Stewart]

How is that not in your sig line yet?

 

I guess because it would validate it?

[Moss]

So please somebody clear this up for me. I have heard for years and from more than one source that the white VW on the cover of Abbey Road belonged to John which always seemed unlikely. Then an interview with Paul in Mojo stated that it was just a random car that had been parked there. I'm guessing that's not his car but why do I keep hearing that?

[Littlebear]

So please somebody clear this up for me. I have heard for years and from more than one source that the white VW on the cover of Abbey Road belonged to John which always seemed unlikely. Then an interview with Paul in Mojo stated that it was just a random car that had been parked there. I'm guessing that's not his car but why do I keep hearing that?

 

It's the first time I read about that.

[Analogman]

So please somebody clear this up for me. I have heard for years and from more than one source that the white VW on the cover of Abbey Road belonged to John which always seemed unlikely. Then an interview with Paul in Mojo stated that it was just a random car that had been parked there. I'm guessing that's not his car but why do I keep hearing that?

 

I believe John was still being driven around in the Rolls-Royce at the time.

 

A Volkswagen Beetle, parked on Abbey Road, belonged to a resident living across the road from the studio, who later had to put up with the number plate being repeatedly stolen. The car was sold for $23,000 at an auction in 1986 and is now on display at the Volkswagen museum in Wolfsburg, Germany.

[cgoodwin22]

Don't buy the Beatles remasters, unless...

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10351798-47.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=TheAudiophiliac

 

They're good, but do the remastered Beatles CDs offer a big enough sonic improvement over the 1987 CDs to make them essential? Listening over my high-end, two-channel system they absolutely do! But are the differences large enough to show up over an iPod, car system, or computer speakers?

 

The 2009 remasters are louder than the 1987 versions, so a quick comparison might lead you to believe the remaster is "better" simply because it's a little louder. And there's more bass. So if you compare old and new adjust the volume of both CDs to make them the same. Then tell me what you hear.

 

I compared two of the better sounding CDs, "The Beatles (The White Album)" and "Abbey Road" over my iPod, using my Monster Turbine in-ear headphones, and over my computer, with Audioengine2 speakers. Mind you, the Turbine and Audioengine2 are a good deal better than average-sounding ways to hear music, and after I compensated for the volume differences between the 1987 and 2009 versions, the sound was nearly the same.

 

And I was listening in a dead quiet room, add some background office or street noise and the differences would be even harder to hear. Rather than buy the new Beatles CDs, buy better headphones or speakers. They would make the Beatles music you already own sound better.

 

Thing is, with the 2009 remasters we're talking about fairly subtle improvements in clarity, especially in high-frequency detail, overall spaciousness, and naturalness. And the music seems more dynamically alive. Too bad those qualities evaporate over iPods, computer speakers, and car systems.

 

 

 

The colors of the new CDs' covers and booklets pale next to the original British LP covers.

 

(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)

 

Listen over a decent quality hi-fi or home theater system and those improvements are definitely worthwhile. If you're a Beatles fan with a home hi-fi, get the remasters.

 

Sound aside, the new digipaks look way better than the 1987 jewel boxes, and the new booklets are loaded with rare photos, many of which even I, a fairly devoted Beatles fan, have never seen. The short minidocumentaries are generally pretty good. But the digipak and booklet color printing seem a bit off compared with my original 1960s British LPs. Flesh tones sometimes take on a greenish cast (see my comparison shot of the "Beatles For Sale" LP and 2009 CD covers).

 

The good news is just how close the LP and CD sound! Switching back and forth between my VPI Classic turntable and Ayre C-5 Evolution SACD/DVD-A player, the sound was remarkably similar! Yes, the LP might be a tad warmer and more full bodied, but I had to really focus to hear significant differences. I also compared my Mobile Fidelity "Magical Mystery Tour" LP with the 2009 CD, and this time I preferred the CD. There was something about the LP's harsher, brighter balance and pumped-up bass I didn't like.

 

Most 2009 Beatles CDs were mastered from the original, stereo analog master tapes, but "Help" for example, was remastered from producer George Martin's 1986 digital master. "Help" is not one of the better ones, that's for sure.

 

I also compared the 2009 remasters with some of "The Beatles: The Capitol Albums Vol 1 & 2" CDs that came out in 2006. Those eight remastered CDs aren't bad, but the 2009 CDs cream them.

 

Have you bought the new CDs? Can you hear the difference?

 

Tell us what you think.

[cryptique]

Don't buy the Beatles remasters, unless...

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10351798-47.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=TheAudiophiliac

I don't disagree with this. I use good headphones at work and have good speakers at home, so I hear the improvements, but I doubt I'd hear much difference on my car's audio system (stock Honda system circa 2004) or on an iPod with standard-issue earbuds.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

One of the best things about the remasters is that it opens up a lot of information that many Beatles fans had forgotten or never knew. The guys seem to be rather petty and short sighted on a lot of issues in retrospect. Abbey Road seems fraught with these kind of silly issues.

 

Case in point: Lennon had been quoted as feeling that the others (particularly Paul) had not given their all or even tried to sabatoge John's tunes.

 

That reeks of the bitter, iconoclastic Lennon when one considers Come Together. Lennon had no arrangement when he brought it to the boys. McCartney slowed the tempo down, added the bass line and played a magnificient electric piano on the tune. McCartney's contributions to that some elevated it to another level.

 

Point two: Harrison has been quoted as complaining about the 'fussy' basslines on Something. The bassline is so integral to the song and is so masterful that one can only wonder at Harrison's seeming bitter shortsightedness.

 

Point three: McCartney wasted loads of time and money attempting to make Oh Darling a hit single. It seems a bit amazing that the others humored him on this.

 

It is a real tragedy that the boys couldn't see that the band was a truly synergistic enterprise. Without the others to altenatley piss off and inspire, all four of them eventually descended into cliches of their Beatle identities.