bleedorange Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Here it is a week later and the Beatles remasters are still not here. For me anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Point three: McCartney wasted loads of time and money attempting to make Oh Darling a hit single. Wasn't it "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"? It seems a bit amazing that the others humored him on this. They were humoring him about "Yesterday" too a few years before, but they had humor and weren't taking themselves too seriously then. Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Wasn't it "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"? They were humoring him about "Yesterday" too a few years before, but they had humor and weren't taking themselves too seriously then. That makes me think of:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da Link to post Share on other sites
mpolak21 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 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. The music is still way more interesting than the backbiting though. Anyone who's ever done anything creative in a group has similar stories of disagreements here and there, thankfully for most of us it isn't then documented in thousands of books and interviews, but I am not sure anyone has done anything as well as the Beatles made music. And I am not sure it's a tragedy they eventually split up either, they had given us plenty, and I am not sure how excited I'd have been for the Beatles eventual Stones-like decline over the years. Do we really want Beatles at the Speed of Sound? Let it Be was a fine jumping off point. --Mike Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 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. Even on shitty computer speakers or on my iPod, I hear the improvements immediately. Maybe it's because I've listened to Beatles stuff so intensely so many times any changes/improvements/whatnot I catch immediately, but still, the improvements are great. Link to post Share on other sites
bigideas Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 is Long Long Long still really quiet on the White Album remaster? Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 is Long Long Long still really quiet on the White Album remaster?kinda. Starts out very quiet, but the drums are loud/normal. Link to post Share on other sites
noyes Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 It's tiring to read so many different takes on these remasters, most of them being rehashed questions and uninformed judgments over and over and over again.Like the whole 'Mono vs Stereo war' crap, which is mostly subjective, but to read nonsense like the Mono remasters are 'useless' or that they is 'no difference whatsoever' is just ridiculous.The White Album, as it's been known for years now, is the only true album where Mono and Stereo is truly pro and con. Stereo is missing stuff and mono is missing stuff. I personally prefer listening to The White Album on Mono, listening to John's lyrics in both my ears as opposed to only one, same goes for almost every other song and the minor positive differences present on the mono. Not that stereo isn't great, it is. It's strange. It's the same song but you get some and you lose some. As far as Long Long Long goes, it was recorded quietly so it's going to be 'quiet', more or less, however you heard it. BUT if you've ever heard the Ebbetts Mono mix, you'd find that it sounds just as 'loud' as the remasters, the immediate difference being George's back vocals come in on the first 'long' in mono, as opposed to the third in stereo. It all depends on how it was equalized and all that technical nonsense. Little things like that that don't really change the song overall, it's just subjective is all. Long story short, when you really get into the Beatles, digging into little details upon little tiny details, it's an ultimately draining experience. The most I've ever experienced concerning any kind of artist, ever.If you read that and laughed to yourself it's because you can relate, being an extreme Beatle history lover yourself. It's not just music but the tiniest little personal details. It's endless and the innumerable discrepancies (seemingly infinite) only serve to drive one insane. haha. Link to post Share on other sites
bigideas Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 kinda. Starts out very quiet, but the drums are loud/normal. i wonder if there is some purpose for it being quieter than the rest of the album or if they just didn't really care about George's song and didn't care about it being lower (lennon/mcc). Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 It's tiring to read so many different takes on these remasters, most of them being rehashed questions and uninformed judgments over and over and over again.Like the whole 'Mono vs Stereo war' crap, which is mostly subjective, but to read nonsense like the Mono remasters are 'useless' or that they is 'no difference whatsoever' is just ridiculous.The White Album, as it's been known for years now, is the only true album where Mono and Stereo is truly pro and con. Stereo is missing stuff and mono is missing stuff. I personally prefer listening to The White Album on Mono, listening to John's lyrics in both my ears as opposed to only one, same goes for almost every other song and the minor positive differences present on the mono. Not that stereo isn't great, it is. It's strange. It's the same song but you get some and you lose some. As far as Long Long Long goes, it was recorded quietly so it's going to be 'quiet', more or less, however you heard it. BUT if you've ever heard the Ebbetts Mono mix, you'd find that it sounds just as 'loud' as the remasters, the immediate difference being George's back vocals come in on the first 'long' in mono, as opposed to the third in stereo. It all depends on how it was equalized and all that technical nonsense. Little things like that that don't really change the song overall, it's just subjective is all. Long story short, when you really get into the Beatles, digging into little details upon little tiny details, it's an ultimately draining experience. The most I've ever experienced concerning any kind of artist, ever.If you read that and laughed to yourself it's because you can relate, being an extreme Beatle history lover yourself. It's not just music but the tiniest little personal details. It's endless and the innumerable discrepancies (seemingly infinite) only serve to drive one insane. haha. Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 i wonder if there is some purpose for it being quieter than the rest of the album or if they just didn't really care about George's song and didn't care about it being lower (lennon/mcc). I've been listening to that tune over and over (old version cds) the past week or so and was wondering as well if they kicked it up a notch on the new ones. Link to post Share on other sites
noyes Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I KNOW! Link to post Share on other sites
noyes Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I've been listening to that tune over and over (old version cds) the past week or so and was wondering as well if they kicked it up a notch on the new ones. I get the feeling that it was meant to be recorded quietly like that, because of not only the subject matter but the way the song builds and progresses. It's interesting that they recorded 67 takes of the song until the wee hours of the morning, George being in good spirits and all. It also sounds much better and clearer on the remaster, but like I said, the Mono sounds just as good and I actually prefer listening to George's voice in both ears. But stereo/mono, it's still the same song. Not much difference in this particular track. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Bear with me on this. I received my six stereo remasters that I purchased from Amazon I mentioned in an earlier post. By using reward certificates and free shipping I spent only $22 for the last six Beatles albums excluding Let It Be and Yellow Submarine. I am glad I did not buy a box set for $200 out of pocket. Either I am deaf or the stereo system in my car or the surround sound system I use at home to listen to these CD's are pieces of shit because for the life of me I can't hear the difference between the CD's I previously owned and the new remastered ones. For example: I loved the recently expanded Yellow Submarine soundtrack that came out a few years back. That album which I understand is remixed as well as remastered blew me away on the same sound systems I am currently using. So I took the old version of Rubber Soul and played my favorite song that appears on all three versions "Think For Yourself" in my car with the volume, treble and bass set at a certain level. Believe it or not it didn't sound that bad. I then took the remastered version from Rubber Soul and played it at the same volume, bass and treble levels. I could barely hear the difference if at all. I then played the Yellow Submarine version and it just rocked. It had a bigger sound and was much punchier than the other two versions. I repeated the process again by playing them in a different order just to make sure but with the same result. I have played only about twenty songs so far from the remastered CD's including side one of the White Album and Magical Mystery Tour. I don't hear much difference except that the bass is just a bit louder. The harmonies sound the same, the guitar solos are just as crisp or not crisp however the case may be and the drumming seems to sound the same. I wish what ever they did to those songs on the YS CD they did to these remastered albums. I do not think I will be buying the rest of the Beatles five remastered albums. By cranking up the volume on the old versions they sound just as good as the remastered tracks. Comments? Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I can tell a difference right away. To me, there is a clarity that was not there before. I have only listened to a few tracks, and probably won't hear them all until I buy the cds some day. My first thought was that they are a bit bright sounding. I should mention that I only listen to music with headphones on - not by way of any sort of stereo system. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 What headphones do you use? Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Having not heard the mono Beatles much previously, I'm not qualified to pass judgment on the mono remasters. They sound pretty good, though, as long as they go through speakers and not headphones. (I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts on that point.) I can say that Abbey Road and Let It Be, to my ears, sound much improved. (I can clearly make out what John is singing on "Maggie Mae," for instance.) I am going to get the Past Masters this weekend, so I will let you know what I think about them. The other thing I will say is that except for a steel-drum-band version of Joy Division's "Transmission" I listened to just now, it has been nothing but straight Beatles for a week and I feel fine. Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 What headphones do you use? Sony MDR-V6 Monitor Series Headphones with CCAW Voice Coil I don't listen to music without headphones, as I don't want to disturb other people where I live. I have a tendency to listen to music very loud when I use a stereo. I also don't use the equalizer setting on Windows Media Player or WinAmp anymore. I think other people have said they see no difference in the sound. I think it is probably a curse to be so aware of how things sound. But, that is how it goes for some people. I should also tell you that my right ear does not work very well, so maybe that has something to do with the way I hear things. Link to post Share on other sites
noyes Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I think the Past Masters are vastly superior to the Mono masters. Vastly."The Inner Light" especially. It's not awful but the Past Masters just sound much better. But when it comes to the White Album, I think that's the album that sounds really good on mono, even on headphones. In fact, I think all mono's sound good on headphones. It all comes down to listening to the music and especially the vocals in both ears, instead of just hearing Paul or John or George singing in your right ear exclusively. Headphones or not, it's not detrimental in my eyes. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yes - the stereo separation is pretty vicious. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Sony MDR-V6 Monitor Series Headphones with CCAW Voice Coil Thanks, I'll look into them. Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Thanks, I'll look into them. If you do a search on the word headphone in this section of the board, you will find several threads about headphones. There are various views about what are the best to use. Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I know it's for charity but I still hate the Macy's Come Together ads. And thanks for the info on the Abbey Road VW, I am now in the know. Link to post Share on other sites
Elixir Sue Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 is Long Long Long still really quiet on the White Album remaster?I think it's significantly louder, and a joy to listen to. I felt like I was hearing it for the first time. There are a lot of great moments going through all these songs in mono, but nothing blew my mind as much as the White Album (as a whole). Holy shit. Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I know it's for charity but I still hate the Macy's Come Together ads. And thanks for the info on the Abbey Road VW, I am now in the know. There is an interview with that guy in the Mark Lewisohn book I have mentioned around here a few times. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts