OT My Beatles Hypocrisy

[harvey]

I liked the Beatles LOVE album (you know, the mash-up album created by Sir George Martin and son Giles around 2005 or so). In fact I think it was a little too respectful to the original tunes and could have mashed them harder.

 

I really liked bits of Jay Z's illegal 'Grey' Album, where he mashed Beatles tunes (beyond recognition in some cases) with his own rapped stuff.

 

I liked these records because they were attempts to create something new out of a revered back catalogue.

 

However...

 

I don't get the idea behind the soon to be released remastered back catalogue of Beatles albums. Why do we want to hear these records 'cleaned up' from "pops, crackles and sqweeking chairs"? Surely these noises are part of the charm of the originals. Why juice up the low end to sound more contemporary?

 

Or is there more to it than just cleaner audio? Who knows, I might really like the sound of these records but the idea seems to be in the ballpark of:

 

~ giving mona lisa a 'better' smile.

~ refinishing a '58 LP to make it shinier.

~ straightening up the leaning tower of pisa etc etc etc etc etc

 

any thoughts?

[J. Dan]

There have been a lot of heated posts on this subject lately. I'm torn. On one hand, I have some old Beatles 45's (does anybody still know what those are?) that don't sound so great because when I was a kid, I took care of them the same way I took care of all of my records - not very well. So, yeah, all the click, pops, and such add character, but if I can hear a clean version of the SAME recording, I would prefer that. So to the crux of the matter: will they be mixed exactly the same, just "cleaned up", or are they remixed? My understanding (I think from Bill@WelcomeHomeStudios but I could be wrong) is that they are NOT remixed - just cleaned up. If it is done well I'm OK with that.

[The Geoff]

I was there, and The Beatles were pretty much The Whole Of Existence for a couple of years, and I heard all the stuff.

 

As 80s-LZ says, it'll be refreshing to hear them cleaned up.

 

I'm one of those(!) who think that 'mashing them up' too much is sacriledge, but that's just me. Maybe you only feel that way if you were following at the time.

 

 

G.

[J. Dan]

I'm one of those(!) who think that 'mashing them up' too much is sacriledge, but that's just me.

 

People have been "mashing them up" for decades, they just didn't call it that (or admit to it). There are thousands of "Beatles" songs out there by everybody and their mother. I'll go on record as saying that the Beatles are at least in the top 3 most influential bands of all time.

[The Geoff]

The "too much" is important there.............

 

I love it when Beatles tunes are adopted a jazz standards - you know they are going to last.

 

As a matter of info - whose music, in say, the last 30 years, (which would technically preclude The Beatles, I suppose) has been widely adopted by the jazz community?

 

Bacharach/David, Beatles - and who else?

 

Maybe that should be a thread on its own?

 

G.

[GreySeraph]

@ Geoff: Zappa's peaches en regalia, amongst other tunes, made it into the real book.

[harvey]

so did MJ's PYT...go figure!

[Caevan O’Shite]

I don't get the idea behind the soon to be released remastered back catalogue of Beatles albums. Why do we want to hear these records 'cleaned up' from "pops, crackles and sqweeking chairs"? Surely these noises are part of the charm of the originals. Why juice up the low end to sound more contemporary?

 

Well, maybe they're after a newer, broader, younger audience, which seems to be at least occasionally sifting through much of the weak crap that's out today, and then turning to better new music that they find, and also looking to older classics that they discover for themselves.

 

I remember when I was a kid, checking out what recordings I could find of Robert Johnson, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Holly and the Crickets- I could appreciate the music, but man I wanted a version that wasn't so damned tinny, thin, and lo-fi sounding!

 

I also can appreciate anyone who does any kind of mash-up or otherwise sampling or covering/rearranging of various Beatles tunes (or other "classic" material) if something creative and inventive is being done with it, beyond simply rapping or even singing over select sections being replayed. As far as recorded output goes, I'll take anything creative like that over yet another tired old straight-reading cover by anyone, any day! Otherwise, I'll prefer hearing the Beatles themselves.

 

Hell, the Beatles occasionally used clips of other peoples' music or various odd voices and sounds in there own recordings; did the classical/flamenco player seemingly heard on a radio at one point on "the White Album" ever get credited, or whomever had written or arranged the original piece?

 

I'm one of those(!) who think that 'mashing them up' too much is sacriledge, but that's just me.

 

People have been "mashing them up" for decades, they just didn't call it that (or admit to it). There are thousands of "Beatles" songs out there by everybody and their mother. I'll go on record as saying that the Beatles are at least in the top 3 most influential bands of all time.

 

Excellent point! Albeit, I think there's been a LOT of GREAT music amongst all those Beatles-influenced tunes over the decades...

 

@ Geoff: Zappa's peaches en regalia, amongst other tunes, made it into the real book.

 

One of my all-time favorites! Love that tune.

 

so did MJ's PYT...go figure!

 

That's actually a pretty good tune if you think about it- well written, great melodies, harmony, rhythmic sense, arrangement, everything. Seems like it'd be a great workout for both the ear and the fingers to take a stab at adapting any and all of its various parts to the guitar. I think ones vocabulary for leads and fills would benefit greatly!

[A String]

I'm all for cleaning the recordings up, but leave them mixed the way they are. Changing them would be...well, changing them.

 

Oh, and I don't go for the "mash ups" at all. What a horrible thing to do to a piece of music.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I'm not torn at all, the whole thing annoys me to no end. Just like Eddie Krammer, who has remixed the hendrix catalog over and over again, each time saying something like,"the technology has advanced enough so that NOW we can bring to you what was really in Jimis head..." Crap. It is marketing old product repackaged, to drive flagging sales or prop up a new medium. (The first time, was the introiduction of the CD, and a particular 'lost' Hendrix product was only available on CD, McCarneys project had different tracks on the CD, and the Stones remixes... well, the less said about them, the better.)

 

They just want you to buy it again. I didn't buy the 2005 release, and I'm not likely to buy a remix done this late in the game. But as I've noted before, no one is buying new music; but millions will buy Beatles, Stones, Springsteen, U2, etc etc.

 

I would much rather hear Billsters take on a Beatle song, than hear some remix of the original Beatles tracks that have already been released, and were mixed the way that they wanted them mixed when they mixed them 40 years ago.

[The Geoff]

I would much rather hear Billsters take on a Beatle song, than hear some remix of the original Beatles tracks that have already been released, and were mixed the way that they wanted them mixed when they mixed them 40 years ago.

 

I'll drink to that.

 

G.

[Bejeeber]

I'm not at all into the idea of an "improved" mix/remix.

 

The mixes were an important element of what made 'em great in the first place IMO.

 

Now an improved mastering for CD, without imposing currently fashionable compression or drastic EQ curves, is something that could be considered I suppose (or is that what came out in 2005? I wasn't following it I guess).

 

 

[G. A. Donis]

I've thought about checking out that "Love" CD but haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

I believe if all the marketing is stripped away the REAL reason they are being cleaned up and re-released is $$$$.

 

It is just unfortunate that most of the new $$$$ will not go to the original artist (or their living family). Unless of course somehow Michael Jackson sold off his rights before he died?

[picker]

The audio reproduction technology today exposes issues that weren't apparent on the average record player in 1962, but sound like Gotterdamerung is taking place somewhere near the recording studio now. So there is at least an argument for bringing them up to current standards. I say if they can make them sound better, go nuts.

[p90jr]

Since I lost any Beatles vinyl and cassettes (and 8 tracks) I had between '82-'87 and haven't listened that intently to them since then, I have the pleasure of having forgotten some of the songs and kind of forgotten what many of the recordings sound like and hear them and go "whoa, that's awesome..."

 

I'd rather have them re-issued as a box set on vinyl (with free discs or downloads included), though.

[desertbluesman]

I don't get the idea behind the soon to be released remastered back catalogue of Beatles albums.

 

Let me spell it out for you; m-o-n-e-y That's a what I want, Gimme money that's what I want.

 

I think that sums it up.

 

I also liked the Beatles Love album and I saw the Love Cirque Du Soliel show 2x in Vegas. and loved it both times.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

The audio reproduction technology today exposes issues that weren't apparent on the average record player in 1962,...

 

as a general statement, true. in the case of the Beatles recordings? Bull. The quality of the gear at EMI was pretty darned impressive by the standards of the day. Look at the mics that they were using verses the mics in the studio shots of Hendrx or the Stones at the same time. So yes, the technology is both more advanced and pretty mediocre (Behringer consoles sound pretty shitty, particularly when placed next to a 1970s vintage Neve... and the custom built consoles in Abbey Road during the 60s, though limited in features, were not sonically challenged.. )at the same time. MP3/iPod technology and $0.98 earphones? No, this is an issue driven by greed. True, when the package comes out the bass and drums will be boosted.... but this only makes the others point that they are re-painting the Mona Lisa.

 

I was talking to a Nashville engineer last week, and we were bemoaning the fact that what used to be a totally unacceptable track that would never have had to have been re-recorded is now the norm in what one can expect to get for mixdown. The quality of recording is down, the quality of musicianship is in the toilet, and we spend more time fixing mistakes than we do mixing or mastering recordings. But the 'fixing' has already been done on the Beatle recordings. They cannot get 'more fixed'.

 

What passes for multitrack originals can be remixed to create something that nobody wanted at the time but might want today, no doubt. Or they can add side chatter and fly in parts that were rejected originally. They can sample and replace original instruments with modern stuff if they can get enough isolation. Is this anything that anyone wants?

 

I have to be honest... I don't think that I've heard a Beatle record in years, and I don't really have much passion for the discussion. Just feels to me like a 'stimulus package' for EMI, Capitol, Yoko, and Paul. Oh, and Ringo and Dani, if there is anything left....

[desertbluesman]

Just feels to me like a 'stimulus package' for EMI, Capitol, Yoko, and Paul. Oh, and Ringo and Dani, if there is anything left....

 

Like I said above, m-o-n-e-y thats~a~what I want.

 

That is the reason for this repackaging. The Beatles were one of my three favorite groups back in the 60's. For me it was The Beatles, The Cream, and The Jimi Hendrix Experience, everyone else was a few rungs down the ladder according to my taste (but still great).

[Caevan O’Shite]

You don't need to buy any Beatles stuff other than that remix/"mash-up";

Love is all you need...

 

Seriously, note the timing here- dovetails nicely with the hyped and very highly advertised "Beatles/Rock Band" products...

[A String]

note the timing here- dovetails nicely with the hyped and very highly advertised "Beatles/Rock Band" products...

 

And there in lies the core of what is really going on. Build up the hype, build up the chatter, sell more product.

[Scott Fraser]

note the timing here- dovetails nicely with the hyped and very highly advertised "Beatles/Rock Band" products...

 

And there in lies the core of what is really going on. Build up the hype, build up the chatter, sell more product.

 

Who says big record labels are irrelevant? Seems like at least EMI is doing exactly what they are designed to do here. Sell records.

 

Scott Fraser

[RobRose]

I'm not sure its about the quality of the recording itself, but more about the quality of the output and CD mastering process for me. Beatles CDs were mastered pretty early on and I don't think they did a great job by and large. I, for one am looking forward to an improved sonic experience.

 

Sure, it's about money. It was NEVER about anything else...ever. But, to be fair, the Beatles have been far less exploitative of their catalog than others - The Who, for example, have more compilations than original albums.

 

To me, it's like when you see a well preserved Ansel Adams photo framed behind glass and well lit, crystal clear and perfectly capturing Adams' intent and compare it with same image that you ripped out of a LIFE magazine back in the 70s and stored in a drawer somewhere. There's no comparison in the quality of the rendering, but when you add in your memories, and maybe the reason why you liked the photo enough to save it, the rendering matters less and your memories matter more.

 

I was born in '61 and as such was too young to really own the "memory" part of the equation. So now I just want to experience it as well as I can.

[super combinator]

I saw a blurb on tv & the guy was saying he wud go for the mono set because the songs sound different/new compared to what many have been listening to over the years, that said I have no desire to buy anything at the moment

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I saw a blurb on tv & the guy was saying he wud go for the mono set because the songs sound different/new compared to what many have been listening to over the years, that said I have no desire to buy anything at the moment

 

A friend of mine is a self-styled expert on John Lennon. He has -always- said... back to the pre-D days... that George Martin did not care much about the mono releases, and he let the band have a larger say in the sound of the mono releases. Consequently, for good or bad, the mono vinyl is loser to what the band either expected or was able to wrangle out of the engineers at Abbey Road. But I'd not buy remastered mono new releases just because they were 'different'.

 

George Martin himslef said that he didn't mix for stereo, he used it as an additional mix for mono since most all the delivery systems in the 1960s were mono. Even most peoples home systems weren't stereo, or if they were (as in our case) the family had not bought the second speaker cabinet needed for stereo reproduction. (We didn't have true stereo until 1968 or 69.)

[bennyguitfiddle]

note the timing here- dovetails nicely with the hyped and very highly advertised "Beatles/Rock Band" products...

 

And there in lies the core of what is really going on. Build up the hype, build up the chatter, sell more product.

 

there is a lot of hype lately. But they still rock even 40 years later.

because of the hype i found myself watching Beatles Anthology II on

VH1. My 2 yr old daught was just minding her own bussiness eating

the last of her Cookie Crisp Cereal and the song "Tax Man" came on.

She stopped everything she was doing turned around and danced harder

then I have ever seen her dance.

as far as cleaning up a recording I dont care what they do.

[OldTuna]

What about my old vinyl album (stereo) from VeeJay records called "Introducing The Beatles"? You think that one is any different from any of the other mixes and mono/stereo versions?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

What about my old vinyl album (stereo) from VeeJay records called "Introducing The Beatles"? You think that one is any different from any of the other mixes and mono/stereo versions?

 

I had two Vee Jay albums, and three different covers (that column on the side used to be a flap), but all the mixes were still the ones done by George Martin. EMI owned Capital, but could not get them to release the Beatles in the US. So they made deals with Swan and VeeJay (at least) to release Beatle records in the US. Could they be some alternate takes of mixes? If so, I never heard anyone say that. But I'm not an expert on the Beatles. Shouldn't be hard to find out though... EMI kept immaculate records and the Beatles have been documented to almost every breath.

[Mudcat]

Check out these mono versions of "Paperback Writer" & "Rain." I believe they may have been recorded from the original 45 RPM single, not from the remastered CD. I think they definitely smoke the stereo versions.

 

[video:youtube]

[Eric Iverson]

Re: it being about the money...well, of course it is.

 

But as long as the recordings are actually remixed, not just reissued, or the genuine mono recordings (in other words, truth in advertising), I don't see a problem. I personally don't plan to buy remixes of recordings I have owned and loved for years, although I might buy one of a recording I DON'T own, conceivably.

 

No one is pointing a gun at anyone's head and forcing them to buy a record they don't want.

 

If the record companies are heavily promoting Beatles reissues, it's in part because:

1) There is no one right now with anything resembling the creative impact on the mass audience they had; and

2) they are hurtin' for certain because kids are downloading music, not buying CDs. So in part it's survival for them.

 

And unlike what they did with Hendrix, as far as I know, there are no plans to issue stuff that Hendrix would see released over his dead body were he alive!

 

After Trane died they released a lot of records he had in the can... I'm not sure he would have wanted all of them released, but they were genuine Coltrane, and not garbage. There was a live recording of him shortly before he died that didn't really represent him well... but it clearly stated on the CD that it was his last concert.