Alexander

I've also been listening to the two Capitol boxes over the last few days and was JUST finishing when I went out to pick up my Beatles CDs yesterday. Which means that I listened to "Rubber Soul" THREE TIMES yesterday: Once in US stereo, once in US mono, and once in the new remastered stereo (which is really George Martin's 1987 remix. I need to get the mono box to hear the ORIGINAL UK stereo mix). Odd. I don't see to get tired of it. After I finished listening to the four CDs I picked up, I decided to "finish off" my Capitol listening by spinning my LP copies of "Revolver" (I have it in both stereo and mono version. Which means I also listened to THAT album three times yesterday). Listened to it on headphones after the wife and daughter went to bed. DAMN they sounded good. Yeah, some dirt and a little distortion on the high end (these are forty three year old LPs that were not really taken care of for a long time), but DAMN. I'd say these new CDs come pretty damn close to the vibrancy of the vinyl. Finished the evening off with my LP copy of "Hey Jude" which just rocked my socks off. Can't wait to hear "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" on the new CD, but this will do for now! Damn! Unwound afterward to a Ravi Shankar LP. Yeah...life can be pretty damn sweet.

The major difference in all of the mono mixes is that they are BALLSY, not wimpy like the stereo versions. "Revolution" and "Paperback Writer" in mono will knock you out. Once you hear the mono you won't be able to go back. As I've said before, I have the Purple Chick mono versions of all of albums available in mono (Please, Please Me through the White Album) and I agree: Once you've heard the mono versions, the ear prefers it. The stereo mixes, for the most part, were hamfisted. I STILL don't understand the concept of putting the drums on one side of the stereo spectrum. When you are in a room with a drummer, even if he's all the way over to the left of you, you don't only hear it out of one ear! What were the engineers thinking? I have now listened to "Sgt. Pepper" and "Rubber Soul." It's the details that jump out at you with the remasterings. I'm amazed at Ringo's drumming. His additions are subtle and tasteful. You really appreciate what a master of understatement he was (is). I have also heard most of the "Past Masters" set at work (it was on the in-store play all evening) and it sounds DAMN good. I notice, btw, that the "Past Masters" discs are a mix of mono and stereo mixes, just like the 1987 version, which is odd because I assumed that ALL of the mono mixes were being saved for the box set.

I got "Revolver," "Abbey Road", "Rubber Soul" and "Sgt. Pepper" today (I getting them in order of my favorites). So far, I've listened to "Revolver" and a little over half of "Abbey Road." The sonic upgrade is tremendous. You can really hear the difference, especially if you A/B with the 1987 versions. They have more spark, more life, and (yes) Paul's basslines are WAY more audible. I heard a lot more of Paul listening to "Revolver" this morning than I have in the past. However... I STILL don't like the original stereo mastering, especially where Ringo's drumkit is crammed into one speaker. It really diminishes his sound and the overall sound of the recording. I know it would have resulted in a near riot from some die-hard fans, but I really would have preferred NEW stereo mixes (they could have even doubled up the CDs: have the entire album in the original stereo and then in a new mix). The "Yellow Submarine" songtrack album is a perfect example of this done right. "Eleanore Rigby" sounds better on that disc than it does here, for example. The cellos in particular have more depth. Someday, when I have the money, I hope to get the mono box (if it is still available, that is). That's what I REALLY want to hear... BTW, "Abbey Road," mixed (as it was) in stereo only, sounds FANTASTIC.

Never had one, hope I never will. My mother has had several and tells horror stories about them!

I'm not a smoker, by any means. I've never in my entire life puffed a cigarette. I have, however, smoked a few cigars over the years, and can enjoy them (I like the fact that you don't inhale cigar smoke, although that doesn't make it safe. Lip cancer is a bitch). My father-in-law was a cigar smoker for years, so my wife actually enjoys the smell of cigar smoke. I light up once every few months, at most. I have, of course, smoked other substances, but never in cigarette form... Never smoked a pipe, but I wouldn't mind trying it, just to see what all the fuss is about...

That is a long-disproved urban myth. It was one shot in a larger series of artsy photographs. I recall reading, somewhere, that the "butcher" photos were actually intended to be used as part of the promotion of the "Paperback Writer" single (commenting on the often grisly nature of such books). One DOES have to question the judgment, however, of the Capitol art department in using the photo for an album cover.

Confusing? These are the exact same albums, simply remastered. The only thing I can see some people finding confusing is the whole mono/stereo thing. It breaks down like this: With the exception of "Abbey Road" and "Let It Be," every single Beatles album, from "Please, Please Me" through the "White Album" was released in both mono and stereo mixes. There are subtle differences between the two mixes, and generally the mono mixes are considered the more "authentic" because those are the mixes the Beatles and George Martin worked on. The stereo mixes were generally left to engineers who knocked them off in less time (stereo still being considered something of a novelty at the time). When the Beatles catalogue was issued on CD in the mid-80s, the first four albums ("Please Please Me" through "Beatles for Sale") were issued in mono at George Martin's insistence. Everything after that ("Help" through "Abbey Road") were issued in stereo. Of the two "Past Masters" discs, disc one was largely made up of mono mixes. The rest of disc one and all of disc two are in stereo (except for "You Know My Name Look Up The Number," never issued in stereo). For the better part of two decades, these mixes (part mono, part stereo) were the ONLY ONES Beatles fans could hear on CD (which led to some bitterness on the part of the fans who wanted to hear the American mono and stereo mixes, which differed from the British mixes). The "Yellow Submarine" songtrack album offered some new stereo mixes (which sound great, btw) as did the "Love" album. The two Capitol boxes brought back the US mixes. "1" has all stereo mixes, and generally improved sound over the 1987 CDs. The "Anthology" boxes also offered some new mixes (particularly a new mix of "Yellow Submarine" and a stereo mix of "You Know My Name Look Up The Number"). THAT I can see as being confusing. The new reissues are far simpler: The individual CDs coming out on Wednesday are all in stereo, including the first four albums originally issued on CD in mono. There is also a stereo box set, which offers the same CDs sold individually, plus a couple of bonus discs containing documentaries. Then there is the limited edition mono box, which will contain every album in mono except the last two albums and the tracks on "Past Masters" that were never issued in mono.

GREAT review of the Beatles reissues. I truly wish that I was this reviewer. Then I could have gotten both box sets for free! I’m Looking Through Them Rediscovering something that wasn’t lost: A few words on the Beatles remasters By John Brodeur The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. I had this epiphany midway through a 24-hour immersion in the newly remastered Beatles catalog. It’s the same revelation that thousands of music fans have every year. I’ve had the same exact revelation dozens of times myself. But it’s appropriate, as there’s something revelatory about the music. From 1964 to 1970 the Beatles made more, better music than anyone else. Matched against any act over any six-year period since, the Beatles flatten the competition. They had both quantity and quality. In six (or so) years, John, Paul, George and Ringo (plus all-important producer George Martin) mastered the pop single, the album format, and the art of studio recording. Game, set, match. Read the rest of the review here.

Everything except the "Ballad of John and Yoko" / "Old Brown Shoe" single, which I believe is not included on the mono Past Masters discs. Collecting Beatles ain't easy, you know how hard it can be, the way things are goin', they're gonna bankrupt me. I think we can safely say that John was right: They ARE more popular than Jesus!

Really. I've always thought that "Cracker Barrel" is a most un-PC name for a restaurant that caters to a primarily white/southern demographic. Should we open a branch in downtown Atlanta called "N****r Barrel"? It's all very confusing... I LOVE George Jones. He's one of country's greatest male voices.

I want to work for the Onion SOOOOOO bad!

I really like "King of America." It was one of the first Costello albums I ever got.

I like it. I hear it (or bits of it) several times a day since it's on the in-store play at work. It certainly doesn't suck, listening to Costello all day...

I like the bit in the Beatles "Anthology" documentary where George is talking about the "Yellow Submarine" movie and he says that he can't for the life of him remember WHY the Beatles didn't do their own voices. "I don't think we were too busy to do it. And I don't remember not WANTING to do it. Maybe they just assumed we wouldn't want to, so they hired actors, which is where those horrible Liverpool accents come from."

Bob has always proved himself a great interpreter of other people's songs. I have no doubt that he will make a Christmas album like no other...

That's because it WAS Harvey Keitel...

I think Sandler's huge fund of barely-disguised hostility would have made him good for the role, but his hyper-recognizability would have made him terrible. So I'm glad he wasn't used. And I could have done without Mike Myers. Oh God, yes! That was the worst casting decision in the whole film. What bothered me about Myers was less his being in the film, than in the decision to make him up so heavily as to make him "unrecognizable." It didn't work, of course. It just looked like Myers in a ton of make-up. It was indulging his fantasy that he is the Second Coming of Peter Sellers. Now Sellers could have done that role AND pull it off AND make himself unnoticeable...too bad he's dead.

Some good points here, I thought. It did occur to me that the Basterds go far beyond soldiers doing their duty and becoming immune to brutality. These guys are psychopaths. But it reminds one that a serial killer who would be hanged in civilian life could, in the context of war, be regarded as a hero (I mean, that's pretty much what Stiglitz is: He's a serial killer who's been recruited).

Well, I think there's a LOT more to QT and his films than just trying to provoke people (I think it's fairly obvious that the first thing he's trying to convey is his absolute adoration of film - all film...any film. This is a guy in love with THE MOVIES). He's not Michael Bay, for example, who simply confuses blowing things up for filmmaking. The violence is almost never the point in QT's films. In fact, its almost incidental. I LIKE the fact that he will take a moment before the mayhem begins to talk things over (the Bride and Bill's climactic battle (which is played as ANTI-climax, in fact) is put off in favor of a long discussion). This is not to say that QT doesn't have FUN with violence. Of course he does. The fact that he goes SO far over the top with the violence in his films makes it far less "gritty" than people imagine. As I said before, it's more of a cartoon (or, as has been noted, a comic book). It's fantasy violence with an emphasis on "fantasy." Yes, he's self-consciously clever a good deal of the time. I can see where that might annoy people. I personally find Adam Sandler to be UNBEARABLE, but some people think he's funny. I think QT is brilliant, but I can see where some might dislike him. Speaking of Sandler, I understand that he was originally considered for the role of Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (played by "Saw" director Eli Roth, who doesn't give Olivier a run for his money, but does a passable job). Frankly, I can't imagine Sandler in that role. On the other hand, I don't think ANY director has done as good a job with Travolta as QT did in "Pulp Fiction," so who knows? Maybe it would have been inspired casting? I am SO glad, however, that QT's original choice for Landa didn't work out: Leonardo DiCaprio. I think Leo has had some good moments on film (I loved him in "Catch Me If You Can"), but I don't think he could have pulled this part off... I'm with Jim on this - not having seen the new one. After Pulp Fiction he seems to be trying to keep up with the kids. Yes, but the death of Bridget Fonda in "Jackie Brown" is one of the great moments in movie history -- or maybe I mean the history of male-female relations. Even better is the scene were DiNiro tries to explain what happened to Samuel Jackson: "Is she dead, yes or no?" "Pretty much."

That didn't bother me at all. It's a movie. Think of it like one of those Captain American comics from WWII where Cap was punching uncle Adolf in the jaw. That never happened either, did it? Does THAT bother you? No? Exactly. It's fantasy. I actually thought the ending was brilliant. There's a problem performers often have in improv where they start stalling towards the end of a scene because they don't know what's going to happen next. The way to break out of it is to just DO something, and then see what happens. THAT, whatever it is, becomes "what happens next." Apparently one of the reasons it took Tarantino so long to finish the movie (he was working on the script back in the 90s) was that he didn't know how to end it. I imagine that be broke through it in much the same way. Can't think of how to end the movie without rewriting history? Then rewrite history! See what happens after that. THAT'S the end of your movie.

I was particularly tickled by the reference to Selznick for a personal reason: I played Selznick in a production of "Moonlight and Magnolias" (a play about the writing of the "Gone with the Wind" screenplay) a little less than a year ago. It was a great role, and I got a gratifyingly good reaction (one playgoer told me that I was "born" to play Selznick, while a critic wrote that "inhabited" the role). But, yes, the film geekery is a big part of any QT film. At heart, all of his films are love-letters to his favorite filmmakers, actors, and genres. Only a QT film would set its climax in a movie theater and make one of its heroes (albeit a doomed one) a film critic (as well as making one of its villains a producer)!

The thing I love about "Kill Bill" (and indeed all of QT's films) is the sense of joy. Films this violent can be grim affairs (look at Rob Zombie and Eli Roth's oeuvres), but that's NEVER the case in QT's films (even "Death Proof," which is ostensibly a "slasher flick"). His films are vibrant, full of life and positively joyful. There's a real sense of FUN when Uma is laying waste to the Crazy 88s in the House of Blue Leaves. The violence, while bloody, is almost cartoonish. Not for nothing does "Kill Bill" contain an anime sequence: The whole FILM is anime. If you haven't seen it yet, "Kill Bill, vol.2" has a completely different feel. It's darker and more frightening, but it retains that sense of fun and joy (take Bill's soliloquy on Superman/Clark Kent or the whole "Cruel Tutelage of Pai Mei" sequence, just for two great examples. Or even Daryl Hannah's recitation on the Black Mamba). There are disturbing moments (Uma buried alive during the "Lonely Grave of Paula Schultz") but they are balanced with great performances (Michael Parks, Gordon Liu, and Michael Madsen (who delivers the best line in both films: "That woman deserves her revenge and we deserve to die." It's such a great line, QT uses it twice), not to mention David Carradine who manages to dominate both films, despite only appearing the second). There is so much to "Kill Bill," you can watch it again and again and always come away with something new. Back to "Inglorious Basterds." One of the things I LOVED about its the fact that almost two-thirds of the film is either in French or German. QT's films tend to attract two kinds of audiences: Cinema junkies (like me) and young men (always young men) who come for the action and the violence. I really enjoyed the fact that the latter group (a group who would sooner shoot themselves than go see a "furrin film") is forced to read subtitles for almost the entire film. I also loved the fact that QT cast largely French and German actors in the key roles. As one critic noted, the roles of Shoshana and Landa are roles much of Hollywood would have given their left nuts to play, but QT gave them to supremely gifted European actors who are almost unknown in this country. It enriched the film enormously. I'm going to have to go see it again...

The Tavern scene was one of the best in the film. Very suspenseful, straight out of the Hitchcock playbook. You KNEW that somebody was going to slip up. It was just a question of when. Personally, I thought that the German who murdered his officers was going to snap...

Saw it. I will go with RDK's review: Liked it (a lot), didn't love it. Worth seeing? Abso-fuckin'-lutely, especially if you're a QT fan. It's just not his best film. "Kill Bill" (both parts) was his best film. It was the absolute essence of QT's style: Fun, violent, well-acted, thoroughly engrossing. This film is all of those things as well, it just doesn't do it as well as "Kill Bill" did. If I had to nail down the biggest problem, it would probably be the story itself: It's rather thin. Nowhere near as compelling as the Bride's quest for vengeance. The film is, however, chock FULL of great performances. Pitt does a terrific job (as he almost always does), but he's actually the LEAST of the actors here. Check out the woman who plays Shoshana. She comes close to matching Uma as the Bride in "Kill Bill" (she also kinda looks like Uma. QT clearly has a "type"). And the actor who plays the "Jew Hunter" turns in an amazing performance. He's charming, vile, and completely off his fuckin' head. I wished that we'd learned a bit more about the Basterds themselves. They're Jews who kill and scalp Nazis, but who else are they? Who were they BEFORE the war? The climax is great. The audience applauded when Hitler died (if you don't want to know, don't highlight his name). Only QT could have pulled THAT one off (although one kid sitting near me in the theater actually asked one of his buddies, "Is that how it really happened?" I wanted to slap him). Shoshana's face on the burning screen is an image that will stay with me for a long time...

Can't wait!