sidewinder Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Even though I didn't own a Beatles record until 1973, they were part of the sountrack of my childhood via the radio. I've never owned a Beatles record and the whole thing is lost on me I'm afraid. Possibly due to hype and over-exposure growing up 'Oop North' when they were in their heyday. I won't be buying the mono set.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) Even though I didn't own a Beatles record until 1973, they were part of the sountrack of my childhood via the radio. I've never owned a Beatles record and the whole thing is lost on me I'm afraid. Possibly due to hype and over-exposure growing up 'Oop North' when they were in their heyday. I won't be buying the mono set.. I can understand that. I deliberately steered clear of them in the first few years of my record buying and did not get fully drawn in until much later. In 1970 they seemed a bit like pre-history, something warm and fuzzy from a half-remembered youth but not nearly as interesting as Yes or King Crimson. Once the adolescent urge to react against what was mass popular had been bypassed I found that I really enjoyed this music...and could see how much I was listening to in my own time was drawn directly from them. The hype thing is very interesting. The posters on this site are pretty wise to the way the industry tries to manipulate us for commercial gain. Yet so many of us have gone for this package in one form or another - some, like me, after initially protesting our indifference. Makes you think about the sheer power of a sustained marketing campaign. I'm also intrigued by the BBC. On its own websites it is extremely sensitive to any form of marketing. On the folk and acoustic site links and announcements are quickly purged if there is the slightest danger of them appearing like a commercial overture. And yet over the last couple of weeks we have had sustained Beatles coverage on radio and TV. I'm not suggesting the BBC are secretly in league with the powers behind these reissues - I'm sure they would argue that they are just responding to a popular interest in these reissues. But it's a rather fine line! Edited September 12, 2009 by Bev Stapleton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 They're asking around 25$ for the single disc reissues here! Crazy! Even if I paid 10$ shipping per disc, buying them in the US would be cheaper! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Even though I didn't own a Beatles record until 1973, they were part of the sountrack of my childhood via the radio. I've never owned a Beatles record and the whole thing is lost on me I'm afraid. Possibly due to hype and over-exposure growing up 'Oop North' when they were in their heyday. I won't be buying the mono set.. It's never too late. Why not pick up an album like Revolver or Rubber Soul and see what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidewinder Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) I'm also intrigued by the BBC. On its own websites it is extremely sensitive to any form of marketing. On the folk and acoustic site links and announcements are quickly purged if there is the slightest danger of them appearing like a commercial overture. And yet over the last couple of weeks we have had sustained Beatles coverage on radio and TV. I'm not suggesting the BBC are secretly in league with the powers behind these reissues - I'm sure they would argue that they are just responding to a popular interest in these reissues. But it's a rather fine line! The BBC 4 coverage over the last few days has been amazing - I slept through most of it though. A couple of intriguing documentaries - the one about the 'Beatles Sound' and its gradual evolution looked good. As did the one about the 'Beatles and the Russians In The Cold war' which seemed to be implying that they were a secret NATO weapon with the illicit flexible disks that could be hidden under shirt sleeves. Even though I didn't own a Beatles record until 1973, they were part of the sountrack of my childhood via the radio. I've never owned a Beatles record and the whole thing is lost on me I'm afraid. Possibly due to hype and over-exposure growing up 'Oop North' when they were in their heyday. I won't be buying the mono set.. It's never too late. Why not pick up an album like Revolver or Rubber Soul and see what you think. Yes, good idea - I think I will, just to check it out. Those look like good suggestions. Edited September 12, 2009 by sidewinder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I've never really looked at any Beatles sites. I'm sure there must be thousands. For those in the know, are there are any particular ones you like. I came across this one, Beatles Lyrics, which has snippets from the Beatles about who wrote a song, why, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 ! : . I've never owned a Beatles record and the whole thing is lost on me I'm afraid. Possibly due to hype and over-exposure growing up 'Oop North' when they were in their heyday. I won't be buying the mono set.. It's never too late. Why not pick up an album like Revolver or Rubber Soul and see what you think. Yes, good idea - I think I will, just to check it out. Those look like good suggestions. Come to the Dark side my son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 You're all drunk. Madness. I think I'll put off getting any Beatles until after New Years. I'll see if I feel like getting anything then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 It would be nice to see a jazz thread ignite this kind of excitement. I thought the same thing about 10 pages in! I remember a lot of excitement about these two....... ...Hey, you can get excited about that 75 CD Miles box set due out in November, can't ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Wonder how much that's going to cost? Yikes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Wonder how much that's going to cost? Yikes! You'd think an arm & a leg......but surprisingly not. $300 or so. A helluva deal actually for someone that doesn't have most of this stuff in triplicate like most of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Long time no see Dr J! Welcome back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Wonder how much that's going to cost? Yikes! You'd think an arm & a leg......but surprisingly not. $300 or so. A helluva deal actually for someone that doesn't have most of this stuff in triplicate like most of us. For that amount of CDs, that's a good price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjzee Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Even though I didn't own a Beatles record until 1973, they were part of the sountrack of my childhood via the radio. I've never owned a Beatles record and the whole thing is lost on me I'm afraid. Possibly due to hype and over-exposure growing up 'Oop North' when they were in their heyday. I won't be buying the mono set.. I'm also intrigued by the BBC. On its own websites it is extremely sensitive to any form of marketing. On the folk and acoustic site links and announcements are quickly purged if there is the slightest danger of them appearing like a commercial overture. And yet over the last couple of weeks we have had sustained Beatles coverage on radio and TV. I'm not suggesting the BBC are secretly in league with the powers behind these reissues - I'm sure they would argue that they are just responding to a popular interest in these reissues. But it's a rather fine line! I remember when the Beatles were knighted. There was a lot of controversy around that - the Queen stooping so low as to give the honor to a bunch of pop singers! The explanation given was that the Beatles were ambassadors for Britain (absolutely true - how many of us in the States would have even been aware of England if it weren't for the invasion?), and they brought a lot of money home to England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkboughtlunch Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) Listened to Beatles For Sale in both mono and stereo and must go for the stereo this time. There's none of the old wishywashy vocals on the right, band on the left anymore, just an exquisitely balanced sound that is beyond comparison to the old cd. Rocks big time, and then some. Agreed. Beatles For Sale is by far superior in stereo. The mono mix of Beatles For Sale is flaccid, impotent and lifeless--no balls. A hyper-compressed, lifeless anemic sound. In contrast, the original stereo mix of Beatles For Sale is less processed, more dynamic and has better bass definition and the instruments can be heard in better detail. Edited September 12, 2009 by monkboughtlunch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkboughtlunch Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) Does anyone know or understand the rationale for including the original 1965 stereo mixes of Help! and Rubber Soul in the box? I presume they differ from the new mixes in the Stereo box. Also, why only these 2 albums? Help and Rubber Soul are not "new remixes." They are the same February 1987 DIGITAL remixes (using 16 bit technology and digital reverb) which Martin made for the original 1987 CDs. These were the only 2 albums digitally remixed for the 87 CDs. The others were made from the original tapes back in 87. Fast forward to 2009. The answer to your question: Politics. George Martin considered his 87 digital stereo remixes of these 2 albums "definitive." So perhaps the Apple reissue/engineering/remastering committee was afraid to say "the emperor has no clothes" and has instead opted to cow-tow to this internal political pressure, despite the absurdity of slapping new eq on a flawed couple of 16 bit 1987 digital reverb laden remixes probably stored all these years on U-matic videotape and calling them "remastered." The remastering team can sleep at night because they can say, "well the original stereo mixes are available on the mono box." That one has to fork over $200 plus dollars to get the original stereo mixes on the mono box is asinine. They could have fit both the original mono and original stereo mixes on a single cd in most cases. You really need both box sets. Because some of the mono mixes are superior - like the first two British Lps which were not recorded on 4 track, but rather twin track with voices in one channel and instruments in the other. Those 2 do sound better in mono. Also, Rubber Soul does sound better in mono as well. As for the others, I think the stereo sounds great and can go toe to toe with the mono. Edited September 12, 2009 by monkboughtlunch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkboughtlunch Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 This web site is a great resource. You can hear samples of the 2009 remasters in mono and stereo and compare with different vinyl versions: http://www.beatledrops.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjzee Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 This web site is a great resource. You can hear samples of the 2009 remasters in mono and stereo and compare with different vinyl versions: http://www.beatledrops.com/ Great site! Thanks for posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 This web site is a great resource. You can hear samples of the 2009 remasters in mono and stereo and compare with different vinyl versions: http://www.beatledrops.com/ Great site! Thanks for posting. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Wonder how much that's going to cost? Yikes! You'd think an arm & a leg......but surprisingly not. $300 or so. A helluva deal actually for someone that doesn't have most of this stuff in triplicate like most of us. For that amount of CDs, that's a good price. Actually, preorder price is 325, release price is 365. http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Columbia-Co...9397&sr=8-1 Legacy finally gave details: http://legacyrecordings.com/News/NewsDetai...b0-53833114010b (thanks to JETman for the link) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'm listening to my first reissue: Sgt. Pepper's, stereo digipak. I've never had a Beatles cd, and my Sgt. Pepper's is a mono lp bought when originally released. This stereo mix IS significantly different in some portions and the stereo sound of this music I know so well in mono is a bit disconcerting, in a very fun way. They did a great job with this one, at least. Does not seem compressed, certainly not in the way we're used to, and very warm and clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'm listening to my first reissue: Sgt. Pepper's, stereo digipak. I've never had a Beatles cd, and my Sgt. Pepper's is a mono lp bought when originally released. This stereo mix IS significantly different in some portions and the stereo sound of this music I know so well in mono is a bit disconcerting, in a very fun way. They did a great job with this one, at least. Does not seem compressed, certainly not in the way we're used to, and very warm and clear. I wonder if I'll feel the same way, but in reverse, when I hear Sgt. Pepper's for the first time in mono soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'd wager you may really like the mono. . . it's definitely got heft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Wow, I sure was not ready for that crazy little bit of voices at the end of Pepper's! THAT is not on my lp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldB3 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 They did a great job with this one, at least. Does not seem compressed, certainly not in the way we're used to, and very warm and clear. I am finding the same, while much louder but also warm and clear. I am hearing not so much isolation but space (in floating surrounded by air quality) in the instruments if that make sense. Believe it or not but Revolution #9 was also a blast. Maybe I am older now and have gone through a electronica/ DJ and experimental music phase but I having a hard time on why people hate on it so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.