Forums > Personal > Beatles 2009 remastered series - comments?

forum rss feed
Author

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Sep 09, 13:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Captain grumpy here - but what a disappointment.

Do not believe me?

In 1999 The Beatles released what was described at the time as the 'definitive' 'Yellow Submarine' CD Soundtrack & DVD video.
Three tracks come from the classic 'Revolver' album:

Love You To (1999 remix)
Eleanor Rigby (1999 remix)
Yellow Submarine (1999 remix)

These tracks were a complete transformation over their original 1960's (and mid 1980) LP/CD releases.
True stereo spread (as opposed to instruments on one side - vocals on the other).
Digitally cleaned up de-poped/hicked etc.
Promised (and delivered) 'Beatles from the studio into the home'.
Promised (and delivered) 'Beatles for the new millennium'.

The newly released 2009 remastered series - is a return to the old inferior remixes - taking the Beatles back from the 21st century and plunging them deep into the 1960's.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Definitive means definitive. To vastly improve something - only to rerelease the version before last is wrong!

And while I am on my soapbox, why two CD sets? One Stereo and one mono?

Surely there is enough space on a CD to hold both stereo and mono mixes - but why release one set, when the real numpties will buy two?

Seb - where are you when we need you?






"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Sep 09, 13:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

... thanks for the warning! Haha.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Sep 09, 13:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

PS:

Compare 1999 'Yellow Submarine' songtrack CD to the just released 2009 version.
Honestly: Which is the better version?


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Sep 09, 13:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I have neither, and I am now too afraid to pay to hear the comparison.  Hahaha.

I return the floor to the rest of you.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
catqueen user not visiting Queenzone.com
:)

Royalty: 1758 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Sep 09, 14:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That would be sickening.  But although i love the Beetles, I am not paying for new new releases (even though I don't have a huge amount of their stuff, much as I love it).  Hmm, maybe QP aren't the only ones out for money?

*goodco* user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1128 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Sep 09, 22:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've read nothing but good reviews......so I'm sorry at your disappointment, John.

I only see myself getting the first four 'albums' (since the originals are all mono), and then moving on up to 'Sgt Pepper' much later.   How do these rate?  The first four HAVE to be better.  Same with 'Rubber Soul' (just to have the vocals spread out rather than the annoying same channel throughout).

As to cashing in......they did the Anthology series (terrific, would have enjoyed more), the BBC recordings (nice addition), Yellow Sub (improvement), "1" (nothing great, but good), and the 'Let It Be....Naked' (terrific).

That's it!   No umpteen greatest hits mish mashes that the Elvis and Sinatra estates have milked the cow on.  Or all the new and improved remixes that Deep Purple and others are guilty off (how many different ANATO, ADATR, NOTW and Queen GHs exist now?)

I understand the separate mono releases.  I do wish those were made available individually, and at a price around $10 USD, not $300 for a limited edition box set.  Only 'Sgt Pepper' and 'The Beatles' in mono have any personal interest.

Thanks in advance.


"Discretionary posting is the better part of valor." Falstaff
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18625 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 01:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Abbey Road has never sounded better.  It is a significant improvement to my ears.

But from what I've read, A Hard Day's Night is the most drastic improvement of them all.



"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 03:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well now I'm conflicted!

Come on audiophiles, spit it out!  What's changed?

I've heard the lead vocals have a lot more presence (the review I read suggested maybe a little too much so, like John is sitting right next to you or something - not that I'd really complain).


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 03:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Has anyone bought the mono box? It's selling out fast and I am undecided. I buy the stereo box anyway for the DVD and commentaries but I think the mono box must be worth having, too...

On CNN we can hear 2 small samples comparing the 1987 versions to the new remasters

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/09/remastered.beatles.review/index.html

"Money" sounds very different because the acoustic guitar is not so prominent anymore but is it better or just different? The difference of the "Dear Prudence" mixes is not so evident as in "Money".


I do not want any google ads here.

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 04:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It does make my head spin a bit.  What now counts as 'definitive'?  The ones made by the band using technology of the time? Remixes approved by surviving members of the band?


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 04:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I ask the same question. Certainly the 1987 mixes are not the end-all because at the time the technology was not that advanced but who defines what is the best mix...


I do not want any google ads here.

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 05:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's bit of a grey area when one likes to look at music or film as an art form.  A remix that changes the nature of the piece, I mean ...  ha!  Just realised how pretentious I'm sounding, and I suppose for the average listener it's no big deal.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Bo Rhap user not visiting Queenzone.com
Bo Rhap
Bohemian: 534 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 06:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've just checked beatles.com/store

The mono box set is retailing at £199.99 and the stereo box set is retailing at £169.99.

There appears to be no difference in content apart from the obvious.So why the £30 difference?


I never forget a face,

but in your case i'll be glad to

make an exception-Groucho Marx
***Marial-B*** user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mrs. Meijer
***Marial-B***
Deity: 2285 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 06:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I am interested in buying the stereo albums of 1963 and 1964. Those should be quite good.

My dad will buy the boxset, I can't afford Rockband and the boxset. I prefer to buy them seperately.


Barcelona, October 22nd 2008
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 07:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Godco: Rubber Soul is a disappointment. Pepper is the same. They both contain that annoying split channel stereo, and not a patch on the 1999 remixes.  
No true stereo spread at all.

I understand that some will prefer this - as this was the original recording. But the idea was to improve the original recording, and it doesn't.
My advice save your money and avoid the hype.

Trust in the force Luke - which do you prefer?





"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
pma user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 3462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 07:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Too bad the mono editions are not sold as individual discs. I recall reading on stevehoffman.tv (a few years ago that is) that they would be released as double-sets with the stereo and mono version on each disc. How unfortunate that this was not the case.

The price tag on the boxes is way too much for me, and even if I had extra money to dish out I'd definitely want to evaluate the product thurally (listen to it for hours and hours) before deciding if its worth it.

Well, there's always hardcore piracy and public libraries to help me evaluate...





"I think now I can make love to your anus without making God angry"



Registered: Friday, January 18, 2002



John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 08:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Don't get me wrong. I really like the Beatles. I grew up with the Beatles. The Beatles are my first musical memories. So this is NOT a public slanging.

Rather, I am disappointed in myself because I broke the first Golden Rule: Do not believe the hype!


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 08:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



YourValentine wrote:

Has anyone bought the mono box? It's selling out fast and I am undecided. I buy the stereo box anyway for the DVD and commentaries but I think the mono box must be worth having, too...

On CNN we can hear 2 small samples comparing the 1987 versions to the new remasters

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/09/remastered.beatles.review/index.html

"Money" sounds very different because the acoustic guitar is not so prominent anymore but is it better or just different? The difference of the "Dear Prudence" mixes is not so evident as in "Money".


Just listened to this link Barb, and I think it is a very good and fair review. I would urge all to listen to it.

They emphisise the positives - while I have highlighted the negatives, but we both agree that buying these products will not shatter your world.

I have no 'investment' other than audio, so I would say for the price, the box sets are far too expensive and not worth it. (Even though I still actually bought them - more money than sense I guess!).
However, on reflection, discriminate purchases of individual albums may be the best way forward.

On reflection, if you have a spare $200 they may make a nice present for someone. Otherwise, the original CD releases stand just as tall as these new remasters.
My problem is that I expected the old original releases to be eclipsed by a gigantic shadow, and in truth, that is not the case.







"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 08:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

To be honest I'm really not sure how to feel about this, now having heard some examples!

I might just look at the cost of getting all the albums .. in whatever form they were before this re-release, and weigh it against getting the new one as cheap as I can.  As I've said, I only own the Anthology myself- everything else is stuff I've 'borrowed' from friends or family.  So buying the new set only to find it's no big improvement isn't a problem for me.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18625 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Sep 09, 12:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John... that 1999 remix is superb.  I can only wonder why they stuck with the old stereo mix for the 2009 re-release.



"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca