Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > New Beatles remasters

forum rss feed
Author

4 x Vision user not visiting Queenzone.com
4 x Vision
Bohemian: 508 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Oct 09, 17:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

To anyone who has heard the new Beatles remasters i really urge you do part with the cash and give them a listen... they are fantastic.

I'm not their biggest fan, but don't doubt their ability or fact they were the biggest band ever (even more so than Queen), but I can't help but marvel at the sound quality of these remasters.

Should they have had the technology available that Queen had as they started (with all the enthusiasm that comes with it that a new band has), do you think that they could have made even better material or would they have got carried away with the technology and taken the charm out of their songs?

Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed if they had had that technology available at the time? This is obviously a hypothetical discussion and i know it'd be impossible to answer with any certainty. i sadly don't know enough about the Beatles and i'm just curious after hearing these remarkable remasters.




Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Oct 09, 17:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed?


You might wanna make sure those are the remasters you have.

Or maybe you should stop buying remasters and buy a pair of Stereo Speakers.

maxpower user not visiting Queenzone.com
maxpower
Bohemian: 477 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Oct 09, 20:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Please explain Microwave what you mean by that last comment ...

mooghead user not visiting Queenzone.com
mooghead
Deity: 3667 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Oct 09, 02:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yeh, what you on about microwave?


mooghead user not visiting Queenzone.com
mooghead
Deity: 3667 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Oct 09, 02:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The fact is, the Beatles DID do the big, epic, multi layered stuff and most of their music was on 4 track which makes their material even more extraordinary.


maxpower user not visiting Queenzone.com
maxpower
Bohemian: 477 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Oct 09, 06:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



I was hoping it wasn't some snide comment but I think it was, 4 track was all they had until Abbey Road which was done on 8 track which why the mono masters are the real deal for the majority of the back catalogue, but there were little tricks they could use by "bouncing down" tracks using the 4 tracks & then using another tape but it wasn't much compared to these days which is testimony to what The Beatles did achieve.







coops user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Oct 09, 10:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I play Beatles cd's as much as Queen stuff, and have been doing so since the 60's, and these new discs are like hearing it all over again.  Well worth it.  I hope to get the mono set soon.

mooghead user not visiting Queenzone.com
mooghead
Deity: 3667 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Oct 09, 13:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



maxpower wrote:







I was hoping it wasn't some snide comment but I think it was, 4 track was all they had until Abbey Road which was done on 8 track which why the mono masters are the real deal for the majority of the back catalogue, but there were little tricks they could use by "bouncing down" tracks using the 4 tracks & then using another tape but it wasn't much compared to these days which is testimony to what The Beatles did achieve.

















Ultimitely, regardless of how many tracks you have to record on the stuff still comes out of 2 speakers. Whats best? Quality or Clarity? You are right, thanks to gifted musicians/writers and probably the greatest producer ever the Beatles would not have benefited greatly from having 24+ tracks.




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

Posted: 06 Oct 09, 17:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



Van Basten 9 wrote:



 



 



 



To anyone who has heard the new Beatles remasters i really urge you do part with the cash and give them a listen... they are fantastic.

I'm not their biggest fan, but don't doubt their ability or fact they were the biggest band ever (even more so than Queen), but I can't help but marvel at the sound quality of these remasters.

Should they have had the technology available that Queen had as they started (with all the enthusiasm that comes with it that a new band has), do you think that they could have made even better material or would they have got carried away with the technology and taken the charm out of their songs?

Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed if they had had that technology available at the time? This is obviously a hypothetical discussion and i know it'd be impossible to answer with any certainty. i sadly don't know enough about the Beatles and i'm just curious after hearing these remarkable remasters.



 



 



 


Totally disagree: The 2009 CD's are not worth the extra money, not only that, they are they not worth being called remasters.
If you have the old CD's - stick with them - there is not that much difference.

http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1200380/beatles-2009-remastered-series-comments.aspx

PS: Why post this in the Queen serious forum?






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

Bohemian: 719 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 06 Oct 09, 23:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Forgetting that the Beatles had only four tracks to work with, I don't see the sonic comparison.  You can't compare eras.  Maybe The Beatles would have been forgettable if they formed circa 1973, and compared unfavorably with Queen.  But circa 1963, The Beatles were sonic innovators who did what they did with what the technology of the day that they had.  To me, the greatness of Queen has been obscured by limited (24 track) technology.  For example, there are a shitload of guitars (7 or 8) on Sweet Lady that the technology of 1975 didn't do justice to as they were buried in the mix.  The Hollywood release of ANATO hinted at what the band was trying to achieve, but didn't succeed.   Hearing what Brian layered, especially in the chorus, was  revelation.  It was genius.  Yet Bon Jovi had 72 tracks with more overdubs than Brian ever dared on the song Keep the Faith.  But 72 uninspired tracks aren't better than 4 or 24 amazing tracks.  It's always the song, and Queen were like The Beatles younger brothers who wrote and produced great songs, learned their craft and did better with what they had to work with.

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 09, 13:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

What did I mean?

I meant that they hired Phil Spector to sit around and paint.  Right?

Oh wait, he actually worked on a few tracks.  He was known for the Wall Of Sound, you guys ever hear of that?  And he didn't need a 24 track studio to do it in either.

mooghead user not visiting Queenzone.com
mooghead
Deity: 3667 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 09, 17:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Nope, still making no sense...


maxpower user not visiting Queenzone.com
maxpower
Bohemian: 477 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 09, 18:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Yup makes no sense as the Let It Be version he produced was awful as the the Naked version proved which is ironic considering the initial concept was a stripped down approach then Lennon brings him in to polish it up. Then having a go at McCartney for Abbey Road & George Martin for the sugary sound, again its another contradiction.



I know this is a Queen forum but maybe whoever runs this site could create an "other music" section other forums on other band websites have them



4 x Vision user not visiting Queenzone.com
4 x Vision
Bohemian: 508 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 09, 23:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote







John S Stuart wrote:







































































Van Basten 9 wrote:







































To anyone who has heard the new Beatles remasters i really urge you do part with the cash and give them a listen... they are fantastic.

I'm not their biggest fan, but don't doubt their ability or fact they were the biggest band ever (even more so than Queen), but I can't help but marvel at the sound quality of these remasters.

Should they have had the technology available that Queen had as they started (with all the enthusiasm that comes with it that a new band has), do you think that they could have made even better material or would they have got carried away with the technology and taken the charm out of their songs?

Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed if they had had that technology available at the time?
This is obviously a hypothetical discussion and i know it'd be impossible to answer with any certainty. i sadly don't know enough about the Beatles and i'm just curious after hearing these remarkable remasters.








































PS: Why post this in the Queen serious forum?

I DO apologise for not seeing your previous post... I don't always get the search feature to work.

Have you actually read some of the other stuff that comes up in the Queen Serious Section btw??? My post did include Queen quite clearly? Sorry it didn't meet with your defintion of SERIOUS though... I'll know better in future!!!

Apologies. Thanks for the link to the other discussion.












4 x Vision user not visiting Queenzone.com
4 x Vision
Bohemian: 508 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Oct 09, 23:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Micrówave wrote:

Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed?


You might wanna make sure those are the remasters you have.

Or maybe you should stop buying remasters and buy a pair of Stereo Speakers.

Really no idea what you're talking about here. The remasters TO ME sound amazing, and give greater depth into the talents of the group in the studio. You clearly hear new things from nearly every song, especially with layered vocals.

Think you just like being a smart arse that the majority of folk here just discard as "talking shite". I wonder how many folk just jump over the comments you make these days. You clearly have no wit of any sort... so why keep trying? All those posts... and just bullshit replies. You are one sad bastard.

Look forward to your witty reply, or maybe you should just not bother and go find some mates who you can talk too instead of wasting your time being a twat here.







Kamenliter user not visiting Queenzone.com
Kamenliter
Bohemian: 148 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Oct 09, 02:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've listened to a number of songs from the remasters back to back with the older versions and the new versions sound much, much better.  There's a lot more clarity to the sound. It's like taking an old dark, photo into Photoshop and playing with the levels and just taking away the grime and brightening it all up.  Big difference, at least to my ears.




brians wig user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2237 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Oct 09, 05:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



 




John S Stuart wrote:




  Totally disagree: The 2009 CD's are not worth the extra money, not only that, they are they not worth being called remasters.
If you have the old CD's - stick with them - there is not that much difference.



 



Sorry John,  but I've heard both the originals and these remasters, and i have to say that the new remasters are MUCH better than the originals are. I did a side by side comparison with some selected songs from different albums and the new ones are much clearer and richer in sound than the originals.
Tha "hard left/right" mastering of the originals has been fudged a little so there is some cross-over and it's not as "hard" anymore.
To be fair though, I would have preferred a new remix of the albums to remove this "hard left/right" mix.

It's quite possible that you are just losing some frequencies in your hearing range - something that affects everyone as they get older...
As for the cost, you're right. I'm absolutely appalled that the Stereo Remasters & The Mono Masters aren't packaged together. They really are talking the michael by expecting people to fork out up to £350 for both sets.











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

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



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



brians wig wrote:



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



John S Stuart wrote:




 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



  Totally disagree: The 2009 CD's are not worth the extra money, not only that, they are they not worth being called remasters.
If you have the old CD's - stick with them - there is not that much difference.



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 




Sorry John,  but I've heard both the originals and these remasters, and i have to say that the new remasters are MUCH better than the originals are. I did a side by side comparison with some selected songs from different albums and the new ones are much clearer and richer in sound than the originals.
Tha "hard left/right" mastering of the originals has been fudged a little so there is some cross-over and it's not as "hard" anymore.
To be fair though, I would have preferred a new remix of the albums to remove this "hard left/right" mix.

It's quite possible that you are just losing some frequencies in your hearing range - something that affects everyone as they get older...
As for the cost, you're right. I'm absolutely appalled that the Stereo Remasters & The Mono Masters aren't packaged together. They really are talking the michael by expecting people to fork out up to £350 for both sets.


 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



Mr Wig, you seem to be just offering me an 'either - or' situation - and that is not the choice.

For a fairer comparison, the Beatles remastered material in 1995,1999, and in 2006.
Against THOSE remixes - the new releases just do not stack.
I offer you a challenge. Chose any 3 tracks of your choice, and I will submit 3 of mine.
I am confident that my tracks would win all six comparisons.

My question is why - After - remixing what (IMO) could be described as definitive mixes - resort to the same tired old '60 style of mastering?

(PS: Check your PM!)







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

Royalty: 1358 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Oct 09, 12:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Three years from now they will already put the Beatles catelog on Blu-Ray the way I said that the music industry should be adopting blu-ray...

mooghead user not visiting Queenzone.com
mooghead
Deity: 3667 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 08 Oct 09, 13:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ffs, are you still banging on about blu ray? 18 months/2 years ago you were boring everyone to death by saying the Quen back catalogue will soon be on blu ray. It wont take off as a music format.