I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

but yeah you're right it takes the fckng p-ss doesn't it?

latest word is that magical mystery tour is coming out on dvd with all sorts of extra stuff. as if the actual movie isn't like 1 big 'extra' already.

What isn't, really?

OK, why is it Paul's fault?

maybe it's a question of who's up to the job, george martin sure as heck isn't. god don't let them get ELO=guy in again.

meanwhile, this ere beatles 10-dvd anthology unofficial bootleg edition can be yours for $150 :

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Original-BEATLES-Anthology-Directors-Cut-Real-10-DVDs_W0QQitemZ6430061859QQcategoryZ617QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

must say i'm tempted

That said, Macca, Ono, the Harrison family, and Da Ringosta can take their time settling this. I plan to finally digitize and sell off the CDs while I can get 'em for at least $4+ each back.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,70658-0.html?tw=rss.index

But it's not wrong to continue to sell them on cd?

Agree re Past Masters/Anthology but they're such cash cows that they're not going to do it.

Ah yes, the Beatles. I say buy the albums.

It would be nice if they released the red and blue anthologies so that they were in modern slimline 2CD cases rather than the FUCKING MASSIVE and HORRIBLE ones that they are in now.

Are the people not interested in paying for pricey new editions of things really the target market for remastered versions of CDs that are available in droves in used CD stores the world over?

Seriously, I don't see what's so much better (and less cash-cow-ish) about retaining Past Masters and Anthology. OK, so it's kind of cool to have all the singles in one place, but it also robs them of context AND presents a somewhat confusing picture for buyers, who can't figure out which album it is that has "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on it. The PM sets are also really oddly-balanced, anyway - not quite a greatest hits, not quite an odds-and-sods. The Anthologies are just plain obnoxious, especially the first one with all the talky-talky bits.

I guess I'm just coming from a perspective where, if they just remaster the CDs I'll take a pass because I have the LPs already. But if they sweeten the deal I just might think it over, at least for a couple, assuming they went ahead and added more outtake/live stuff. Granted, they would still be kind of weirdly-sequenced albums with one or two singles at the front followed by a bunch of obscurities.... okay, maybe keep Past Masters after all. But I REALLY think it makes more sense to get the unreleased and live material wedded on to the appropriate albums - if nothing else, it means getting MORE of it, right?

What is an example where he has ever done this?

Secondly, Paul has little need to turn himself up anyway. He took a lot of care, recording his bass lines on a single track and spent ages getting the sound right. Why not? It's his friggin songs for fuxake!

anthology 2 is the best, what with the stoned cracking-up version of and your bird can sing and the gorgeous demos of strawberry fields. 3 is good for the white album stuff, and 1 is probably the only time any americans (me included) will ever hear any morecambe and wise.

Well, they are getting slightly more plentiful. In fact, I got most of my collection used. But, then again, I've been lucky. The worst thing about used Beatle cds is that stores priced higher than average (i.e. in the US 10-12 dollars vs. 7-9). Shopping around helps, and the prices have leveled off (and no doubt will continue)

I will concur regarding the Anthologies and the BBC, but--to cite my earlier post--alot of the people who bought them probably realized that they didn't listen to them as much as the regular LPs.

Neil Aspinall is probably the one to blame.

Anyway, seems like some good news is finally coming up.

While I agree that they need remastering, I don't neccessarily agree with your version of what they sounded like. The first four, sure, but the rest, particularly from "Sgt. Pepper" onwards, used state of the art remastering technology at the time, and sounded really impressive back then.

Only this is 20 years ago and a lot has happened since then.

I think the Anthologies are a pretty good distillation of the best stuff that makes up the two major bootleg series (ultra rare trax and, uh, whatever the other one is called; they have most of the same stuff on them). I could do w/out the talking on the first cd.

xpost

i mean it does take the piss doesn't it?

lo-lo-lo-looooots of piss, sir! :(

I bought Help for £1 in a charity shop the other week. It was cheap because the cover was ripped (and taped up again) and the vinyl's a bit crackly, but it's not scratched at all. Even with the crackles it sounds great - a lot better than the CD versions, The Night Before especially gaining an awful lot of character and energy. I too am amazed there's no proper CD remaster, I guess because people are still buying the current shonky versions.

This footage
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=compleat+beatles
of 'The Compleat Beatles' (snappy 1984 cheaply-made proto-ANTHOLOGY movie, shot on film and narrated by Malcolm Mcdowell) is
making me anticipate this happening all the more.

It will happen before or since, but apparently at still takes time.

I expected they'd at least do "Sgt. Pepper" in June this year to coincide with its 40th anniversary, but they did't.

But at least, with the current trend for remasters, the ultimate edition will be better. I hope they will do like The Bee Gees and Monkees remasters, and put out 2CDs with the stereo version + bonus tracks in stereo on one and the mono version + bonus tracks in mono on the other one.

they never do anything right with the beatles catalogue, they're sure to disappoint someone. i say live with the ebbett's bootlegs for now.

Maybe something with the Apple/iPod stuff later today.

that's been the rumour, but it was the rumour a few months ago also. anyway, it's been confirmed that the albums have been remastered (by bruce spizer, in some interview last month), but not packaged or manufactured yet, and no confirmation on whether they'll have a mono/stereo split or what, or when they're ever going to come out.

macca and ringo 'secret gig' rumoured
volume one of lewisohn triple-volume biog coming at xmas

its hotting up again on the fabs front. a bit.

macca and ringo 'secret gig' rumoured

At long last their tribute show to the White Stripes.

At long last their tribute show to the White Stripes godheadSilo.

Beatles Remasters

I posted that link before realizing that it is kind of a goldmine.

Damn, wish I had a bigger hard drive...

(no penis jokes plz)

if pressed for time, go for white album disc 5 - kinfauns demos

then rubber soul through magical mystery tour, mono versions

Are the demos the same as the ones that show up on the Anthology, or are these different? And how do they compare in quality?

makes me wish i had decent external speakers for my laptop. my beatles records are not very "nice" copies. all US pressings, mostly stereo. they do sound great in mono though.

mono mixes = the mixes, up until the white album

xpost same ones, but complete & good quality. it's them camped at home with a 4 track, learning the songs as they track them but having fun, sounding much more like a band than the album

http://www.bootlegzone.com/album.php?name=vigo_183§ion=1

i really wish that circus mashup album didn't suck so bad.

has anyone ever noticed that the ebbetts bootlegs sound like crap on headphones?. especially yellow submarine and magical mystery tour.

the stereo of those albums (some of them) is very wide so that's why; ebbetts did cd versions of almost everything though, including weird shit like canadian stereo versions, etc, which differ slightly. I think the regular cd stereo versionns of MMT and Pepper are alright (and really don't have any serious problems with white album or abbey road either; I think abbey road is a pretty glorious sounding cd). the early records are a mixed bag; these days I prefer the capitol box versions (anyway I grew up with the US versions of the albums, so it's kind of nice to return to the admittedly fucked up tracklistings...though I do think 'the second album' is pretty awesome).
anyway yeah the purple chick stuff is pretty exciting, it seems to have just popped up in the past few months? or at least that's where I heard about it. and being distributed completely free so no evil bootleggers making money. it makes official remasters kind of irrelevant.
today i listened to all the 'sessions' mixes of tracks off the anthology,critically and without the 'oh wow new beatles songs' luster...these really do sound like shit, emerick should be embarrassed.

but also yeah, i'm pretty much ready to sell all my parlophone beatles cds once I can get ahold of all the purple chick stuff; i usually only listen to digital files anyway, and I have a blue box vinyl set, so there's no need to keep the crappy pressings with bad artwork.

also, while I agree that the mono pepper is interesting, i really disagree that it's the better of the mixes. I think the novelty of it is kind of cool but there are bits and pieces that just sound sloppy. I know it's allegedly the mix they approved and they apparently didn't have much to do with the stereo version, but maybe that just shows the beatles were the best people to mix their material

the purple chick version of the white album is really really amazing. i'm working on just downloading the albums (no bonus tracks) and converting them to mp3, for my ipod. the only problem is that some of the tracks are switched around. like...penny lane is on the purple chick version of sgt pepper's. it's kinda confusing when dealing with torrents.

The Purple Chick stuff is impressive though really it's just collating already available stuff in one place. It does that very very well though and as well as the main albums they've also done releases of Hollywood Bowl, The Songs The Beatles Gave Away, the fan club records, the Star Club tapes, the BBC sessions and the 92CD complete Get Back rehearsals (also check out their 10CD complete Buddy Holly and S&G's alternate Bookends)

The mono and stereo versions of the albums on the Purple Chick sets are just the UK Ebbetts versions. There is a version of the white album released by Darthdisc (? - i think) which is from a 'direct metal master' that may even be better.

The mono Pepper is sloppy in places but certainly Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds sounds better (more phasing).

Has anyone else heard the multitracks of A Day In The Life, With A Little Help From My Friends, Sgt Pepper and She's Leaving Home that were released as an addendum to the PC Sgt Pepper? Incredible to hear.

itll sound shit remastered. cant you just enjoy the originals?

you mean the 1st pressing UK vinyl? sure, we can all enjoy those.

well, I can, anyroad.

no way are these the same as the ebbet's version. especially not mmt.

Found this bootleg stereo remaster of what's probably my favorite Beatles album. It blows the original CD version out of the water and I think it's more impressive than any of the purple chick stuff.
http://octaner.blogspot.com/2008/05/beatles-for-sale-fabulous-sound-lab.html

Here's a mono version for you old-schoolers. Didn't download it, though, so I can't vouch for it.
http://6plus3.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/beatles-for-sale-dr-ebbetts-red-wax-mono/

Creeztophair, there are multiple Ebbett versions of each album: UK, US, Mono, Stereo, strange pressings from other territories. He's pretty much transferred them all so it depends what Ebbett version of MMT you've heard.

I have the PC Magical Mystery Years sleevenotes in front of me now and the stereo MMT tracks are taken from the Ebbett German MMT except for I Am The Walrus which is from the Ebbett UK EP Collection. The mono tracks are all from the Ebbett EP Collection.

I think this is the only one of the PC releases that doesn't take the main album tracks from the Ebbett transfer of the UK releases. IIRC this is because the German MMT vinyl release was in true stereo whereas the US LP was not.

these PURPLE CHICK people should be knighted.

Okay here we go then.

MOJO (who else?) exclusively reports this month that the original albums have been remastered and will hopefully be coming out in 2009, in a full on splurge of mono and stereo 2 disc versions, with fancy hardback book style packaging. Sorry but as a huuuuge Beatles fan since a kid this may well be the first time i queue up outside a record shop the morning it opens.

The piece in the mag says
"For today's playback, stereo remastering engineer Guy Massey has synchronised the remasters with the original 1987 CD masters, allowing us to flip between the two. It's like we've been hearing them under glass all these years..."

Woop Woop!

It will be interesting to see if these sound as good as the bootlegs.

Looks like Apple may have more to say about it tomorrow. No 5.1 mixes — guess we'll be buying those down the road.
http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/apple-to-confirm-beatles-itunes-deal-and-new-ipods-on-tuesday-172271

that was last tuesday right? and there was no fabs news i don't think.

Yup, my bad.

something is allegedly going to be in rolling stone in the next few weeks, and apple should be offically announcing in the next week as well, from what I read elsewhere.

Hopefully they'll take a leaf out of Radiohead's short-lead-time example, and pump them out in two weeks time.

i think the rumored plan was to do the white album first to coincide with the 40th anniversary, then roll out the others. but it was just a rumor so no idea if that's what'll happen.

Has anyone else heard the multitracks of A Day In The Life, With A Little Help From My Friends, Sgt Pepper and She's Leaving Home that were released as an addendum to the PC Sgt Pepper? Incredible to hear.

― cheasyweasel, Tuesday, May 6, 2008 9:07 AM (4 months ago) Bookmark Suggest

Man, this shit is thrilling, I could not believe my ears when I found out about it. I haven't gotten any of the other masters that have come out recently (Nirvana & Queen are very appealing tho...). The most amazing part was having the affirmation that Sgt. Pepper was recorded on 4 tracks. You listen to these and say, wow, crap, I guess they must have bumped down/premixed a TON of stuff. If you have experience with home recording on 4-tracks you realize just how much care went into making sure these mixes were as tight as they were. Such a cool thing to have..

Any decent new bootlegs surface lately? I've been out of the loop for a while. I don't care about the remasters cos it sounds to me like nothing new will come out just the whole 'alternate mixes' scheme. Which is one of the reasons I stopped paying attention to bootlegs in the first place. I dont care about alternate mixes give me Carnival of Light or the Beatles jamming on one chord stoned for half an hour! Anything but "Oh, this is the german stereo 1984 remix". Ugh....

I think those multitracks are the only "new" things to appear. The Purple Chick series is widely available though via torrent sites, they are very very very comprehensive .flac files of the best sources of both mono and stereo versions of each album and assorted outtakes studio sessions...nothing that wasn't already around on past masters or ultra rare trax, but everything has been compiled together with the best sources for once. but it took me like, days to get all the white album stuff, and I've not even been able to listen to it.

I've not been able to listen to *any* of it... yet.

Oh, but by the way, I have that german stereo 1964 LP, and was dead pleased to get the CD 'facsimile' when it came out: We were living in Germany at the time...

5.1 mixes might have been a waste, considering everything up to "Sgt. Pepper" was max 4 tracks. A 5:1 mix consisting of 4 mono tracks becomes a bit pointless, really.

If there was ever a way to relocate the 2 tracks of "Love Me Do", "PS I Love You", "She Loves You" and "I'll Get You" to be able to create stereo versions. But I guess that is a lost case by now, and that whatever existed was being mixed into stereo in the late 60s already.

i think the rumored plan was to do the white album first to coincide with the 40th anniversary

Sounds like a pointless idea considering the white album is actually the only (full) album to have been relatively newly remastered.

it wasn't remastered, it was just pointlessly reissued in (albeit nicer) packaging

OK. I never bought it. Had it not been one of my least favourite Beatles albums, they might have fooled me to buy it.

Hopefully they'll master them to hit hard on radio, like that Zep comp from last year.

You mean, with lots of compression? Preferrably not!

Yeah, I was kidding. But that's the thing with remasters - do they sound better even half the time?

you mean the 1st pressing UK vinyl? sure, we can all enjoy those.

Ian, or Mark or anyone else: So the initial pressings were all mono up to a point, which was when? And all the later stereo vinyl pressings are from the same masters as the first, or not? So should my rubbish floppy 80s vinyl Revolver sound better than my badly mastered 90s CD Revolver? What about the 60s issue Sgt Pepper that I stole off my parents with the red and white inner sleeve? And I recently got a nice UK White Album, but I'm not sure exactly when its from. In summary: are all the stereo versions the same? Have there been mono represses? Were any of the albums never issued in stereo on vinyl?

Any links to stuff on all this would be most welcome.

Can open. Worms everywhere.

I heard the reissues are coming from the original master tapes... of Jeff Lynne's covers of the Beatles catalogue.

Paul: "Well, you know, I always trusted him to know the Beatles better than even us. 'Free as a Bird' was lovely."

LOL

Any links to stuff on all this would be most welcome.

― Jamie T Smith, Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:43 AM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I suggest the Usenet Guide to Beatles Recording Variations, which will answer all of your questions as well as many questions you didn't even think about. Depends on how long you want to spend reading about this:
http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/

One thing about the Love album was that it showed how good they could make some of this stuff sound!

'a day in the life' (which I think is the only 'non-edited, non mashup') piece on there) sounds absolutely incredible on Love.

from what I've gathered, there are going to be up to three versions of the albums made available, stereo, mono, and stereo remixes. but that mojo article is a little unclear

So the initial pressings were all mono up to a point, which was when?
Up to Sgt Pepper. Actually, the first couple were mono first, then stereo alongside the mono, but the mono ones had more work done on the mixing. That's because mixing for mono is more difficult.

And all the later stereo vinyl pressings are from the same masters as the first, or not? Yes, pretty much. I believe the 2LP "Rock and Roll" set had remixes for better stereo. But later issues went back to the 'voices on one, band on the other' 2 channel mixes...

So should my rubbish floppy 80s vinyl Revolver sound better than my badly mastered 90s CD Revolver? Possibly, yes.

What about the 60s issue Sgt Pepper that I stole off my parents with the red and white inner sleeve? Worth at least £150 if it's top notch condition and mono.

And I recently got a nice UK White Album, but I'm not sure exactly when its from. In summary: are all the stereo versions the same? Yes.

Have there been mono represses? Yes there have, mid eighties I believe.

Were any of the albums never issued in stereo on vinyl? No. Let it be and Abbey road were never issued in Mono, except for a Reel-to-reel tape issue of both.

just listened to one of those sgt. peppers multitrack bootlegs -- fun stuff! both demystifying and mystifying. as for other bootlegs, that Get Back (Final Glyn Johns Mix) thing that emerged is really enjoyable, much much much better than the Let It Be Naked thingamajig. I got it here: http://theheatwarps.blogspot.com/2008/06/beatles.html

Listening to Ringo's solo vocal track on "With a Little Help From My Friends" is sort of a painful experience!

I think as far as bootlegs go "From Kinfauns to Chaos"/"Unsurpassed Masters 4"/whatever White Album demos you can get your hands on is pretty solid. They really were having alot of fun taping all of those acoustic demos in George's house and it's a shame there are only a handful of the pristine quality ones on the Anthology. They should just put out a disc of those!

Lately I've been a sucker for early live stuff. Purple Chick has some awesome releases in the 2CD "Live Before America" and "Star Club" releases.

haha, yeah that's sort of what i like about these multitracks. makes them sound all the more human. and then you go back and listen to actual released track and you wonder how it could end up sounding so good!
so that early live stuff is worth tracking down? i've always been a little disappointed by the Star Club things I've heard, since they're sort of presented as this "When the Beatles Were RAW & NASTY" kinda thing. And they don't sound all that raw and nasty.

Yeah, I was kidding. But that's the thing with remasters - do they sound better even half the time?

My experience with recent 60s remasters is they tend to sound rather OK. Maybe the need the extra beef, dunno. But like, for instance, Bee Gees and The Monkees have sounded fantastic. And it looks like the Beatles remasters are planned in roughly the same format (CD1: mono + bonus, CD2: stereo + bonus) as the Bee Gees ones.
They should of course involve Rhino somewhat (like EMI/Virgin have done with the Genesis remasters) to ensure the job is being done in a good way.

So should my rubbish floppy 80s vinyl Revolver sound better than my badly mastered 90s CD Revolver?

Actually there is no 90s "Revolver". "Revolver" was issued on CD in early 1987 and that version is still the one that can be bought in shops today. I don't even think they remastered anything from before "Sgt. Pepper" (which was remastered and released exactly 20 years after its first 1. June release date)

Considering remastering technology has developed a lot since then, chances are they will sound better, yes.
For me, the most important thing will still be the ability to have "proper" stereo versions of the first four albums, not burned CDs like now. Although it must be added that those Purple Chick "Deluxe Editions" are rather amazing.

Considering remastering technology has developed a lot since then, chances are they will sound better, yes.

They couldn't sound a great deal worse.

If you have doubts, listen to 'Love', that newly-remastered Cirque du Soleil/Beatles tie-in album that was released last year. Gorgeous sound.

Yeah, I was kidding. But that's the thing with remasters - do they sound better even half the time?

― Mark, Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:47 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the cirque du soleil "love" CD that came out last year or two years ago was sort of ... revelatory in how much better it sounded than the other CDs

I remember everyone thought that "Sgt. Pepper" sounded absolutely fantastic. But this was in 1987 and people still didn't realise how much better remastering technology would become from the late 90s onwards in particular.
I believe it is those Jimi Hendrix remasters that really opened up people's eyes to how great remasters could sound with the right technology and the right tape sources. That being said, I believe the back catalogues by Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd haven't been remastered since 1994 or something, and those remasters still sound great.

it absolutely depends on who is remastering and how it's remastered. there is no across-the-board rule that remastering is bad or good. and even then it's ultimately up to your ears. for instance: I personally think the new versions of the Genesis albums sound like shit. Some of this is due to mastering, most of it has to do with stuff done while they were being remixed though (compression and level adjustments happened at the remix stage and not the remastering stage). Those Bee Gees albums, which are remastered, sound amazing though.

We are talking about the Beatles here and this is probably the most valuable and historically important music catalogue in existence. I have confidence they are doing this correctly and they'll sound great, but you know, they could always fuck it up.

I know everyone hates the 87 cds but I think pretty much all of them from Rubber Soul on sound fine.

Love is a remix (even the bits that aren't mashups) and yeah those do sound amazing. I think the Yellow Submaring Songtrack release (also a remix) sounds pretty excellent too. This is why, I think, they are doing both stereo remixes for everything, and also re-releasing the 87-era mixes but remastered.

As for the Genesis mixes, I agree they didn't do a good job with the first batch, but the batch released last autumn sounded not at all bad. "Genesis" sounds a lot better than the older version. Just hopefully they have learned from the mistakes done on the first batch when the new ones are being released now, because fucking up dynamic range would be a bad idea with early Genesis.

god yeah those Bee Gees remasters are fucking amazing

Listen to the Sgt. Pepper stuff on Disc 02 of the Anthology 02, it sounds AWESOME compared to the released tracks. Not sure if that's just because it's so stripped down or the remastering... Hope it's the later...

Well here comes Carnival of Light! http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/nov/16/paul-mccartney-carnival-of-light

Gets the hype for the '09 ITunes release/ Catalogue remaster started early.
Fine by me!

I'm a huge beatles fan but i couldn't give a flying fuck about carnival of light. does anyone really want to hear the beatles "jam"? no.

BARCELONA!

Oh and some genius has uploaded the entire uncut/ director's cut version of ANTHOLOGY off the bootleg dvds =
http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Beatles+Anthology+Director%27s+Cut&search_type=

I'm a huge beatles fan but i couldn't give a flying fuck about carnival of light. does anyone really want to hear the beatles "jam"?

yes

The Beatles have such a place in history that anything unreleased has historic interest. Even if it's some useless "Revolution #9"-like crap.

Once released it should offer proof that the Fab Four, and McCartney in particular, were much more avant-garde in their tastes than many gave them credit for.

What a strawman. Would newly released tapes of Nixon acting paranoid prove that he was "not the kind-hearted idealist some charge him to be"?

He isn't?!?!?

if the Beatles jam is anything like that awesomely awkward Dirty Mac thing from RocknLol Circus, then i am all for it.

let's face it, if it were any good it would have been released by now. they haven't been shy about releasing outtakes and demos. they're just looking for SOMETHING new to release to justify the ridiculous amount of time it took to release a remastered catalog.

nonsense, Thumbs tried to get it on Anthology (where it would have belonged) and grumbles in an interview every 11 months about Harrison blocking it, "they're" not looking for anything at this point.

some useless "Revolution #9"-like crap.

DOES NOT COMPUTE

There are whole bunches of outtakes that would have been better ones than the ones they released on "Anthology", only one or other Beatle said no as they were particularly crap on that one.

"Yes it is" take one, for instance.

Often, if George's first take guitar solo was somewhat wonky because he hadn't figured it out, he wouldn't want that one on the anth, because people would laugh and say he was a crap soloist. Which would hardly be fair. Still, that take one version of "Hard days night" is more interesting than the one they mangled together for the anthology.

After being sorely disappointed by the outtake "Helter Skelter" on Anth 3(?), I'm never approaching a Beatles rarity ever again with anything other than despair.

Anthology series didn't premiere anything that hadn't already been bootlegged hundreds of times over. But I don't know anyone who's ever heard 'Carnival of Light', it's been pretty closely guarded.

Even if it's just a lot of tape echo, I'll probably love it:

1001 What's The New Mary Jane - RS4 6:38 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 7 11/17/08
1002 What's The New Mary Jane - RS5 7:05 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 7 11/17/08
1003 What's The New Mary Jane - RS6 2:28 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 7 11/17/08
1004 What's The New Mary Jane 5:43 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 7 11/17/08
1005 What's The New Mary Jane 6:40 White Album - The Beatles Go Too Far 6 11/17/08

mccartney says this every year or so, i'll believe it when I see it. they say LOTS of things (like yearly claiming the remasters are coming out...which I'm sure they will at some point, but it's beyond me what the actual hold up is since they're obviously done if that mojo article was to be believed). this is probably just incidental to the mccartney album that just came out.

yeah this'll be rad what are you people talking about

i mean whatever, it won't change your life, but i'd like to hear it. there's plenty of crappy beatles shit out there, why not some more crappy beatles shit? funny that it's never been bootlegged before? hasn't everything been bootlegged? is the master tape kept in a vault in switzerland?

Milton brings up "What's the New Mary Jane?"

In theory, I should love this piece, but I've listened to it over a dozen times, and it just isn't memorable at all.

I know "Carnival" is over twice as long, so the idea of it fitting probably figured most into its exclusion from the Anth series, but if the not that great "WTNMJ?" was accepted and "Carnival of Light" was vetoed, this doesn't really bode well, does it?... especially given that, if the piece were that great, it could have been released on an exclusive Anth bonus disc (alongside the now officially gone 27+ minute "Helter Skelter")

I'd rather hear the still-not-officially-released extended version of "Something" out of all of this.

I'd rather hear rad 14-minute crazy Beatles pretending to be Stockhausen than the 5,000th Mono closet mix of "And Your Bird Can Sing"

it would have been rad had it been released on Magical Mystery Tour as a bonus 12" disc back in 1967 (alongside the studio tracks that would end up on Yellow Submarine)

if they need a gimmick to sell the remasters i like this gimmick more than LOVE ... but yeah, sir paul should just put this out on 12". biggest selling avant-garde track EVER.

the anthology version of Something is slightly > the final version

I'd rather hear the still-not-officially-released extended version of "Something" out of all of this.

i have a 9min version of it...it must be the early stages because the guys were just making up lyrics as they went along, I can email it to you if you'd like.

I have the one on the "Abbey Road Anthology" CD. I don't think it's 9 minutes, but the missing "Something" coda kinda reminds me of that excellent coda on the single version of the Monkees' "Porpoise Song"

i heard a minute of what is supposedly carnival of light (just google) and it was pretty good.
apparently that's all there is out there. so i was pleased by this news.

if the not that great "WTNMJ?" was accepted and "Carnival of Light" was vetoed, this doesn't really bode well, does it?

Well, Harrison was the one who vetoed it -- Wonderwall Music aside, he's always been disdainful of the avant-garde. It wasn't vetoed because it didn't meet the standard set by WTNMJ.

Harrison had no problem with Electronic Sound being released - or contributing mucho babbled nonsense to "Revolution #9"

True, but 25-30 years on he apparently revised his view of their avant-garde leanings somewhat.

BUT WHAT DOES RINGO THINK
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ringo_starr.jpg

"PS - in England we do have amusement parks, but we call them carnivals!"

ringo probably only cares if he's going to make some money off it

sir paul should just put this out on 12". biggest selling avant-garde track EVER.

― tylerw, Monday, November 17, 2008 3:43 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest

HELL YES. I would totally buy this. Otherwise it's looking the other way...

And Electronic Sounds sucks because it is insanely boring. Maybe I need to re-listen to it with minimalism in mind, but it's really a horrible song.

My favorite lost "Beatles" track. Produced by George Harrison, its the Remo Four and it sounds like Circulatory System

The flip side of the Carnival of Light 12" needs an EYE remix

I'd rather hear rad 14-minute crazy Beatles pretending to be Stockhausen than the 5,000th Mono closet mix of "And Your Bird Can Sing"

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, November 17, 2008 8:21 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

^^^Truth bomb

And if there's nothing of that lying around, well, Paul, you better get off your ass right now and start making some gold avant-garde Beatles 'rarity'! Seriously, seeing this news being headlined all over the world gives me all kinds of diseases. We know already how they got their songs together, we know the works. There is no historic value in releasing all those mixes and takes on songs we already know, no other value than feeding the obsessive collector's of this world. If there's nothing there, if there's not this jam or song opening up some new idea about the Beatles getting it off when not recording an album: fine, but just say so. Don't bother. It'd save me and a bunch of others time anticipating that musique concrete Beatles masterpiece.

what I would like to see is them opening up their catalog to remixed...a pilooski re-edit of i feel fine, frankie knuckles doing a dadhouse rmx of lady madonna, the freemasons turning hey jude into a big stomper, etc. in general they need to lay off the litigation sauce and let people have some fun with their songs.

EYE remix of each album.

Wednesday 22 February 1967
The Beatles were especially keen to sit in on the remixes of `A Day In The Life', mono and stereo, and these were done next, utilising the two tape machines in sync, as invented by Ken Townsend on 10 February. But there was still some time left at the end of this session so the Beatles set about recording another of their experimental tapes. Ringo was to the fore in this one, the tape being 22 minutes and 10 seconds of drum beat, augmented by tambourine and congas. Quite what is was meant for is not clear. It was certainly never used, nor was it remixed.

Monday 20 March 1967
Also taped on this day was `Beatle Talk', another spoken word recording. Quite what was said is not known for neither the recording sheet nor the tape box are very revealing and the tape itself was taken away by George Martin and never returned.

Tuesday 9 May 1967
Studio Two: 11.00pm-6.15am. Recording: `Untitled' (take 1). P: George Martin. E: Geoff Emerick. 2E: Richard Lush.
A somewhat unproductive session: more than seven hours of instrumental jamming with little more than 16 minutes being committed to tape. Although the music seemed to lack any direction at least the Beatles knew how to follow each other, though whether this was pure instinctiveness or whether the "song" was preplanned is not clear. The instruments used — all well out of tune, incidentally — were an electric guitar, another guitar with a vibrato effect, drums and a harmonium.

Wednesday 7 June 1967
Studio Two: 7.00pm-2.00am. Recording: `You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)' (SI onto take 9, takes 20-24). P: George Martin. E: Geoff Emerick. 2E: Richard Lush.
More crazy `You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)' recordings! After returning to take nine, taped — and at that stage overlooked — on 17 May, and overdubbing various bits and pieces, the remainder of the session was spent working out further ideas. These grew so far apart from the song in hand that the `You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)' title on the tape box has since been deleted and marked ` Instrumental — Unidentified' instead.

A study of the tape itself reveals almost 20 minutes of rhythm track recording, beginning with take 20 and consisting of an amateurish flute track (played, presumably, by a Beatle), electric guitar, drums, organ and tambourine. At one point Paul McCartney can be heard discussing the chord structure with George Harrison, suggesting the music was preplanned. But when the playing starts that is the last impression one receives.. .

All from the landmark Beatles Recording Sessions book. Do they make you salivate or nauseate?

And if there's nothing of that lying around, well, Paul, you better get off your ass right now and start making some gold avant-garde Beatles 'rarity'!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4101CMRT3EL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

^pow.

God, I loved the Recording Sessions book at the height of my teenage Beatlefandom.

mmmm.

What up for that "Something" 9 min version? Me too?

Bonus track on the 12-inch: "Commonwealth Song"

Yeah that something outtake is under 6 mins, not 9 minutes. It's on quite a few Abbey Road boots...

I have a 9 min version; like I said it's more of a lyrical jam to the melody than an actual song, but still.

woah. see all i know is the one that is pretty much an early take of the album version, then it ends and they just jam on 2 chords for a couple minutes is the 9 minute one different?

I know the one you're thinking of...the one I have they have the basic melody and some of the lyrics, and John and George are adding on dummy lyrics and instrumental pieces as they go. It's interesting to listen to just get an idea of how the songwriting process works.

C/D: burning purple chick cds for your dad's xmas present and the tags are fucked up and all the tracks are out of order.

sorry, just wanted to share

fuck all you lazy internet sloths ruining christmases across the galaxy

yeah i know, last minute, fuck you i'll trade my 2008 for yours

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/here-comes-the-sun-the-beatles-finally-get-remastered/

Apple Corps Ltd. and EMI Music announced Tuesday morning that the Fab Four’s entire album catalog has been digitally remastered, and would be re-released on CD on Sept. 9. In a news release, Apple Corps and EMI said that the remastering effort, conducted at EMI’s Abbey Road Studios in London, took four years to complete, using a combination of modern-day recording technology and vintage studio equipment. The new CD releases, which include the 12 Beatles studio albums (the British versions) in stereo, as well as “Magical Mystery Tour” and “Past Masters Vol. I and II” (which have been combined into a single title) will feature the original UK album art, as well as original and newly written liner notes. On Sept. 9 (the same day that the video game The Beatles: Rock Band arrives in stores), Apple Corps and EMI said that two new Beatles boxed CD collections of the material would also be released, one comprising all 14 CDs plus a DVD documentary collection, the other consisting of 10 albums’ original mono mixes plus two additional CDs of mono masters. In a statement, the two companies added: “Discussions regarding the digital distribution of the catalogue will continue. There is no further information available at this time.”

Sept. 9 (the same day that the video game The Beatles: Rock Band arrives in stores)

Uh.

Re-mastering the Beatles catalogue

The re-mastering process commenced with an extensive period conducting tests before finally copying the analogue master tapes into the digital medium. When this was completed, the transfer was achieved using a Pro Tools workstation operating at 24 bit 192 kHz resolution via a Prism A-D converter. Transferring was a lengthy procedure done a track at a time. Although EMI tape does not suffer the oxide loss associated with some later analogue tapes, there was nevertheless a slight build up of dust, which was removed from the tape machine heads between each title.

From the onset, considerable thought was given to what audio restorative processes were going to be allowed. It was agreed that electrical clicks, microphone vocal pops, excessive sibilance and bad edits should be improved where possible, so long as it didn’t impact on the original integrity of the songs.

In addition, de-noising technology, which is often associated with re-mastering, was to be used, but subtly and sparingly. Eventually, less than five of the 525 minutes of Beatles music was subjected to this process. Finally, as is common with today’s music, overall limiting - to increase the volume level of the CD - has been used, but on the stereo versions only. However, it was unanimously agreed that because of the importance of The Beatles’ music, limiting would be used moderately, so as to retain the original dynamics of the recordings.

When all of the albums had been transferred, each song was then listened to several times to locate any of the agreed imperfections. These were then addressed by Guy Massey, working with Audio Restoration engineer Simon Gibson.

Mastering could now take place, once the earliest vinyl pressings, along with the existing CDs, were loaded into Pro Tools, thus allowing comparisons to be made with the original master tapes during the equalization process. When an album had been completed, it was auditioned the next day in studio three – a room familiar to the engineers, as all of the recent Beatles mixing projects had taken place in there – and any further alteration of EQ could be addressed back in the mastering room. Following the initial satisfaction of Guy and Steve, Allan Rouse and Mike Heatley then checked each new re-master in yet another location and offered any further suggestions. This continued until all 13 albums were completed to the team’s satisfaction.

A friend already said he's ponying up for both the mono and stereo versions. I have no idea about the video game.

Oh yeah, I'll buy it all without hesitation. Apart from the game.

Remastering the Beatles catalog
http://www.boomcity.biz/librarybooks/resources/scientists.jpg

I'll get the game. Plus Abbey Road. The old cd is really "hissy".

Good good good.

Awesome I cant wait to pay 18.99 for each CD all over again.

How does that mastering process sound to you, Nick?

Does this mean there will be an upsurge of non-remastered Beatles CD's in the "used" section in the future?

It sounds pretty fine; it would be stupid to use no limiting at all, but they sound as if they've been very careful with it; I'm not against limiting per se, I'm against people using it clumsily and unsympathetically. Not using de-noise (apart from 5 mins out of 512) is a big plus, too. I love how the Love thing sounded, and I imagine this will be equally as good.

Yeah, Love sounds amazing.

cool

any word on new vinyl pressing???

it's getting pretty spendy to get really nice copies of the old originals...i can't imagine they wouldn't make bank on some nice 180g shit pressed at RTI

Sounds promising. I will be going for the stereo ones (actually have never owned the originals of the first four because I am a stereo freak) while I leave buying the mono set up to the reactionary anti-sound-quality lunatics only.

You mean like Brian Wilson?

Who you callin' reactionary? (xpost)

You mean like Brian Wilson?

Brian Wilson, for physical reasons, just cannot hear stereo properly. That being said, the stereo mix of "Pet Sounds" is for me the one and only version that matters.

It's nice.

FWIW, I have no opinion about mono being 'better' than stereo, it's more that I do not have an overriding position of "stereo is always better than mono".

The first Beatles Stereo albums had vocals on one side, instruments on the other. Which is less good than having it all mixed together for mono.

Presumably, this time round a decent Stereo mix will happen.

9-9-2009 has a good ring to it. so excited about this.

http://www.thebeatles.com/core/news/

HATS. AIR.

hmmm these look ... expensive. and nice!

will they also be updating the cover art as well? the abbey road cover has been so played out, same with sgt pepper

There's a thread idea.

attn ilx graphic designers or whatever

They're gonna fuck these up, I know it.

I wanna see the Polish movie poster versions.

I want vinyl. Also, what is the argument for buying the Mono version?

basically the recordings were mixed to be mono, and stereo versions were made artificially after the fact and sort of clumsily. i've heard that the mono mix of sgt pepper is the one that was really slaved over and the stereo mix which we are more familiar with were thrown together

any word on new vinyl pressing???

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not shelling out for CDs. Vinyl, maybe. Way to totally blow it you fucking idiots.

fuck you, john lennon

I was at a record store once, and someone had just sold them a copy of Sgt. Peppers in mono. GLORIOUS MONO. And the employee simulated disgustingly real sex with it.

Ringo: "What do you feel when you turn out the light?"
record store guy: "I can't tell you, but it feels like a stand of spaghetti..."

strand, aaarrgghh...

I want vinyl. Also, what is the argument for buying the Mono version?

the mono mixes are different mixes, highlighting different thing; in the case of Pepper and the White Album, the mono mixes are radically different on some songs, with entirely different tracks that weren't used in the stereo; 'she's leaving home' isn't sped up, etc.

9-9-2009 has a good ring to it.

"One After 909"

har, nytimes is calling for the release of the 27-minute "Helter Skelter".

b/w 33 minute version of Heroes & Villains

BRING IT ON

how much you wanna bet the promotion of these reissues is accompanied by Sir Paul dropping tantalizing hints about all the unreleased shit the COULD be releasing, but aren't.

god I hope Ringo outlives Paul

they could ... oops

That's one of the cool things about being in a band...you get to decide what you want to release.

Presumably, this time round a decent Stereo mix will happen.

There's a limit as to how much you can actually do with two tracks. But I guess instruments in the middle and vocals in left or right would be better than the radical two track sound. This only goes for the first two albums anyway, as they used four tracks from "A Hard Day's Night" onwards, and that record sounds great in stereo the way it is.

basically the recordings were mixed to be mono, and stereo versions were made artificially after the fact and sort of clumsily. i've heard that the mono mix of sgt pepper is the one that was really slaved over and the stereo mix which we are more familiar with were thrown together

Other sources claim that "Sgt. Pepper" was actually the first album where they guys put as much into the stereo mix as the mono mix. For instance, the panning lead vocals on "A Day In The Life" were definitely not something George Martin or Geoff Emerick came up with alone on a quiet and boring day in the studio.

gah quicktime files?? is this 1993 year of CD-ROMs or something?

and as for vinyl, the new vinyl copies out there sound pretty good if you ask me but i've been listening to the dreaded CDs all my life so it all could be relative..

For instance, the panning lead vocals on "A Day In The Life" were definitely not something George Martin or Geoff Emerick came up with alone on a quiet and boring day in the studio.

Sure they could have. It was their job!

I'm not shelling out for CDs. Vinyl, maybe. Way to totally blow it you fucking idiots.

― This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, April 7, 2009 8:22 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

seriously, they're going to lose so much money on this

From a buddy to me:

"A promising post from [name redacted], a very old-skool beatleg critic who knows his audiophile stuff and is pretty curmudgeonly about everything - he's been sent some samples of Pepper stereo tracks so he can share his opinion of them:

>>I'm listening to the samples again. Right now. As I'm typing this.

Look: this is the best (stereo) copy of the Pepper album I've ever heard (a portion of). It's the UHQR on steroids. Another shining example: Paul's "ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" at the beginning of Lovely Rita is just... ethereal. It breathes. It's ALIVE. It's not like you're standing in the studio with him, but only because if you were his voice would be coming from straight in front of you and not transitioning across your ears like he were floating by on a cloud.

There are voices and sounds that were buried in the mix and inaudible during A Day In The Life that I can now hear clear as day.

This is like having hundreds of years of grunge cleaned off the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel.

Fuck it, guys, I'm drinking the Kool-Aid. <<

Wow. I guess I should just put aside a mason jar with a slot in the top...someone more mathematically inclined do that math on how much per day is needed to stash in order to get the whole catalogue on 9/9....

Yeah, I'm wondering how much those boxes will be going for. You know, get the catalogue in one fell swoop as opposed to drawing it out over 9 years like last time.

they'll probably be bargain-priced ... :P

Bargain priced at $21.99....times fourteen...divided by food and clothing

whoa, each CD is $21.99? They're just one disc right?

That was guesswork...remember they'll be fleshed out w/ "mini-documentaries"

I think that was a figure pulled out of thin air. Personally, I'm hoping for the big box stores to slap a huge loss-leader price on these for first week of release.

If the Beatles lost money on this, that would be a first.

so wait, am i saving up for the mono version or the stereo version?

hopefully, some kind of deal with Target and Walmart can be worked out here.

i'm kidding, but almost wouldn't be surprised ...

I was thinking more of the way B3st Buy drops new releases to ridiculous prices (comparatively anyway) for the first week of sale.

If they can find some way to keep the boxes under $100, they'll sell like crazy, recession or no

Free Dr. Pepper, BEST BUY only.

Plus a free copy of Chinese Democracy (gotta move 'em somehow)!

under $100 i'd seriously consider shelling out for. but yeah, mono or stereo? HMMM

probably should be a poll when we have more details

After some digging, I've found that the old box listed for $ 329.98 US ($20.62 per disc). For the extra jing, you got a nice storage case and IIRC, Sgt. Pepper came in a slipcase.

It looks like it came with a book too.

http://www.thisnext.com/media/230x230/The-Beatles-Multiselection-Box_D503CFA2-classic-yellow.jpg

huh! never even heard of that. it came out when all the original CD editions came out? kind of a ripoff, though, right?

Pretty sure that's for sale in a record shop in Cardiff. I've seen it on the shelf behind the counter.

I'm buying mono copies through Magical Mystery Tour & stereo from White Album on

My school library had that box

i think the monos are only gonna be in a box set, Milton

yeah, that would make sense, but the beatle expert dude upthread raving about the Sgt. Pepper in stereo is giving me doubts. Help! xxpost

ooh srsly? dang.

about the monos only being in boxset form.

I don't want the whole catalogue, just Rubber Soul onwards, I think. And probably not Let It Be, either, at least not at the outset.

Let It Be is the only one I could do without

interested in the new stereo remasters for peppers & MMT, but I guess I'm buying the mono box then.

were there even mono mixes of Abbey Road & Let It Be?

Saying that though, I'm listening to it (Let It Be) right now and I'd forgotten how good a lot of it is. It's probably my least listened-to Beatles album.

yeah, after going through a nitpicky stage about the Beatles, i decided that all Beatles albums are pretty great. Even the less-great ones.

haha, just thought I'd bring everyone the breaking news that the Beatles are great.

Thank you!

LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND, PEOPLE

Seriously though, I've never owned all the original CD versions, only from Help! onwards; with the remasters I can see myself getting them all eventually, but right now I just want to gorge on Revolver, The White Album, Magical Mystery Tour, Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road - getting to grips with those is going to be enough to last me months and months. I've never been fussed about box sets.

What I'm hoping for most with these is that they set a standard in remastering, and make a lot of artists think "fuck, I released / remastered some records that sound like dog shit; now's my chance to fix them before the apocalypse". So they'd better sound good!

yeah, seems like they're on the right path, if LOVE is any indication. As much as I loathed the mash up aspect of that release, it did sound pretty amazing.

Let It Be: now I can get car sick in mono

the rest of that press release:

The Stereo Albums (available individually and collected in a stereo boxed set)
The stereo albums have been remastered by Guy Massey, Steve Rooke, Sam Okell with Paul Hicks and Sean Magee
All CD packages contain original vinyl artwork and liner notes
Extensive archival photos
Additional historical notes by Kevin Howlett and Mike Heatley
Additional recording notes by Allan Rouse and Kevin Howlett
* = CD includes QuickTime mini-doc about the album
Please Please Me* (CD debut in stereo)
With The Beatles* (CD debut in stereo)
A Hard Day's Night* (CD debut in stereo)
Beatles For Sale* (CD debut in stereo)
Help!*
Rubber Soul*
Revolver*
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band* (also includes 1987 notes, updated, and new intro by Paul McCartney)
Magical Mystery Tour*
The Beatles*
Yellow Submarine* (also includes original US liner notes)
Abbey Road*
Let It Be*
Past Masters (contains new liner notes written by Kevin Howlett)
'The Beatles in Mono' (boxed set only)
The mono albums have been remastered by Paul Hicks, Sean Magee with Guy Massey and Steve Rooke
Presented together in box with an essay written by Kevin Howlett + = mono mix CD debut Please Please Me
With The Beatles
A Hard Day's Night
Beatles For Sale
Help! (CD also includes original 1965 stereo mix)+
Rubber Soul (CD also include original 1965 stereo mix)+
Revolver+
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band+
Magical Mystery Tour+
The Beatles+
Mono Masters
Re-mastering the Beatles catalogue

The re-mastering process commenced with an extensive period conducting tests before finally copying the analogue master tapes into the digital medium. When this was completed, the transfer was achieved using a Pro Tools workstation operating at 24 bit 192 kHz resolution via a Prism A-D converter. Transferring was a lengthy procedure done a track at a time. Although EMI tape does not suffer the oxide loss associated with some later analogue tapes, there was nevertheless a slight build up of dust, which was removed from the tape machine heads between each title.

From the onset, considerable thought was given to what audio restorative processes were going to be allowed. It was agreed that electrical clicks, microphone vocal pops, excessive sibilance and bad edits should be improved where possible, so long as it didn't impact on the original integrity of the songs.
In addition, de-noising technology, which is often associated with re-mastering, was to be used, but subtly and sparingly. Eventually, less than five of the 525 minutes of Beatles music was subjected to this process. Finally, as is common with today's music, overall limiting - to increase the volume level of the CD - has been used, but on the stereo versions only. However, it was unanimously agreed that because of the importance of The Beatles' music, limiting would be used moderately, so as to retain the original dynamics of the recordings.
When all of the albums had been transferred, each song was then listened to several times to locate any of the agreed imperfections. These were then addressed by Guy Massey, working with Audio Restoration engineer Simon Gibson.
Mastering could now take place, once the earliest vinyl pressings, along with the existing CDs, were loaded into Pro Tools, thus allowing comparisons to be made with the original master tapes during the equalization process. When an album had been completed, it was auditioned the next day in studio three - a room familiar to the engineers, as all of the recent Beatles mixing projects had taken place in there - and any further alteration of EQ could be addressed back in the mastering room. Following the initial satisfaction of Guy and Steve, Allan Rouse and Mike Heatley then checked each new re-master in yet another location and offered any further suggestions. This continued until all 13 albums were completed to the team's satisfaction.

New Notes/Documentaries Team

Kevin Howlett (Historical and Recording Notes)
Kevin Howlett's career as an award-winning radio producer spans three decades. His music programmes for the BBC have included many documentaries about The Beatles, including 'The Beeb's Lost Beatles Tapes.' He received a Grammy nomination for his involvement with The Beatles' album 'Live At The BBC' and, in 2003, produced the 'Fly On The Wall' bonus disc for 'Let It Be... Naked.'

Mike Heatley (Historical Notes) Mike entered the music business via HMV Record Stores in 1970, transferring to EMI Records' International Division three years later. He eventually headed up that division in the early Eighties before joining the company's newly created Strategic Marketing Division in 1984. In 1988, he returned to International, where he undertook a number of catalogue marketing roles until he retired in December 2008.
During his career he worked with many of EMI's major artists, including Pink Floyd, Queen, Kate Bush and Iron Maiden. However, during the last 30 years he has formed a particularly strong relationship with Apple, and has been closely involved in the origination and promotion of the Beatles catalogue, besides solo releases from John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Bob Smeaton (Director, Mini-Documentaries)
Bob Smeaton was series director and writer on the Grammy award winning 'Beatles Anthology' TV series which aired in the UK and the USA in 1995. In 1998 he received his second Grammy for his 'Jimi Hendrix: Band of Gypsys' documentary. In 2004 he gained his first feature film credit, as director on the feature documentary 'Festival Express.' He subsequently went on to direct documentaries on many of the world's biggest music acts including The Who, Pink Floyd, The Doors, Elton John, Nirvana and the Spice Girls.

Julian Caiden (Editor, Mini-Documentaries)
Julian has worked with Bob Smeaton on numerous music documentaries including 'Jimi Hendrix: Band of Gypsys' and the 'Classic Albums' series, featuring The Who, Pink Floyd, The Doors, Elton John and Nirvana among others. He has worked on documentary profiles from Richard Pryor to Dr. John to Sir Ian McKellen, Herbie Hancock and Damien Hirst and on live music shows including the New York Dolls and Club Tropicana.

The Abbey Road Team
Allan Rouse (Project Coordinator)
Allan joined EMI straight from school in 1971 at their Manchester Square head office, working as an assistant engineer in the demo studio. During this time he frequently worked with Norman (Hurricane) Smith, The Beatles' first recording engineer.

In 1991, he had his first involvement with The Beatles, copy¬ing all of their master tapes (mono, stereo, 4-track and 8-track) to digital tape as a safety backup. This was followed by four years working with Sir George Martin as assistant and project coordinator on the TV documentary 'The Making of Sgt. Pepper's' and the CDs 'Live at the BBC' and 'The Anthol¬ogy.'

In 1997, MGM/UA were preparing to reissue the film 'Yellow Submarine' and, with the permission of Apple, asked that all of The Beatles' music be mixed for the film in 5.1 surround and stereo. Allan requested the services of Abbey Road's senior engineer Peter Cobbin and assistant Guy Massey and, along with them, produced the new mixes.
Two years later, he proposed an experimental stereo and surround mix of John Lennon's song 'Imagine' engineered by Peter Cobbin. Following lengthy consultations with Yoko Ono, the album 'Imagine' was re-mixed in stereo and the Grammy award-winning film 'Gimme Some Truth' in surround and new stereo. This led to a further five of John's albums being re-mastered with new stereo mixes and the DVD release of 'Lennon Legend' being re-mixed in 5.1 surround and new stereo.

Further projects followed, including The Beatles 'Anthol¬ogy', 'The First US Visit' and 'Help' DVD and the albums 'Let It Be...Naked' and 'Love' along with George Harrison's 'Concert for Bangladesh' DVD and album.
For a number of years now, Allan has worked exclusively on Beatles and related projects.

Guy Massey (Recording Engineer)
Guy joined Abbey Road in 1994, and five years later assisted on the surround remix for The Beatles film 'Yellow Submarine.' This led to The Beatles' 'Anthology' DVD and later, along with Paul Hicks and Allan Rouse, they mixed and produced 'Let It Be... Naked.' In 2004 he left the studios to become freelance and has engineered The Divine Comedy: 'Victory for the Comic Muse,' Air Traffic: 'Fractured Life,' James Dean Bradfield: 'The Great Western' and Stephen Fretwell's 'Magpie,' co-producing the last two. Since leaving, Guy is still a vital member of the team, and has been the senior engineer for the re-mastering project and was responsible for surround and new stereo mixes for the DVD release of 'Help!'

Steve Rooke (Mastering Engineer)
Steve joined Abbey Road in 1983 and is now the studio's senior mastering engineer. He has been involved on all The Beatles' projects since 1999. He has also been responsible for mastering releases by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr.

Paul Hicks (Recording Engineer)
Paul started at Abbey Road in 1994, and his first involvement with The Beatles was assisting engineer Geoff Emerick on the Anthology albums. This was followed by 'Yellow Submarine Songtrack,' 'Anthology' DVD and 'Let It Be... Naked.' Like Guy Massey, he has also become a freelance engineer and since leaving the studios he has been responsible for the surround mixing of Paul McCartney's DVD 'The McCartney Years' and The Beatles' 'Love.' Paul has been in charge of the mono re-masters.

Sean Magee (Mastering Engineer)
Sean began working at Abbey Road in 1995 with a diploma in sound engineering. With a wealth of knowledge in analog and digital mastering, he has worked alongside Paul Hicks on the mono re-masters.

Sam Okell (Recording Engineer)
Sam's first job as a member of the team was in 2006, assisting Paul Hicks on Paul McCartney's DVD 'The McCartney Years,' and during that same year he was responsible for the re-mastering of George Harrison's 'Living In The Material World' CD along with Steve Rooke. This led to him restoring the soundtrack to the Beatles film 'Help!' in surround and stereo, in addition to assisting Guy Massey with the song remixes.

Sam has re-mastered 'With The Beatles' and 'Let It Be.'

Simon Gibson (Audio Restoration Engineer)
Simon joined Abbey Road in 1990. He has progressed from mastering mostly classical recordings to include a much wider range of music, including pop and rock, with his specialized role as an audio restoration engineer. Apart from the re-mastering project, his other work includes George Harrison's 'Living In The Material World,' John Lennon's 'Lennon Legend,' The Beatles' 'Love' and the 'Help!' DVD soundtrack.

U.S. Media Contacts UK Media Contact
For Apple Corps Ltd.: For Apple Corps Ltd.:
Shore Fire Media MBC PR
Matt Hanks Moira Bellas
(718) 522-7171 / mha✧✧✧@shoref✧✧✧.c✧✧ 0 20 7483 9205 / mo✧✧✧@mb✧✧✧.c✧✧ Brendan Gilmartin
(718) 522-7171 / bgilmar✧✧✧@shoref✧✧✧.c✧✧
For EMI: Jennifer Ballantyne - EMI Music North America
(323) 871-5494 / jenni✧✧✧.ballant✧✧✧@emi✧✧✧.c✧✧

let's all randomly guess how much the complete box sets are going to cost:

stereo set: $240
mono set: $150

well the stereo set will obviously be twice as much as the mono set

the mono set is gonna be ludicrously expensive because its for collector fuckos and all exclusive to the set

RIAA pullin out the old tricks again. I'm a generation removed from the Beatles and already I've bought their albums on three formats. Can't wait for 2025 nanobot ear implant remaster of "Magical Mystery Tour". It'll cost $1000 so I'm starting to save now.

Seriously this audiophile thing has to stop. But it's the only marketing ploy the Industry seems to have left. "Oh you stopped buying CDs cos 'records sound better maaaan'? Well shit, here, we'll press these 180gram vinyl." "I don't download MP3s I only download FLAC cos it's lossless and that's so important cos I listen to everything I own in an isolation chamber with $1000 headphones on." It's like everyone in the world has turned into George Fucking Lucas.

I pity the baby boomers who have had to buy new Beatles records consistently over 4 decades now. That line in Men In Black about having to buy the White Album all over again: it's not just funny, it's the RIAA's quarterly projection! And if you don't buy it, that's a lost sale to them. Too many lost sales and they're gonna need a bail out!

I'm downloading all this shit. One nice big torrent.

*golf clap*

http://mike.karikas.com/media/photo/hellyeah_mike.jpg

http://blog.antiquetrader.com/blog/content/binary/Antique%20Auction%20riot.jpg

too suave to write 'meh'?

yes, as a matter of fact.

look it's the fucking Beatles so I'll get this if I have the money, but what's the big problem with the current cds? Like, is there something I can listen for that will make me really anticipate this? Or is it something where if I had the vinyl, I'd understand this immediately?

orig vinyls sound way better...

download some of the mono mix bootlegs that are out there, done off of vinyl, i found one of revolver, very interesting to hear the mono mixes

yeah, it's true -- how I've listened to the Beatles is like 85% on CD, and I love the Beatles. Not like the supposedly shoddy remastering has stopped me from that. Even though everyone is saying the old CDs suck ... I've certainly gotten plenty of enjoyment out of them. Will I enjoy the new remasters more? MAYBE.

yeah the mono mixes are cool to hear for more than just sound quality, they just sound like DIFFERENT mixes, the way everything is leveled is fairly different and i think on some there are even more overdub tracks on the mono mixes

(haha btw tyler you being the bootleg ninja i'm suprised you don't have all those mono mixes already!)

yeah, i've got a bunch of those purple chick things ... but still, over the years, I'd say I've mostly listened to the standard CD releases -- and loved them!

I pity the baby boomers who have had to buy new Beatles records consistently over 4 decades now.

But why? I mean, Eric Clapton, Beach Boys, The Doors and CCR have had their catalogues remastered and reissued about 10 times as often as The Beatles. So why are you using this argument against The Beatles?

not saying i'm not excited for these remasters. I'm a sucker, what can I say.

So why are you using this argument against The Beatles?

It wasnt necessarily about the Beatles, more about the way the industry is run. The Beatles have only been put out on CD like once, compared with yeah the Doors or Jimi Hendrix, 10 zillion times, whatever.

I guess it's just I grew up with the original CDs, never thought they sounded bad, and now with these remasters keep reading about how horrible they were. Seems like alot of people towing the company line for the sake of fidelitism.

DAC converters being a shitton better than they were when those original CDs were done is not an RIAA sheme and not fictional

Once I heard the original vinyls and realized that yes they sound a little better than the CDs, I realized, ya know, they printing millions and millions and millions of those. I've found the entire catalog twice over at under a dollar apiece at thrift stores.

It's just odd, you know. If they did this back in the late 90s (and people have been crying for this sort of thing for over 10 years) back after I bought the Who remasters with all those awesome bonus tracks, I would have totally bought these. It's just weird that they've waited til now. What is the motive? Cos there definitely is one you can't deny it.

the motive is to make money by selling CDs! the record companies are businesses. i assumed this was well known.

as far as why they waited, i dunno i bet that's more to the whole paul/yoko/ringo/apple thing being unable to ever get shit done.

definitely have a point there -- seems like it would've made sense to launch a full reissue program in the post-Anthology period (mid to late 90s). But I think the whole Beatles world is fully different from even comparably big bands of the 60s. Lotta different factions, each with their own agendas, money to make, and with equal power over decisions.

i mean look at what a big deal it was to settle the whole apple thing, the beatles act like they should have a seat at the UN.

since they can't tour like the Stones the Beatles have to reissue stuff every 5-10 years to remind us they ARE THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME etc etc

what's the big problem with the current cds?
Um, they sound like shit?

Like, is there something I can listen for that will make me really anticipate this? Or is it something where if I had the vinyl, I'd understand this immediately?
Yeah, listen to the vinyl rips. I mean, I getcha. I grew up with the vinyls and then I stopped listening to the Beatles for years. When I switched over to CD, I scooped up almost all their catalog and didn't hear any deficiencies because I hadn't heard the vinyl in a long time. Now that I have, it's a revelation; the early Beatles albums on CD sound horrible. It's not even close.
I repeat:
Beatles for Sale as it should sound

Seriously, download it and do a taste test.

I've actually found it really hard to find Beatles LPs, outside of the blue and red greatest hits things. It seems the reasonably priced shops get rid of them fairly quickly, while other stores ask ridiculous prices just because its THE BEATLES. I mean, there was a store near me that was asking $30 for a beat-to-shit copy of Sgt. Pepper's on vinyl.

that seems to be the trend, though I remember as a kid finding the later stuff -- Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road, Let It Be in the used vinyl bins for cheap. But yeah, you look for it now and it's marked up, usually outrageously.

The record store I used to work at would drive people crazy when they would try to sell their old Beatles records

"YOU ONLY WANT TO GIVE ME A DOLLAR? THIS IS THE FUCKIN BEATLES MAAAN"

"Uh, yeah, that record sold three million units. There's no shortage of copies of that record floating around"

People thought because they had a vinyl copy of a record everyone owns that they were sitting on a goldmine.

There are probably hundreds of millions of Beatles vinyls currently floating around the known universe, new and used. I must just luck out, I see Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road all the time at thrift shops, for at most $2. And people take care of their Beatles records so they're usually playable without skips.

Just wish they were offering something new, something a tenth as cool as the "Revolution" bootleg.

yeah, that's what's funny -- I mean in terms of actual rarity, Beatles records are not scarce. Like, they must've had the biggest initial pressings in history.

I'll try the Beatles For Sale thing right away. That's probably my favorite Beatles album at this point.

man i NEVER see good copies of the originals anymore...i kick myself for not buying all that stuff in the 90s...now all i see is bargain bin once all hashed up like with the record just thrown in the cardboard with no sleeve

starting to get that way with the prime stones stuff too, i paid 15 for beggars and i thought it was a good deal

I have a bunch of Beatles vinyl that I probably never listened to because I also have the CDs. :/

People thought because they had a vinyl copy of a record everyone owns that they were sitting on a goldmine.

OTM. Around Atlanta you can find lots of Beatles records in thrift shops (Goodwill $1-2, Last Chance $1.99, Value Village 40cents) but yeah go to an antique store and you will find any old Beatles record in thoroughly used condition going for something insane like $35.

yeah i always chortle when i go to this one secondhand flea market type place in my town, and there's a seller who has shit like Allman Bros. LPs for $30. Basic Beatles stuff, too -- with comments like "ORIGINAL PRESSING" and "RARE" ...

If people want a taster for what the new remasters might sound like I'd recommend the Love thing from the other year. Got me pretty fucking excited.

yeah, i pulled out Love this week in anticipation. made me angry/excited in equal measure. some of it is soooooo retarded. the sound is great though.

"Something" on Love is one that stood out -- incredibly lush.

People thought because they had a vinyl copy of a record everyone owns that they were sitting on a goldmine.

Reminds me of a woman who came into Streetside Records shortly after Conway Twitty died and bought one of each of his CDs because "they're going to be worth something some day."

Yeah, some of the edits / segues whatever are a little annoying, but fucking damn it sounds astounding.

Like, is there something I can listen for that will make me really anticipate this?

Euler, like Nick mentioned way up there, the sound quality of the Love thing that just came out year was pretty awesome. You should listen to that, and if the remastering on that doesn't impress you, you probably won't get much out of the forthcoming reissues. And if you do notice the bump up in quality, you might be convinced to buy a few.

That said, I'm part of the evil plot for the RIAA to scam millions of people out of their money through what we call the "new format trick". You might wonder, "how would that trick work without someone pointing a gun at someone else's head and demanding that they purchase the same old album in a new format or be murdered?" You're absolutely correct, and that's why the RIAA pays me to point guns at baby boomer heads until they shell out the money.

and we'll just keep repeating the scam until the public catches on, and then we'll gladly take our TAXPAYER BAILOUT!

MWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, it's so perfect!!!11

how would that trick work

It's called encouraging the mass-culture fetishizing of audio (and video) fidelity.

http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/02/03/the-least-essential-blu-ray-releases-so-far/

I haven't heard much of Love (one of these days!). It's the Beatles, I'll probably buy all of these, provided I can afford it. I wanted to hear more of what to listen for, and so I'm going to try the Beatles for Sale thing pointed to above.

hahaha audiophile fidelity is so far from "mass culture" it's not even funny

Just for the sake of argument, at what point do you think the improvement of audio and fidelity should have been halted? CD? 180g vinyl? Wax cylinder? VHS? The spirograph?

VHS

i remember making mixtapes on vhs! they could be like 6 hours long

Stylophone.

As someone who volunteers in a charity shop sorting their vinyl, and only ever seems to buy from them too- any Beatles vinyl is incredibly scarce, and the stuff we get, no matter how beat up and shitty, we can sell within a day for a tenner plus (when the majority of stuff, good quality, is marked at £1 - £3).

Also, considering hopefully I should have my first full time job by the time these come out, I might consider actually buying them as I've been living off inherited beat up vinyl copies of various albums and shitty downloads of the rest. There is a generation who haven't yet bought their first Beatles albums who will end up loving them like everyone else this could be sold too the same way my older brother and all his friends drank the kool aid circa the anthology.

Would it have been better if DVDs and Blueray had been developed and introduced without any sort of advertising, so as to not encourage people to fetishize the improved fidelity?

Records should have never been created. They have killed music.

damn you, thomas edison. DAMN YOU TO HELL.

http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/images/adaccess/R/R02/R0206/R0206-med.jpeg

haha, what does "OYEZ!" mean ... ?

"hear ye"

I've said this before, but the whole nu vinyl-fetishism is hilarious to me because people are buying these brand new indie rock records from Insound for their "better sound quality" but they were all recorded digitally anyway, so it doesn't really matter what format.

Well, the product and packaging is bigger, they usually come with a free download, and vinyl is more expensive to produce. So you get more value for your money from a vinyl even not taking into account sound quality.

But yeah that stuff is so funny. Lots of my musician friends with use 8-track digital recorders or their computer to record something and then do the mixdowns onto tape and then make a digital copy of that tape to send in to get pressed onto record. I bet no-one ever sends tape to a record pressing plant anymore, it's always CDrs.

The Beatles remastering technique described above has "24 bit 192 kHz resolution," which is vastly more than what you get on a CD. So if they go from the 24-bit master to vinyl, you bet the vinyl could sound better than the CD.

But yeah that stuff is so funny. Lots of my musician friends with use 8-track digital recorders or their computer to record something and then do the mixdowns onto tape and then make a digital copy of that tape to send in to get pressed onto record. I bet no-one ever sends tape to a record pressing plant anymore, it's always CDrs.

i think even stuff recorded digitally lots of time sounds better on vinyl though, like "ga ga ga ga ga ga" by spoon comes to mind, because it's not mastered so harshly and vinyl tends to sand off some of that hissy high end.

i know a few ppl that have done all analog process but i've A/B'd stuff on vinyl and CD and it sounds better on vinyl, even digitally recorded stuff.

as far as recording digital and bouncing to tape, that's not uncommon actually, tape can give you a nice natural compression that makes your mixes hold together, the guy we recorded with (on tape) used to have some clients come in just to bounce to one-inch on the mixes just to get a little tape compression before mastering.

yeah I'm sorry guys M@tt is otm, vinyl just sounds better - doesn't matter how it was originally recorded. At this point in the game, there's pretty much nobody using an all analog process, digital is always involved somewhere along the line.

as for why this took so long: it has apparently taken about 4 years to do the actual work of remastering. why they didn't do it earlier: anything involving the beatles involves mccartney, star, ono, harrison (when alive) and his wife (now); AND EMI. there was a deal in place to have these remastered by DCC in the 90's but harrison refused to sign off. I think the multitude of people involved in agreements on anything is a horrible mess; I'm frankly surprised this ever happened at this point.

Shakey, the "vinyl just sounds better" argument when talking about digital era indie rock records is snake oil bullshit to make collector nerds feel superior in a brave new world where anyone can download a record. It's just another reason for merriweather post pavillion people to pat themselves on the back.

what's funny (haha!) is that if they had actually done remasters back in the mid-90s, they could totally STILL be re-reissuing them this year, in new NEW remastered form. I mean, look at Elvis Costello.

like M@tt I am mostly speaking from personal experience here insofar as the records we made sound better on vinyl than they do on MP3/CD but whatevs Whiney yr mileage may vary

Shakey, the "vinyl just sounds better" argument when talking about digital era indie rock records is snake oil bullshit to make collector nerds feel superior in a brave new world where anyone can download a record. It's just another reason for merriweather post pavillion people to pat themselves on the back.

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Friday, April 10, 2009 8:54 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i'm not saying across the board 100 percent it always will, but like i said i will trust my ears...though recently i've gotten a better CD player and have been buying up jazz reissues and stuff that sound FANTASTIC on CD...but overall there's a sense of space to vinyl...also it's less harsh sounding at high levels...

like i said, i think it's more that vinyl inhibits/fights a lot of the bad mastering practices that are so prevalent now.

have you ever A/B'd stuff? i mean i've done it at my place for skeptics (like my wife haha) and even they admit there's a certain quality that's gained from vinyl

i don't really think anyone should pat themselves on the back for animal collective though.

also the vinyl I have of Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga totally sounds better than the mP3s that came with it, that's a good example

fwiw no one should pat themselves on the back for anything, pride is a sin and all that lolz

(also at least part of it is that you can get a pretty damn quality record player like a Rega P1 or Pro-Ject Debut III for around $400, i think those far out-do any CD player you could buy for the same amount in terms of relative quality)

Ah yes, the love affair with distortion lives on! Those uncomfortable with full range could also just get a graphic equalizer and adjust the high end.

lol my shit sounds tight homie, no distortion

also harsh mastering actually adds distortion when shit hits the ceiling

let's put our cards on the table here - who here has A/B'd material, participated in the recording/mixing/mastering process etc.

i'll put my cards on the table right now and say I don't know what I'm talking about, esp. regarding sound quality, etc. actually, regarding most things.

i'll put my cards on the table

http://www.3ofakind.com/images/full-house.jpg

Only the former for me. I can tell an appreciable difference if I am listening super close (esp. with headphones), but since I spend exactly 0 time listening to music like that in my day to day life (an amount of time which I think corresponds to basically all non-16 year old shut ins) I think it's basically complete bullshit to pretend that these difference is something anyone should really care about. I mean so what this piece vinyl sounds a little better, I'm not going to be able to set up my turntable on desk at work or carry it on the bus with me.

i am listening to an ipod right now.

but it's not that hard! i dunno. i just usually listen to my stereo about an hour after hubby goes to bed, reading a book. am i a weird shut-in? i dunno. i go out a fair amount. it's not like IMPOSSIBLY hard to read and listen to a record or CD IMO.

how do you people WATCH TV? it's CRAZY? i only watch clips of sportscenter on my phone, way too busy

If I am reading a book or making dinner I am not listening closely enough to a record to care about the minute sonic differences between CD or vinyl. So you are special and obv there are a few like you, but I think most people (justifiably) think that this "oh you don't know what you are missing" thing is a lot of bullshit, cuz the way most people listen to music most of the time they aren't actually missing it.

true enough

i dunno i don't think i have particularly refined ears or anything, shit that sounds better just tends to sound better than shit that sounds worse

also i would say the difference between a CD on a good system and an MP3 on an ipod is WAY more than the difference between a CD and an LP on a good system

Yeah I don't think anyone would disagree that there is a pretty substantial difference between CD/Vinyl and mp3 fidelity (right now anyway.) I don't listen to mp3s at home very often and even on the bus or at work I can find my iPod at bit jarring after a while.

they talk about really good audiophile servers now for like flac and all that stuff, but they are super duper expensive, down the line that would be sweet though

It'll happen. Just to provide an excuse for all us with a bunch of 320 mp3s to have to buy them (or steal them) again.

yeah i mean hard drive space is so cheap now there's really not much actual need for something as small as MP3s...five years from now i can't imagine how much space you'll get for like $100

So if they go from the 24-bit master to vinyl, you bet the vinyl could sound better than the CD.

Shame vinyl isn't capable of capturing even 14 bits worth of dynamic range and is usually rolled off with the 20-20k range that plain CD captures entirely.

It's not about fidelity or numbers, vinyl replay is a series of happy euphonic accidents - it (can) sound richer, sweeter, warmer, with the illusion of front-to-back depth, more "air", etc. But this is partly because it's actually lower resolution than CD, and electromechanical replay just introduces all this...stuff to the experience. I still love LPs to bits. Har-de-har.

I understand the push for more bits/higher sampling rates for archival/remastering/(especially) tracking and mixing, but I'm not convinced there's any great need for it at the playback end.

MJ is on the right track. Dynamic range of vinyl - 75 dB, CD - 96 dB, SACD - 120 dB, DVD-A - 144 dB. Tape - 60 dB. Despite the fact that vinyl degrades with every play, distorts high frequencies when linear velocity changes as the spiral groove gets smaller towards the center, has at least 30 dB crosstalk and harmonic distortion, I understand why some people like that sound. Many interpret that distortion as "warmth." It's just kind of funny when they try to claim it's superior to digital.

Keep in mind that recordings have not been made directly to vinyl since the invention of magnetic tape in the 1930s. The tape, being non-linear, also creates low-order harmonics that are perceived as "warm sound". That effect is quite easily achievable through electronic means in a (yes) digital environment. It's actually a somewhat common practice in mastering to insert effects in the digital stream that will add "warmth" to the sound by adding low-order harmonics (e.g. distorting the sound). This distortion is obviously not true to the original music. However, it is an effect that older generations are used to and nostalgic for.

PBS's Wired Science show addressed this issue, but it was disappointing because the science was pretty flimsy. They had engineers Colin Miller & Jean-Marie Horvat of Animal Records, and two members of the band Great Northern do one A/B listening test to just one song randomly flipped between analog and digital. The “big surprise” was that no one could consistently tell the difference. The engineers guessed which was which correctly 55% of the time (so much for their “golden ears”), the band 53%. It’s not clear whether they tried to judge which sounded better and failed, or didn’t bother to try. They also interviewed engineers Steve Albini and Ken Andrews. Albini is no dummy, and rather than get himself into trouble, he simply said analog was superior to MP3s (duh), and mentioned how digital mastering was screwed up when CDs were first introduced in the 80s. The only thing conclusive here is that host Ziya Tong is a total babe.

Until someone comes up with conclusive scientific evidence via extensive double-blind testing that proves vinyl is superior to digital when using the same master, I say let's move on. But we don't even necessarily have go go beyond CD range. Even though SACD and DVD audio have clearly better range, it doesn't mean anyone can tell the difference. The bandwidth of CDs are 44.1 kHz sampling rate (44,100 samples) x 16 bits x 2 channels = 1.4 Megabits per second. With a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz you have an effective frequency response of up to 22.05 kHz (way above what most people will statistically be able to perceive as sound). HD-DVD/DVD-audio offers 9.6Mbps, with 128 kHz sampling rate at 24 bits. While the higher sample rates correct the distortion of high-end frequencies that occur in 1.4 Mbps CDs, those frequencies are only audible to dogs, cats and bats, who, when asked, would probably say they prefer CDs as they wouldn’t hurt their ears as much.

Additionally, the transducers on both ends of the audio chain are too limited to properly take advantage of 128 kHz, or even 96 kHz. Paul Lehrman, a composer, educator, and consulting editor for Mix magazine, points out that the frequency responses of most mics and digital musical instruments roll off at around 20 kHz. Thus, anything recorded above 20 kHz at a 96 kHz sampling rate "is probably junk," claims Lehrman. In response to the argument that it's the digital filter in 96 kHz systems, and not the extended frequency response, that's responsible for the improved sonics, Lehrman says that, in A/B tests, he has "never been able to tell, definitively, the difference between a well-constructed 44.1 or 48 kHz oversampling converter and a 96 kHz converter."

Vinyl and CD sound different; there's no reason why anyone should be questioned for preferring one to the other. Only thing I note is that I seem to get ear fatigue much more quickly these digital days than I used to with records.

The experience of ripping open vinyl Sgt. Pepper, looking at the cover up close, pulling out the inserts, studying the gatefold, reading the lyrics while it plays, etc. should be experienced by all 8 year olds.

Anyway, Within You Without You is awfully cool (and way more hypnotic) in mono vs. stereo. Not a compelling argument one way or another, but worth noting.

They also interviewed engineers Steve Albini and Ken Andrews. Albini is no dummy, and rather than get himself into trouble, he simply said analog was superior to MP3s (duh), and mentioned how digital mastering was screwed up when CDs were first introduced in the 80s. The only thing conclusive here is that host Ziya Tong is a total babe.

lolz yeah I saw this and had the exact same reaction

I AB'd a recording of the only thing my bands have ever put out on record. The end result was so bassy it almost hurt to listen to! (Not physically but emotionally =)

I was 20 and had never heard of 'the curve' which basically says if you're putting it on vinyl turn the low down and the highs up!

I think with vinyl there are some number of factors that get overshadowed with the 'sound quality of the music' bit. For instance:

1. For one, every time you play it the record degrades a little more, changing the sound ever so slightly. So every time you play it is, essentially, a whole new listening experience.

2. Since it degrades every time, and since records can be 'worn out' that means records have a natural lifespan. ie. They have a life, which is something that I think we pick up on subconsciously and add to their preciousness. MP3s are so disposable because they are eternal entities unless you hit the 'delete' key and then there's bound to be a copy somewhere on the cloud...

I've finally come to a place where I can admit to myself that I like vinyl records because of object-fetishism and a sense of the persistence of analogue life in a world increasingly mediated and dictated to by the digital. Same reasons I sometimes like to shave with goop foamed up by a brush and a razor with a single blade that clamps into it. I'm half deaf (quite literally, kids) from going to loud rock shows without earplugs in, so even fucking MP3s sound pretty OK to me usually. And I love my iPod, just when I'm at home the interactivity of the LP (the browsing & selection process, the ritual, the non-shuffleability of the medium, getting up to change sides every 20 minutes) means as much to me or more than any sound-quality hoo-ha.

While Old Fart is on the line, kids, let him tell you to shell out the bucks and get yourself a good set of fitted earplugs. You won't notice you've lost it till it's gone, and it won't come back.

Um, sorry 'bout that. Back to the Beatles thread:

Totally agree with you about the earplugs. I think I'm turning into an Old Fart myself now. I like "Old Fuck" better though (via George Carlin)....

Where online can I start my lo-fi revolution?

i mean no-fi

"Technology exists to have a higher sampling rate"

Ah, the old "music falling through the gaps" nonsense.

I s'pose 1993 would be the first time I started to get involved in this particular debate - I think I was still quite swayed by the audio press in those days and, even though with my physics background I understood Nyquist (which Fr3m3r clearly didn't), I found the more esoteric reasoning for vinyl's superiority quite persuasive back then. I mean, all these audiophiles (and I was definitely aspiring to be one) can't be wrong, right?

I'm glad the debate sort of settled down over the years (I'm sure you can still find the old arguments being rehashed on rec.audio.opinion by the same people who've been at each other's throats for 20 years) - some sort of consensus seems to have been reached as to what analogue tape is good for, what digital is good for, that the special sound of vinyl is really quite easily explained, not necessarily in terms of the deficiencies of 16/44.1k but in terms of what analogue replay adds.

There are still folk out there who insist that digitisation of any sort destroys music but it's a pretty fringe viewpoint now (in the mid-'90s it really seemed to be gathering force as the underlying credo behind all audiophile opinion).

The whole vinyl vs. CD argument is misplaced in this thread, IMO. The reason the original Beatles albums on CD sound like shit is simply because they weren't mastered, transferred, etc. correctly. Like others have pointed out, recent reissues like Love and Beatles 1 sound very good indeed.

Well, seems wrong to say they weren't transferred correctly, more that they didn't know what they were doing yet in 1986 and 1987. For the time, they were state of the art, and they were widely praised for their sound quality, especially from Rubber Soul on.

I'd be kinda curious to know precisely what the shortcomings (by today's standards) were in the original Beatles digital remasters; it can't simply be down to bitrate/headroom (being ultra-safe and peaking at whatever those CDs peak at: -6dBFS?). Plenty of DDD classical recordings from that time still sound fine, so what was it about mastering old rock/pop tapes for CD that was so challenging in 1987?

Well, for starters, the first four were in mono only. And not even the same mono mixes they were released in originally.

Otherwise, I think the process was just lazy, as all processes were back then. As for DDD recordings, they usually don't need remastering, but there's a lot of brushing up to do with old analogue tapes to make them sound digital.

All processes in 1986 and 1987 were lazy?

Basically, yes. There was this new thing called Compact Disc that was soon taking off, and they needed every single title ever released out as quick as possible. So they didn't really do a lot of it to get the best out of the sound. Also because they thought that "Oh, it's CD, it sounds great anyway".

There are still folk out there who insist that digitisation of any sort destroys music

On a slightly different note, I also have a problem understanding those synth purists who claim that a modern generated analog synth, or a softsynth, doesn't sounds as "warm" as the old analog synths. I mean, I am a bit analog fan, but I just cannot hear the difference at all. Except old analogue synths go sour.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I essentially agree with Geir here. It may be an oversimplification to say the record companies were just throwing everything on CD without any thought two decades ago, but there was a LOT of crappy jobs. Miles Davis' catalog, for one, was completely disrespected when his albums were first released on CD. It took years before decent-sounding reissues came out.

With Miles Davis, are you talking about the Columbia Jazz Masterpiece deals?

Speaking of this, what I do have more problems with is if one album is being remastered at the best technology (24 bit and all). And then 2 years later, the same album is being re-released again in a "Deluxe" edition, completely with a second disc mostly consisting of demo and/or live versions of the same songs that are already on the album. Now that is pointless!

The exception is when people such as Pet Shop Boys fill that second disc with great b-sides and great extended/alternative mixes, adding non-album singles from the same era. Those 2 CDs work. Also the Donna Summer "Hot Girls" with lots of 12 inch mixes behind does. But I am never interested in hearing demo/live.

Interestingly, Amazon.co.uk is listing the remasters as being £8.99 each, or £15.99 for the doubles.

the rudy van gelder series of jazz remasters are really amazing sounding CDs, kind of blue is one of them

Kind of Blue isn't an RVG (it sounds good tho). RVG just does the Blue Note and Prestige reissues. Watch out bringing those up -- some audiophile nuts loathe them for some reason. They sound great to me, for the most part.

With Miles Davis, are you talking about the Columbia Jazz Masterpiece deals?
I believe so.
I have the 1992 Columbia Mastersound Gold CD of Kind of Blue, and it sounds great.

The original Miles CDs not only were poorly mastered (Columbia routinely overdid the noise reduction, often completely obscuring things like quiet cymbals), but in at least one instance (Miles Ahead) alternate takes were used for the CD in place of the master takes.

i think there were some pitch issues that were resolved in the remasters on kind of blue, like originally some tracks were slightly sharp or flat

never mind about the beatles catalogue - what about kraftwerk !?
i mean they are all done and dusted, with a special promo box of them all even appearing on ebay from time to time.
what on earth is holding up the proper full release of those !
and yes, the latest reissue of 'kind of blue' does indeed resolve the speed issue.

what on earth is holding up the proper full release of those !

The remastering job accidentally removed all the brushed snares, confusing the sound for static and hiss.

never mind about the beatles catalogue - what about kraftwerk !?

According to the guy in an indie store in Oslo specializing in synthpop/EBM, the were so dissatisfied with the remasters they chose not to release them. I believe they are available for download though.

i have basically put up my whole collection, all the albums plus Past Masters, on Amazon. i will get an average of five dollars a CD and have already sold most of it, that's $80 towards these new box sets.

does this whole Beatles remastered catalogue/ ROCK BAND thing deserve it's own thread? i think it does, but anyway
here's ROCK BAND's trailer. i know nothing about computer games =
http://www.beatles.com/core/home/

"mild lyrics"
"tobacco reference"

where's the tobacco reference? i couldn't see it.

the abbey road cover

"on the way upstairs I had a smoke"

Here's hoping the Beatles edition of "Rock Band" does the same wonders to the musical taste of the kids that Guitar Hero did a few years ago. If they can discover Iron Maiden and AC/DC in retrospect, they should also be able to discover The Beatles.

that trailer is dead exciting, and i'm about as over music games as i am the beatles at this point. also tempted by a remastered white album. but including the documentaries as qt files? really??

ach, they'll all get dragged off and made available someplace, no bother.

watched the trailer: meh. as an exercise in deep Beatles fetishism, it's interesting, but it's not making me run out and buy an x-box-a-ma-whatsis.

That looks pretty damn cool! Taxman!!

As for remastered White Album: seek out the German Direct Metal Master pressing of the White Album via the usual sites. It's a late 70s pressing done right before the switch to digital, with the master cut directly into metal rather than lacquered and electoplated. It sounds AMAZING and I doubt Apple could get even close to the sound quality.

oh, like i need another version of the white album ... (jk, scouring the internet now! :D)

found it -- oh, internet, me luv u. (and man, upthread i was dissing beatles fetishism. pot calling kettle black i guess.)

The acoustic guitars and vocals in particular are amazing. Drums are crisp as hell. It's stunning how much additional sound you get from this.

Supposedly it's just a really good needledrop on a super hi-fi system. Its funny cos above in this thread I was all anti-remastering and now I'm saying check this out. The truth is this is 30 year old technology here.

I don't own an Xbox or Playstation or whatever, but if I did, "Rock Band" would already have been in my stock of games and probably used a lot. And I would definitely be looking forward to the Beatles one.
(Which I do anyways, because I hope it will do wonders for the kids' musical taste)

Beatles game looks great! cannot wait to do harmonies with my kids. We'll be well on our way to being the next Carter family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YsdS00GI58

San Andreas is what you need, Geir.

lolz game looks great. kinda wish there was a "Yoko" function that would allow you to break up the band/mess up other players

also maybe a Pete Best function where you have to sit in the other room while your friends are having fun.

How about a Stu Sutcliffe function, also known as the Sid Vicious function?

There's a Doug Sandon function, where your girlfriend comes in and makes you go to work instead of messing around playing computer games.

who's doug sandon?

Beg pardon, Colin Hanton was 'who' I meant.

wrt the 96 vs 48 vs 41 thing: you don't just get the added acoustic range above 20khz (which no one can hear) there's also something that happens when tracks are bounced down from 96 (or 48) to 41 - you lose a bit of detail, numbers are squashed and crunched and tail ends of long digital strings are rounded up or down, adding digital artifacts and noises and what not. i don't have audiophile gear but i have decent studio gear (pro tools, genelec speakers, spl thousand dollar volume knob, etc) and there are differences to be heard between 41kHz and 48kHz and 96kHz . especially when you bounce them down to cd.

also, fuck vynil. shit gets all dusty and scratchy and sounds like ass if you play it more than a few times or leave it on your record player overnight, and i'm glad they switched to cd.

As for remastered White Album: seek out the German Direct Metal Master pressing of the White Album via the usual sites.
Got a link? I found it here in six parts, but I couldn't join the files because I couldn't find the password.
Help!

http://musicinyourbrain.blogspot.com/2008/12/beatles-white-album-german-direct-metal.html

^^^ that's where I got it from yesterday. It's noticably better than any other version I've heard, but the last second of Savoy Truffle is cut off.

http://www.thebeatlesrockband.com/cinematic.php

The entire package seems interesting. Almost like I need to get myself a gaming console.

But, as for the remasters: Quicktime? Why? :)

because the video portions are only like 10 minutes long, I think. If you get the box set you'll get them all strung together on DVD. I don't anticipate them being very interesting though. It would have made more sense to put together a DVD of the promo videos (if these are all included I'll be shocked)

beatles rock band is a lot of fun, they did a nice job with the presentation too.

Have you already played it?

Holy cra-cra-crap that animation thing is cool. I really like that shot of them 'sitting in an English garden'.

Makes me kinda wish they just went ahead and made a Beatles anime.

What, like Yellow Submarine...?

I don't anticipate them being very interesting though.

Surely, in the case of The Beatles, so much is said, so much is written, that there is likely to be anything much about the proccess behind the albums that isn't already covered. If not before, at least the "Anthology" series should take care of most of the facts that the world would need to know. So I agree there.

I just saw the Beatles at Shea Stadium at a big screen theater last week. It was followed by the live footage from one of their last shows in Japan.

Seeing John just freak out and start speaking in tongues to 50,000 people who can't hear or understand him is still pretty affecting. And so are the performances. I'm guessing they did a lot of studio patchwork on these after the fact? The vocals sound awfully good considering the circumstances...

Ah, thank you Wikipedia.

"The film is not a completely candid concert film, however, as overdubs were recorded by the Beatles in London in January 1966 to cover audio problems throughout the concert recording."

So the Box set pics are here!

Looking good. Doesn't give to much away mind but enough for now.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0FaQ7TxM2U0/SjL3N31gKRI/AAAAAAAABEw/hE1dAweO8_E/s1600-h/beatlesstereoofficial.jpg

Hmm

Well they're here anyways

http://wogew.blogspot.com/2009/06/postcard-from-berlin.html

Aiee, $350 is not what I was hoping for. Why would the mono one be more expensive? Actually, why would I buy mono at all?

£200 for the mono set (from Amazon "List Price £237"!) and £170 for the stereo (List Price £202!).

I was expecting around the £200 mark TBH, but it wouldn't have surprised me in the slightest had they gone even higher.

sometimes the US price isn't just the price in pounds though...

Can anyone recommend me an art criticism-angled book on the Beatles, specifically their days hanging out with German art students and how it affected their subsequent work? I would say mainly about 'the Hamburg days' but Klaus Voorman did alot of work with them even through Lennon's solo career.

I'd love to read something well-written taking their career in that context.

listened to that 10-minute "Revolution, Take 21" outtake yesterday --- eeeyowch it is good. Screw the remasters, release more stuff like that! (Kidding ... remasters & outtakes, plz)

Adam, this book is great:

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20071001/9780307353375.jpg

This book took 20 years to write and it shows - extremely well researched and short on gossip. Fantastic musical critiques and social analysis. Oh, and there's quite a bit on the 1960-61 Hamburg/Liverpool era.

^Love that book!

xxxpost

Amazon UK are listing the box sets for pre-order at £134 for Stereo and £158 for Mono, whic seems pretty reasonable to me.

Again, why is the Mono more expensive? It seems to have less discs in it.

They've come down a lot since I posted those prices a few days ago. Plus they've dropped the "list price". Interesting. In a good way.

http://larryfire.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/beatlesstereoofficial.jpg

These are the mono ones, right? I mean, they don't exist to me at all. Mono doesn't exist to me whenever stereo is available..

[imghttp://www.puppiesandflowers.com/blogimages/bear-covering-eyes.jpg[/img]

oops
http://www.puppiesandflowers.com/blogimages/bear-covering-eyes.jpg

geir, even now, it must be said...you are a weird bird homie

and no, i think that is the stereo box set .... you may look at it, Geir. IT EXISTS.

Not in the shops before 090909, no :)

Someone photoshop some 2001 monkeys caressing that Beatles box.

looking forward to downloading the mono one.

that picture is actually some kind of Second Life computer-generated proto-copy of the box set. weird. geir is actually correct that it doesn't exist!

Geir, "Let it be" was never released in Mono, so that's the Stereo set.

Alright?

http://www.beatles-unlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/beatles-mono-boxset300.jpg

There you go, the Mono set.

ah good, i like that box better since it will fit in my CD racks instead of that big booze bottle box shaped thing for the stereo

Anyone worked out why the mono (less CDs in it) is more expensive?

http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/richmedia/images/cover.gif

Anyone worked out why the mono (less CDs in it) is more expensive?

I think it's because the mono box is a limited edition

not the most solid evidence, but cd japan does mark their listings differently by that token:
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/search3.html?q=beatles+box+set&step=20&r=any&order=score&media=

Anyone worked out why the mono (less CDs in it) is more expensive?

The mono set actually contains two copies of the product - one in each speaker - so Apple is overlooking the opportunity to charge double the money. The stereo set only has 50% of the product in each speaker.

Just checked a minute ago, and Amazon.co.uk have bumped the prices back up - £200 for mono and £160 for stereo.

Beatles.com is now showing a clip of the Revolver mini-doc.

Appears to be rather weak chopped up version of the Anthology stuff.

clips up over at amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/entity/The-Beatles/B000APTK6K though I'm not sure whether that's the best way to judge how good these sound ... will listen when i get home from work. wonder if the price for the box set will come down at some point? right now, it is out of my price range ...

Does anyone know which stereo mixes will be used on the first 2 albums? Will they use the original 2 track mixes or new remixes that George Martin have been playing with the thought of making? (Most of those songs would probably sound better with one channel in the middle and the other one to the left/right rather than one extreme right and the other one extreme left, but that would also be kind of revisionist)

Yeah, but does anybody actually like it like that?

Does anyone know which stereo mixes will be used on the first 2 albums? Will they use the original 2 track mixes or new remixes that George Martin have been playing with the thought of making? (Most of those songs would probably sound better with one channel in the middle and the other one to the left/right rather than one extreme right and the other one extreme left, but that would also be kind of revisionist)

― Geir Hongro, Monday, July 20, 2009 5:46 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

stereo mixes in general for those albums is revisionist

You could say so, but those stereo mixes were originally done as early as 1965-66, which is quite some time ago by now. And at least until the CD releases in 1987, that is how people who bought them on vinyl since the late 60s got used to hearing them.

this is now posted on the Amazon site in the U.S. the list price is $298.99 discounted to $239.99.

Product Description
FEATURES:

-Dimensions: 5.75" x 5.38" x 2.63"

-Description:

·Hard white glossy slip box
·Limited edition (10,000)
·CDs packaged as mini LP replicas (replica artwork, sleeves and gatefolds)
·Remastered by Paul Hicks, Sean Magee with Guy Massey and Steve Rooke

-Contains:

Original Mono version - 11 albums (12 discs)

+= mono mix CD debut

·Please Please Me
·With The Beatles
·A Hard Day's Night
·Beatles For Sale
·Help! (CD also includes original 1965 stereo mix)+
·Rubber Soul (CD also include original 1965 stereo mix)+
·Revolver+
·Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band+
·Magical Mystery Tour+
·The Beatles+
·Mono Masters (features all of the mono tracks that appeared on singles, EPs. or that never made it onto the 13 albums)

-Essay written by Kevin Howlett

*note: Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be are not included, as they were originally recorded in stereo

as for the stereo mix, the list price is $259.98 discounted to $204.99:

Product Description

FEATURES:

-Dimensions: 12"x6"x3"

-Description:

Hard black glossy lift top with magnet clasp

CD's packaged in three panel digi-pak with digital mini documentaries

Remastered by Guy Massey, Steve Rooke, Sam Okell with Paul Hicks and Sean Magee

-Contains:

All 13 Studio remasters plus Past Masters (digi packaging with digital mini documentaries)

Please Please Me

With The Beatles

A Hard Day's Night

Beatles For Sale

Help!

Rubber Soul

Revolver

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Magical Mystery Tour

The Beatles

Yellow Submarine

Abbey Road

Let It Be

Past Masters

DVD of all 13 mini-documentaries (Running time: 40 minutes)

10,000 is 'not many' for a beatles edition!

there is some dispute about that limited edition number, EMI already denied that this was the case. who knows.

It's only the mono that's ltd edition?

808 state vs the beatles is an interesting prospect.
or is it a different guy massey ?

That's Graham Massey, isn't it?

oh yes. crappy morning @ work. fuzzy brain.

A second boxed set has been created with the collector in mind. 'The Beatles in Mono' gathers together, in one place, all of the Beatles recordings that were mixed for a mono release. It will contain 10 of the albums with their original mono mixes, plus two further discs of mono masters (covering similar ground to the stereo tracks on 'Past Masters'). As an added bonus, the mono "Help!" and "Rubber Soul" discs also include the original 1965 stereo mixes, which have not been previously released on CD. These albums will be packaged in mini-vinyl CD replicas of the original sleeves with all original inserts and label designs retained.

That's odd, for having 'All of the Beatles recordings' none of these sets have any of the Christmas records, do they?

No.

Altogether now! "Get one of those for your trousers, get one of those for your hairrrrr"

the christmas recordings are the big ommission (also missing: a couple of available mixes of early tracks like ask me why and please please me; mono yellow sub mixes [if these exist, apparently a matter of dispute]). fwiw, cute as the christmas record is, they are not mindblowing works of art and you can find perfectly good bootlegs on the internet now so I don't really care. It'll just be nice to get decent sets of the actual albums on cd finally (yeah I have the purple chick stuff, yeah it's pretty good, but those all have issues too).

The Mono Yellow Sub is just the stereo mix combined.

the whole mini-documentary thing with these is irritating.

Yeah it will be like 5-minute edits of Anthology stuff padded with Box Set adverts.

btw I really like the 66/67/68/69 xmas records, they're really pretty charming and nice, even if they are slight..

For your game playing enjoyment:

GILES MARTIN WAS conjuring spirits, or perhaps summoning gods. The tools for this ritual included a pair of omnidirectional microphones, a digital mixing console and a hastily-procured set of teacups and saucers, but the magic was in the room itself. Studio Two at Abbey Road in London has changed very little since 1969, when Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr and George Harrison recorded together for the last time. The Steinway upright McCartney played on “Lady Madonna” still stands in one corner, its middle keys worn to the wood. Sound-absorbing quilts hang in wide stripes down the whitewashed brick walls. The view from the control room on the second level is much as it would have been for George Martin, Giles’s father, who oversaw the creation of nearly every Beatles album from this room. Giles held a slender finger to his lips, which turned up into a playful grin. He handed cups and saucers to three people nearby and mimed a sip. The others followed his lead, and a few feet away the microphones captured the small clattering sound of four people drinking tea.

The odd recording session in March was one very small contribution to what Apple Corps — the company still controlled by McCartney, Starr and the widows of Lennon and Harrison — hopes will be the most deeply immersive way ever of experiencing the music and the mythology of the Beatles. The band that upended the cultural landscape of the 1960s is now hitching its legacy to the medium of a new generation: the video game.

The sound effects Martin recorded are not anything most people who play the game will notice consciously. The Beatles: Rock Band, which is to be released on Sept. 9, involves playing ersatz instruments in time with the band’s original music. Between songs, players will hear the group warming up and bantering in the studio. Martin combed through hundreds of hours of tape to find these clips, but the chatter, recorded directly into microphones, lacked the subtle echo and ambient noise you would have heard if you were actually in the studio at the time. So after laying down a sound bed of background noise, Martin played the original clips through a set of speakers on the studio floor and rerecorded them through his mikes, this time with all the ringing acoustics of the room. Through the control-room window, Martin stared into the empty studio as if his mind’s eye could put physical form to the disembodied sounds. Across the decades a guitar was tuned, a snare drum rattled and John Lennon warmed up his voice for a new song called “Come Together”: “He got teenage lyrics, he got hot rod baldy.’’

And in response to me sending that around, Tom E. on Twitter:

Giles Martin is the Christopher Tolkien of pop!

the game is really neat and they did a nice job. the chatter stuff is kinda cool as atmosphere.

also I met Giles at e3 this year and he was actually super personable and nice, that NY times piece is so overwritten it makes him sound weird or something but he was just like a really nice dude and super friendly

he and his team also did some pretty interesting work in terms of getting the old track into a playable form for Rock Band...they had to come up with a way with filtering and other tracks to turn 2 track masters...i think they actually filed some patents and stuff..

anyway kinda geeky stuff but interesting to me.

Every time I see this thread bumped, I think of this record:

http://991.com/newgallery/Queen-Latifah-Latifahs-Had-It-U-471810.jpg

Long New York Times piece on the whole Rock Band hoo ha. Looks like a good read. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16beatles-t.html

u might want to look a few posts up dude

ah yes my bad. onset of alzheimer's.

"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Rubber Soul will join Abbey Road as the first three Beatles albums available to download for The Beatles: Rock Band."

I'm not likely to buy many of these albums, but those three are among those I almost certainly won't. (I'll pass on Let It Be and Magical Mystery Tour for sure as well.) Beatles for Sale, now we're talking.

white album or nothing

For me it's the first four, White Album, prob. Revolver and maybe Help. And depending on how they sort out the Past Masters songs and how many of them end up on the RB disk, that one too. E.g. I'd want "Rain", "Paperback Writer", "I Feel Fine", "Revolution", but I think several of these are on the basic game disk.

That article is kinda funny. "The Beatles aren't really rock stars"?

.... I guess if you consider a band like Poison to be the model of rock stars then perhaps that's true.

Then again if you're basing it on drug intake and groupie sex I have always held a sneaking suspicion that the Beatles were far more hedonistic than anyone can imagine.

i took it to mean that there aren't, like, joe satriani-style shred solos in their songs... wasn't t dragonsofrce who sprang to fame through their appearance on guitar hero?

The beeb are celebrating all this in their own special way: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/08_august/17/beatles.shtml

the highlight sounds like being this:

The Beatles On Record, directed by Bob Smeaton, charts The Beatles' extraordinary journey from Please Please Me to Abbey Road and reflects on how they developed as musicians, matured as songwriters and created a body of work that sounds as fresh in 2009 as the time it was recorded.

Narrated entirely by John, Paul, George, Ringo and their producer Sir George Martin, the documentary features more than 60 classic songs, rare footage and photos from The Beatles' archives and never-heard-before out-takes of studio chat from the Abbey Road recording sessions.

-

Then again if you're basing it on drug intake and groupie sex I have always held a sneaking suspicion that the Beatles were far more hedonistic than anyone can imagine.

Drugs, yes indeed. Not so sure about groupie sex though. And Rolling Stones were far more hedonistic at the time anyway.

Yeah, Groupie sex, loads of it. Soz Geir.

Not so sure about groupie sex though.
Are you serious? Their hotel rooms were revolving doors for groupies.
You don't really buy the suit-and-tie-and-tea-with-the-Queen sham that Brian Epstein put over on the world over four decades ago, do you? The Rolling Stones only seemed more sinister because they were specifically marketed by Andrew Loog Oldham to appear decadent, providing fans with an alternative to the "nice" Beatles. In fact, the opposite was closer to the truth.

From www.believermag.com:
Many in the media were quick to notice the two groups’ contrasting styles. When the Rolling Stones arrived in the United States, the first Associated Press (AP) report described them as “dirtier, streakier, and more disheveled than the Beatles.” Tom Wolfe put things more sharply: “The Beatles want to hold your hand,” he quipped, “but the Stones want to burn down your town.” Since these comparisons proved useful to everyone, both the bands and the journalists collaborated on the charade. In the early 1960s, Keith Richards remarked, “nobody took the music seriously. It was the image that counted, how to manipulate the press and dream up a few headlines.” Peter Jones, who wrote about both bands for the Record Mirror, recalled being in a “difficult position” because he was expected to “gloss over” the Beatles’ tawdry indiscretions. “It was decreed that the Beatles should be portrayed as incredibly lovable, amiable fellows, and if one of them, without mentioning any names, wanted to have a short orgy with three girls in the bathroom, then I didn’t see it.”

yeah i just read a lennon plastic-ono-band-era interview in this rolling stone compilation book and he basically said it was fucking insane on the road in when they still toured, in terms of groupies

yeah, he said it was like "Satyricon", right?