Thread: The Beatles remasters, any opinions?

Posts: 51
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Post by Edvin September 17, 2009 (21 of 51)
Hi Dave.

The Cavern, yes, I have seen a sad eyed Pete Best sitting there telling us how it was. Poor guy. I can imagine what the odour must have been like, but having actually been there must be a great memory. The closest I got was hearing The Hollies (!) outdoors in 1967. Half an hour and swoosch, off to the next town. They were from Manchester so I suppose you hate them, lol.
One day soon I will visit Liverpool with my son and do all the things you suggest. Imagine meeting Dylan in the doorway. His Bobness. Hi Bob, whazzup?
Best,
Thomas

Post by Aeryn Sun September 17, 2009 (22 of 51)
Goodwood said:

Yes but when one starts talking of virtuosity the likes of Billy Sheehan eclipse all of them, and he is also still very much alive.

Usually apology about resisting blah, blah.....

or Victor Wooten, or Brian Bromberg, etc. I think we were more or less talking about early rock/pop bass players that had a major impact for their times, Paul would most certainly be up there, but I, as a bass player, would resist calling him the top, that goes to James Jamerson, although it may be somewhat unfair because he, along with the Funk Brothers, were jazz musicians recruited by Gordy for his pop label, Motown. Both McCartney and Entwhistle did not have that kind of musical background. Not to take anything away from Sheehan, I don't care much for his style, I much prefer, for a modern bassist, Stu Hamm, more lyrical sounding. But there are some many really good bassists, including Sheehan, out there these days!

Post by Aeryn Sun September 17, 2009 (23 of 51)
Edvin said:

Thanks!
You will get the most natural performance from the early albums as they were recorded very much as a band, as opposed to one instrument at a time. My mouth opened when I first played the remastered Please Please Me since what I heard was a band in a clearly defined room. The sound is very natural and dynamic.
Dave says it doesn't sound like The Cavern and since it isn't recorded there, why should it? Also, The Cavern was nearly 50 years ago and I know I wouldn't trust my memory that far back.

I don't think The Beatles or George Martin were interested in a "natural soundstage" after 1964. They were pioneers, innovaters, always on the lookout for some new sound.
Best, Thomas

Thanks, Thomas, I would have guessed that to be the case, gotta go get that one now! My favorite of their albums is "Hard Day's Night" the pinnacle of Merseybeat! So many great tunes on that album great to dance to. And correct, the Beatles were so interested in experimental sounds for their later albums so that many songs/albums contained numerous overdubs, pretty much destroying any ambience that the tapes would have had. I wonder though, The Moody Blues albums have a much better sound to them, do you think? Better producer/engineering for them?

Post by amatala September 17, 2009 (24 of 51)
Aeryn Sun said:

while I know that this primarily for SACD, I was wondering if anyone here had bought and compared the new remaster of the Beatles albums, and what you opinions were. Thanks!

I did not compare the new remasters against the old 1986 CD masters - those were really hopeless - I must have thrown them away a while ago because I can't find them anymore.

However, I did some A/B comparisons between the new remasters and the other audiophile vinyl-sourced CDs (read "bootlegs") already available - the Millenium Masters and Dr. Ebbetts (Mobile Fidelity) - which actually do sound absolutely wonderful.

I have to say that the quality of the new remasters is quite amazing - the sound of the new remasters is clearer and more dynamic, however the other above mentioned versions have a sweeter mid-range and more fluid highs. Dr. Ebbetts still has more low end - bass is deeper - maybe just a bit too deep.

Overall it is hard to choose - I think I still prefer the bootlegs by a very small margin because of their vinyl sound - but if I wouldn't own those, I would go for the new boxsets in a second!

Post by Lochiel September 17, 2009 (25 of 51)
Aeryn Sun said:

or Victor Wooten, or Brian Bromberg, etc. I think we were more or less talking about early rock/pop bass players that had a major impact for their times, Paul would most certainly be up there, but I, as a bass player, would resist calling him the top, that goes to James Jamerson, although it may be somewhat unfair because he, along with the Funk Brothers, were jazz musicians recruited by Gordy for his pop label, Motown. Both McCartney and Entwhistle did not have that kind of musical background. Not to take anything away from Sheehan, I don't care much for his style, I much prefer, for a modern bassist, Stu Hamm, more lyrical sounding. But there are some many really good bassists, including Sheehan, out there these days!

The popular person to proffer would be Geddy Lee of Rush, but although they are still my favorite band, I've grown a more tired of his style. Sometimes I wish he would have played bass instead of too frequent quasi bass soloing. The bottom drops out of their music too much on many albums.

No one's mentioned John Paul Jones - we can't leave him out...

Post by mdt September 17, 2009 (26 of 51)
Origin of the stereo-mix?

Hi all,

anyone know how the stereo remasters were done:

Were original stereo-mixes remastered (but not remixed)

or

Were new stereo mixes created from multitrack session tapes (did they have that at the time?)

or

Has (worst case) an artificial stereo generating process been applied?

regards, Max

Post by Peter September 17, 2009 (27 of 51)
mdt said:

Origin of the stereo-mix?

Hi all,

anyone know how the stereo remasters were done:

Were original stereo-mixes remastered (but not remixed)

or

Were new stereo mixes created from multitrack session tapes (did they have that at the time?)

or

Has (worst case) an artificial stereo generating process been applied?

regards, Max

The answers to your questions and so much more can be found 'ere.

http://www.thebeatles.com/

Clicking on "open player" allows you to play a clip of each track on each disc.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/beatles/article6826404.ece [extensive review]

http://gizmodo.com/5216258/sorry-stereo-but-beatles-in-mono-rocks-a-lot-more

Post by flyingdutchman September 17, 2009 (28 of 51)
Bought MMT because it's one of my favorite albums, along with Rubber Soul, and Sgt. Pepper. Immediate reaction was MMT itself was so much more punchier and vibrant. I Am the Walrus seemed that much weirder with a lot of the sounds at the end coming out more clearly. Past Masters next, Rubber Soul after that. Can't afford the box all at once.

Post by raffells October 30, 2009 (29 of 51)
Edvin said:

Hi Dave.
Imagine meeting Dylan in the doorway. His Bobness. Hi Bob, whazzup?
Best,
Thomas

Local expression would be.
Yo Bob Howzit hangin

Post by raffells October 30, 2009 (30 of 51)

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Closed