Author Topic: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release  (Read 4222 times)

Offline SalisburyRed

  • No fun "budding young Tory"!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,552
You've missed out Yer Blues and Cry Baby Cry? The thing is, I can see there's a very good case for saying that the White Album should not have been a double album, but when I look at it I can see enough stuff for one and a half sides.

Online Ray K

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,683
  • Truthiness
See? That's perfectly fine. Personally I'd easily lose Savoy Truffle and Rocky Raccoon, and include Martha My Dear, but that's a top quality 45 minutes there.

It's far from an original idea making The White Album a single album - George Martin tried to convince them of this but was overruled.
Filthy old alcoholic lying trampy bastard.
Rafa emptied your stadium in the 76th minute you horrible hard-shoulder shitter.

Online Slick_Beef

  • RAWK's Master Baker
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,824
You've missed out Yer Blues and Cry Baby Cry? The thing is, I can see there's a very good case for saying that the White Album should not have been a double album, but when I look at it I can see enough stuff for one and a half sides.

You're right, it would make a decent album and a half too... I like Yer Blues but only when I'm in the mood. Not that into Cry Baby Cry tho.. never really sticks in my head. Dear Prudence and Happiness is a Warm Gun are probably my favourites.

I wonder if anyone would choose to keep revolution 9 ;D

See? That's perfectly fine. Personally I'd easily lose Savoy Truffle and Rocky Raccoon, and include Martha My Dear, but that's a top quality 45 minutes there.

It's far from an original idea making The White Album a single album - George Martin tried to convince them of this but was overruled.

Yeah.. Rocky Racoon is weak but then it's quite light hearted too and I loved it when I was a kid so i'd probably keep it for sentimental reasons.. Actually, I do like the version on Anthology 3 a lot, where Paul fucks it up ;D

As for them overruling George.. well I guess they did that again for let it be, which I think was their other big mistake! (some great moments on that album but I think the 'naked' version is better). I wonder where they'd have been without him..
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains.

Online Ray K

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,683
  • Truthiness

I wonder if anyone would choose to keep revolution 9 ;D


Yoko
Filthy old alcoholic lying trampy bastard.
Rafa emptied your stadium in the 76th minute you horrible hard-shoulder shitter.

Online Slick_Beef

  • RAWK's Master Baker
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,824
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains.

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Just received both Mono and Stereo versions yesterday.  Don't think I've surfaced for 24 hours.

Both sets are simply fantastic.  There's so much detail and clarity, its a stunning upgrade on previous CD's.

So much to hear on both sets.  Honestly couldn't decide which to recommend ;  I love the mono set right the way through, but I still do prefer Sgt Peppers on stereo.

But its the detail that impresses.  What a musical tour de force this project is.

Can't believe all the moaners who want to whine about cost etc etc.  Don't want, don't buy I say.  Anyone undecided, just pick either set and go for it.  Fantastic entertainment and quality in my opinion.

Oh, and that numpty (Shirley) above... guess you're entitled to your opinion, but in my view, just do one  :wanker

Offline hesbighesred

  • But you can call me quick fingers, if you can prise them off Dirk's balls
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,992
    • Collaborative thoughts on Euro 2012
See? That's perfectly fine. Personally I'd easily lose Savoy Truffle and Rocky Raccoon, and include Martha My Dear, but that's a top quality 45 minutes there.

It's far from an original idea making The White Album a single album - George Martin tried to convince them of this but was overruled.
I'm glad he was - there's barely a track on that album I don't like, Rocky Raccoon is one of my all time favourite songs! Condensing that album down to 45 minutes would be criminal IMO, even Revolution 9 (though I dislike it) very much belongs - there's a direct line from that song to the likes of Pink Floyd and then sample based music then stuff like the Beta Band.

I wanted to ask about this.

I've seen that there's a re-release in mono, then the full back catalogue in stereo. I've heard that the mono really brings out the best in the early albums - but then I want the newer ones in stereo.

What I wanted to know is, on the complete re-mastered set, where the newer albums are in stereo - the old albums are also in the stereo format right?

Basically I'm asking:

Do I have to choose between mono & stereo, or does the full remastered set but the older albums into mono as they should be? I'm fairly keen to buy the re-masters, but don't really want to shell out for both sets, so was wondering if I could have my cake and eat it basically...

If I can't, could you tell me if there's a huge difference between the mono old albums and the stereo versions? If it's not a massive, massive difference I reckon I'll go with the stereo version because while I really want to explore the older stuff, it's still the newer stuff that personally floats my *ahem* yellow submarine.

Cheers in advance Cowtown!
Collaborative Euro 2021 blog I'm writing for. Check it out, and by all means share your views.
http://straightoffthebeach.wordpress.com/

Offline ConnieLFC

  • New York family capo
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,551
  • Yes?
So much to hear on both sets.  Honestly couldn't decide which to recommend ;  I love the mono set right the way through, but I still do prefer Sgt Peppers on stereo.

But its the detail that impresses.  What a musical tour de force this project is.
The mono set is a revelation and what I've mainly been listening to - the only mono vinyl albums I have are Revolver and the White Album, so the rest have been thrilling to listen to.  (And think I'm more partial to the mono Sgt. Pepper's as well but that's probably because I've listened to it so much over the last two weeks!) 

Is it even still possible to find the mono set over there?  Been pretty much sold out over here since mid-August through all the pre-orders (including mine!).  The stereo box is actually pretty hard to find as well, for that matter.

As already said, the packaging is fantastic to boot.  Again, prefer the mono discs for the replica mini-jackets, sleeves and inserts but the collection of rare/unseen photos used in the stereo digipak gatefolds and booklets are an absolute treat. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 08:49:16 PM by ConnieLFC »

Offline hesbighesred

  • But you can call me quick fingers, if you can prise them off Dirk's balls
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,992
    • Collaborative thoughts on Euro 2012
Paul Shirley - Raving lunatic.
Yeah right. Ok, you don't like the Beatles - fine. Don't state as fact that they're not as good as I think they are - especially while trying to tell me that bloody Oasis improved on their stuff.

Fucking Pseudo-intellectual uber-twat critic wanker. Try growing hair on your balls, have sex with a real woman then maybe you might just appreciate some proper rock and roll - oh and you don't need to be of a time to enjoy the music - the 'meaning' and 'context' of music is the LEAST important thing about it - just listen to it and let it do what it does to you. C**t.
Collaborative Euro 2021 blog I'm writing for. Check it out, and by all means share your views.
http://straightoffthebeach.wordpress.com/

Offline Terry De Niro

  • Cellar dweller feller, y'know
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 44,877
  • Are you talkin' to me or chewin' a brick?
You've missed out Yer Blues and Cry Baby Cry? The thing is, I can see there's a very good case for saying that the White Album should not have been a double album, but when I look at it I can see enough stuff for one and a half sides.
Wasn't the reason for doing a double album, that they were contracted to do two albums in a short space of time?

So to get around it they did the White album as a double.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 07:10:00 PM by Terry De Niro »

Offline ConnieLFC

  • New York family capo
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,551
  • Yes?
Basically I'm asking:

Do I have to choose between mono & stereo, or does the full remastered set but the older albums into mono as they should be? I'm fairly keen to buy the re-masters, but don't really want to shell out for both sets, so was wondering if I could have my cake and eat it basically...

If I can't, could you tell me if there's a huge difference between the mono old albums and the stereo versions? If it's not a massive, massive difference I reckon I'll go with the stereo version because while I really want to explore the older stuff, it's still the newer stuff that personally floats my *ahem* yellow submarine.

Cheers in advance Cowtown!
If you don't mind my jumping in, HBHR?  :wave

To answer your question, yes - the early albums in the stereo set are indeed in stereo.   The "massive" difference is the usual separation issue - the typical vocals/guitars on the right, drums/bass on the left (and gaping hole in the middle!) that was the case with those stereo mixes. 

It sounds like you skew to Rubber Soul/Revolver-era forward stuff anyway, so for that reason alone you may just want to get the stereo box and be done with it.  But as I said in my prior post, the mono mixes are just WOW.  Just naturally punchier with everything being up front and center.

One other suggestion would be, as some folks have done, is buy the mono box and just pick up the "missing" stereo discs separately, which would be really be just Yellow Submarine (which most people wouldn't bother with, especially if you've got the "Songtrack" album from a few years' back), Abbey Road, Let It Be  and the Past Masters.  (You'd no doubt probably still want Sgt. Pepper and MMT in stereo though, so this route may not save you much cash at all!)

Finally, Terry is right about the "let's fulfill this f***ing EMI contract obligation already" explanation for the 2-disc White Album.

Sorry if I've gone on, boys - I absolutely love this stuff.   ;D  Happy happy days.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 07:39:00 PM by ConnieLFC »

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Hesbighesred...

I have thought about your question now, and for a few weeks.  I had the same dilemma.

I pretty much agree with Connie's advice.  If I had to buy one set, I think I'd go mono.... even if for no other reason you could still buy any individual stereo albums you felt the need to.

Otherwise its a very difficult question.  I love both sets.

But the early (up to Revolver) music, in my opinion, is definitely more detailed and original sounding (true) in mono.  Pepper in mono is very, very interesting... but I grew up with it in stereo, and perhaps for that reason found the stereo release more familiar? Make sense?  But the quality of the stereo Pepper is simply crazy, I really mean that.

But I also agree with Connie... the packaging, repro ''LP'' format of the Parlophone labels (even the Emitex sleeve adverts... remember that  ;D), the booklets, the sleeve notes etc is just great.  Haven't watched the computer/DVD bits yet.

I think, HBHR, at this point I'd advise (just) go mono.  For two reasons... sorry three...  its class,  you can still buy any individual stereo releases you may want, and I think the mono is going to prove harder to purchase soon (from what I read).  Certainly you will not be disappointed whichever you choose, I guarantee that.  Never mind the killjoys.  Those of us (as in the posters on this thread in the main) who adore the music and the contribution it made to our lives, can really appreciate the new quality these discs have.

Its an incredible piece of work.

Enjoy mate.  I may be missing for another day.  Mmmm...   think I'll do 'Help' tonight.

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Oh, and Connie, no trouble as yet getting either set over here.

If you need any help PM me and I'll be pleased to help.

Online FinnishRed

  • Frog in a liquidiser.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Possibilities...
Totally agree with cowtownred. I've been listening to both mono and stereo sets for a few weeks now, and both are fantastic indeed.

As Connie mentioned above, the mono albums have more punch & many songs seem to have more energy in mono. Stereo versions are better for people who care more about the separation thing with all the instruments and vocals. In mono versions drums and bass seem to be louder and better than in stereo.

The first two albums are especially superb in mono, Hard Day's Night, For Sale and Help seem to be better in stereo. Perhaps that has something to do with the 4-track machine being used in the recording from Hard Day's Night on. Rubber soul works fine for me in both mono & stereo, Revolver better in mono for me, exluding Tomorrow Never Knows, witch sounds better in stereo. Sgt Pepper is a must in mono, it being so much different & catchier than the stereo one. White Album seems to work very well in both mono & stereo. 

I was completely surprised by the fact that there's so much differencies in between mono & stereo versions of the same song. There's so many examples. Helter Skelter for example being much shorter in stereo, She's Leaving Home and Don't Pass Me By have been speeded up in mono versions, and sound better that way. Paul's sung bass in I will starts earlier in stereo, than in mono, the aircraft noise is different in Back In The USSR in mono & stereo, lots of other examples too. 

Those who have the stereo box - put on your headphones and listen to Please Please Me from 1,26-1,35 with John and Paul clashing with the words and John doing "Come On" in half laughter. Funny stuff.  :D

The replica mono stuff are absolutely superb.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 08:01:56 PM by FinnishRed »
The first few yards are all in the head

Offline hesbighesred

  • But you can call me quick fingers, if you can prise them off Dirk's balls
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,992
    • Collaborative thoughts on Euro 2012
Please do jump in! (Cowtown had answered my question in his post anyway really).

So - sorry, just to clarify, those ones you mention are the only ones that were released in stereo? IE White Album, Magical Mystery - those were mono releases?

What about if I get the stereo set and then just put it in mono? Forgive me for being a divot, but wouldn't that sound much the same as the mono re-master?

Basically because if it's only Abbey, Sgt & Let it be that are real Stereo masters then it might make more sense for me to get the mono versions - because they really sound great from what people have said, and that rawness is going to add a lot to the rock and roll sound.

Actually, frankly, I'm slightly pissed off that they re-mastered the re-mastered 'fake stereo' mixes and didn't change the very thing (IE the seperation issue) that put people off them in the first place. Rather annoying, that.

OK, one final question, the other way around - does stereo really add much to any album other than Peppers? I seem to remember that that's the one that really goes to town with the possibilities of it - if the stereo doesn't add that much to the other versions, where the mono clearly does add a LOT to the earlier stuff - maybe I'd be better going with the Mono after all.

Sorry to be a pain, but obviously these buggers aren't cheap and I want to make the right choice.

Re 'White Album' - that's interesting. I saw that 'Beatles on Record' doc on BBC 4 (superb by the way, highly recommended retrospective look with lots of their own words/interviews put into it, and Martin is always fascinating to listen to) missed that completely - I got the impression it was just 'cos they were so creative in Inja maaaan ;)

EDIT:

I'm leaning towards the Mono now Finnish has said that - Sgt Pepper's really sounds as good/better in the Mono?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 08:06:06 PM by hesbighesred »
Collaborative Euro 2021 blog I'm writing for. Check it out, and by all means share your views.
http://straightoffthebeach.wordpress.com/

Offline ConnieLFC

  • New York family capo
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,551
  • Yes?
Oh, and Connie, no trouble as yet getting either set over here.

If you need any help PM me and I'll be pleased to help.
Thanks, cowtown but was just wondering.   I'm already got both (still paying them off to boot)! 

I do see that Amazon.co.uk has both available; as I mentioned, Amazon.com has been sold out since before 9/9/09, nevermind other online retailers over here.  (No expected date for restock listed either.)

Great reading everyone's reviews - sounds like we've all fallen in love all over again.   :D

HBHR:  just saw the latest post - am in the middle of work (!) but will get back to you shortly unless Finnish or cowtown respond sooner.  (As I see they did!  :wave)

Trust me, I know I wrestled with which set to buy for a good few weeks as I really didn't intend to buy both, at least not to begin with. 

For right now though I would say if you have any interest at all in the mono box, BUY IT NOW!  If you decide a year or two down the road that you want it, there is a very good chance it will no longer be available as it won't be financially viable to EMI to keep going back for smaller production runs to fill a niche market (as well as this thing is clearly expensive to produce to boot). 

This is why I pre-ordered it first as I'd have cried if I was unable to get a copy later when I was "ready".  Had every intention of just doing what I told you re the "leftover" stereo albums but then said, "Who the hell am I kidding...."   :-[
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 08:26:11 PM by ConnieLFC »

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Actually, you pretty much (in MY opinion) answer your own question there HBHR mate.

Now I think about it, I'd go mono.

Yes, its nice to hear White/Abbey etc etc in mono... apart from a few subtle track differences, the stereo set isn't musically superior really.

But... and its my opinion only... Pepper in stereo is an absolute must.  The mono is great, but that stereo of even 'simple' tracks like Rita/64 etc, is JUST FUCKING WOW!  But as I say, it may be how I remember the album best... but in this remaster, the stereo is even better, clear, life defining as it was back then.  Its that good.

Mate... get the mono set, add Pepper in stereo.  You've hit all the buttons then.

Although (while everyone says how good it is to hear the post '66 albums in mono),  has anyone ever heard more cracking versions of 'This Boy', 'Long Tall Sally' etc than these new stereo mixes  ;D

Ha, that'll get ya HBHR!

Naw, stick with my original opinion.  Mono set, add Pepper in stereo.

(PS can you copy these anyway.. if you can I'll lend you mine for a few days)

Online FinnishRed

  • Frog in a liquidiser.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Possibilities...
hesbighesred - Pepper is the album that has the most differencies between mono and stereo. For me it sounds definitely better in mono. The mono mix was also how The Beatles wanted it to sound, mono mixing of that album taking some much more time and care than stereo. So its been mixed more than carefully, and sounds great in mono.

Though, I think you won't go wrong with either of the boxes. Cynics say what they want, but the 4 years' remastering project made by EMI has been done very well. The sound quality in both mono and stereo mixes are excellent. So you won't be disappointed with whatever you choose.

I've read the mono boxes are pretty much sold out everywhere.
The first few yards are all in the head

Offline Terry De Niro

  • Cellar dweller feller, y'know
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 44,877
  • Are you talkin' to me or chewin' a brick?
Hey Shaun, I wouldn't mind a recording of our Beatles sing along in Alvor..  ;)

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Agree with all Finnishred says... but for the reasons I've said, I prefer stereo Sgt Pepper.

But both sets are the dogs bollocks;  the quality of the sound on both is magnificent, really magnificent.  After that, the nuances of preference is very much individual.

Like I say, if the boffins know how to copy in a way that mirrors the quality of these discs, I'd be quite happy to send you my set HBHR.

Still availability of both sets here in UK.

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #100 on: September 24, 2009, 08:24:29 PM »
Hey Shaun, I wouldn't mind a recording of our Beatles sing along in Alvor..  ;)

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Mono/stereo mate?

 :wave

Offline Terry De Niro

  • Cellar dweller feller, y'know
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 44,877
  • Are you talkin' to me or chewin' a brick?
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #101 on: September 24, 2009, 08:26:56 PM »
;D ;D ;D ;D

Mono/stereo mate?

 :wave
With the amount of Superbock we consumed, I'd go for quadraphonic..  ;D

Offline hesbighesred

  • But you can call me quick fingers, if you can prise them off Dirk's balls
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,992
    • Collaborative thoughts on Euro 2012
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #102 on: September 24, 2009, 08:27:41 PM »
I think mono it is then. Time to get some new speakers for my stereo!

It's that seperation thing - the idea gets on my nerves, and I've got an amp that does surround - it's been known to do some rather funny things with oddly seperated stereo stuff (when I put it on surround, which sounds great, and should work fine with mono versions because it seems to seperate by frequency).

Anyway - I remember the stereo version of pepper's anyway, so while I may well buy that in stereo if I'm not all that blown away by the mono version, it deffo sounds like mono is the way to go for the bulk of it.

Thanks tonnes for all your help!

That's also a very sweet offer from you Cowtown, but I'd like to treat myself to these properly (although maybe I'd take you up on copying whichever ones I don't get, well, some of them anyway) - it's not just the music but actually the albums and the covers themselves y'know? (Indeed I'm sure you do, I get the impression I'm not talking to kids from the age of downloads here ;) )

So, yeah, thanks again all of you for your advice and I'll probably post back here with my thoughts when I eventually get the monos - there's no rush for me (if they're sold out), I just want to make the right choice when I do buy them, and I'm feeling sorted now. Really looking forward to listening to 'Abbey Road', 'Let it Be' and 'Revolver' I reckon - I hardly listened to those back in the day, and I've had that 'mean mr mustard' medley in my head for ages now. Looking forward to this!
Collaborative Euro 2021 blog I'm writing for. Check it out, and by all means share your views.
http://straightoffthebeach.wordpress.com/

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #103 on: September 24, 2009, 08:32:21 PM »
Oh God, you've got me perplexed now.

Right off to do an Abbey Road comparison.

Will report back at midnight.....

Offline ConnieLFC

  • New York family capo
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,551
  • Yes?
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #104 on: September 24, 2009, 08:32:32 PM »
I think mono it is then. Time to get some new speakers for my stereo!
No need if you're doing the mono - just chuck one of the old ones out!   :D

Glad to have helped in any small way - you won't regret it for a second.   

But just to clarify, Let It Be and Abbey Road were mixed for stereo only so they are not in the mono box....  It's all albums through the White Album, plus a 2-disc "Mono Masters" compilation.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 08:36:38 PM by ConnieLFC »

Online FinnishRed

  • Frog in a liquidiser.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Possibilities...
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #105 on: September 24, 2009, 08:34:02 PM »
Terry or anyone else - know the Fab Four cover combo The Mersey Beatles? I've heard the playing the Vines the same evening of the mancs game in October. Just thinking whether they're worth checking that night.

But in the meantime, I'll go with the remasters. Falling in love again, like mentioned above. Toppermost of the fucking poppermost.
The first few yards are all in the head

Offline hesbighesred

  • But you can call me quick fingers, if you can prise them off Dirk's balls
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,992
    • Collaborative thoughts on Euro 2012
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #106 on: September 24, 2009, 08:36:42 PM »
No need if you're doing the mono - just chuck one of the old ones out!   :D

Glad to have helped in any small way - you won't regret it for a second.   :wave
Nope, there is a need - I have NO speakers hehehe. I have the centre speaker - but that only works when it's in 'dolby' mode, I need at least a pair for normal stereo.

Besides, it does a damn good job of channeling stereo into 5.1 (vocals through the centre, high sounds through rear speakers etc) so it'd be nice to be able to piss about and see what it sounds like with different configurations...'you could say it's been attractively built' ;)

I'm sounding like a right geek now! hehehe. Thanks again!
Collaborative Euro 2021 blog I'm writing for. Check it out, and by all means share your views.
http://straightoffthebeach.wordpress.com/

Offline Terry De Niro

  • Cellar dweller feller, y'know
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 44,877
  • Are you talkin' to me or chewin' a brick?
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #107 on: September 24, 2009, 09:05:52 PM »
Terry or anyone else - know the Fab Four cover combo The Mersey Beatles? I've heard the playing the Vines the same evening of the mancs game in October. Just thinking whether they're worth checking that night.
I've not yet seen them mate, but I know they regularly play the Mathew Street festival and the likes, so they've got to be half decent.

Offline hesbighesred

  • But you can call me quick fingers, if you can prise them off Dirk's balls
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,992
    • Collaborative thoughts on Euro 2012
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #108 on: September 24, 2009, 10:01:38 PM »
Well, thanks to the wonder of RAWK + Internet I'm now listening to the mono remaster version of 'Rubber Soul' - and it's absolutely quality.

I think the key is that the stereo recordings, I don't think they lose masses by being in mono, but the actual mono ones - wow. Not having that seperation of vocals and instruments just gives such a full, loooooooovely sound. Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Deffo the monos for me then :)

Goddamn I love The Beatles, thanks again so much all of you.
Collaborative Euro 2021 blog I'm writing for. Check it out, and by all means share your views.
http://straightoffthebeach.wordpress.com/

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #109 on: September 24, 2009, 10:16:13 PM »
OK HBHR, have been 'out the back' for the last hour.

first, I should point out, there is no mono of Abbey Road.  A quick read of the booklets say it was only recorded in stereo, so there is no mono CD.

I will list the entire contents of both sets if you need.

I listened to 'HELP' in both versions.

First stereo.  Put on Act natuarally, which I think was a vastly underrated number.  Blew me away in stereo, it really did.  I could hear every note both ears (dodgy as they are).  Listened to all my faves from the album, and I was genuinely amazed by the clarity of the sound, the quality of the stereo split, the little subtleties of the music I'd forgotten.  A beautiful experience, and I thought without playing the mono, well thats pretty easy then.

Then I played the mono.

Well. To say I was blown away is not telling you half.  I played 'The night before' and then 'You've got to hide'....   and it is simply, simply incredible.  The warmth of this recording can NOT be overstated.  In fact there is even quite a magical stereo split..  with John's vocal/Ringo's tambourine in one ear, and rhythm in the other... gorgeous.  Gorgeous.

If I liken it to saying that the mono album sounds as if you are in the front room at a family reunion, and the 'boys' are there playing right in front of you, while the stereo sounds as though you are looking through the plexiglass in Abbey Road hearing master craftsmen make the music ''high fidelity''...    does that kind of explain what I'm getting at??

But I tell you what mate, both CD's of Help are absolutely stunning.  Its like going back to fantasyland.

But that mono is seriously amazing.

Yesterday was like Macca was sitting on my knee.  Then an orchestra kicked in through an open window.  Fuck me it was crystal mate.

Get your order in tonight.  But it will disappoint you there's no Abbey Road in mono...  and I personally think the stereo box package is a bit more snazzy.. 

I will report on Hard Day's night tomorrow/maybe Beatles for sale if I have a particularly boring Friday.

* My tests used Linn Ninka speakers until kids went to bed..  then Sennheiser headphones *

Offline courty61

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,560
  • Never Buy The S*n
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #110 on: September 24, 2009, 10:27:18 PM »
Terry or anyone else - know the Fab Four cover combo The Mersey Beatles? I've heard the playing the Vines the same evening of the mancs game in October. Just thinking whether they're worth checking that night.


I saw them at Matthew ST last year- well worth seeing, they are very good
77, 78, 81, 84, 05

Offline hesbighesred

  • But you can call me quick fingers, if you can prise them off Dirk's balls
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,992
    • Collaborative thoughts on Euro 2012
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #111 on: September 24, 2009, 10:33:54 PM »
^^^

Fortunately, as I say I've been able to obtain the buggers already - and I know what you mean, it's the monos all the way for me I think. The stereo ones that should be in stereo sound better in stereo but that's, what, 4 albums or something? It really isn't that much.

Wheras that split sound thing quite bothers me - I don't know why, so the monos just sound bloody awesome. For example, just whacked on 'Taxman', one of my favourite songs - and that was better then I'd ever heard it, even through shitty headphones and a shitty soundcard.

Since i've got access to them, I think I might just wait a wee while before buying them - £200 is undoubtedly worth it, but it's still a lot, and knowing Amazon if I give it a couple of months I'll be able to get it for 3/4 of that in a few months time - then I'll fill in the gaps with probably just Pepper's and Abbey in stereo.

Thanks yet again for all your help though, it's really nice. Beatles are just, I don't know, I grew up with them and they've stayed with me, and every time I've gone back to them I've been impressed anew.

For example, just listened to 'Tomorrow never knows' is it? Something like that - off Revolver or Rubber Soul I think.

Goodness me - there was a while where I honestly thought that was a modern remix job from random samples or something - I mean, it's a late 90's guitar/electronica/dance crossover track FFS. From 1965! Absolutely mental - that they went from being a covers band, to a boy band, to masters of their genre, to transcending genre in such a way that some of their stuff still sounds ahead of it's time now.

Well, anyway. You don't need me to tell you how good they are! I'll let you get on with listening instead ;)
Collaborative Euro 2021 blog I'm writing for. Check it out, and by all means share your views.
http://straightoffthebeach.wordpress.com/

Offline nutmeg94

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,437
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #112 on: September 24, 2009, 11:31:16 PM »
Dare I say The Beatles weren't so fab
By Paul Shirley

If you don't like the Beatles, fair enough.  If you want to argue why you don't like the Beatles, fair enough.  I didn't really mind the article.

Until I read this part:

It happens. I've been told by many, many people my age that The Beatles -- The Beatles! -- are their favorite band. Every time, I say, "OK, that's cute, but you don't have to impress me. Tell me what your real favorite band is." Inevitably, they stick to their guns.

I feel the need to continue to reiterate: I understand that The Beatles are culturally significant and important in the historical progression of rock music. And I understand that they're talented. But unless you were locked in a time capsule like Brendan Fraser in "Blast From the Past," they cannot be your favorite band. If you're younger than 50 and you do make such a claim, you're either (A) trying to impress someone with what you think will be received as good taste, or (B) woefully behind in your consumption of music. If it's A, I'm disappointed in you. If it's B, there's hope -- we only have to help you find the good stuff.

What a twat.

Offline Driver 8

  • ...take a break
  • Anny Roader
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #113 on: September 25, 2009, 02:08:30 AM »
All of these improvements can be chalked up to chronological order. Just as Dean Koontz came after Bram Stoker, Oasis came after The Beatles. Each had the advantage of superior technology, in addition to the natural advantage of the chance to learn from their forebears. The chance to, well, stand on someone's shoulders.

Wow, what utter bollocks. Just because one artist is more recent that another it doesn’t follow that their work is necessarily better. Sure, newer artists can learn from their talented predecessors, but they won’t automatically produce better art. If that was the case, art would just get better and better all the time – we’d live in an age of super-artists, with playwrights far better than Shakespeare, filmmakers whose genius easily eclipses that of Orson Welles, and, of course, rock bands way better than the Beatles (but not from the perspective of our children, whose generation would in turn produce even better art!) If you proceed on that logic, you end up claiming that all today’s artists are better than all of yesteryears. Quick, someone call Ronan Keating and let him know Boyzone are now better than the Beatles (and while you’re at it tell Michael Bay that ‘Pearl Harbor’ is superior to ‘The Godfather’ – I mean, it was made, like, years later so it has to be, duh.) 

This seems to me to be the core of his argument. Of course, he probably senses how weak and naïve an argument it is, so he chucks in all the stuff about how you can’t really judge the art of eras you didn’t live through properly in a seriously crap attempt to shore it up. We can’t really judge the music of the ‘60s if we aren’t old to remember it first time round? Well, then you can’t actually compare different eras properly, and thus can’t disprove his main argument:


Cast off the cloak of mystique. Listen to The Beatles' music. Realize that it's important, but say you'd rather hear the new White Lies album because it came out in your lifetime and you can analyze its relevance.

And this guy complains on one hand that people should think for themselves and on the other that those who don’t come round to his point of view are idiots? What a knob.

Anyhow, enjoying the remasters very much – and anyone who wants to read a really clever, thorough and well-researched appraisal of the Bealtes’ music (in contrast to that dire article) should check out the late Ian MacDonald’s book 'Revolution In the Head', which can be picked up for less than a fiver and is, so to speak, fab.

Offline ConnieLFC

  • New York family capo
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,551
  • Yes?
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #114 on: September 25, 2009, 04:57:23 AM »
Since i've got access to them, I think I might just wait a wee while before buying them - £200 is undoubtedly worth it, but it's still a lot, and knowing Amazon if I give it a couple of months I'll be able to get it for 3/4 of that in a few months time - then I'll fill in the gaps with probably just Pepper's and Abbey in stereo.
I've no vested interest, HBHR (except for the fellow Beatlemaniac thing!) and glad you've been "turned on" via copies to the mono.  But again, I would say, if you've an urge to buy the actual physical mono set, don't wait too long as it will guaranteed go out of production within a year.   

And I agree Revolver is *amazing* in mono - Tomorrow Never Knows def better in stereo imo but the rest is fantastic.  The double-tracked vocal on Eleanor Rigby was "new" to me and just overall the album sounds magnificent (as always) yet in a slight different form. 

Funny cowtown about your Help review:  no yea or nay from me but many folks have slated *both* mixes!  Kind of universally panned (relatively speaking) as the worst sonically disc out of both sets. 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2009, 04:59:33 AM by ConnieLFC »

Online FinnishRed

  • Frog in a liquidiser.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Possibilities...
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #115 on: September 25, 2009, 05:21:33 AM »

I listened to 'HELP' in both versions.

First stereo.  Put on Act natuarally, which I think was a vastly underrated number.  Blew me away in stereo, it really did.  I could hear every note both ears (dodgy as they are).  Listened to all my faves from the album, and I was genuinely amazed by the clarity of the sound, the quality of the stereo split, the little subtleties of the music I'd forgotten.  A beautiful experience, and I thought without playing the mono, well thats pretty easy then.

Then I played the mono.

Well. To say I was blown away is not telling you half.  I played 'The night before' and then 'You've got to hide'....   and it is simply, simply incredible.  The warmth of this recording can NOT be overstated.  In fact there is even quite a magical stereo split..  with John's vocal/Ringo's tambourine in one ear, and rhythm in the other... gorgeous.  Gorgeous.

Interesting that. I've listened both of them through a couple of times, and to me the mono versions sounds a bit "muddy." So perhaps Help is the one album where I'd defo recommend the stereo version, not the 1965 one though. As the clarity of the sound is more obvious on that case.


If I liken it to saying that the mono album sounds as if you are in the front room at a family reunion, and the 'boys' are there playing right in front of you, while the stereo sounds as though you are looking through the plexiglass in Abbey Road hearing master craftsmen make the music ''high fidelity''...    does that kind of explain what I'm getting at??

Yes, this is exactly the point. Mono versions are closer to what the band represented live back in the good old days. The punch & energy are keywords here too.

Someone mentioned Taxman in mono, and oh boy it really does work. Blows your mind, as does the whole album in the mono version.



Anyhow, enjoying the remasters very much – and anyone who wants to read a really clever, thorough and well-researched appraisal of the Bealtes’ music (in contrast to that dire article) should check out the late Ian MacDonald’s book 'Revolution In the Head', which can be picked up for less than a fiver and is, so to speak, fab.

Yes, this is absolutely a stunning book, truly extraordinary.

Thanks Terry & courty for the info.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2009, 05:23:23 AM by FinnishRed »
The first few yards are all in the head

Offline hesbighesred

  • But you can call me quick fingers, if you can prise them off Dirk's balls
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,992
    • Collaborative thoughts on Euro 2012
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #116 on: September 25, 2009, 10:08:18 AM »

See my post earlier - anyone who tries to tell you that one music is 'better' than another for a reasons as stupid as 'modernity' and ever more 'relevance' doesn't actually get what makes music so wonderful. It doesn't have to bloody well mean anything - it just, well, Bob said it best didn't he?

Quote
One good thing about music: When it hits you you feel ok.

THATS the key - if it hits you, it hits you. It's not about trying to be clever, or prove that you know your history, or any of the pathetic reasons he gives in that used bog-roll of an article. That's clearly what he's missing with his 'friends' too (I put that in inverted commas because if he talks to people like he writes, I suspect they're more people who put up with him than actual friends): The Beatles are their faves, and they remain so, not because of 'importance' or 'relevance' or 'meaning', but purely and simply because, all these years later, The Beatles still 'hit' them more than any other band - as they did for so many at the time, so many since, and will for so many in the future.

Damn. I keep coming back to that like picking a scab - but is he seriously telling me that I'm some kind of pretentious pseud, because I happen to like Mark Rothko's paintings more than I like Tracy Emin? Because I think Robinson Crusoe is a great novel, Jonathan Swift is one of the greatest satirists who ever lived, while Martin Amis is an over-rated tosspot? What about Mozart? Where does he come into that argument? Elgar's better because he's more recent? Not even Elgar's biggest fan, or indeed Elgar himself, would make such a stupid, stupid claim.

Indeed, he denies the whole wonder of how something like 'A day in the life', or 'Maroon on Red' (by Rothko - which is exactly how I got into him, didn't know anything about who he was or when he painted, just saw a picture and liked it, then saw it 'live' at the Tate Modern and loved it) or 'The Marriage of Figaro' or whatever, can still look as new and fresh, can still suck in whole new generations of people with no prior contact whatsoever (note how The Beatles are popular again now - even though the people getting into them now, unlike me at 28, are not people who grew up with them through parents etc).

Quote
And this guy complains on one hand that people should think for themselves and on the other that those who don’t come round to his point of view are idiots? What a knob.
Yup - that's the kind of thing that really pissed me off too. By all means, don't like the Beatles - fine. It might even be interesting to read why not, but don't tell me that we all have opinions and then state as fact that yours is the right one you arrogant twit. Grrrrr.


Anyway -

Thanks for the tip Connie - I'll be sure not to wait too long, but just want to give it a chance for some 3rd party retailers to get in on the act, which should hopefully make the price drop a little.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2009, 10:11:14 AM by hesbighesred »
Collaborative Euro 2021 blog I'm writing for. Check it out, and by all means share your views.
http://straightoffthebeach.wordpress.com/

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #117 on: September 25, 2009, 09:21:29 PM »
Have just carried out an extensive audition of my favourite of all albums, Rubber Soul.

In this test I auditioned the CD from (was it 1987?), versus the current mono and stereo remastered releases.

I first compared the stereo versions of 87 and today.

The difference is stunning.  The current version simply was clear, new little instrumental noises lost from before.  No contest there.

Then I attempted to compare the mono vs stereo from today.  Now this is difficult, really hard.  Both versions are terrific, and knock back any previous mixing to pre-history.  If I had time and the eyesight to hook up the 'record deck' to play the LP, I'd have done so.  But in my memory, the mono CD is as near to the original album pressing as its possible to get.  This mono CD was superb.  My fave 2 Beatles songs ever are Norwegian Wood and Nowhere Man.  And on the mono CD, the sound was rich, warm,engaging.  I loved this CD, I really did.

And yet, when I put on the stereo...it was like lifted to another level.  I can't explain this, but the involvement of the voices and instruments was lifted slightly better again. This stereo remix is an incredible piece of musical genius, it surely is.  I heard things on these songs that I never knew were there. After 44 years of pleasure from this record.  I have the gold disc on my wall beside the Istanbul 2005 display.

So, my verdict of Rubber Soul is:

CD 87  7/10
Mono 09  9/10
Stereo 09  10/10    (if it wasn't daft, I'd give it 11)

Online FinnishRed

  • Frog in a liquidiser.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,811
  • Possibilities...
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #118 on: September 26, 2009, 06:11:43 PM »
^ Good stuff mate. Do you also have the vinyl version of Rubber Soul? Would ge great to hear how much there's difference between the remasters and the original vinyls.
The first few yards are all in the head

Offline cowtownred

  • We're only making plans for Nigel, We only want what's best for him, We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs a helping hand
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,230
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Beatles entire original recorded catalogue remastered for 09/09/09 release
« Reply #119 on: September 26, 2009, 09:16:50 PM »
^ Good stuff mate. Do you also have the vinyl version of Rubber Soul? Would ge great to hear how much there's difference between the remasters and the original vinyls.

Yes I do mate.  I have the original copy given to me as a 5 year old by my big cousin (still has in 5 year old handwriting 'I love George Harrison' on the back... purely because his birthday month was the same as mine), and a new vinyl I bought a few years ago when vinyl became popular again.

Actually, that would be the final arbiter as to how good these CD remasters are wouldn't it?  Must do that next week (in daylight  ;D).

What an album that is.  So many memories...   Despite my love for the raw Mersey sound of the Jacaranda, Hamburg, Long Tall Sally, Thank you girl etc.,  and the technical/lyrical/musical excellence of the later albums,  for me the greatest exhibition of their talents was on that amazing period 64-66.  Two feature films, 2 extended USA tours, world tours, European tours, British tours, numerous No 1 singles, a number of memorable EP's, and the albums Hard Days Night, Help, Soul and Revolver.

Out of date?  Ha fucking ha.

I wonder has our musically enlightened correspondent above, after an evening with Oasis, Green Day or whomever, ever sat back with a nice red, a ciggy, and stuck Paperback Writer on his player?  Norwegian Wood? If I needed someone?

Clown.

Anyway mate, I'll do the test above and report next week.

Meantime, won't have time tonight (I shall be enjoying Football First... summat worth watching I gather), but tomorrow I shall report on my experiences of listening to your own fave, the legendary Revolver.