09/09/09 The Beatles

TECHNOKID

F1nut wrote: »

Live isn't in mono.

I get your point however (I was taling more likely about live recording which for most was mono), my personal belief is that playing with mixing consoles panning game and thinkering with EQs to simulate stereo signal moves it just farther apart from the reality of the group. I originally contemplated buying both box sets however couldn't justify the extra spending (especially after listening the mono set). I haven't yet trashed the idea of buying both sets (especially with people reporting A/B-ing results) but my question is is it really worth the extra coins? Is the stereo set truly represents the Beatles or does it simply satisfies the stereo generation taste? Your comments on the severe panning gets me worried, this is to be expected as they are plyaing with the old existing recording and ratter simulating since true stereo could never be achieve unless the live recording was to be completely redone. Thanks for your report on this, I hope many more that owns or have the opportunity to play/audition both sets will report their finding.

Cheers!
TK

BlueFox

The current issue of Sound and Vision has an editorial on whether the Beatles helped usher in the stereo age. The main point is when the Beatles came out there were few stereo systems in use by the average consumer, and by releasing in stereo at the time they would not have many sales, so they mixed and released in mono.

While there certainly is nothing wrong with stereo mixes, they are no more representative of the original recordings than a 5.1 mix would be.

mmadden28

BlueFox wrote: »

....

While there certainly is nothing wrong with stereo mixes, they are no more representative of the original recordings than a 5.1 mix would be.

TECHNOKID wrote: »

I get your point however (I was taling more likely about live recording which for most was mono), my personal belief is that playing with mixing consoles panning game and thinkering with EQs to simulate stereo signal moves it just farther apart from the reality of the group. .... Is the stereo set truly represents the Beatles or does it simply satisfies the stereo generation taste?

Well, they didn't record them in Mono, they just released them in Mono. Didn't they record everything in the studio in separate tracks even then?
I'm pretty sure that the live performance was also not in mono.

Just because it was released in mono, doesn't mean that the artists/engineers didn't intend on them being heard in stereo. No?

TECHNOKID

The current issue of Sound and Vision has an editorial on whether the Beatles helped usher in the stereo age. The main point is

when the Beatles came out there were few stereo systems in use by the average consumer, and by releasing in stereo at the time they would not have many sales, so they mixed and released in mono.

That is a good point however psycological since you could still play the stereo mixes in mono without much issues while the reverse is simply unreal and hardly feasible (considering a good SQ and the reality of the era).

While there certainly is nothing wrong with stereo mixes, they are no more representative of the original recordings than a 5.1 mix would be.

Agree with you, as far as I am concerned none of the above is actually a good representation of the Beatles. You could either be a purist and want what the original recording is suppose to be like with its own flaws or you would prefer to get the new technology with different problems/flaws. Unfortunately CDs aren't a returnable item otherwise it would be very interesting to listen to the stereo set however, it with this kind of pricing, it seems a little expensive if one of the set winds-up collecting dust on shelf 13. I guess we'll wait on the fortunate that could actually aford both sets to give us their feed back.

Cheers!
TK

pmckeealaska

I have both sets and I would say if its sonic quality you're looking for then get the Stereo Box set or individual records to fit your tastes. However, if you're a Beatles nut like me, then the Mono set is a must, particularly for the later albums like Sgt Pepper and the White Album. For me, the mono version of Pepper alone was worth the price of the whole set. I guess some on here have not liked the sound of that album in mono, but for me, the unique mixes and vocal effects make it a delight to listen to for long periods of time. I have listened to all of the albums as much as I have wanted to, but I am beyond thrilled with all of them. In stereo, the remastered Abbey Road is really something to behold.

Clearly the Beatles cared about the mono mixes and for this reason alone, I'm glad I got the Mono Box Set.

TECHNOKID

mmadden28 wrote: »

Well, they didn't record them in Mono, they just released them in Mono. Didn't they record everything in the studio in separate tracks even then?I'm pretty sure that the live performance was also not in mono.
Just because it was released in mono, doesn't mean that the artists/engineers didn't intend on them being heard in stereo. No?

Well, lets take a look at it this way:

Considering stereo mixes were existent then I would tend to agree with you but if it were so, we wouldn't see any comments like F1 provided us. His comments leads me to believe the original mixing wasn't stereo otherwise he wouldn't have experienced the below, right?

Next, I played the mono version of Rubber Soul, Drive My Car. This sounded pretty good with the vocals nicely centered and the soundstage wasn't too bad for mono. I then played the stereo version on the mono issue (yes, this CD has both mono and stereo versions of every song) and thought, gee, the stereo only version didn't sound like this. Very hard panning left and right and it seemed to lack life as in one dimensional. Ok, next up was the stereo only version. Ah, much better than the stereo version on the mono disc. The panning is still there, but not as severe as the stereo-mono version and it has life to it. I liked the mono cut as the vocals were centered, but I liked the stereo only version as it has more life to it. Too bad they didn't correct George Martin's piss poor mastering (excessive panning) of the stereo only version as it would be the clear winner.

As far as the live event(s) (in green) it is a simple matter of having the hability to use separate channels for the sound (which isn't really a problem even then, just a matter of $$$). Even if they didn't have the gear, you would still get different sound on live shows considering that you can focus on instruments and vocals placement without considering the PA technology.

I guess some more feed back from the fortunate people that could afford both sets will tell us more (as I am convinced F1 will provide more feed back too).

Cheers!
TK

TECHNOKID

pmckeealaska wrote: »

I have both sets and I would say if its sonic quality you're looking for then get the Stereo Box set or individual records to fit your tastes. However, if you're a Beatles nut like me, then the Mono set is a must, particularly for the later albums like Sgt Pepper and the White Album. For me, the mono version of Pepper alone was worth the price of the whole set. I guess some on here have not liked the sound of that album in mono, but for me, the unique mixes and vocal effects make it a delight to listen to for long periods of time. I have listened to all of the albums as much as I have wanted to, but I am beyond thrilled with all of them. In stereo, the remastered Abbey Road is really something to behold.

Clearly the Beatles cared about the mono mixes and for this reason alone, I'm glad I got the Mono Box Set.

Thanks for sharing this as this is exactly what I am concerned about. Like I said, for people looking for the real stuff mono set is the key and for people that wants a modern version, the stereo set is then the answer.

Cheers!
TK

pmckeealaska

If anyone is interested, it was just announced that the remsatered Beatles will be released on vinyl. I'm sure several on here will be thrilled with this.

http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/11/beatles_vinyl_remasters_on_the.html

TECHNOKID

pmckeealaska wrote: »

If anyone is interested, it was just announced that the remsatered Beatles will be released on vinyl. I'm sure several on here will be thrilled with this.

http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/11/beatles_vinyl_remasters_on_the.html

Hummm, very interesting;

Doubtless Paul McCartney would agree. "To us, what was important was the balance of the song," Sir Paul tells MOJO magazine in the latest issue. "We felt we were sort of mixing the message, rather than putting things in places. We just weren't that interested in stereo. It wasn't where we were from."

comfortablycurt

pmckeealaska wrote: »

If anyone is interested, it was just announced that the remsatered Beatles will be released on vinyl. I'm sure several on here will be thrilled with this.

http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/11/beatles_vinyl_remasters_on_the.html

Very cool!!

nspindel

BlueFox wrote: »

The current issue of Sound and Vision has an editorial on whether the Beatles helped usher in the stereo age. The main point is when the Beatles came out there were few stereo systems in use by the average consumer, and by releasing in stereo at the time they would not have many sales, so they mixed and released in mono.

While there certainly is nothing wrong with stereo mixes, they are no more representative of the original recordings than a 5.1 mix would be.

I have that issue of S+V, it's a great read. I was particularly intrigued by the editorial by Steve Van Zandt, guitarist for The E Street Band and a virtual professor of rock history. Here's what he had to say about the Beatles in Mono:

It's almost like getting people into black-and-white movies. "Give it a chance" is what I tell people who are used to hearing the Beatles a certain way for 40-plus years, because mono is the way these songs were intended to be heard. You're not getting something on the left and something on the right. That's why they call it a mix, where you mix instruments together in a serious and pleasing way.

You're not necessarily meant to hear everything separately. Someone along the line, probably some engineer, suggested that clarity is always better, is always progress, is always good. Oh, I disagree. A certain amount is good, sure; you don't want mud. You want the balance of clarity and integration. And the Beatles were the masters of that in mono. It's a lost art, really.

You see, the thing about art -- and certainly the Beatles are art -- is you can go back to it every few years and hear something different. That's always fun to me. From the Beatles, we learned how to arrange instruments. We learned how the acoustic guitar can play a central rhythmic role. We learned about the electric guitar's texture and tone, especially on the "Nowhere Man" and "Taxman" solos. We discovered how guitar tones could be different, like the two that John and George have on "I Feel Fine." You can thank the frequency integrity of analog for that. There's also the significance of Paul's bass on "Rain" as well as throughout Sgt. Pepper, where it played a very big role. And Ringo's drums, where every fill counted.

But the key for me will always be the songs themselves. On these records, the Beatles defined what a band was, and the function of each instrument and player. They will always be the gold standard.

TECHNOKID

nspindel wrote: »

I have that issue of S+V, it's a great read. I was particularly intrigued by the editorial by Steve Van Zandt, guitarist for The E Street Band and a virtual professor of rock history. Here's what he had to say about the Beatles in Mono:

It's almost like getting people into black-and-white movies. "Give it a chance" is what I tell people who are used to hearing the Beatles a certain way for 40-plus years, because mono is the way these songs were intended to be heard. You're not getting something on the left and something on the right. That's why they call it a mix, where you mix instruments together in a serious and pleasing way.

You're not necessarily meant to hear everything separately. Someone along the line, probably some engineer, suggested that clarity is always better, is always progress, is always good. Oh, I disagree. A certain amount is good, sure; you don't want mud. You want the balance of clarity and integration. And the Beatles were the masters of that in mono. It's a lost art, really.

You see, the thing about art -- and certainly the Beatles are art -- is you can go back to it every few years and hear something different. That's always fun to me. From the Beatles, we learned how to arrange instruments. We learned how the acoustic guitar can play a central rhythmic role. We learned about the electric guitar's texture and tone, especially on the "Nowhere Man" and "Taxman" solos. We discovered how guitar tones could be different, like the two that John and George have on "I Feel Fine." You can thank the frequency integrity of analog for that. There's also the significance of Paul's bass on "Rain" as well as throughout Sgt. Pepper, where it played a very big role. And Ringo's drums, where every fill counted.

But the key for me will always be the songs themselves. On these records, the Beatles defined what a band was, and the function of each instrument and player. They will always be the gold standard.

You know, your post describes what the Beatles music is all about much better than most proffesional reviews. The Beatles music is much more than the fancy terms used today and is also a reality!

Thank you for this post!
TK

TECHNOKID

Keiko wrote: »

amazon is finally preparing mine for shipping. I ordered on 9/14 after the first sets sold out and got them for 179.00 w/free supersaver shipping. Looking forward to hearing them after all these rave reviews.

I tought you'd be waiting for the new vinyls to come out?:cool:

pmckeealaska

Just saw on the Beatles website that you can now buy all of there music in digital format for $279....

mmadden28

pmckeealaska wrote: »

Just saw on the Beatles website that you can now buy all of there music in digital format for $279....

From the site:

A specially designed Flash interface has been installed, and the 16GB USB’s audio and visual contents will be provided in FLAC 44.1 Khz 24 bit and MP3 320 Kbps formats, fully compatible with PC and Mac.

Smart move on their part providing it in FLAC and also providing it in 'ready to use' highest bitrate MP3.

Not sure about the price though--You could rip your own Stereo Box set to FLAC and MP3 just the same for less, but I guess you don't get the fancy Apple USB drive and the digitized artwork. Now if it had both Stereo and Mono versions on it.....

janmike

Just received an e-mail today from Amazon.ca that my stereo box has been shipped. Good things come to those who wait. Now I'm getting a little excited.

Norm Apter

janmike wrote: »

Just received an e-mail today from Amazon.ca that my stereo box has been shipped. Good things come to those who wait. Now I'm getting a little excited.

Good to hear that, Michael. And way before Xmas (even Thanksgiving). Let us know what you think after you've had a chance to go through it.

TECHNOKID

janmike wrote: »

Just received an e-mail today from Amazon.ca that my stereo box has been shipped. Good things come to those who wait. Now I'm getting a little excited.

Now, let the fun begin, lots of hours of listening over and over to the Beatles :cool: Next, you'll have to acquire one of the mono set

Cheers!
TK

comfortablycurt

Alright...I've given up on the idea of getting the stereo box set. This was decided when I bought the Abbey Road and Part Masters earlier!:D

Haven't gotten a ton of listening time in yet...but it's sounding great so far!


I think my new plan is to pick up all the stereo versions individually, and then get the mono box set.


On another note...the only complaint I've had with these remasters so far, is that it's a little difficult to get the discs out of the cases without touching the bottom of the disc.

BlueFox

comfortablycurt wrote: »

I think my new plan is to pick up all the stereo versions individually, and then get the mono box set.


On another note...the only complaint I've had with these remasters so far, is that it's a little difficult to get the discs out of the cases without touching the bottom of the disc.

The mono set is suppossed to be a limited run, so once it is sold out the price will start increasing.

In regard to the packaging, sometimes I think getting a CD out, and then back in, is a field sobriety test.

Norm Apter

BlueFox wrote: »

In regard to the packaging, sometimes I think getting a CD out, and then back in, is a field sobriety test.

ha,ha...I totally agree with you. With the mono box CDs, it's like a 7-step process, however, the extra liners seem to give much better protection than the individual stereo CD gatefolds which Curt mentioned. Those stereo gatefolds have much fewer steps, but they do tend to get stuck with the possiblity of scratches if you aren't careful.

I don't really see the point of gatefolds (seems kind of a halfway house for mini lps). I don't mind digipacks at all, but at least give the regular plastic part where you can securely fasten the CD instead of dealing with bending the cardboard to try to get the CD out.

TECHNOKID

BlueFox wrote: »

The mono set is suppossed to be a limited run, so once it is sold out the price will start increasing.

In regard to the packaging, sometimes I think getting a CD out, and then back in, is a field sobriety test.

The only way it can go up once its sold out is that they come back with new batches (not really sold out), increase on the use (demand crisis) and finally the vultures on Ebay taking advantage of the demand to create outrageous price increase (I am convinced there are already some of those vutures that stocked-up a while back and are simply waiting for the right time to cleanup their preys).

I agree with your comment on the packaging, the final touch inserting that plastic over the cardboard case is somewhat tedious at times and I would definitely not be able to do it with alcohol in my blood :eek:


Cheers!
TK

TECHNOKID

Since I finally decided to get both mono and stereo sets now (I blame Norm (kept on promoting they complemented each other and owning both sets was a must) and F1 (for his AB review which lead me to doubt my original mono purchase). I wish I had as much bacon as those 2 have, I wouldn't have to remorgage the house for music :eek: Anyway, if I go bankrupt I'll know where to point the finger

Joke aside, I just acquired "THE BEATLES BOX OF VISION" which will allow for the sae keeping of both collections for years to come. Has anyone that own or intends to own more than 1 CD collection considered this purchase?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvErMASPNdo

http://bandweblogs.com/blog/2009/07/13/the-beatles-box-of-vision-album-artwork-discography-cd-storage/

http://larryfire.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/the-beatles-box-of-vision/


Cheers!
TK

Norm Apter

TK,

In order to complete the collection and enjoyment of the music, I suggest that you (and anyone else who is so inclined) dispense further with $12 (this will just sting for a moment), or whatever the equivalent is in Canadian dollars. See my post #129 on the book by Ian MacDonald, Revolution in the Head. While going back and listening to these albums from Please, Please Me to Let It Be, I've been reading the MacDonald on the side, as it gives an incredibly rich analysis of all songs in the chronological order they were recorded: MacDonald addresses both lyrical content as well as musical structures, what instruments were used and who played what, and all aspects of studio production. For example, I found it fascinating that on "Drive My Car" Harrison plays bass and MaCartney lead guitar. (Some songs warrant only a five-line paragraph whereas others such as "Help!" receive 3 or more pages of text). And while he appreciates the Beatles for their strengths and highlights them expertly, he is no fanboy: unlike many authors, he takes the Beatles to task for lazy lyrics, drab musical presentation, and times when they fell back on trite conventionalism (when such criticisms are warranted). The stories he weaves into the recording history of the Beatles are absolutely fascinating and a testamount to the nose-to-the-grindstone research he undertook to produce this book.

In fact, I don't think its a long shot to say that this book has helped me sharpen my focus on what I love about the Beatles and what I don't find particularly appealing.

Additionally, the book begins to cast light on what I consider to be the most interesting aspect of the group's growth: the transition in 1965 from writing and performing songs with audience expectations at the forefront to the primacy the Beatles placed thereafter on expressing themselves personally. From the book, we get a sense that this occurred gradually over the recording of three albums (Beatles for Sale , Help! and Rubber Soul), with a discussion of the innovative approaches to songs and words in this watershed period -- it also highlights how the changing music of The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, The Who and even The Beach Boys in 1965 as well as influence from their new acquaintence, Bob Dylan, help facilitate this transformation, pushing the Beatles to break out of the old mold associated with the Beatlemania years.

Amazon link to Revolution in the Head

TECHNOKID

Thanks Norm, yes I've seen your original post in that matter. Any clue if there are much differences in the versions? No huge difference in US and CDN $$ these days;

http://www.amazon.ca/s/ref=nb_ss_0_11?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=revolution+in+the+head&sprefix=revolution+

Cheers!
TK

Norm Apter

TECHNOKID wrote: »

Thanks Norm, yes I've seen your original post in that matter. Any clue if there are much differences in the versions? No huge difference in US and CDN $$ these days;

http://www.amazon.ca/s/ref=nb_ss_0_11?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=revolution+in+the+head&sprefix=revolution+

Cheers!
TK

My copy is only 508 pages, but they were published in the same year and have the same identical cover so I imagine that the content is virtually the same. MacDonald is dead, actually (he passed in 2003). The version with this cover is the 3rd edition, published posthumously in 2007 but I've read that the 3rd edition is no different than the second (meaning that no one has "edited" his work, which is a good thing). In sum, despite the discrepancy in length, the one available at amazon.ca and amazon.usa appear to be the same (perhaps its due to differences in font size and pages???).

BlueFox

I purchased the mono set, but since Abbey Road and Let It Be were recorded in stereo they are not included. So, I ordered them separately from Amazon.

Anyway, I just finished Abbey Road, and am now listening to Let It Be, and it occurred to me that this is the way CDs should be packaged. Shrink wrapped over a cardboard holder, and no stupid bar code strip on one edge of a plastic case. In other words, I did not have to get my X-acto knife out to open the CD. My thumb nail was sufficient. What a concept! Back to the future.

comfortablycurt

BlueFox wrote: »

and it occurred to me that this is the way CDs should be packaged. Shrink wrapped over a cardboard holder, and no stupid bar code strip on one edge of a plastic case. In other words, I did not have to get my X-acto knife out to open the CD. My thumb nail was sufficient. What a concept! Back to the future.

+50,000,000,000,000 Those little adhesive bar code strips drive me out of my mind. I can't just cut them either...I have to insist on getting the whole thing off.






Well, I added Yellow Submarine to the collection today. I'm up to Rubber Soul, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, Let It Be and Past Masters now.

Only 9 more to go!! All of my local stores are running out though...all they've got for the most part is the earlier albums. I haven't been able to track down the White Album or Sgt Pepper yet...I'm looking forward to those ones.

I'd rather get those ones before I start getting the earlier ones...The early Beatles is still good...but I'm much more of a fan of the music the Beatles made after they started smoking pot...lol

Libertyc

Well I received the stereo set yesterday. Only listened to Abby Road, Let it be, and Revolver so far. I have not done any A/B comparisons yet and so far don't know what say. The new remastered CD sound very bright and processed to me. The highs sound very clear but a bit loud. The low end does not seem to dig in as deep either. I'm still listening but so far thats what I hear.

comfortablycurt

So...I was sitting around bored earlier, thinking about how much I wanted Sgt. Pepper, the white album and Revolver.

They haven't had them at any of the stores around me though unfortunately. I knew that my local Walmart had several copies of Help!, so I figured I'd go and pick that one up.

So, I walk up to the CD racks, and I notice right away that there are a bunch more of the remasters than there were a few days ago.

I look through them...and I managed to find a copy of Sgt Pepper, Revolver and the white album. The last copy left of each one.


Score!!!

I'm about halfway through Sgt Pepper right now...it's everything I expected it to be after hearing the other remasters.

I'll report back later...I've got a lot of listening to do!!