[Ian Bell[_2_]]

geoff wrote:
Digital Edition for subscribers:
http://ukdigital.soundonsound.com/

Paper edition on sale nowish.

geoff




And basically it says they took the original master tapes, transferred
them and tweaked them a bit. Hardly worth doing really.

Cheers

Ian

[Mr Soul]

Abbey Road is not one of the early Beatles recordings. *Many of the later
recordings were made to multitrack formats.. some of them done by ping-ponging
though multiple generations. * *The technology was totally different and
so were the production methods.
Right and what I am suggesting is to take those multi-track tapes,
which probably started around Rubber Soul or Revolver, and re-mix and
re-master them.

I personally am not interested in the early recordings at all. They
sound VERY dated to me now when I listen to them, the recording
quality is poor to my ears, and I am not even sure that I like the
songs all that much now.

Mike

[Dewittian[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 10:23*pm, "geoff" wrote:
blackburst wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:25 pm, "geoff" wrote:
blackburst wrote:

6) Some Beatles fans were quite happy with the remixes (from the
mults) done in the past with Yellow Submarine Songtrack and, to a
lesser extent, Love. It is expected that EMI will eventually issue
the entire catalog in this way at some future date (making us AGAIN
pay for the same material!)

Nobody is MAKING anybody pay for anything.

geoff

To crazy fans like me who will pay for the smightest upgrade?

So they are pushers who have a hook into us ?! *;-)

geoff

Yes, I like most Beatle fans would pay again for a well mixed version
of their albums in the way the Circ-De-Sole version called LOVE was
done a few years ago. Does anybody think they will re-mix all but
the 2 track album into full stereo in the near future?

[Mr Soul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles'_recording_technology

Here's something I didn't realize:

In 1968 eight-track recorders became available, but Abbey Road was
somewhat slow in adopting the new technology and a number of Beatles
tracks (including "Hey Jude") were recorded in other studios in London
to get access to the new eight-track recorders.[4]

[William Sommerwerck]

I, like most Beatle fans, would pay again for a well-mixed version
of their albums, in the way the Circ-De-Sole version called LOVE
was done a few years ago. Does anybody think they will re-mix
all but the 2-track albums into full stereo in the near future?

What do you mean by "full" stereo? Most pop/rock (and too many classical)
recordings aren't stereo at all, but pan-potted mono.

The Beatles apparently didn't care much about stereo, so maybe mono is the
best way to hear them.

Of course, I have a hall synthesizer -- four, in fact -- and you don't.
Nyah, nyah, nyah.

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Of course, I have a hall synthesizer -- four, in fact -- and you don't.
Nyah, nyah, nyah.


LOL

Now that was funny, I don't care *who* you are...


---Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

Keith. wrote:

"Then I have the CD reissue which sounds a little wierd because the two
channels are a little out of phase"
Perhaps this was intentional to give some sort of stereo image for the
uninitiated. As witnessed by some comments here, mono is perceived as
downright painful.

No. It's still mono, but the center sounds like it's shifted to the side
a little.

I remember a Buddy Holly LP when this was done to a mono recording so that
they could rebrand it stereo!
Pure marketing exercise.

Yes, this was a comb filtering process. Look for "Electronically Re-Channeled
To Simulate Stereo" for a sign.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Laurence Payne writes:

Even so, I'd never allow my creative work to be tinkered
with in that way.

Not even if they offered you money? Precious! :-)

We'd have to see how much money g. even then, I'd do as
mentioned elsewhere in this thread, some carefully prepared
stems so that it couldn't be harmed too badly.

YEs I would know there would be a very few individuals that
would bring up a mix that I might really like, but the vast
majority ...

One of my biggest disappointments was a band whose album I
did for them. We weren't quite happy with the mix we got
out of my control room which was still being treated and
properly configured, as I moved in the middle of the
process. We went to a friend's studio, did a mix there. I
knew the room, knew the speakers, had done other work there. lEad guitar guy kept wanting the vocals buried, and the
words were great! tHe words truly made some of these songs
more than just more mediocre prog rock.

I give him the raw multi-tracks, he finds another studio and does a third mix, which is the one they finally went to cd
with. Vocals completely buried, an utter disappointment.
AS I noted, the words were the best part.

I've told other stories here from that band's tracking
sessions. That was the bunch of guys i did foundation
tracks in the warehouse downtown, etc. My first real foray
into the digital world.

Loved the drum sound I got for him on that. THink GLyn
Johns and John BOnham.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[[email protected]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
: (Richard Webb) wrote:
: Even so, I'd never allow my creative work to be tinkered
: with in that way.
: Not even if they offered you money? Precious! :-)

Anyone who gets offered a ton of money for the raw tracks
of an old recording, is probably already extremely rich.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

What would be really nice would be if the time synced all the original
tracks and made them available as multi-track wavs, then we could all
do our own mixes.

But then it wouldn't be The Beatles. Some program, and some band,
experimented
with that a couple of years back, but I never heard about anything
beyond the first
shot. You could put your mixes up on their web site. I never listened to
any of them
because I wasn't interested in the band that had their mixable tracks up
to play with.

It actually wasn't THE raw tracks, it was edited "stems," so you didn't
have to be
a very good engineer to make at least a passable mix.


Actually, I think would do mixes for my own pleasure - no intention of
posting them. Also I would like to hear the raw tracks just to see what
each sounded like.

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

blackburst wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:11 pm, Ian Bell wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mr Soul wrote:
On a lot of those recordings, the original final tapes _were_ the masters.
They were done to full track mono, or to two-track which was mixed down to
mono to create the cutting master.
Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they
were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did
when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the
original tracks.
There are ONLY TWO ORIGINAL TRACKS. There is not much mixing to do.
These were not made on a 2" machine with ukubillion tracks, the original
recordings were made in a single take on a 2-track recorder.
--scott
That's true only of the first four albums. From then on they had 4 track
and did lots of bouncing between 4 track machines and later had 8 track.

Cheers

Ian

sigh, No, the first TWO albums.

yawn the accuracy police are on the block again. If I had said the
'early albums' that would have been correct yet not particularly
accurate. As it was I made a simple error because my memory is not perfect.

Cheers

Ian

[Arkansan Raider]

Ian Bell wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

What would be really nice would be if the time synced all the
original tracks and made them available as multi-track wavs, then we
could all do our own mixes.

But then it wouldn't be The Beatles. Some program, and some band,
experimented
with that a couple of years back, but I never heard about anything
beyond the first
shot. You could put your mixes up on their web site. I never listened
to any of them
because I wasn't interested in the band that had their mixable tracks
up to play with.

It actually wasn't THE raw tracks, it was edited "stems," so you
didn't have to be
a very good engineer to make at least a passable mix.


Actually, I think would do mixes for my own pleasure - no intention of
posting them. Also I would like to hear the raw tracks just to see what
each sounded like.

Cheers

Ian

For that matter, it would be an outstanding exercise for a mixing
clinic. Since we have George Martin's idea of how the mix should come
off, we can compare our own mixes with his. This probably only works
with, say, Abbey Road or the White Album or Let It Be, but I think it
might be quite viable in an academic-type environment.

Not so sure I'd want other mixes posted, either--other than for maybe
members of your class or an online group devoted towards teaching this
sort of thing.

JMHSO

---Jeff

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

What would be really nice would be if the time synced all the
original tracks and made them available as multi-track wavs, then we
could all do our own mixes.

But then it wouldn't be The Beatles. Some program, and some band,
experimented
with that a couple of years back, but I never heard about anything
beyond the first
shot. You could put your mixes up on their web site. I never listened
to any of them
because I wasn't interested in the band that had their mixable tracks
up to play with.

It actually wasn't THE raw tracks, it was edited "stems," so you
didn't have to be
a very good engineer to make at least a passable mix.


Actually, I think would do mixes for my own pleasure - no intention of
posting them. Also I would like to hear the raw tracks just to see
what each sounded like.

Cheers

Ian

For that matter, it would be an outstanding exercise for a mixing
clinic. Since we have George Martin's idea of how the mix should come
off, we can compare our own mixes with his. This probably only works
with, say, Abbey Road or the White Album or Let It Be, but I think it
might be quite viable in an academic-type environment.

Not so sure I'd want other mixes posted, either--other than for maybe
members of your class or an online group devoted towards teaching this
sort of thing.

JMHSO

---Jeff

I think that's a great idea. When I was a Neve in the 70s we did the
APRS show in London and one year we took a large articulated 24track
mobile we had just finished building. George Martin kindly loaned us a
24 track copy of Macca's 'Live and Let Die' and I confess I spent the
whole show in that truck remixing it and listening to individual tracks.

Cheers

Ian

[Keith.[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Mr Soul" wrote in message
...

On a lot of those recordings, the original final tapes _were_ the
masters.
They were done to full track mono, or to two-track which was mixed down
to
mono to create the cutting master.

Right but I am not interested in the mono mixes. Keep them as they
were, but "improve" the stereo mix. For example, do what the Band did
when they produced The Last Waltz DVD, i.e., they re-mixed the
original tracks.

I generally prefer stereo to mono, but... Good mono can be really fine --
if
the recording is mixed for mono. Buddy Holly and Jonathan & Darlene come
to
mind.

What might be more pleasing than a poor stereo mix is a good mono mix,
with
the discreet application of synthesized ambience to (only) the side and
rear
speakers. This adds lateral sound without altering the original recording.

That last comment seems like a very good idea, a mono Beatles sound (the way
they seemed to like it) with simulated hall ambience.

Cheers,
Keith.

[William Sommerwerck]

That last comment seems like a very good idea, a mono Beatles
sound (the way they seemed to like it) with simulated hall ambience.

Just a little bit, of a recital hall or smaller.

[blackburst]

On Sep 17, 10:23*pm, "geoff" wrote:
blackburst wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:25 pm, "geoff" wrote:
blackburst wrote:

6) Some Beatles fans were quite happy with the remixes (from the
mults) done in the past with Yellow Submarine Songtrack and, to a
lesser extent, Love. It is expected that EMI will eventually issue
the entire catalog in this way at some future date (making us AGAIN
pay for the same material!)

Nobody is MAKING anybody pay for anything.

geoff

To crazy fans like me who will pay for the smightest upgrade?

So they are pushers who have a hook into us ?! *;-)

geoff

I bought the originals in stereo, as they came out 1963-70. When they
were destroyed in a flood, I purchased another set. Then I bought the
Mobile Fidelity set. Then I bought the 1987-8 CDs. Then I bought a
zillion bootlegs, and wrote articles about them. Now I'm buying the
2009 remasters. Not to mention scads of compilation-type albums like
Anthology, Yellow Submarine Songtrack and Love. And if they remix the
mults, I'll buy them too. I'm hooked.

[blackburst]

On Sep 17, 10:42*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
blackburst wrote:
Scott, you're my audio idol, but I'm VERY conversant with the Beatles
recording history:

Don't pick me as your idol, pick somebody that actually knows something.
Jack Renner or E.C. Wente or somebody.

I've followed your work in recording magazines for years. I work in
audio; you are an expert at audio!

They are
almost unlistenable without pushing the MONO button on your preamp at hom=
e.

Some people feel that way. I grew up with the stereos.

There's nothing in the middle, where the music is supposed to be!
--scott

Well yes, it's true that the FIRST TWO albums were "twin-track
mono" (recorded on 2-track to allow for better instrument-voice
balance at mix time), but the later albums actually had stuff in the
middle.

[blackburst]

On Sep 18, 8:49*am, Mr Soul wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles'_recording_technology

Here's something I didn't realize:

In 1968 eight-track recorders became available, but Abbey Road was
somewhat slow in adopting the new technology and a number of Beatles
tracks (including "Hey Jude") were recorded in other studios in London
to get access to the new eight-track recorders.[4]

True. Beatles engineer Geoff Emerick (1966-1970) says EMI had an 8-
track in 1968, but kept it aside for "testing." It was the Beatles'
experiences at other studios (De Lane Lea, Olympic, etc) that forced
EMI to "liberate" the machine, partway through the White Album.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr Soul wrote:

I personally am not interested in the early recordings at all. They
sound VERY dated to me now when I listen to them, the recording
quality is poor to my ears, and I am not even sure that I like the
songs all that much now.

I'd kind of disagree... the early recordings sound like a really tight
bunch of kids getting up on stage and playing their heart out. The
later recordings start to sound more artificial and less like an actual
performance to me.

I'm not sure how we got from "Money, That's what I Want" to "All You Need
is Love" either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

So if I already own the vinyl, then I already have a license to have
a copy of the music, I should NOT have to pay for another copy...

An interesting and logical point. When software producers claim that the
purchase buys a license to use the software, rather than acquisition of the
physical medium, they (arguably) put themselves in the position of being
obliged to provide new physical manifestations of the software to existing
owners, at a minimal price (manufacturing cost, say).

There is a dichotomy between the music, and rights thereto, and the
sound recording, which is separately copyrightable in the US. These are
technically new sound recordings, due to the remixing.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[nebulax]

On Sep 20, 7:59*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mr Soul wrote:



I personally am not interested in the early recordings at all. *They
sound VERY dated to me now when I listen to them, the recording
quality is poor to my ears, and I am not even sure that I like the
songs all that much now.

I'd kind of disagree... the early recordings sound like a really tight
bunch of kids getting up on stage and playing their heart out. *The
later recordings start to sound more artificial and less like an actual
performance to me.

I'm not sure how we got from "Money, That's what I Want" to "All You Need
is Love" either.
--scott


Of course later they gave us, "Happiness Is A Warm Gun", and "You
Never Give Me Your Money"!

-Neb

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sun 2037-Sep-20 07:59, Scott Dorsey writes:
I personally am not interested in the early recordings at all. They
sound VERY dated to me now when I listen to them, the recording
quality is poor to my ears, and I am not even sure that I like the
songs all that much now.

I'd kind of disagree... the early recordings sound like a really
tight bunch of kids getting up on stage and playing their heart out.
The later recordings start to sound more artificial and less like an
actual performance to me.

The technology got better. What still made them for me,
when I look back on it now was George Martin's production.
THat, and the working chemistry between them. But then,
like you ...

I'm not sure how we got from "Money, That's what I Want" to "All You
Need is Love" either.
well, the money was part of it. Also a JOhn LEnnon
composition. "Ya don't go stickin' your hand in the
medicine jar."

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Geoff]

Ian Bell wrote:
geoff wrote:
Digital Edition for subscribers:
http://ukdigital.soundonsound.com/

Paper edition on sale nowish.

geoff




And basically it says they took the original master tapes, transferred
them and tweaked them a bit. Hardly worth doing really.


Have a listen and decide if it was worth it.

I say "definitely".


geoff

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mr Soul wrote:
I personally am not interested in the early recordings at all. They
sound VERY dated to me now when I listen to them, the recording
quality is poor to my ears, and I am not even sure that I like the
songs all that much now.

I'd kind of disagree... the early recordings sound like a really tight
bunch of kids getting up on stage and playing their heart out. The
later recordings start to sound more artificial and less like an actual
performance to me.

I'm not sure how we got from "Money, That's what I Want" to "All You Need
is Love" either.
--scott

Drugs.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 20 Sep 2009 07:59:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Mr Soul wrote:

I personally am not interested in the early recordings at all. They
sound VERY dated to me now when I listen to them, the recording
quality is poor to my ears, and I am not even sure that I like the
songs all that much now.

I'd kind of disagree... the early recordings sound like a really tight
bunch of kids getting up on stage and playing their heart out. The
later recordings start to sound more artificial and less like an actual
performance to me.

I'm not sure how we got from "Money, That's what I Want" to "All You Need
is Love" either.


No inconsistency, merely the difference between Want and Need.

d

[Mr Soul]

I'd kind of disagree... the early recordings sound like a really tight
bunch of kids getting up on stage and playing their heart out. *The
later recordings start to sound more artificial and less like an actual
performance to me.
I am not in total disagreement with you. There's a new book called
the Outliers: The Story of Success and here's what it says about the
Beatles:

"The 10,000 Hour RULE:

The crucial difference in what distinguishes one performer from
another is how hard he or she works. Furthermore, people at "the top"
don't just work harder than everyone else, they work MUCH MUCH
harder....

All of which brings us to the Beatles. The story is generally familiar
to most fans by now, especially if they have been reading this blog!
John Lennon and Paul McCartney had been playing together since 1957.
Americans got and eye and earful on the night of Feb. 9, 1964 but by
then, the Fabs had been working or at least practicing virtually non
stop for seven years together. The crucible for them was the Hamburg
experience. As original drummer Pete Best so well put it, "Once the
news got out about that we were making a show (jumping around like
loons on stage), the club started packing them in. We played seven
nights a week. At first we played almost non stop till twelve-thirty,
when it closed, but as we got better the crowds stayed till two most
mornings."

That opinion is consonant with every interview any of the Beatles ever
gave about the Hamburg experience. The pay was lousy, the
accomodations nearly sub human, the hours too long; but, they LOVED it
and couldn't get enough. The band traveled to Hamburg five times in
all between 1960 and 1962. On their first trip, they played 106 nights
at 5 hours or more per night. The second trip consisted of 92 gigs.
Their third trip got them 48 nights of playing. All told, the five
Hamburg trips yielded 270 nights of performing in 1.5 years at
eventually 8 hours/night. Add to that, all the gigs Manager Brian
Epstein got them as they became famous in England. They were playing
nearly seven nights/week AFTER the Hamburg experience. By the time the
Beatles invaded the United States, it has been estimated they had
played at least 1200 gigs. It is a staggering number of engagements.
Most bands wouldn't play that number today in their entire careers and
the FAbs did it in a few years time. Multiply 1200 by say 7 hours/
night the figure comes to 8,400 hours of playing. Since they were a
group of 4 (5 counting Stuart Sutcliffe, the orginal bass player), and
not an individual, the GROUP thus played 33,600 man hours of music by
1964. Hamburg made them as John Lennon readily admitted to Rolling
Stone Magazine in 1970. "I was born in Liverpool but I grew up in
Hamburg," he famously said. "

Getting back to my original comment - I just like their later songs
better than their ealier ones. Lennon himself made fun of their
earlier music which was intentionally pop. However, my main point was
that the recordings themselves sound dated to me (especially the 1st
album).

I'm not sure how we got from "Money, That's what I Want" to "All You Need
is Love" either.
We got to the point from an evolution of the times in which the
Beatles lived (the 60's) and the personal experiences the band was
going through. Also Money was a cover - wasn't it? It wasn't a song
that I remember the Beatles by.

I do disagree about the later songs/recordings - I still think they
had a lot of flair & inovation, in addition to the fact the songs were
much more involved - lyrically & musically.

Mike

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mr Soul wrote:
I personally am not interested in the early recordings at all. They
sound VERY dated to me now when I listen to them, the recording
quality is poor to my ears, and I am not even sure that I like the
songs all that much now.

I'd kind of disagree... the early recordings sound like a really tight
bunch of kids getting up on stage and playing their heart out. The
later recordings start to sound more artificial and less like an actual
performance to me.

I'm not sure how we got from "Money, That's what I Want" to "All You Need
is Love" either.
--scott

Drugs.

Sex.


Rock 'n' Roll...


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Peter Kendell]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

There is a dichotomy between the music, and rights thereto, and the
sound recording, which is separately copyrightable in the US. These are
technically new sound recordings, due to the remixing.

Remixing? My understanding is that these are remasters, not remixes.

[William Sommerwerck]

There is a dichotomy between the music, and rights thereto,
and the sound recording, which is separately copyrightable
in the US. These are technically new sound recordings, due
to the remixing.

Remixing? My understanding is that these are remasters, not remixes.

They appear to be remixes, with respect to the preceding CD editions.

[Frank Galikanokus]

geoff wrote:

Ian Bell wrote:
geoff wrote:
Digital Edition for subscribers:
http://ukdigital.soundonsound.com/

Paper edition on sale nowish.

geoff




And basically it says they took the original master tapes, transferred
them and tweaked them a bit. Hardly worth doing really.

Have a listen and decide if it was worth it.

I say "definitely".

geoff

Some that I have heard on the radio have been mixed into a fake stereo
with vocals on one side and instruments on the other. It sucked!

JAM

[Geoff]

Frank Galikanokus wrote:

Some that I have heard on the radio have been mixed into a fake stereo
with vocals on one side and instruments on the other. It sucked!

JAM

That's the way the CDs been since 1987, and the stereo LPs since forever.
If is that disturbing to you, press a 'mono' button !

geoff

[Keith.[_2_]]

"Mr Soul" wrote in message
...
I'd kind of disagree... the early recordings sound like a really tight
bunch of kids getting up on stage and playing their heart out. The
later recordings start to sound more artificial and less like an actual
performance to me.
I am not in total disagreement with you. There's a new book called
the Outliers: The Story of Success and here's what it says about the
Beatles:

"The 10,000 Hour RULE:

The crucial difference in what distinguishes one performer from
another is how hard he or she works. Furthermore, people at "the top"
don't just work harder than everyone else, they work MUCH MUCH
harder....

All of which brings us to the Beatles. The story is generally familiar
to most fans by now, especially if they have been reading this blog!
John Lennon and Paul McCartney had been playing together since 1957.
Americans got and eye and earful on the night of Feb. 9, 1964 but by
then, the Fabs had been working or at least practicing virtually non
stop for seven years together. The crucible for them was the Hamburg
experience. As original drummer Pete Best so well put it, "Once the
news got out about that we were making a show (jumping around like
loons on stage), the club started packing them in. We played seven
nights a week. At first we played almost non stop till twelve-thirty,
when it closed, but as we got better the crowds stayed till two most
mornings."

That opinion is consonant with every interview any of the Beatles ever
gave about the Hamburg experience. The pay was lousy, the
accomodations nearly sub human, the hours too long; but, they LOVED it
and couldn't get enough. The band traveled to Hamburg five times in
all between 1960 and 1962. On their first trip, they played 106 nights
at 5 hours or more per night. The second trip consisted of 92 gigs.
Their third trip got them 48 nights of playing. All told, the five
Hamburg trips yielded 270 nights of performing in 1.5 years at
eventually 8 hours/night. Add to that, all the gigs Manager Brian
Epstein got them as they became famous in England. They were playing
nearly seven nights/week AFTER the Hamburg experience. By the time the
Beatles invaded the United States, it has been estimated they had
played at least 1200 gigs. It is a staggering number of engagements.
Most bands wouldn't play that number today in their entire careers and
the FAbs did it in a few years time. Multiply 1200 by say 7 hours/
night the figure comes to 8,400 hours of playing. Since they were a
group of 4 (5 counting Stuart Sutcliffe, the orginal bass player), and
not an individual, the GROUP thus played 33,600 man hours of music by
1964. Hamburg made them as John Lennon readily admitted to Rolling
Stone Magazine in 1970. "I was born in Liverpool but I grew up in
Hamburg," he famously said. "

Getting back to my original comment - I just like their later songs
better than their ealier ones. Lennon himself made fun of their
earlier music which was intentionally pop. However, my main point was
that the recordings themselves sound dated to me (especially the 1st
album).

I'm not sure how we got from "Money, That's what I Want" to "All You Need
is Love" either.
We got to the point from an evolution of the times in which the
Beatles lived (the 60's) and the personal experiences the band was
going through. Also Money was a cover - wasn't it? It wasn't a song
that I remember the Beatles by.

I do disagree about the later songs/recordings - I still think they
had a lot of flair & inovation, in addition to the fact the songs were
much more involved - lyrically & musically.

Mike

Good summary, and a reminder of the raw energy of the early releases,this
energy is what got the worlds attention and all this talk about mono/stereo
seems a little delicate when you look at the 'Cavern' where they played in
the early days in Liverpool
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/...8d96f7288c.jpg
Do you really want to record in stereo in in venue like that? The sound
would be more visceral than auditory.

Cheers,
Keith.

[Mike Rivers]

Keith. wrote:

The band traveled to Hamburg five times in
all between 1960 and 1962. On their first trip, they played 106 nights
at 5 hours or more per night. The second trip consisted of 92 gigs.
Their third trip got them 48 nights of playing. All told, the five
Hamburg trips yielded 270 nights of performing in 1.5 years at
eventually 8 hours/night.

8 hours a night can be pretty wearing, but that's not an unusual number
of gigs for a full time working musician. B. B. King, James Brown ("The
hardest
working man in show business"), Bill Monroe all worked 300 shows a year.
Mostly, they needed the money to support their ex-wives.

But there's nothing like working full time for many years to cement your
name in musical history. You don't need any gimmicks, you just get good,
and you get known for putting on a great show. The concept of being a
superstar and making a comfortable living doing one or two 20-show tours
every couple of years is fairly new.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
: 8 hours a night can be pretty wearing, but that's not an unusual number
: of gigs for a full time working musician. B. B. King, James Brown ("The
: hardest working man in show business"), Bill Monroe all worked 300 shows
: a year. Mostly, they needed the money to support their ex-wives.

Louis Armstrong pretty much toured his entire life. His sidemen would
quit his group after a couple of years, exhausted.

[blackburst]

On Sep 21, 3:07*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
There is a dichotomy between the music, and rights thereto,
and the sound recording, which is separately copyrightable
in the US. These are technically new sound recordings, due
to the remixing.
Remixing? My understanding is that these are remasters, not remixes.

They appear to be remixes, with respect to the preceding CD editions.

As something of an expert on Beatles recordings, could I straighten
this out for the record?

The new Beatles remasters are the ORIGINAL STEREO & MONO mixes done
1962-1970, with just a handful of exceptions (ex: the stereo set
includes remixes of Help! and Rubber Soul, done in 1987. The original
1965 stereo mixes of these albums are - strangely - on the mono set.)

Nothing as been remixed in these sets! A few minor problems like
dropouts have been corrected.

[William Sommerwerck]

The new Beatles remasters are the ORIGINAL STEREO & MONO
mixes done 1962-1970, with just a handful of exceptions...

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how you do you know this?

For them to definitely be the originals, wouldn't they have to be taken from
the LP cutting masters?

[Wecan do it]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message ...
The new Beatles remasters are the ORIGINAL STEREO & MONO
mixes done 1962-1970, with just a handful of exceptions...

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how you do you know
this?

For them to definitely be the originals, wouldn't they have
to be taken from
the LP cutting masters?


In the booklet that comes with Abby Road and Sgt. Pepper it
states "
This remastered album has been created from the original
stereo analogue master tapes."


Peace
dawg

[William Sommerwerck]

"Wecan do it" wrote in message
m...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message ...

The new Beatles remasters are the ORIGINAL STEREO & MONO
mixes done 1962-1970, with just a handful of exceptions...

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how you do you know
this? For them to definitely be the originals, wouldn't they have
to be taken from the LP cutting masters?

In the booklet that comes with Abby Road and Sgt. Pepper it
it states "This remastered album has been created from the
original stereo analogue master tapes."

Okay. What do they mean by "original"? I would interpret that as meaning the
final session tapes. In which case this mix might be somewhat different.

"Master" can also refer to the cutting master.

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:


Okay. What do they mean by "original"? I would interpret that as
meaning the final session tapes. In which case this mix might be
somewhat different.

"Master" can also refer to the cutting master.

Master would mean the master tape that the cutting master was generated
from. Post any mixing.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

What do they mean by "original"? I would interpret that
as meaning the final session tapes. In which case this
mix might be somewhat different.

"Master" can also refer to the cutting master.

Master would mean the master tape that the cutting master
was generated from. Post any mixing.

I read the Stereophile article, and I'm still confused. One of the EMI
people says it's a remastering, not a remixing. But elsewhere he says that
these were made from the original tapes.