Anyone as excited as me about this? I'm pretty skint at the moment but I'm seriously considering spending the £200 to buy the stereo collection. I think I'm most excited about hearing the first two albums and Abbey Road remastered.

Lots of stuff has been on the TV and in magazines/newspapers in England about the remasters and the 40 year anniversary of Abbey Road's release. Watching documentaries on the early period, and the whole British Invasion era honestly reminds you how good The Beatles ALWAYS were. Also makes you relise that no country has ever produced a band even close to being as good as four working class lads from Liverpool. Of all the cultural successes Britain has given the world I'd say The Beatles are up there with Shakespeare.

Anyone else excited about the way the new albums are gonna sound?

look man i love the beatles and everything but I have all their music in various forms already I don't get what the point of this remastering is? It's still the same music right? Like what it's just gonna sound a bit clearer or what? Fuck. That.

Am I wrong?

I have almost the whole collection on vinyl, so fuck that.

quote:

Originally posted by ummmmm:
look man i love the beatles and everything but I have all their music in various forms already I don't get what the point of this remastering is? It's still the same music right? Like what it's just gonna sound a bit clearer or what? Fuck. That.

Am I wrong?

If you are not a sound nerd the simplest answer i can give to that question is: Yes.

One big improvement on all the records is that the equipment used back then to master to vinyl and the commercial playback equipment back then had a limited range on some frequencies, so Paul's bass and Ringo's drums should have way more punch and depth on the remasters. Another thing to consider is that no real digital remastering has been made since the 1987 CD releases, and back then not much was really changed because the CD was so young still.
But it is supposed to vary a lot because the first few albums was made on 2 or 4 track equipment making it hard to edit and EQ. Abbey Road however is a whole other story... you know... but they spent four years on this so i have no doubt that this is the closest you'll ever get to the feeling that Beatles are right there with you if you play these on a good sound system.

Another big change is that on every album up until 'The Beatles (white album)' stereo was still considered new and not as important as the mono mixes, so the Beatles only participated in the mono mixing process. So the new stereo mixes should definitely show a greater attention to detail and just sound generally different. Again, of course it was hard to really do much stereomixing on 'Please, Please Me' but i can't wait to hear Rubber Soul or Revolver for example.

more range from 60-1k? lol.

roflmao

Wait wait wait. Please, nobody take offence here, but am I alone in not giving two short ones about The Beatles?

I can understand the interest to a degree, but am proud to say that I have never owned nor listened to a single Beatles album. Well, maybe not proud, but don't feel like I've missed anything either.

I reckon I'm one of the few contributors to these boards who actually grew up while The Beatles were at the peak of their powers.

Please note that I've not said they were shit, or that they have no musical merit, but I just don't get the level of interest from younger generations.

Most of their music sounds dated and there have been way better bands since them.

For example, Led Zeppelin, Sex Pistols, Nirvana, Bowie. And they couldn't hold a candle to The Velvet Underground or The Rolling Stones.

Just my opinion, that's all.

If The Beatles came along now, they would have been put together by Simon Cowell and we would be dismissing them for precisely that reason.

It's because of The Beatles that we got fucking Oasis.

quote:

Originally posted by Graham Hall:
Wait wait wait. Please, nobody take offence here, but am I alone in not giving two short ones about The Beatles?

I can understand the interest to a degree, but am proud to say that I have never owned nor listened to a single Beatles album. Well, maybe not proud, but don't feel like I've missed anything either.

I reckon I'm one of the few contributors to these boards who actually grew up while The Beatles were at the peak of their powers.

Please note that I've not said they were shit, or that they have no musical merit, but I just don't get the level of interest from younger generations.

Most of their music sounds dated and there have been way better bands since them.

For example, Led Zeppelin, Sex Pistols, Nirvana, Bowie. And they couldn't hold a candle to The Velvet Underground or The Rolling Stones.

Just my opinion, that's all.

If The Beatles came along now, they would have been put together by Simon Cowell and we would be dismissing them for precisely that reason.

It's because of The Beatles that we got fucking Oasis.

Only thing you said that I agree with you is about The Rolling Stones, although I don't think they were better than The Beatles I think Let It Bleed is as good as/ better than any Beatles album. Can't believe you don't dig the Beatles, Graham.

I got into them via The White Album and the whole cultural relevance of them as a band. As you can probably tell I'm proud of my British-ness and I just think that the whole British Invasion scene/sound from the early/mid 1960s was a magic era. The Beatles early stuff is so indebted to the soul, blues era of America music and yet they made the greatest pop songs of all. I'm intrigued by their music and how they developed as musicians through their career.

quote:

Originally posted by Graham Hall:
Wait wait wait. Please, nobody take offence here, but am I alone in not giving two short ones about The Beatles?

I can understand the interest to a degree, but am proud to say that I have never owned nor listened to a single Beatles album. Well, maybe not proud, but don't feel like I've missed anything either.

I reckon I'm one of the few contributors to these boards who actually grew up while The Beatles were at the peak of their powers.

Please note that I've not said they were shit, or that they have no musical merit, but I just don't get the level of interest from younger generations.

Most of their music sounds dated and there have been way better bands since them.

For example, Led Zeppelin, Sex Pistols, Nirvana, Bowie. And they couldn't hold a candle to The Velvet Underground or The Rolling Stones.

Just my opinion, that's all.

If The Beatles came along now, they would have been put together by Simon Cowell and we would be dismissing them for precisely that reason.

It's because of The Beatles that we got fucking Oasis.

Although you did make a good point that the Beatles are responsible for Oasis, I have to respectfully disagree with you. You have stone balls if you say you don't like the Beatles, so I give you credit for that.

You don't like the Beatles. And I hate the Rolling Stones. I don't get why people think they're so great. They're a bunch of cokeheads who made good rock songs, but nothing revolutionary from my point of view. And that's just my opinion. Graham and Jim, you both are big Stones fans it seems. I've probably missed something in thier music. With all due respect, I would like you to tell me what about their music is so great. I just don't get it.


When lava flows underwater it behaves differently.

I partially agree with you Graham. I mean, I like the Beatles (and I have listened to some beatles albums), but to be honest, I very rarely listen to them, and they wouldn't make any "top #" lists of mine.

Graham, you're nuts... you're blaming the beatles for oasis when if it weren't for the beatles there wouldn't have been any of those other bands you listed. Not to mention all the effects your bands loved to use-- the beatles & the people that worked on their records came up with most of that stuff.

I think maybe you'd be interested in learning about the beatles before they became famous when they were in Germany... that might change your whole cookie cutter simon cowell image of them-- not to say that isn't 100% innacurate.

Also, the music industry was nothing in England before the Beatles as far as I know-- it was just companies who had other interests trying to get tax writoffs by making classical (or culutral) records-- they made rock records so their music business would stay out of the red.

Why all this hate for Oasis? Brilliant band. Wrote some proper tunes, two great albums and didn't take themselves too seriously. I get why people call them Beatles rip-offs but they wrote some massive songs which still sound fresh on a night out or when you need a sing-a-long.

quote:

Originally posted by jimtunstall:
Why all this hate for Oasis? Brilliant band. Wrote some proper tunes, two great albums and didn't take themselves too seriously. I get why people call them Beatles rip-offs but they wrote some massive songs which still sound fresh on a night out or when you need a sing-a-long.

WHERE WERE YOU WHILE WE WERE GETTING HIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

quote:

Originally posted by The Finn:

quote:

Originally posted by jimtunstall:
Why all this hate for Oasis? Brilliant band. Wrote some proper tunes, two great albums and didn't take themselves too seriously. I get why people call them Beatles rip-offs but they wrote some massive songs which still sound fresh on a night out or when you need a sing-a-long.

WHERE WERE YOU WHILE WE WERE GETTING HIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

You know it, sunshine.
Can't deny they wrote some massive tunes.

didn't take themselves too seriously? "we're the best band in the world man" come on lol.