Okay, so here's the deal. I'm as excited about The Beatles remastered boxed set as anybody. Unfortunately, living on the salary of a starving music editor pretty much precludes me from purchasing the whole damn thing right now... which sucks, because I've been salivating for it like the die-hard Beatles nut I am since last week.
That's the bad news.
The good news is that the kind folks at the record label sent me a really nice two-disc sampler to check out. Often, these promotional samplers are badly thrown together affairs that barely scratch the surface of what such massive undertakings have to offer. Not so in this case.
With 32 tracks spanning the entire career of the greatest rock band in history, this sampler actually offers a great cross-selection of the entire work. And, beyond that, it is certainly a nice little collector's item, and one which only further whets my appetite for the boxed set that I will someday surely buy — once I can actually afford it, anyway.
But let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? Because there is both good and bad to report about this much lauded remastering job. Most of it is as thankfully great as advertised, though. The first thing you notice about these remastered recordings is that they are both louder, and quite a bit brighter sounding than what we've heard of the Beatles catalog since its sole transfer to CD back in 1987.
This has a particularly noticeable effect on the Beatles' early work. "I Saw Her Standing There," to cite one example, literally puts you in the room with the band — which means the guitars crackle like never before.
It also means that the vocals have a bit of a weird echo to them however, which becomes a bit irritating on a song like "Please, Please Me." In that case, though, a never-before-heard guitar accent saves the day. Even on the so-called "middle period" recordings like "Day Tripper," the vocal echo is a little bit irritating — but the rest of it is so damn clear it doesn't really matter.
The good news, though, is that despite all of the high end here (and on the early recordings, especially, there is lots of it), Macca's bass also comes through like never before — proving that even back then he was one of the best. More than that, what these remastered early recordings reveal is that the Beatles were one hell of a rock and roll band.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bill Haywood
The truth is that the remasters sound awful. The depth and layering of the originals has been destryoed, hence the coomonly repeated phrase "I never heard that part before". Anyone who had truly listened to the music HAD heard it ... in it's proper place in the mix instead of "in your face". In particular, the extreme EQing of the tracks to add definition and presence to the drums, guitars and bass has destroyed what is most important to a good mix, the midrange. Vocals on these "remasters" have lost all clarity and definition.
Worst of all, the sonic manipulations have resulted in harsh sibilance on most of the tracks. Some tracks are rendered virtually unlistenable.
To the modern ear, accustomed to extreme compression and total lack of subtlety or layering on modern recordings, perhaps these remasters are an "improvement". But to those of us who prefer subtle and elegant musical arrangement at which the Beatles, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, et al excelled, this package is a sonic trainwreck.
I haven't heard the mono masters, but word is that the "engineers" who vandalized the 2 track stereo masters were more restrained in their treatment of same. One can only hope.
Oh, and the "cranberry sauce" comment doesn't occur in "I am the Walrus" as the author seems to assert. His lack of familiarity with the Beatles' material may have contributed to his inability to recognize these "remasters" for what they are - vandalism.
2 - JANK
The monos are great; can't speak for the stereos. Go mono!!
3 - Greg Barbrick
Wow Bill, pretty harsh assessment there. As a long time friend of the author, I can state without a doubt that he is as big a Beatles fan as anyone. Not having heard the remasters yet, I can only speculate though.
My inclination is to agree with you. Not necessarily for the reasons you mention however. The band were working with incredibly primitive equipment at the time, and things may have been "buried" in the mix because there was no way around it.
But I have been listening to those records for 40 years now, and the way they were released is the only way I know them. It's kind of like Let It Be Naked. Sure, Spector's strings may have "ruined" "The Long And Winding Road," but they really are as much a part of the song to me as McCartney's voice is.
As much as we would like to re-write history, the originals are what we all came to know and love. Frankly, I see this whole remasters business as a last-ditch effort to save a dying industry.
That said, I would still like to hear them. Maybe EMI will send me a box to judge for myself. And one day pigs will fly...
4 - Bill Haywood
Greg, as a former recording engineer, I can assure you that the equipment used at Abbey Road, while possibly "primitive" in the sense that they were limited to two, four, and at the very end of the Beatles career, eight tracks, the sonic integrity of the machines were in many ways actually superior to today's digital technology. Four tracks on a two inch tape was probably the epitome of analog sound. Where the loss of aural purity of the music occurred was in the practice of "reduction mixing" where four tracks were bounced to two or one track in order to free tracks for additional overdubs. This generation loss robbed some of the tracks of punch, clarity and built up analog tape hiss. More sonic integrity was lost in the vinyl disk mastering phase when the mastering engineer re-EQed Martins two track tape masters because vinyl discs were limited in the amount of bass frequencies they could handle without bouncing the stylus out of the record grooves. EMI studios were notorious in being very conservative in this area.
But I am not a purist. I loved the sound of the remixes on the Yellow Submarine reissue a few years back. Those tracks were remixed from the original multitrack masters and sound fantastic. "Hey Bulldog", for example, finally got a mix it deserved and is far superior on that album to any of its other incarnations. I also preferred "Naked" (also remixed from the original 8 track master)to the original, although I too missed the string arrangement on Winding Road. But sonically, the Naked reissue sounds much better without all the digital artifacts, sibilance and distortion introduced on the remasters caused by working with the two track mixed tapes instead of the multitrack masters.
I'm sure some day the later albums will get a remix from the multitrack tapes like Yellow Submarine did. I hope I live that long.
5 - Glen Boyd
"Cranberry Sauce" is in fact there Bill. And I can assure you that I am quite familiar with the Beatles work. Ever since I first heard them as a seven year old boy on the Ed Sullivan show, they in fact altered the course of my life -- much to my detriment in many ways. So the attack was wholly unnecessary, and in fact was quite rude (and thanks for coming to my defense Greg -- first beer's on me next time I see you).
The way you look at these remasters I think depends in large part on what you want to get out of them. As Bill noted (and as I did we well), the vocal harmonies become somewhat lost in the mix, which is very echoey particularly on the early recordings. There is also a lot of high end on them. On the other hand, they do bring out new dimensions previously unheard, as I noted in the particular case of stuff like "Mr. Kite."
But the overall sound is a lot clearer which gives much of these recordings a lot more definition -- they sound more like live recordings really in the sense that there is more of a feeling you are there in the room with them.
That said, Greg makes a great point that it also alters the way many of us have become accustomed to hearing these songs growing up for our entire lives. Technically flawed or not, this is how most of us know them and how they are etched into our lives. You shouldn't screw with mother nature in that respect I guess.
I also tend to agree with Greg that this is another attempt to save a dying record industry destroyed largely by greed and short-sightedness on the part of the record companies.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna listen to some Radiohead...
-Glen
6 - Greg Barbrick
Bill,
I appreciate your expertise in these matters, and again tend to agree with you. But this is said without actually having heard the remasters.
I didn't even pose the most salient point I think exists here. Obviously as I mentioned these remasters seem to be a real desperation move to help out a dying industry. But is all the punch-ups and crap designed to make The Beatles' music more MP3 friendly?
Sadly, my guess is yes. I am not some stuck in the mud old 78 rpm jackass, but this is a disturbing trend. Not that I am a fan anymore, but Metallica mixed their last record specifically to MP3. That is what I am guessing happened with The Beatles.
And that is a truly sad state of affairs for the industry. The future of music having no depth whatsoever is an idea whose time should never come.
Nice talking to you, and you should check out some of my stuff on BC.
7 - zingzing
glen, i think bill is referring to the fact that lennon says "cranberry sauce" at the end of "strawberry fields forever," not "i am the walrus." what with all the random sound at the end of "walrus," he might say it again there for all i know, but it's definitely in "sff."
8 - Glen Boyd
Shit! You're right zing! I confused the two...the part at the end of "I Am The Walrus" I actually meant to mention was where it says "bury my body" followed by "is he dead? is he dead?"...
Thanks for pointing it out, and next time I'll remember to write this when I'm not under the influence of drugs...LOL...
-Glen
9 - Jet Gardner
DEAR GOD!!! Someone stumped the Rockologist????
10 - Glen Boyd
Actually, writing a little light headed too late at night is what stumped the Rockologist Jet. Wouldn't be the first time either...
-Glen
11 - zingzing
yeah, that's the king lear bit.
12 - Glen Boyd
I definitely need to write the definitive "Paul Is Dead" column one of these days...
13 - Jet Gardner
Good, I wasn't ready for the for the apocolypse just yet. (Fred Sanford stumbles back out of the room still clutching his chest after screaming "It's the big one "'lizabeth-I'm comin' fo ya honey!")
14 - Glen Boyd
As per Zing's instruction, the "cranberry sauce" error has been corrected. It's really nice being an editor here sometimes...
15 - Greg Barbrick
Zing,
Come over and talk to me about my Philip K. Dick article Glen is about to publish.
16 - Glen Boyd
Yes I can take a hint Greg. Done.
17 - Greg Barbrick
Hell, why bitch about The Beatles when you have the author of Blade Runner to discuss?
Totally LOL, but Glen you have never said whether this mix is really an MP3 mix
My guess is that it is
Greg
18 - Greg Barbrick
Zing,
All I meant to say was that the Greg Barbrick section is so much better than the Glen Boyd section.
We offer strawberries.
19 - Mr. Mustard
Have to agree with Bill about the lack of Beatles familiarity shown.
They expanded their music before Sgt.Pepper's, which is why their eras should be split at Revolver. And it ain't called The White Album. While you make correctons, take the comma out of Please Please Me.
I don't know who needed these remasters to know they were a great rock 'n' roll band? Most people with any sense knew that in the '60s.
20 - zingzing
(mean) mr. mustard, if you wanna take that way, most people would say rubber soul is the great leap forward (particularly on a lyrical front, but compositionally as well). and lots of people weren't alive in the 60s.
greg, i must admit that i'm not much for sci-fi, have never read any philip k. dick, and really, really dislike bladerunner. (it's been several years since i've seen it.)
21 - Guzelvis
Great article, thanks. Check out the funny tale of 8 hidden gems on the remastered catalog of The Beatles.
22 - Glen Boyd
Ya' know what? If you don't agree with my assessment of the damn box, fine. And if you can find a legitimate error -- like the "cranberry sauce" thing (which I have since corrected), I can certainly admit that mistake as well.
But don't question my knowledge of a band I have followed since I was seven years old in 1964, and who changed my life based on "apples and oranges" BS like whether the eras are divided by Revolver or Sgt. Pepper, or whether I missed a damn comma with Please Please Me. You're really clutching straws with that one. It also comes across as petty nitpickery.
Music is a subjective thing and it always will be. Yes, the Beatles were already showing remarkable artistic growth with Rubber Soul, Revolver, and even earlier. But for most fans, Sgt. Pepper was when things shifted abruptly -- they looked different with the mustaches and what-not (which I can distinctly remember being shocked by at the time), and they certainly sounded different. The innocent mop-topped "fab four" were in essence no more, and things were never the same again from that moment forward.
I call it as I saw it then, and how I see it now.
-Glen
23 - JC Mosquito
Urk. I tell ya, the Beatles' haven't recorded any new material (really) for nearly 40 years, and people are still arguing over them.
My two cents' worth: I was quite disappointed with Revolver when I bought it last week - the ultra panned stereo killed it for me on headphones. But with everyone out of the house tonight, I cranked it up on the stereo, and it really sounds quite excellent. I guess that's the way it was designed for listening. Next week a friend is loaning me the mono box - we'll see if it's as good as what it's supposed to be.
BTW - what about all those mono mixes on the Capitol Years box sets?
24 - El Bicho
Looks like Bernie Taupin was right that Saturday Night is Alright for Fighting. I know it doesn't fit, but neither did the Rolling Stones in that other column.
Interesting that people want to pick a demarcation line. I'll go off the board to, what was it 1964 when they got high with Dylan. Also, some of their work on Let It Be, which I know was before Abbey Road before anyone gets their Fab Four underoos in a bunch, seemed to bring the band full circle to their beginnings so what's the point?
I have already seen Greg's Dick piece, so where's the party headed now?
25 - Glen Boyd
Yeah, Greg did a damn fine job of hijacking my thread didn't he? LOL...
The worst part is he even got me to help out by publishing his article. Oh well, at least he took that Mustard fellow with him...
-Glen