trane123 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Posted March 13, 2009 Yeah, I agree the stereo versions are a little odd - with instruments on one side, vocals on the other. I remember reading an interview (in Musician magazine) with George Martin shortly after the first four Beatle CDs were released. Again, if I remember fight, Martin was pretty cheesed off because he wasn't consulted on those first CD releases. I don't believe he agreed with putting out the mono versions. He said there were prefectly good stereo mixes that already existed. Quote
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 right now im obsessed w/ "Magical Mystery Tour" sans the horns: OMG it is sooooooo better w/o george martins pompus ass british horn o'dubs!!! Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 trane123 said: Yeah, I agree the stereo versions are a little odd - with instruments on one side, vocals on the other. I remember reading an interview (in Musician magazine) with George Martin shortly after the first four Beatle CDs were released. Again, if I remember fight, Martin was pretty cheesed off because he wasn't consulted on those first CD releases. I don't believe he agreed with putting out the mono versions. He said there were prefectly good stereo mixes that already existed. From what I read, he was the one that pushed for the first four being released in mono. There's been so much revisionist history with these guys you have to wade through so much to figure out what's what. Lately, GM has said that he had nothing to do with the stereo albums until around Revolver, and that Junior engineers did them back in the day. George Harrison claims he didn't even know you could buy those early albums in stereo back then. It has been confirmed that they put all of their work and time into the mono mixes, and that the stereo mixes were done really quickly, shortly before they were released. The audio evidence bears this out. That changes with the White Album though. They put more work into the stereo version, and that's obvious when you hear the mono one (which is disappointing IMHO). Quote
JSngry Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 Are these things only available as bit-torrents? Or have they been mp3-ed somewhere? I'm just wondering for, uh, you know, research purposes... Quote
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 its capitols own fault their beatles records sound so bad, capitol was so hot and heavy over the "next album", they would force them to mail a 1/2 finished master over to america, so placate the americans and all their record company stuf and then theyd put all their firsthand effort and all their heart and soul into the Parlephone Monos Quote
Indestructible! Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 JSngry said: Are these things only available as bit-torrents? Or have they been mp3-ed somewhere? I'm just wondering for, uh, you know, research purposes... Was Purple Chick the group that released that whopping 83 CD set of the "Get Back" sessions (A/B Road Complete Sessions)? I've heard that set... all of it... Christ, that put me off the Beatles for a bit! "Quality Boots", they were! Cheers, Shane Quote
bettsaj Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) JSngry said: Are these things only available as bit-torrents? Or have they been mp3-ed somewhere? I'm just wondering for, uh, you know, research purposes... As far as I know they have only been "officially" released as flac files. Regarding the legality of all these releases. In my opinion the stats speak for themselves... These releases have been downloaded 1000's of times. They've even been plugged and advertised in rolling stone magazine as the best un-official source for definitive Beatles material, see this article http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/20200609/page/20 EMI is, shall we say slow off the mark. There's a wealth of material out there that could be used in this way to produce official re-masters, with bonus material but for some reason McCartney, Starr Harrison (Olivia) and Yoko don't want to be party to that. They tried it with the Anthology series and in my opinion although good, was disjointed and not really how they should have done it. Back in 1998 when they released the 30th anniversary release of the White album everyone thought they would release the mono version... but they released the stereo version..... There was outcry. I for one felt cheated as i already owned the stereo CD version of the White album and ended up buying it again just to maintain my collection and for the miniture packaging the reissue came in. They had the opportunity to redeem themselves and missed the boat in my eyes. The Purple Chick releases serve a purpose, they give the fans what they want... A chronological release of all the Beatles releases in both mono and stereo together with comprehensive session material. I agree, the Dr. Ebbetts stuff isn't perfect, but this man has taken the trouble of finding the best virgin vinyl sources and then after investing 1000' dollars or pounds into his hifi equipment has taken the time to needle drop these recordings for us to enjoy. These are as perfect as we're ever likely to see or hear. I for one think the vinyl mixes are better than the CD mixes... and yes there are differences. After listening to both I prefer the needle drops, they sound warmer, with more sonic range. this may be due to Dr. Ebbetts using valve amps etc, i'm not sure. All I do know is i'm very gratefull to Ebbetts and the guys at Purple Chick for taking the time to do this, or i would have been still suffering these crappy CD copies I have and my old crackly vinyl records..... Which i can't play anymore as I don't have a turntable Edited March 14, 2009 by bettsaj Quote
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 Indestructible: no way, u really listened to the whole A/B set? r u for reals, dawg? how long did it take you? did you go crazy by the end? Quote
Jazzmoose Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 bettsaj said: Regarding the legality of all these releases. In my opinion the stats speak for themselves... These releases have been downloaded 1000's of times. They've even been plugged and advertised in rolling stone magazine as the best un-official source for definitive Beatles material, see this article http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/20200609/page/20 As far as legality, what does that have to do with anything? Almost 17,000 people were murdered in the U.S. in 2007; I don't think that makes it legal. You can buy marijuana seeds through the mail, but that doesn't make it legal in the U.S. Quote
bettsaj Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Jazzmoose said: bettsaj said: Regarding the legality of all these releases. In my opinion the stats speak for themselves... These releases have been downloaded 1000's of times. They've even been plugged and advertised in rolling stone magazine as the best un-official source for definitive Beatles material, see this article http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/20200609/page/20 As far as legality, what does that have to do with anything? Almost 17,000 people were murdered in the U.S. in 2007; I don't think that makes it legal. You can buy marijuana seeds through the mail, but that doesn't make it legal in the U.S. fair enough... It's not legal in the true sense, obviously but that's not what I was getting at. Nobody was harmed in the making of these recordings except maybe Paul Mccartneys inflated bank balance and no one is pushing drugs here. True, the fact that 1000's have downloaded these recordings doesn't make them legal, I was merely pointing out that there is a demand for these releases... EMI don't know what they're doing. These recordings are given away gratis, they're not sold and shouldn't be sold. again that doesn't make them legal, but at least no one is benifiting financially from them. I'm so glad the internet is here..... It means no one will get ripped of buying these types of releases again, mostly the artist. Edited March 14, 2009 by bettsaj Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 chewy said: its capitols own fault their beatles records sound so bad, capitol was so hot and heavy over the "next album", they would force them to mail a 1/2 finished master over to america, so placate the americans and all their record company stuf and then theyd put all their firsthand effort and all their heart and soul into the Parlephone Monos Some of the capitol monos are better than the parlophones, imho. Quote
AllenLowe Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 well it's true that official-dom has royally screwed up the Beatle catalog. Geoffry Emerick's book is interesting but suspect - first of all he has been challenged on a lot of his recollections, and his response was less than comprehensive. Also, he supervised the anthologies, which frequently sound like crap due to the use of digital de-hiss, which dries out the sound and even has a bit of that disgusting digital gurgle. So I am sympathetic to enterprises like this - Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 For a group that embodied what was at the time hip, fashionable, and counter-cultural, the Beatles brand has been marketed in the most conservative, stuffy fashion for the past few decades. Quote
Alexander Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Posted March 14, 2009 Wasn't the Beatles' catalogue SUPPOSED to have been reissued in 2007? And here it is 2009 and STILL the only thing offically available are those damn 1987 masters. Which they still charge full price for. It's downright criminal. As I said earlier in this thread, I own every single Beatles album multiple times over. I've bought every official release. There isn't another dime they can squeeze out of me until the new reissues come out, so until then I'll make use of the Purple Chick releases. In other Beatles news, my nine-year-old daughter has caught the Beatles bug. She saw "Help!" on DVD and has simply fallen in love. It's great fun sharing all my Beatles recordings with her! Another generation goes to the Beatles... Quote
BruceH Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 Alexander said: Wasn't the Beatles' catalogue SUPPOSED to have been reissued in 2007? And here it is 2009 and STILL the only thing offically available are those damn 1987 masters. Which they still charge full price for. It's downright criminal. Indeed. "Supposed" to have been re-issued is right. Quote
Indestructible! Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 chewy said: Indestructible: no way, u really listened to the whole A/B set? r u for reals, dawg? how long did it take you? did you go crazy by the end? Yeah, I listened to the whole thing. Every second of it. It was a few years ago, so I don't remember exactly how long it took to do it (a month maybe?). And yes, I did go crazy by the end of it... like I said, it turned me off of the Beatles for a bit! Still, I'm glad I did it! If I had the time and the inclination (and I don't!), I'd cull that 83 CD set down to maybe 15 CDs of just the highlights. Cheers, Shane Quote
Hot Ptah Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Indestructible! said: chewy said: Indestructible: no way, u really listened to the whole A/B set? r u for reals, dawg? how long did it take you? did you go crazy by the end? Yeah, I listened to the whole thing. Every second of it. It was a few years ago, so I don't remember exactly how long it took to do it (a month maybe?). And yes, I did go crazy by the end of it... like I said, it turned me off of the Beatles for a bit! Still, I'm glad I did it! If I had the time and the inclination (and I don't!), I'd cull that 83 CD set down to maybe 15 CDs of just the highlights. Cheers, Shane And I thought that the 5 CD set of Bob Dylan's "The Basement Tapes" was a lot to wade through! Edited March 14, 2009 by Hot Ptah Quote
Alexander Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Posted March 14, 2009 Hot Ptah said: Indestructible! said: chewy said: Indestructible: no way, u really listened to the whole A/B set? r u for reals, dawg? how long did it take you? did you go crazy by the end? Yeah, I listened to the whole thing. Every second of it. It was a few years ago, so I don't remember exactly how long it took to do it (a month maybe?). And yes, I did go crazy by the end of it... like I said, it turned me off of the Beatles for a bit! Still, I'm glad I did it! If I had the time and the inclination (and I don't!), I'd cull that 83 CD set down to maybe 15 CDs of just the highlights. Cheers, Shane And I thought that the 5 CD set of Bob Dylan's "The Basement Tapes" was a lot to wade through! I have the complete Basement Tapes and with a few exceptions, I find it a delight almost from beginning to end. I think the big difference between the Let It Be sessions and the BT sessions that Dylan and the Band were having FUN. They were delighting themselves and each other, which makes it equally fun to listen to. By contrast, the Beatles were in the process of breaking up while recording what eventually became "Let It Be." For that reason, the documentary is hard to watch. I can imagine that listening to the tapes would be equally hard to do... Quote
Jazzmoose Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 ...and now that Shane's done it, he knows that it's true. Quote
captainwrong Posted March 15, 2009 Report Posted March 15, 2009 Indestructible! said: chewy said: Indestructible: no way, u really listened to the whole A/B set? r u for reals, dawg? how long did it take you? did you go crazy by the end? Yeah, I listened to the whole thing. Every second of it. It was a few years ago, so I don't remember exactly how long it took to do it (a month maybe?). And yes, I did go crazy by the end of it... like I said, it turned me off of the Beatles for a bit! Still, I'm glad I did it! If I had the time and the inclination (and I don't!), I'd cull that 83 CD set down to maybe 15 CDs of just the highlights. Cheers, Shane Good lord. I read the book based on all these tapes and that alone was exhausting enough. Quote
Rosco Posted March 15, 2009 Report Posted March 15, 2009 I'm sure I read somewhere that EMI are releasing remastered versions this year. Of course, we've been told that before. The only official CD I have is Revolver. The sound and packaging is poor enough that I swore off buying any more until they were done properly. That was ten years ago and I'm still waiting.... EMI's handling of what are landmark documents in rock history has been nothing less than disgraceful. I have a couple of the Purple Chick remasters, probably the only time I've illegally downloaded officially released material. While I'm not obsessive enough to wade through all the bonus material (more than once, anyway) the albums themselves sound wonderful (the mono mixes usually being superior). Even though I have a couple of these illegal versions, I would still quite happily spring for official remasters, properly done (meaning stereo and mono mixes, relevant bonus material, decent booklet). See the Pet Sounds reissue for how these things should be done. Quote
bettsaj Posted March 15, 2009 Report Posted March 15, 2009 Rosco said: I'm sure I read somewhere that EMI are releasing remastered versions this year. Of course, we've been told that before. The only official CD I have is Revolver. The sound and packaging is poor enough that I swore off buying any more until they were done properly. That was ten years ago and I'm still waiting.... EMI's handling of what are landmark documents in rock history has been nothing less than disgraceful. I have a couple of the Purple Chick remasters, probably the only time I've illegally downloaded officially released material. While I'm not obsessive enough to wade through all the bonus material (more than once, anyway) the albums themselves sound wonderful (the mono mixes usually being superior). Even though I have a couple of these illegal versions, I would still quite happily spring for official remasters, properly done (meaning stereo and mono mixes, relevant bonus material, decent booklet). See the Pet Sounds reissue for how these things should be done. Grays??... I'm a Romford boy, born and bred. Quote
Rosco Posted March 15, 2009 Report Posted March 15, 2009 bettsaj said: Grays??... I'm a Romford boy, born and bred. Ah, yes. I almost got shot in Romford a couple of years ago. Not been back much since. Quote
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted March 16, 2009 Report Posted March 16, 2009 u guys, "Indestructible!" is crazy!!!! watch out!!!!! Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.