Beatles Remasters coming! 09/09/09

[Brad]

We shouldn't have an obligation to listen to things we don't like anymore (although I think we eventually return to them at some point).

As far as nostalgia in music goes, if it brings you back to a different time and you remember it fondly, that's fine. As long as it has meaning to you and enjoy it, so? The choice is yours, no one else's. Some nostalgic things I've listened to, I've said, "oh yeah, that was nice" and that's it; didn't listen to it again. Beatles are different. I'm just enjoying the music without thinking back to those times.

[Cliff Englewood]

I must admit to skipping over "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" on any number of occasions.

Does this help your appreciation any?

I don't know why but I have grown to love that song over the years, I don't know many people that like it though, even the other Beatles hated it. It might have something to do with "Abbey Road" becoming a firm favorite of these re-masters. It's just sooooooooo Beatle-y.

My notice has November 5-9, which is okay with me, I can listen to the stereo mix, get use to them, and then bitch how bad they sound next to the mono's!

I know you're joking but that will actually happen.

I really am looking forward to the mono versions of the earlier albums. I've been listening to a lot of Beatles lately, and I think they reached their highpoint with Revolver, and after that, I see a decline in the songwriting, with the production overwhelming the music at times. I know that goes counter to what the vast majority of Beatles fans feel, but there is something so attractive to the Beatles up to Revolver, that it fully holds my attention. For me, something gets lost after Revolver, and what that "something" is, I cannot put my finger on, but their music looses some of its attraction for me.

Well you're not really alone there, in the Macdonald book he puts their career into three stages, "Going Up" which is everything up to "Revolver", "The Top" which is basically all the recordings from "Revolver" up to the end of "Pepper" and "Coming Down" which is everything post "Pepper". The problem that you cannot put your finger on just may have been too much drugs, by them not you. :tophat:

[A Lark Ascending]

Just finished 'Help'

I'd always assumed the 'approximate' tunings were a fault of off-centre disc pressing or rushed CD mastering. But I still hear some dodgy instrumental intonation on these recordings. The falling arpeggios after the initial verse on the title track, for example. Just sounds a bit flat to me.

[Teasing the Korean]

Just finished 'Help'

I'd always assumed the 'approximate' tunings were a fault of off-centre disc pressing or rushed CD mastering. But I still hear some dodgy instrumental intonation on these recordings. The falling arpeggios after the initial verse on the title track, for example. Just sounds a bit flat to me.

Did you ever notice on "You're Gonna Lose That Girl" how flat the opening vocals are in relation to the piano underneath?

[A Lark Ascending]

Just finished 'Help'

I'd always assumed the 'approximate' tunings were a fault of off-centre disc pressing or rushed CD mastering. But I still hear some dodgy instrumental intonation on these recordings. The falling arpeggios after the initial verse on the title track, for example. Just sounds a bit flat to me.

Did you ever notice on "You're Gonna Lose That Girl" how flat the opening vocals are in relation to the piano underneath?

Yes! This evening!

I'd have thought George Martin - with his reputation - would have dealt with that. Maybe he was guilty of assuming a pop audience wouldn't notice.

[Teasing the Korean]

Consumer-grade digital audio programs today have functions that are light years beyond those of top shelf analog equipment back then. Nowadays, musicians obsess over every little detail, using auto-tune, punch-ins, etc. In the 60s, they didn't even bother tuning their instruments before they rolled tape. And I love those records for that very reason. "I Got You" by James Brown is totally out of tune. The horns, guitar, and bass don't match up. Paul's voice cracks in "She's a Woman." Things were so much more real back then.

[JSngry]

That and the fact that pop records back then were made on fairly rigid timetables. That would soon change...

But apparently somebody knew something was wrong... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPmb0a5vZA

The lead-in to that first bridge is simply marvelous, and more than a little reminiscent, not in a "copycat" way but more of a "great minds thinking alike" type way.

[Brad]

Consumer-grade digital audio programs today have functions that are light years beyond those of top shelf analog equipment back then. Nowadays, musicians obsess over every little detail, using auto-tune, punch-ins, etc. In the 60s, they didn't even bother tuning their instruments before they rolled tape. And I love those records for that very reason. "I Got You" by James Brown is totally out of tune. The horns, guitar, and bass don't match up. Paul's voice cracks in "She's a Woman." Things were so much more real back then.

Which is probably why it takes year for a group to get a record out nowadays.

[JSngry]

punch-ins

Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records...

[Teasing the Korean]

Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records...

Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Teasing the Korean

[A Lark Ascending]

Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records...

Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level.

Most jazz records, however, still seem to get recorded pretty quickly. Except for Verve recordings where it takes ages to get Herbie Hancock/Sting/Peter Gabriel etc to phone in/e-mail/upload their parts.

[JSngry]

Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records...

Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level.

Yeah, I agree.

[felser]

Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records...

Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level.

Most jazz records, however, still seem to get recorded pretty quickly. Except for Verve recordings where it takes ages to get Herbie Hancock/Sting/Peter Gabriel etc to phone in/e-mail/upload their parts.

So many of them are on such a tight budget compared to the pop releases, due to the diminished sales expectations. There's a lot of jazz stuff from the 70's that, much as I like it, could have benefitted greatly from more preparation and more recording time. Muse, Strata-East, Tribe, Black Jazz a bunch of that stuff is wonderful but in places overly ragged clearly because of the rushed nature of the thing. Consider something like Mtume's 'Alkebu-Lan' or the Muse Clifford Jordan's, and how that is so much less than the sum of the parts seemingly should be. But with the underlying economics, I'm sure that's the best they could do, and I'm sure glad they did it. Chuck could probably speak to this phenomenon well.

[JSngry]

The Mtume thing was recorded live, wasn't it?

[JETman]

Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records...

Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level.

Most jazz records, however, still seem to get recorded pretty quickly. Except for Verve recordings where it takes ages to get Herbie Hancock/Sting/Peter Gabriel etc to phone in/e-mail/upload their parts.

So many of them are on such a tight budget compared to the pop releases, due to the diminished sales expectations. There's a lot of jazz stuff from the 70's that, much as I like it, could have benefitted greatly from more preparation and more recording time. Muse, Strata-East, Tribe, Black Jazz a bunch of that stuff is wonderful but in places overly ragged clearly because of the rushed nature of the thing. Consider something like Mtume's 'Alkebu-Lan' or the Muse Clifford Jordan's, and how that is so much less than the sum of the parts seemingly should be. But with the underlying economics, I'm sure that's the best they could do, and I'm sure glad they did it. Chuck could probably speak to this phenomenon well.

The stuff recorded in the 70s on labels like Muse also suffered due to the rubber-bandy sound of a double bass fed through an amp, and due to poor recording techniques overall. I find that these things sometimes take away from the quality of the music, and permanently lock it into another time period far far away.

[Alexander]

A couple of things that have been pissing me off a bit about "Revolution In the Head":

One) As I said before, MacDonald is a bit on the grouchy side and he has a tendency to come down hard on some songs in a way that I think is unwarranted. I especially find his dismissal of "Helter Skelter" to be completely wrongheaded. I think the Beatles do pretty GOOD proto-metal. What it comes down to (as is revealed in his text) is that MacDonald doesn't LIKE metal and sees no redeeming quality in it. That's fine, of course, but it queers his argument a bit, I think.

Two) Some of his factual errors are distracting. The first, mentioned here, is saying that either Ringo or George sang the "Dennis" part on "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)" when it is OBVIOUSLY Paul. I've never heard it any other way, nor have I ever met anyone who thought otherwise. It sounds like Paul. Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton.

[JSngry]

Alan King was a main change on Capitol

[felser]

The Mtume thing was recorded live, wasn't it?

Yes, live at the East and clearly underrehearsed/underprepared.

[felser]

What's wrong with nostalgia anyway?

Me, I listen to what I want to listen to at any given time, and don't much worry about what proporton of the reason is "nostalgia" and what proportion is "quality" (surely both are involved in many ways, as are many other factors at other times, like "trendiness"). If I'm enjoying it, I'm enjoying it. It's my collection, my time, my enjoyment. Bit of a silly argument overall to me, and pretty elitist/snobby.

[Jim R]

Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton.

Hmm... I think most of your corrections make sense, but it was Freddie King that was a major influence on Clapton (not necessarily to the exclusion of Albert, but Clapton has made it very clear that Freddie was a huge influence on him).

Anyway, this whole thing sounded like a string of incorrect assumptions, so I just did a little online searching. It appears that it was Harrison, not Clapton, who dubbed the guitar "Lucy". The Gibson website suggests that Harrison named it after Lucille Ball... the iconic redhead... (?!). At this point, I'm prepared to NOT believe anything I read about this story.

The guitar in question was originally a goldtop owned by Rick Derringer, who had it refinished in red. Clapton got it from Derringer, and then gave it to George.

[Brad]

Isn't Lucille what BB called his or do I have that wrong?

[Jim R]

Isn't Lucille what BB called his or do I have that wrong?

You have that right.

[Cliff Englewood]

A couple of things that have been pissing me off a bit about "Revolution In the Head":

One) As I said before, MacDonald is a bit on the grouchy side and he has a tendency to come down hard on some songs in a way that I think is unwarranted. I especially find his dismissal of "Helter Skelter" to be completely wrongheaded. I think the Beatles do pretty GOOD proto-metal. What it comes down to (as is revealed in his text) is that MacDonald doesn't LIKE metal and sees no redeeming quality in it. That's fine, of course, but it queers his argument a bit, I think.

Two) Some of his factual errors are distracting. The first, mentioned here, is saying that either Ringo or George sang the "Dennis" part on "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)" when it is OBVIOUSLY Paul. I've never heard it any other way, nor have I ever met anyone who thought otherwise. It sounds like Paul. Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton.

I agree with your first point, Macdonald does not like the fact that somewhere in the 60's, "Pop" turned into "Rock" and to an extent he has a point, that "Rock", although some of it is excellent, did produce some real shite full of really lazy, excessive noodeling.

However after listening to "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)" a few times I am starting to come around to the idea that it's George. It's just there are a couple of words that really don't sound like Paul's voice, even Paul doing a bad impression of someone. I'm nearly sure anyway.

[Cliff Englewood]

Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton.

Hmm... I think most of your corrections make sense, but it was Freddie King that was a major influence on Clapton (not necessarily to the exclusion of Albert, but Clapton has made it very clear that Freddie was a huge influence on him).

Anyway, this whole thing sounded like a string of incorrect assumptions, so I just did a little online searching. It appears that it was Harrison, not Clapton, who dubbed the guitar "Lucy". The Gibson website suggests that Harrison named it after Lucille Ball... the iconic redhead... (?!). At this point, I'm prepared to NOT believe anything I read about this story.

The guitar in question was originally a goldtop owned by Rick Derringer, who had it refinished in red. Clapton got it from Derringer, and then gave it to George.

Excellent bit of guitar based sleuthing there, likewise, I never remember reading about Albert Collins calling his axe anything at all, a bit strange Macdonald would make such a big goof there.

BTW, I wish someone would give me a vintage Les Paul.

[Van Basten II]

What's wrong with nostalgia anyway?

Me, I listen to what I want to listen to at any given time, and don't much worry about what proporton of the reason is "nostalgia" and what proportion is "quality" (surely both are involved in many ways, as are many other factors at other times, like "trendiness"). If I'm enjoying it, I'm enjoying it. It's my collection, my time, my enjoyment. Bit of a silly argument overall to me, and pretty elitist/snobby.

Nostalgia is ok until it stops economically to develop current music, the popular music scene here is invaded by young singer and artist , talking about fm radio, doing (quite often very bad) covers of songs done in the 60s and the 70s , if you add the mix of real retro songs put in the mix, there is little time to give airplay to new songs created today.

But on a personnal basis there is nothing wrong with it.