J.A.W. Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) Of course a 2009 remaster which was four years in the making would likely sound a lot better than a 1987 remaster. I don't agree. A 2009 remaster can sound a lot worse than one from 1987; as fellow member Claude would say, it all depends on the mastering, and he's right. Edited September 6, 2009 by J.A.W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Local HMV sells the stereo box at 189.99 $ plus taxes. Will do the trick for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Local HMV sells the stereo box at 189.99 $ plus taxes. Will do the trick for me. Canadian $$, I take it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Don't knock the duck , it is worth .92 US Dollar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Don't have a big desire to relive my youth, so I'm passing. I'll use the $ for other music. But that's just me. I hope everyone who's into these releases has a great time listening to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkboughtlunch Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) I'd find it a lot more helpful if the reviewers would make sound comparisons between the new sets and the recent "Capitol Albums" sets rather than just comparing to the '87 CD's, which is such a no-brainer. Of course a 2009 remaster which was four years in the making would likely sound a lot better than a 1987 remaster. How much noticably better do they sound than remasters done just a couple years ago on the 63-65 titles? The "Capitol Albums" sets were the American releases, but were never (either the 60s Capital Lps or thes 2000s Capital CD box sets) sourced from the original master mixdown tapes. Instead, some bozo named Dave Dexter at Capitol took the dubs EMI provided Capitol in the 60s and then redubbed them adding reverb and sometimes fake stereo for the US market Lps. This is why comparing the new 2009 remasters (from the original master mixdown tapes) to the bastardized Dexter US Capitol Albums CDs (3rd generation with added reverb and sometimes fake rechanneled stereo on a couple of tracks) is an inappropriate comparison. Dexter also changed the songs and sequences on the US releases - so that they didn't match the way the Beatles intended the Lps to be released in the UK. Some say the infamous Beatles butcher cover, was their statement of disapproval to the way Dexter "butchered" their albums for the U.S. market. More info from Steve Hoffman on Dave Dexter: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost...mp;postcount=14 Now that people know I knew Dave I'm being flooded with messages asking me to talk a little about Dave & The Beatles. Sigh. Well, first of all, Dave thought he was IMPROVING the sound of the Beatles' tapes. Perhaps on the crappy home equipment of the day, the American versions did sound better. Secondly, Dave (as he told me), didn't like John Lennon very much (ya think?) Dave said that John (as the "voice" of the group) didn't want to "Play the game at all", meaning the publicity game. He didn't want to shmooze with the press, didn't want to shake hands with cripples, etc. Dave never forgave him for that. Now, when Lennon died and Dexter wrote his little piece in Billboard, I wrote a letter to the magazine that was published in the next issue. Basically I ripped Dave a new one for being so openly hostile the week after John died. On reflection, that not wanting to meet cripples thing really galled Dave for some reason. I asked him about it, and he said that the Beatles brought hope to this country after Kennedy was killed and he was appalled that the group just wanted to party in Los Angeles. A generational thing I think. Like Prince Charles vs. Princess Diana. Charles was and is "duty first" and Diana just wanted to hang out... At any rate, when I finally met Dave in 1982, the first thing I told him was that I wrote that bitch letter about him and I was sorry about it. That's when we started talking about the Beatles era. He said that all he was trying to do was give their music some "life" by redubbing with chamber echo and new EQ. He felt the British tapes sounded "dead as a door nail" which they probably did on the consumer equipment of the time. He said he was under pressure from the very top to lower the number of tracks on albums and that the Beatles were no exception. Since Capitol had to wait for certain early songs to become available to them, they had to scramble for tracks in 1964. Dave also said it was his idea to make RUBBER SOUL into a folk album by programming it to start with I'VE JUST SEEN A FACE and by putting IT'S ONLY LOVE on there and removing an uptempo number or two. It worked for me; the American programming of Rubber Soul is the only time I'll take the American version over the British, even though it lost three songs in the process. Edited September 6, 2009 by monkboughtlunch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Called my local Borders today to see if they're taking pre-orders. Answer was no, but they'll have 'em Wed morning at 9 so that's where I'll be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vajerzy Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Called my local Borders today to see if they're taking pre-orders. Answer was no, but they'll have 'em Wed morning at 9 so that's where I'll be. Mono or stereo?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Called my local Borders today to see if they're taking pre-orders. Answer was no, but they'll have 'em Wed morning at 9 so that's where I'll be. Mono or stereo?? I think it was the individual cds not the boxes but I'll check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldB3 Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 I think the record companies are loathe to release anything popular or hot on SACD. I think they think it will confuse buyers and ultimately hurt sales. Very few of us care about SACD, which is a shame, but a reality that the labels will pay attention to. True, I think the additional cost of SCAD hurt the sales of Stones Remasters. FWIW, I love the HDCD Dead remasters and I wouldn't say my system is that high end. Not sure what the additional cost of confusion would be with the HDCD format. We're all nut cases! Nah, but those folks over the Hoffman forms scare me. I wouldn't want to be walking down the street wearing a fleece with EMI or Amazon on it around these folks when orders are not fulfilled next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 I love the HDCD remasters of the GD too, but I don't really hear a siginifican difference from one good player to the next, HDCD decoding or not. Don't think HDCD would cause any real marketing/sales problems, but I wouldn't call the sonic benefit near that of SACD. In these sort of numbers I don't think SACD would HAVE to be that much more expensive to the consumer. . . but EMI may have a different idea. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Some say the infamous Beatles butcher cover, was their statement of disapproval to the way Dexter "butchered" their albums for the U.S. market. That is a long-disproved urban myth. It was one shot in a larger series of artsy photographs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) ...Instead, some bozo named Dave Dexter at Capitol took the dubs EMI provided Capitol in the 60s and then redubbed them adding reverb and sometimes fake stereo for the US market Lps... Hardcore Beatles fans often exhibit an inability or unwillingness to place anyone even remotely associated with their heroes into any sort of larger sociological, historical or artistic context. For Beatles fans, people's lives begin somewhere around 1962 and end somewhere around 1970. Any of their achievements or disasters occurring before or after these dates are ignored. This subculture's vilification of that "bozo" you reference is a prime example. Dave Dexter played a huge role in making Capitol Records the great label that is was in the 1940s and 1950s. He signed, among others, such has-beens as Duke Ellington, Frank Sinatra, Nat "King" Cole, Peggy Lee, and Stan Kenton. No other major mainstream pop label had a roster of artists as strong as Capitol's during this period; and Dexter's contributions far, far outweigh both his later degradations of - and improvements to - the Beatles' catalog. Whether you like what Dexter did with the Beatles or not, dismissing him as a "bozo" suggests a lack of understanding of pop music, and also perpetuates unfavorable stereotypes of Beatles fans. The Beatles and Dave Dexter both deserve better. Edited September 7, 2009 by Teasing the Korean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 thank you for saying that - somewhere I have a copy of Dexter's autobiography which is quite interesting - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Some say the infamous Beatles butcher cover, was their statement of disapproval to the way Dexter "butchered" their albums for the U.S. market. That is a long-disproved urban myth. It was one shot in a larger series of artsy photographs. I recall reading, somewhere, that the "butcher" photos were actually intended to be used as part of the promotion of the "Paperback Writer" single (commenting on the often grisly nature of such books). One DOES have to question the judgment, however, of the Capitol art department in using the photo for an album cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Target's selling the discs for $11.98 each for the single ones, buy two and get a $5 gift card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkboughtlunch Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) ...Instead, some bozo named Dave Dexter at Capitol took the dubs EMI provided Capitol in the 60s and then redubbed them adding reverb and sometimes fake stereo for the US market Lps... Hardcore Beatles fans often exhibit an inability or unwillingness to place anyone even remotely associated with their heroes into any sort of larger sociological, historical or artistic context. For Beatles fans, people's lives begin somewhere around 1962 and end somewhere around 1970. Any of their achievements or disasters occurring before or after these dates are ignored. This subculture's vilification of that "bozo" you reference is a prime example. Dave Dexter played a huge role in making Capitol Records the great label that is was in the 1940s and 1950s. He signed, among others, such has-beens as Duke Ellington, Frank Sinatra, Nat "King" Cole, Peggy Lee, and Stan Kenton. No other major mainstream pop label had a roster of artists as strong as Capitol's during this period; and Dexter's contributions far, far outweigh both his later degradations of - and improvements to - the Beatles' catalog. Whether you like what Dexter did with the Beatles or not, dismissing him as a "bozo" suggests a lack of understanding of pop music, and also perpetuates unfavorable stereotypes of Beatles fans. The Beatles and Dave Dexter both deserve better. Business sense and signing high value talent differs from poor post production audio skills and tampering with an artists finished master. From that perspective, I stand by the bozo comment. The frustration many have felt with the Beatles catalog is that the 1987 CDs sounded atrocious and the first four albums were available on CD only in mono, despite the 3rd and 4th Lps (A Hard Days Night and Beatles For Sale) being recorded on 4-track and true stereo mixes (with a phantom center) existing. Instead, the poor quality Dexter dubs with Capitol applied reverb and in some cases electronically processed fake stereo made it to CD several years ago, while the original stereo master tapes were not tapped (in the case of first four albums) until the 2009 remasters. Edited September 7, 2009 by monkboughtlunch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) Business sense and signing high value talent differs from poor post production audio skills and tampering with an artists finished master. From that perspective, I stand by the bozo comment. The frustration many have felt with the Beatles catalog is that the 1987 CDs sounded atrocious and the first four albums were available on CD only in mono, despite the 3rd and 4th Lps (A Hard Days Night and Beatles For Sale) being recorded on 4-track and true stereo mixes (with a phantom center) existing. Instead, the poor quality Dexter dubs with Capitol applied reverb and in some cases electronically processed fake stereo made it to CD several years ago, while the original stereo master tapes were not tapped (in the case of first four albums) until the 2009 remasters. In several cases, Dexter improved the sound of those recordings (e.g. "The Beatles Second Album). Don't forget that the Beatles signed off on the Capitol albums, and that they were under contract to that label. "Beatles for Sale" has one of the wimpiest, most lopsided stereo mixes I've ever heard on a 60s pop record. I have easy listening covers of Beatles tunes with more balls than that album. And Sinatra, Ellington, Kenton, Peggy Lee and Nat "King" Cole" trump the Beatles any day, in my book. Edited September 7, 2009 by Teasing the Korean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Everything I've read by & about Dave Dexter suggest to me that he was the type of guy who would pull Variety off the newsstand first, Down Beat second, not that there's anything wrong with that, not there was all that much of a difference between the two for a long time, and not that that didn't place him apart from executives at other big labels (although Capitol in 1964 was not yet wholly removed from its roots as an artist-driven indie), I'm just saying that as interesting as he is, he's not somebody i would have wanted handling beatles releases at the time, nor was he absent what today would be considered questionable racial attitudes, as i understand it. More Earl Wilson than either Earl Hines or Brian Wilson. Of course, nobody's perfect, and Dave Dexter certainly has a significant and important legacy, but so do Norman Rockwell & Milton Berle, neither of whom I would want handling beatles records then or now, and neither of whom i would consider true, lasting friends of jazz even if they did like it, and i don't know that they did or didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 ...Of course, nobody's perfect, and Dave Dexter certainly has a significant and important legacy, but so do Norman Rockwell & Milton Berle, neither of whom I would want handling beatles records then or now, and neither of whom i would consider true, lasting friends of jazz even if they did like it, and i don't know that they did or didn't. Considering how wimpy and lifeless George Martin's stereo mixes of Beatles tunes were, I'm sure that either Norman Rockwell or Milton Berle may have provided viable alternatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjzee Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Growing up with the Capitol masters, I always thought they were punchier and livelier than the British masters, especially in mono. So IMHO Dave Dexter did a good job there. "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on the Capitol 45 just jumped out of the speakers. As for the first 4 albums being available on CD only in mono, blame McCartney and the other surviving Beatles for that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkboughtlunch Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) "Beatles for Sale" has one of the wimpiest, most lopsided stereo mixes I've ever heard on a 60s pop record. I have easy listening covers of Beatles tunes with more balls than that album. Hi Oddjob, Have you heard the 2009 remaster of "Beatles For Sale?" The original stereo mix is by far superior, as the mono mix was heavily compressed and EQ'd very bright and thinly for AM radio and portable "Sears type" low fi record players. In contrast, the original stereo mix is less compressed, more dynamic, and has much greater detail. Here's the 1987 CD - original 1964 mono mix: http://www.beatledrops.com/SaleM/Party_BFS_87_CD_M.wav Here's the 2009 CD - original 1964 stereo mix (first time on CD from master tape, 2009): http://www.beatledrops.com/SaleST/Party_Remaster.wav Edited September 7, 2009 by monkboughtlunch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkboughtlunch Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 It should also be noted about Dexter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dexter,_Jr. He turned down the first four British singles by the Beatles, including "She Loves You", and only accepted the fifth, "I Want To Hold Your Hand," after pressure from the British EMI ownership group. In addition to sonically altering the finished masters provided by the EMI/Beatles/George Martin to Capitol, Dexter included verbiage about himself on the back of US Lps: "Produced in England by George Martin and in the U.S.A. with the assistance of Dave Dexter, Jr." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Have you heard the 2009 remaster of "Beatles For Sale?" The original stereo mix is by far superior, as the mono mix was heavily compressed and EQ'd very bright and thinly for AM radio and portable "Sears type" low fi record players. Let's agree to disagree on that one. I can actually hear the band on the mono version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 In addition to sonically altering the finished masters provided by the EMI/Beatles/George Martin to Capitol, Dexter included verbiage about himself on the back of US Lps: "Produced in England by George Martin and in the U.S.A. with the assistance of Dave Dexter, Jr." As well he should have. He improved them in many cases. But all of this does not really matter to me. His involvement with Capitol in the 1950s far eclipses anything he did afterward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_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.