The Beatles' Thread

[Frumious B]

The remixes can be very interesting listens, but the monos are always the ones I go back to in the end. They have the virtues of being original and also sounding the best IMHO. It’s cool that they can isolate and separate elements from recordings to such a degree as to make the new remixes possible, but I have to wonder what is being lost from the original recordings in terms of ambience, air etc. that then has to be added back artificially with software after the fact to get it to sound right again.

So many people listen to music on little phone speakers, single Bluetooth speakers, AirPods, Alexa, HomePod etc.. If only there were a collection of Beatles mixes suited for those kind of listening environments. Oh wait, they mixed most of it in mono back in the sixties. But, of course, the mono box isn’t on streaming services…. For some reason they treat the mono mixes like new listeners can’t handle them and they are only for hardcore old school Beatle freaks. But considering the way so many modern listeners experience music, the original mono mixes might be the best choice a lot of the time.

[Mister Triscuits]

So many people listen to music on little phone speakers, single Bluetooth speakers, AirPods, Alexa, HomePod etc..

Andrew of the Parlogram YouTube channel was surprisingly critical of the sound on "Now and Then." He says that his first listen to the song was through bluetooth earbuds, and it seems optimized for just that kind of listening, and he was disappointed when he heard the record through his stereo system.

[JJ88]

^I love his videos and he's spot on with the mastering- far too loud. I can't comment on the Atmos version.

The mono mixes should be far more easily available than they are. I didn't hear a fair amount of them until I got hold of that CD box and they are indeed far superior. In the UK, the earlier stereos sold very poorly on original release. Sometimes the quality of the stereo mixes reflects the low attention they would be given by the public at the time.

The original batch of CDs recognised this, by having the earlier albums in mono, although some of the tracks on Past Masters should also have been in mono.

[ronmac]

I cannot see how anyone can improve on the mono "Tomorrow Never Knows." It's a perfect example of a mono mix that negates the need for stereo.

[Jerjo]

I grew up on the modified-to-stereo American records so I've never heard the actual mono stuff. I have read that the Beatles mono vinyl box is a revelation. Trouble is that damn thing is $$$$$$$$

[JJ88]

I've heard that US fans liked the UK stereo mixes, because- even when there was wacky hard stereo panning- they were unmolested.

I've always avoided the US mixes. I think they only ever had the one CD release, in the original Capitol Albums boxes of the 2000s.

I generally find Giles Martin's work OK; not as objectionable as those Genesis remixes, for instance. But I still don't agree with any phasing-out of the original mixes, which I've been reading has started to happen. I view these remixes as a fun alternative, nothing more.

I cannot see how anyone can improve on the mono "Tomorrow Never Knows." It's a perfect example of a mono mix that negates the need for stereo.

That one actually has a pretty good original stereo mix, though.

[Frumious B]

I've heard that US fans liked the UK stereo mixes, because- even when there was wacky hard stereo panning- they were unmolested.

I've always avoided the US mixes. I think they only ever had the one CD release, in the original Capitol Albums boxes of the 2000s.

I generally find Giles Martin's work OK; not as objectionable as those Genesis remixes, for instance. But I still don't agree with any phasing-out of the original mixes, which I've been reading has started to happen. I view these remixes as a fun alternative, nothing more.

I think it’s probably a good idea for folks to get anything that they still want from the 2009 remasters sooner rather than later. It looks like Pepper, “White”, Abbey Road and Let It Be are only available as new physical product in the remixed editions now. Also Beatles 1 is only available in the 2015 remixed edition. This will probably hold true for the Red and Blue albums and Revolver once the existing inventory of the previous versions is depleted. You can still get things used for relatively cheap prices. The 2009s, except the mono box, are all still on streaming…for now.

[ronmac]

That one actually has a pretty good original stereo mix, though.

Indeed, but the band wasn't involved. The mono Revolver is considered the definitive mix. I bet most people couldn't tell that TNK is mono.

[JJ88]

I think it’s probably a good idea for folks to get anything that they still want from the 2009 remasters sooner rather than later. It looks like Pepper, “White”, Abbey Road and Let It Be are only available as new physical product in the remixed editions now. Also Beatles 1 is only available in the 2015 remixed edition.

Yes, I've heard rumblings of this for a while. A bad decision IMHO.

Again I quite like some of the remixes on their own merits, but they shouldn't be replacing anything on the marketplace. The mastering on them reflects modern trends. So even if the remixes aren't in themselves radically different, you still get quite a different (louder) sound to the original mono/stereo ones.

[ronmac]

I've listened to a good portion of the first set. So far, most of the remixes are okay, despite the fact that there's no need for them. I agree about She Loves You. The last bit has static, like a bad vinyl pressing. I think "Love Me Do" is too heavy-handed and makes it clear that the only remaining band members are the bass player and drummer. I don't like the mix of "I Saw Her Standing There," as it buries the guitar, and then, during the lead break, it has too much reverb. Aside from those, I think the acoustic guitar on "This Boy" is a bit too harsh. There is such a thing as too much clarity.

I'm guessing most fans will like this.

I reserve my final judgment until I hear the rest.

[JJ88]

'Love Me Do' was quite good. Very narrow stereo, and they've added reverb to compensate for what I noticed in the fan attempts at doing stereo on this- the dead, dry drum sound. But it was a decent effort. Should this now become the standard version? Definitely not.

They used the stereo 'Please Please Me' which- though the original red album also had this- I view as an error. That's not the hit version, it's a different take altogether.

I agree about She Loves You. The last bit has static, like a bad vinyl pressing.

Something's definitely wrong here, isn't it? The worst I've ever heard that song sound. The stereo itself is again OK but the source is so bad it hardly matters.

[Mister Triscuits]

Very informative video on why Volume 2 of Mark Lewisohn's epic Beatles biography is taking so long to appear.

[ronmac]

Interesting and unfortunate. Volume 1 is priceless.

[JJ88]

Yes Lewisohn has spoken in several interviews about a rift with Harrison. He had a basically good relationship with McCartney and didn't really have one with Starr.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

Yes Lewisohn has spoken in several interviews about a rift with Harrison. He had a basically good relationship with McCartney and didn't really have one with Starr.

George used to tell people not to let Lewisohn interview them which certainly hobbled his progress. And if he ever manages to get Vol. 2 done, the guy is in his 70s now. I think the chance of ever seeing Vol. 3 is zero.

He also needs to find a repository for his archive after he is gone. Several years ago he said he has 13.2 tons of material.

[JJ88]

The last interview I heard with Lewisohn, he said he and McCartney bonded over Harrison-related tales of woe during the Anthology project! It was a podcast he appeared on earlier in the year.

Lewisohn did have other allies such as Neil Aspinall and Derek Taylor. But those are also long gone.

[bfd]

[Rarebird]

Interesting and unfortunate. Volume 1 is priceless.

Yes, I got the large version for my birthday once. Hope to be able to buy and read the other 2 volumes before I die.

Why can't they just write an article about the problems Mark Lewisohn is experiencing. Reading is much faster than listening to someone talking on YouTube.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

It seems to me that Vols 2 and 3 would be the "easiest" to write. Post 1962 there is a huge wealth of sources to draw on, including contemporary interviews (with the Beatles themselves), books by intimates, and so forth...and wouldn't need to depend so heavily on new one-to-one interviews with people inside the circle.
I'm not a historian and l have no idea what kind of 'truth' Lewisohn is looking for as he certainly wants to write the definitive historical account. He has said himself the books are difficult to finish as he keeps finding new information to be included. Seems to me he needs to draw a line at some point and put out Vol 2 with what he has, and perhaps do revised editions later. An obsession over perfection might stop him from getting them out at all.
As far as l am concerned Vol 1 was a staggering achievement mainly because there was such a dearth of information regarding that period of Beatle history. So many authors have tackled the 63-70 period that it wouldn't be a horrific loss if he never finishes the others. But l would love for him to get them out, and since he has devoted decades of his life to this project it would be a terrible shame if it is left unfinished.

And an unrelated question...where in the hell did Richard DiLello disappear to, the "house hippie" who wrote The Longest Cocktail Party? Yes, l know he wrote several movies and worked in television, but with everyone who had any connection to the Beatles gets interviewed on podcasts and so on, where is Richard? That is one of my favorite Beatle-related books that truly captured the insanity of Apple, written right after it all happened. And l remember 15 or so years ago the Gallagher brothers bought the rights to make it into a film (proving Liam can read, l suppose), but couldn't find anyone to write the screenplay. I guess asking the established screenwriter Richard DiLello never occurred to them. If anyone could capture that book on film it would be fantastic.