+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Messing with music masterpieces

  1. #11
    Join Date: May 2010

    Location: Vancouver, Canada

    Posts: 2,166
    I'm Alex.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratmangler View Post
    I think the Let It Be album in its original form should be deleted.
    The Let It Be ....Naked album is superior in just about every way.
    If The Beatles hadn't been fighting and bickering so vociferously the album might have ended up sounding more like the reworking - that was their intention all along.
    Instead it was handed to Phil Spector to make a mess of .....
    I'm sorry, but I disagree. I have both the original and the revisionist version, and guess what -- I always reach out for the original Let It Be. Sounds better. Not as bleached as the Naked.
    Don't you just hate it when you cannot detect where the post ends and a signature line begins?

    Alex.

  2. #12
    Bigman80 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magiccarpetride View Post
    The problem, as I see it, is that people who were born long after the Beatles disbanded will get their first exposure to Pepper via this shitty anniversary fuckup. First impressions matter. And to make things worse, it is the bloody OFFICIAL release by the Apple Corps., not some experimental playful project. What Apple is saying is "this is how Sgt. Pepper really sounds!" Which is bullshit.
    Well, I was born well after the Beatles disbanded and have 5? versions of Sgt Pepper released on Vinyl!

    My feeling is that although the original first pressing is fantastic, the thrill of hearing all that detail and reimagining of the album for the 50th anniversary, made it worth every penny. Whilst I understand your point that the Beatles works are something of a "masterpiece" for want of a better word, and messing with it is blasphemy, I believe as long as the original works, as they were made in the 60's, are available, there's nothing to fear from the odd remix and remaster. Personally, I f@cking love the work Giles did and reach for that copy when I want to listen to Sgt Pepper.

    I'm HOPING for a 50th anniversary White Album.

  3. #13
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: Valley of the Hazels

    Posts: 9,139
    I'm AMusicFanNotAnAudiophile.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magiccarpetride View Post
    I think the Beatles knew what they were doing 50 years ago, and if they released this LP the way it was released, it's the last word and the exact way they wanted it to sound
    They were only present for the mono mixdowns, and that was all they were interested in.
    When the tedious task of doing a stereo mix came up you couldn't see them for dust.

    As far as The Beatles were concerned it was supposed to heard in mono, and everything else is an aberration.
    Chris



    Common sense isn't anymore!

  4. #14
    Join Date: May 2010

    Location: Vancouver, Canada

    Posts: 2,166
    I'm Alex.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigman80 View Post
    Well, I was born well after the Beatles disbanded and have 5? versions of Sgt Pepper released on Vinyl!

    My feeling is that although the original first pressing is fantastic, the thrill of hearing all that detail and reimagining of the album for the 50th anniversary, made it worth every penny. Whilst I understand your point that the Beatles works are something of a "masterpiece" for want of a better word, and messing with it is blasphemy, I believe as long as the original works, as they were made in the 60's, are available, there's nothing to fear from the odd remix and remaster. Personally, I f@cking love the work Giles did and reach for that copy when I want to listen to Sgt Pepper.

    I'm HOPING for a 50th anniversary White Album.
    I'll tell you a bit more why I'm a bit pissed at Giles's work. I was fully enthused about the 50th anniversary Pepper, and wanted to give it all accolades. And then, when I sat down to listen to what he's done, I suddenly heard how he EDITED OUT the 'fingers on the strings' effect that George Harrison did on purpose at the end of the descending lick on "Fixing A Hole"! (you know the part when Paul finishes singing "where it will gooooo!")

    That did it for me. I said "fcuk this, you can't overrule George's choices, just because you want this 'oh so squeaky clean' feat of audio engineering!"

    So it isn't just a remix, it was a house cleaning project. And I resent those unilateral choices.
    Don't you just hate it when you cannot detect where the post ends and a signature line begins?

    Alex.

  5. #15
    Bigman80 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magiccarpetride View Post
    I'll tell you a bit more why I'm a bit pissed at Giles's work. I was fully enthused about the 50th anniversary Pepper, and wanted to give it all accolades. And then, when I sat down to listen to what he's done, I suddenly heard how he EDITED OUT the 'fingers on the strings' effect that George Harrison did on purpose at the end of the descending lick on "Fixing A Hole"! (you know the part when Paul finishes singing "where it will gooooo!")

    That did it for me. I said "fcuk this, you can't overrule George's choices, just because you want this 'oh so squeaky clean' feat of audio engineering!"

    So it isn't just a remix, it was a house cleaning project. And I resent those unilateral choices.
    Ye there's a few little intricate bits Like that that are missing but it is what it is, Giles's take. I suppose George isn't here to object, maybe they should been a bit more careful with their parts. It's an edition in my view, a different take on a masterpiece.

  6. #16
    Join Date: Mar 2018

    Location: Home Counties

    Posts: 157
    I'm Joe.

    Default

    It's theirs to do with as they please though - they aren't asking for all previous pressings to be returned to them so just enjoy what you've got.

  7. #17
    Join Date: May 2010

    Location: Vancouver, Canada

    Posts: 2,166
    I'm Alex.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratmangler View Post
    They were only present for the mono mixdowns, and that was all they were interested in.
    When the tedious task of doing a stereo mix came up you couldn't see them for dust.

    As far as The Beatles were concerned it was supposed to heard in mono, and everything else is an aberration.
    I'm calling an urban myth here. Whilst it is true that at the beginning of their career the Beatles were absent for the mixes (say "Please Please Me", and okay, maybe even "With The Beatles") it is a pure myth that they were never present for the stereo mixes. The myth persists despite lack of hard evidence.

    Think about it -- we know that the lads were perfectionists and were working like dogs on every tiny little detail of their output. And then what -- just get up and leave when it comes to stereo mixes? How plausible is that? They'd never leave such important aspect of their product to some putzes that happen to be buzzing around the studio.
    Don't you just hate it when you cannot detect where the post ends and a signature line begins?

    Alex.

  8. #18
    Join Date: May 2010

    Location: Vancouver, Canada

    Posts: 2,166
    I'm Alex.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigman80 View Post
    Ye there's a few little intricate bits Like that that are missing but it is what it is, Giles's take. I suppose George isn't here to object, maybe they should been a bit more careful with their parts. It's an edition in my view, a different take on a masterpiece.
    That particular effect is the integral part of the song. George Harrison was very meticulous when crafting his licks, hooks and solos. If he played the lick with that fingers-on-strings effect, that's exactly how he intended it. It was not a recording mistake, and to assume so is preposterous.
    Don't you just hate it when you cannot detect where the post ends and a signature line begins?

    Alex.

  9. #19
    Join Date: Mar 2018

    Location: Home Counties

    Posts: 157
    I'm Joe.

    Default

    Agree or disagree - and I'm apathetic due to my reasons above - I love your passion.

  10. #20
    Join Date: Aug 2016

    Location: the forest

    Posts: 11
    I'm haiduk.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    There is a case to be made for arguing that whatever limitations the artist had at the time are intrinsic to the art they produced.
    100% agree. That's why it's called a 'record'. It's produced as best as it can be at that given time (and with the best equipment available to the band at the time). The equipment used and the recording conditions become an essential characteristic of the music itself. Once it's recorded it becomes a snapshot of that time and those conditions. That's the magic of it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •