Messing with music masterpieces

[magiccarpetride]

Imagine for a moment if, when last year Apple Corps. released the 50th anniversary Sgt. Pepper's reissue, they decided to 'modernize' its iconic LP cover. They hired visual artists and designers to add pertinent and prominent cardboard cutouts of some contemporary celebrities behind the four Beatles, and maybe even removed some 'obsolete' elements from the image on the record sleeve.

I'd bet you that the public outcry would be stupendous. Everybody and their uncle would vehemently protest the audacity of Apple Corps. taking such liberties with the iconic and seminal work of art, one of the most prominent masterpieces of the 20th century music.

And yet... and yet! When Giles Martin took the liberty to mess with the recorded masterpiece, to re-imagine it and reassemble it to his liking (under the excuse of 'modernizing' it), no one protested, no one said a word.

Why is it that we tolerate such revisionist blasphemy, while still being super touchy about the visual side of the package? To my mind, it is much bigger blasphemy to modify the Beatles original product (the originally mixed and mastered released songs), than it is to modify the visual packaging.

Imagine if someone went and started rearranging the notes Bach or Mozart of Beethoven had originally written. If a budding young composer goes in and decides to 'modernize' Beethoven's Ninth Symphony by removing some 'dated' parts and adding some more modern sounding parts, people would form a lynch mob and go after that person's head. And yet, when it comes to the Beatles and their masterpieces, the crowd seems okay with this atrocious process of 'modernization'.

People will say "but, but, but, you know full well that Sir Paul McCartney himself praised the new reimagined Sgt. Pepper's, so who are you to complain?" Well, my question is, why would McCartney say 'no!' to millions of dollars pouring into his coffers? Of course he and Ringo and Yoko and Olivia are going to be behind these re-imagining projects, because they all stand to profit from such gimmicks handsomely.

But because the Beatles are not merely a commercial product, but are also one of the most important parts of our cultural heritage, we cannot let it all boil down to sales and marketing tactics.

Off my soap box now, just wanted to voice my concerns regarding the possibly upcoming 50th anniversary release of the brand new and 'modernized' White Album'. I hope the travesty won't continue. Just give as the all analog stereo master of the White Album, the way you gave us the mono master in 2014. The 2012 remastered-from-stereo-digital-remaster pressing is atrocious!

[Stratmangler]

There's a massive flaw in your thinking, Alex.

The Beatles intended their work to be heard in glorious mono.
The stereo version was almost throwaway stuff from the band's perspective (they never attended or had any part of any stereo mixdowns).
And it was thus all the way up to the last couple of albums.

So your copy of The Beatles, in stereo, and as it was at the time of release is unlikely to happen, unless of course you want to throw copious amounts of cash at it.
I hear that Apple are waiting to start production, and as soon as they've received payment ....

The Giles Martin remix stuff on Sgt. Pepper was an imagination on the younger Martin's part along the lines of "what if we could incorporate mix elements from the mono versions into the stereo versions", and the remaining Beatles agreed that it would be interesting.
Nobody knocked on your front door, put a gun against your head, force marched you down to the record store, and forced you to part with your hard earned.

A simple "I'm not so keen on it" would have sufficed, but instead we got an extended essay with things like "revisionist" and "blasphemy" in it.
Why use five words, when two thousand, seven hundred and ninety one will do?
If you don't like it don't buy it and don't listen to it.

There are lots of different releases of The Beatles catalogue out there, and I assume that one of them must be sufficient to satisfy your desire.

[Macca]

Your assumption is that the way the records sounded at the time was the way the artist wanted them too. That may not be the case. They had to work within the limitations of the equipment available to them and do the best they could. .

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. I'm inclined to agree. Going back after many years to something now considered a classic and saying 'well we always wanted to do this but we did not have the time/money/technology' is usually the precursor to fucking it up royally a la the awful digital insertions in the updated Star Wars films, or the government agents having their weapons digitally transformed into walkie-talkies in 'ET: The Extra Terrestrial.'

It's about money, that's all it is about. Let's not kid ourselves here. It's about making something that was timeless and great into a crock of shit, just for the money. But it will always carry on as long as there are so many mug punters in the world.

[magiccarpetride]

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. I'm inclined to agree. Going back after many years to something now considered a classic and saying 'well we always wanted to do this but we did not have the time/money/technology' is usually the precursor to fucking it up royally a la the awful digital insertions in the updated Star Wars films, or the government agents having their weapons digitally transformed into walkie-talkies in 'ET: The Extra Terrestrial.'

It's about money, that's all it is about. Let's not kid ourselves here. It's about making something that was timeless and great into a crock of shit, just for the money. But it will always carry on as long as there are so many mug punters in the world.

Amen.

[magiccarpetride]

There's a massive flaw in your thinking, Alex.

The Beatles intended their work to be heard in glorious mono.
The stereo version was almost throwaway stuff from the band's perspective (they never attended or had any part of any stereo mixdowns).
And it was thus all the way up to the last couple of albums.

So your copy of The Beatles, in stereo, and as it was at the time of release is unlikely to happen, unless of course you want to throw copious amounts of cash at it.
I hear that Apple are waiting to start production, and as soon as they've received payment ....

The Giles Martin remix stuff on Sgt. Pepper was an imagination on the younger Martin's part along the lines of "what if we could incorporate mix elements from the mono versions into the stereo versions", and the remaining Beatles agreed that it would be interesting.
Nobody knocked on your front door, put a gun against your head, force marched you down to the record store, and forced you to part with your hard earned.

A simple "I'm not so keen on it" would have sufficed, but instead we got an extended essay with things like "revisionist" and "blasphemy" in it.
Why use five words, when two thousand, seven hundred and ninety one will do?
If you don't like it don't buy it and don't listen to it.

There are lots of different releases of The Beatles catalogue out there, and I assume that one of them must be sufficient to satisfy your desire.

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.

[Stratmangler]

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.

The record is marked up as an Anniversary Edition (there's a fcking great yellow stripe down the left hand side of the cover), and the notes state that it's a remix.
No effort has been made to hide the fact.

I think this review on Amazon sums it up nicely.

leftywrote a review
2017-05-29Verified purchase
It just sounds like Sgt Pepper! - but it's still great
Ok, firstly I need to get this out of the way, because I tried not to be bothered by it, but it has bugged me to be honest.

My order of the Sgt Pepper Deluxe Box Set arrived by Amazon logistics in just the manufactures packaging with my address label stuck on. . .this seemed fine, because the packaging was really pretty good, however, on opening the box I seen straight away that the set wasn't shrink wrapped?. . .what?, a premium Beatles item not in shrink, this seemed strange.

What also bothered me, was probably as a result of the none shrinkwrap, the top corners of the slip case are slightly bent and crushed in. . .this has really bugged me because I have since watched a good few unboxing videos online, and in each case the deluxe sets were all factory shrink wrapped, so what's going on with Amazons stock here?,

Has anyone else had an unsealed copy?

Anyway, it's a really nice set, it has a very premium feel to it, as for the 2017 Stereo remix. . .well, I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to be hearing that's really different?, I've heard this album so many many times, and this 2017 remix just sounds like Sgt Pepper overall. I feel it's always sounded pretty good across different releases.

If anything, I will say that the overall audio is much more prominent, sometimes to the point where it actually sounds like it might start distorting, this is particularly true for the opening track (Sgt Pepper), which sound a little harsh here and there I think.

What I definitely did notice was a few cool things I hadn't heard on over versions, including a phasing effect on Johns vocals on Lucy In The Sky, which is subtle but there, also on George's Within You Without You, there's an extra crowd clapping near the end, plus a few other things,

So, overall the deluxe is a nice set, I still have the Mono mix and the blu ray to watch yet, but basically the stereo remix didn't blow me away like I thought it might, again, I realise that realistically, there is a limit to exactly what can be achieved and there must come a point where the human ear can't determine a big difference, to me, it just sounds like Sgt Pepper which at the end of the day is a fantastic album, whichever version you listen to. . .

UPDATE!!!! - Since my initial review, i have listened on good quality speakers a few times and it sounds great, i mean really good indeed. Not only are the vocals crisp and clean, but Paul's bass is now kicking in the mix, as is Ringo's drums which are right up there. I have read a good few reviews that suggest the Vinyl is even better, due to being cut to the format untouched, where as the CD version has limiters applied!!. I'm about to buy a new turn table, so i have treated myself to the double LP. . . .which arrived today



I made the bottom paragraph a bit more difficult to overlook :)

[Cyrus]

Like when Lucasfilm re-released Star Wars etc. with all the awful extra bits, we always had the opportunity to watch the originals on VHS, we can also listen to the originals whenever we like. The new renditions need never sully our ears.
I don't blame Macca etc al; they do own the music after all.

[Stratmangler]

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 .....

[Macca]

Like when Lucasfilm re-released Star Wars etc. with all the awful extra bits, we always had the opportunity to watch the originals on VHS, we can also listen to the originals whenever we like. The new renditions need never sully our ears.
.

A fair point.

[magiccarpetride]

The record is marked up as an Anniversary Edition (there's a fcking great yellow stripe down the left hand side of the cover), and the notes state that it's a remix.
No effort has been made to hide the fact.

I think this review on Amazon sums it up nicely.


I made the bottom paragraph a bit more difficult to overlook :)

Thanks for the review. Like I said, my beef is that the promo and the marketing propaganda made it sound as if now, finally after so many years, we will be able to hear Sgt. Pepper's the way it should really be heard. But I disagree. 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.

I'm not buying the "oh, but the technology they had at their disposal back then was so primitive!" argument. First of all, it wasn't primitive at all. I have some LPs from 1950s and 1960s that put to shame many of the modern day recordings. So what's so primitive about that?

Furthermore, as Martin said, there's lots to be admired when it comes to how artists embrace the constraints of the medium and churn out a masterpiece. So even if we say that the technology was primitive back then, it is the beauty of what the lads did with it that really counts. I mean, just think about how "Tomorrow Never Knows" came into being -- by using primitive tape loops throughout the studio etc. Today's most sophisticated computers wouldn't be able to replicate that. So it's all in the artistic process of creating something out of nothing using whatever is at artists' disposal.

I'm pretty sure that 50 years ago the Beatles and the crew were able to produce Pepper to sound exactly the way Giles made it sound last year. But they didn't. Why? Because that wasn't the sound they were going for.

I think we need to recognize and admire such artistic choices.

[magiccarpetride]

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.

[Bigman80]

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.

[Stratmangler]

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.

[magiccarpetride]

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.

[Bigman80]

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.

[Cyrus]

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.

[magiccarpetride]

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.

[magiccarpetride]

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.

[Cyrus]

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

[haiduk]

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.

[ianlenco]

Back in 1973 I was a revolting student occupying the Admin block - can't even remember why. On the music system we rigged up the recently released Dark Side of the Moon was being played constantly. Watching the Classic Albums film about the album on Sky Arts the other night made me think I might be alive to hear the 50th Anniversary remix of Dark Side. Now I wonder what that will be like?

[Stratmangler]

I'm calling an urban myth here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_in_Mono

[Lawrence001]

Personally I find the majority of the Beatles' output to be average at best. I watched a documentary about their early years the other day and from what was said I would have probably enjoyed their early Hamburg (and subsequent return to Liverpool) gigs though.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Joe]

'Re-issue, repackage, repackage
Re-evaluate the songs
Double-pack with a photograph
Extra track (and a tacky badge)

[...]

Best of! Most of!
Satiate the need
Slip them into different sleeves!
Buy both, and feel deceived'

The Smiths: 'Paint A Vulgar Picture'.

[JimK]

Without a doubt the greatest crime of all in messing with music masterpieces is the album Sacrilege. An album of remixes of Can music by people who have never had been let anywhere near the originals. It is utter shite, the title is apt.
I'd put a picture of the cover up if I could but including pictures in posts on this site seems damn near impossible.

[Pete The Cat]

Funny old world. I think "Let It Be...Naked" is an abomination, a counterfeit Frankensteined many years later and smothered in noise reduction. I quite like Spector's original and by most bands' standards it's a good album. Certainly TLAWR benefits from a bit of orchestra. I could make a compilation from the film soundtrack, rooftop concert and Glyn Johns mixes that would be more authentic than Apple's attempt to milk the punters one more time. But that's merely my opinion and over on the Steve Hoffman forums they've covered hundreds of pages falling out between themselves over it :eyebrows:

Pete