PDA

View Full Version : The Beatles (White Album) 50th Anniversary Release



Dr Winston O Boogie
05-11-2018, 17:50
So who is purchasing what and which version, only four days to go. :wowzer:

struth
05-11-2018, 17:56
Got the cd version on order. Will go with my other white copies. Vinyl is going to be a good long term buy but it's dear and I'm not using vinyl much.
Son is buying me it

Bigman80
05-11-2018, 18:11
I bought the 2LP version and am waiting impatiently for it to arrive.

Dr Winston O Boogie
07-11-2018, 08:53
Only two days to go.:eek:

Bigman80
07-11-2018, 09:18
I am sick of waiting!!!!

Abbey Road next year maybe. What do we think of that?

struth
07-11-2018, 09:25
Abbey Rd was my fav when young. I used to have a tape of it and played it all the time in y philips portable(which today isnt very portable lol)

Bigman80
07-11-2018, 11:52
Abbey Rd was my fav when young. I used to have a tape of it and played it all the time in y philips portable(which today isnt very portable lol)

Yep, it's a superb album with side two possibly being the finest collection of songs on any one side, of any album.

Dr Winston O Boogie
07-11-2018, 21:52
Great Q&A from Giles live on youtube tonight.

I am a little shocked that the greatest band in history along with their 50th anniversary White Album album has not had more discussion here?:rolleyes:

Bigman80
07-11-2018, 21:59
Great Q&A from Giles live on youtube tonight.

I am a little shocked that the greatest band in history along with their 50th anniversary White Album album has not had more discussion here?:rolleyes:No taste mate [emoji23][emoji23]

Dr Winston O Boogie
08-11-2018, 17:50
Preparing for dispatch. :eek:

struth
08-11-2018, 17:53
Preparing for dispatch. :eek:

yup, got that this morning. getting the cheaper cd set personally.. its a great album; along with Abbey Rd my fav

Bigman80
08-11-2018, 18:08
yup, got that this morning. getting the cheaper cd set personally.. its a great album; along with Abbey Rd my favI didn't get that???

struth
08-11-2018, 18:10
I didn't get that???

what bit?

hifi_dave
08-11-2018, 18:36
Just ordered the 3 CD set from E-Bay. Hope it's good.

Bigman80
08-11-2018, 18:54
The shipping email

struth
08-11-2018, 19:00
The shipping email

The vinyl may be coming from a different location. Mine is coming from eu sarl

Bigman80
08-11-2018, 19:00
Ah, ok.

Dr Winston O Boogie
09-11-2018, 12:11
Mine has been delivered to my neighbor, roll on 2pm when I finish work.

Bigman80
09-11-2018, 12:42
Still no word on mine [emoji52]

Bought directly from the Beatles online shop. [emoji848]

struth
09-11-2018, 12:50
Playing mine [emoji4] very good. Beatles shop Ive no idea about but dare say it's on it's way

Dr Winston O Boogie
09-11-2018, 21:46
Stunning sound quality, I am lost for words.

Bigman80
09-11-2018, 22:12
Never arrived. Gutted.

Bigman80
09-11-2018, 23:01
Just got this email update.

FFS: I preorder in October, from the Beatles store, and get it 5-7 days after the release date and everyone else who bought from Amazon.co.uk?!

F@ck that. I'm going to give them a bucket load tomorrow.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181109/a8f1c7e76004931f7fc6f8b32341fbb9.jpg

Pete The Cat
09-11-2018, 23:26
Having grown up with the view that a producer is an extra band member I'm not sure what to make about remix exercises like this, Let It Be...Naked, or elsewhere with people like Steven Wilson remixing Yes, Jethro Tull etc. It seems there's a premise that we don't mind non-contemporary individuals changing albums (I know The White Album 2018 releases have extra tracks, I'm referring to the core album).

Where do we draw the line, or don't we ? Would we appreciate it with Mark Ronson's name on it ? Or is it just down to whether it's done sympathetically ?

Obviously if it brings folks pleasure that's what matters. I guess I'm just unsure about these things myself, since I tend to think that an album is of its time and any perceived imperfections in an original version are a valid part of it, so remixes somehow seem unauthentic :scratch:

Pete

Edward
09-11-2018, 23:34
Does anyone know how this release was mastered? If anything like the Sergeants Peppers 50th anniversary than I'm sure it will be remarkable.

I see that HDtracks has it at 24/96 but at a steep £32.75.

Oh! Just looked and see Tidal has it online - MQA 24/96.

Gonna have a listen tomorrow. :cool:

montesquieu
10-11-2018, 00:55
Does anyone know how this release was mastered? If anything like the Sergeants Peppers 50th anniversary than I'm sure it will be remarkable.

I see that HDtracks has it at 24/96 but at a steep £32.75.

Oh! Just looked and see Tidal has it online - MQA 24/96.

Gonna have a listen tomorrow. :cool:

I've just bought the vinyl - one record. £35 - seems fair enought.

I dug out my original that I bought when I was 15, it actually sounds ok, a bit noisy but given what it was played on in my school days I'm pretty lucky. The spine is completely gone but the poster is still there ... pictures were lost long ago. Played sides 1 and 2 tonight. As with the remaster of Sgt Pepper I'm most struck with the quality of McCartney's bass. Also the fact that Lennon hadn't quite turned into the utter wally he was to become not long after. (You can see signs though).

Dr Winston O Boogie
10-11-2018, 08:39
Lennon a wally? :confused::confused::confused:

Edward
10-11-2018, 09:15
I've just bought the vinyl - one record. £35 - seems fair enought.

I dug out my original that I bought when I was 15, it actually sounds ok, a bit noisy but given what it was played on in my school days I'm pretty lucky. The spine is completely gone but the poster is still there ... pictures were lost long ago. Played sides 1 and 2 tonight. As with the remaster of Sgt Pepper I'm most struck with the quality of McCartney's bass. Also the fact that Lennon hadn't quite turned into the utter wally he was to become not long after. (You can see signs though).

Listening to and comparing the HDtracks and Tidal version. Not much difference. Tidal MQA version most likely derived from the 24/96 digital release anyway.

But this 50th anniversary release is great. Feels very fresh and alive. Bags of texture and detail. Giles Martin et al basically did the same as they did for the Sargent Pepper album. Remaster from the original 4 and 8 track sources and mix down using George Martin's original mixing notes. Yet to get to the Esher demos and various jam sessions.

Stratmangler
10-11-2018, 10:55
Having grown up with the view that a producer is an extra band member I'm not sure what to make about remix exercises like this, Let It Be...Naked, or elsewhere with people like Steven Wilson remixing Yes, Jethro Tull etc. It seems there's a premise that we don't mind non-contemporary individuals changing albums (I know The White Album 2018 releases have extra tracks, I'm referring to the core album).

Where do we draw the line, or don't we ? Would we appreciate it with Mark Ronson's name on it ? Or is it just down to whether it's done sympathetically ?

Obviously if it brings folks pleasure that's what matters. I guess I'm just unsure about these things myself, since I tend to think that an album is of its time and any perceived imperfections in an original version are a valid part of it, so remixes somehow seem unauthentic :scratch:

Pete

The short reply is give it a listen - if you like it fine, if you don't like it fine (just don't go on about it ad infinitum).

The long reply is that first time round Let It Be was in the can, and nobody involved with it wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole, so acrimonious was the fallout between band members during the recording sessions.
The project was eventually handed over to Phil Spector to mix. Spector added arrangements for orchestras and choirs that were never part of the original project, and the result of his efforts was released a month after The Beatles had officially split up.
It was an album that was not what was originally intended, which had some great songs on it that needed to see the light of day.
Paul McCartney was not too keen with the result (as he'd kicked the project off in the first place, and had specific ideas his song contributions), and the rest of The Beatles weren't interested at all, and happy to be out of what was a pretty toxic situation.

Let It Be ...Naked - McCartney has this nagging thing about Let It Be not being released as it was originally intended to be, and he's carried this for decades.
The remaining former Beatles have made up and they're all on friendly terms. So he tells them about about his wish to have the album remixed without all the embellishments of the 1970 release, and they give him their consent to go with it.
He handed the project to a couple of the EMI house engineers with a few notes on how the project should be handled, and left them to it.

Both albums are great!
George Martin was producer and was present at the recording sessions.
Neither album had the original producer present for final mixdown.

Take each one on its own merits.

The Steven Wilson remixing thing is a bit of a mixed bag.
His work with King Crimson material is superb.
The Yes remixed material is excellent too.
With Jethro Tull his remix of Aqualung is nothing short of astonishing. Heavy Horses didn't have a lot wrong with it to start with, so might have been better being left alone.

Edward
10-11-2018, 11:03
Had a listen to some of the Esher tracks.

Very nice. Lots of play between the players. Bit live a live recording.

Worth a listen.

§

struth
10-11-2018, 11:09
I got a £5 return on the price i paid, or the boy paid as it became cheaper.

Sherwood
10-11-2018, 11:11
Lennon a wally? :confused::confused::confused:

From all that I've read and from interviews I've seen, Lennon was a complete dickhead. I believe he was bitterly jealous and resentful of McCartney and did not show much respect for his compositions. Yes, his inputs helped to counter McCartney's tendencies to the sweet and sentimental. However, he was not just the grit in the oyster, he was a "grit" in general!

The lyrics to "How do you sleep?" are chilling!

Geoff

Dr Winston O Boogie
10-11-2018, 20:11
From all that I've read and from interviews I've seen, Lennon was a complete dickhead. I believe he was bitterly jealous and resentful of McCartney and did not show much respect for his compositions. Yes, his inputs helped to counter McCartney's tendencies to the sweet and sentimental. However, he was not just the grit in the oyster, he was a "grit" in general!

The lyrics to "How do you sleep?" are chilling!

Geoff

Stragely I read otherwise, they loved each other deaply but had a few falling outs. If you listen to Johns comments on How Do You Sleep shortly before he was taken from us, he said it was more about himself than Paul. Him being a complete Dickhead is kind of insulting as he was human like all of us,he made mistakes, his heart was in the right place and he never hurt anyone...and gave us some great music.

Sherwood
10-11-2018, 20:18
Stragely I read otherwise, they loved each other deaply but had a few falling outs. If you listen to Johns comments on How Do You Sleep shortly before he was taken from us, he said it was more about himself than Paul.

I'm guessing you have read "Revolution in the Head". It is clear from this that Lennon either deliberately tried to screw up McCartney compositions or couldn't be arsed to learn his part properly. McCartney never put in a sub par performance! I am sure that there was once a deep bond but "How do you sleep?" is a deeply bitter rant at Macca!

Geoff

struth
10-11-2018, 20:29
They had a lot of success to point of Gods and all the trappings that went with it. It would be surprising if some didn't go funny. Lennon obviously did and many say it was yoko that pushed to a head.
No idea how they saw each other in the end.
Happiness is a warm gun was alas a bit prophetic in his case

Dr Winston O Boogie
10-11-2018, 20:43
I'm guessing you have read "Revolution in the Head". It is clear from this that Lennon either deliberately tried to screw up McCartney compositions or couldn't be arsed to learn his part properly. McCartney never put in a sub par performance! I am sure that there was once a deep bond but "How do you sleep?" is a deeply bitter rant at Macca!

Geoff

Listen to the Andy Peebles interviews with John for a better understanding of what was going on, it will change your mind.

Sherwood
10-11-2018, 22:17
Listen to the Andy Peebles interviews with John for a better understanding of what was going on, it will change your mind.

i have listened to and so much read about Lennon.

When you come out of crazy phase doesn't nullify what you said and how you behaved during that period.

As much as I like and admire Lennon for what he did good, I still know a "grit" when I see one!

walpurgis
10-11-2018, 22:25
As far as I'm concerned Lennon was a poet, musician and a genius. Mccartney was just a pop musician and most of his stuff was 'jolly jingles'. Band on The Run?...........my bum!!

montesquieu
10-11-2018, 22:27
Listen to the Andy Peebles interviews with John for a better understanding of what was going on, it will change your mind.

Still doesn't take away the steaming pile of crap that is much of Lennon's post Beatles work, the political naivete, the posturing and attention seeking, the hypocrisy (peace and love to the world while treating his first wife and kid and indeed at times Yoko abysmally), the pretentiousness ... actually it was all there early on but got really out of hand post 1968. His canonisation as some kind of secular saint always baffled me. I guess dying relatively young was a great career move.


As far as I'm concerned Lennon was a poet, musician and a genius. Mccartney was just a pop musician and most of his stuff was 'jolly jingles'. Band on The Run?...........my bum!!

Gosh are we really going to re-run this argument? McCarntey was far and away the better musician and any accusations from Lennon about him overdosing on schmaltz can be answered with one word - 'Imagine'!

Sherwood
10-11-2018, 22:27
As far as I'm concerned Lennon was a poet, musician and a genius. Mccartney was just a pop musician and most of his stuff was 'jolly jingles'. Band on The Run?...........my bum!!


Pistols at dawn Sir!

Sherwood
10-11-2018, 22:30
Still doesn't take away the steaming pile of crap that is much of Lennon's post Beatles work, the political naivete, the posturing and attention seeking, the hypocrisy (peace and love to the world while treating his first wife and kid and indeed at times Yoko abysmally), the pretentiousness ... actually it was all there early on but got really out of hand post 1968. His canonisation as some kind of secular saint always baffled me. I guess dying relatively young was a great career move.

+1 there was a period when eccentricity and bad behaviour was accepted as quirky. Look again at what he said and did rather than the causes he espoused!

walpurgis
10-11-2018, 22:37
Pistols at dawn Sir!

Fine. I'm a better shot than you! :lol:

Sherwood
10-11-2018, 22:43
Fine. I'm a better shot than you! :lol:

No problem! I have thicker skin than Donald Trump and am equally impervious to brain damage! :ner:

Pete The Cat
10-11-2018, 23:07
The short reply is give it a listen - if you like it fine, if you don't like it fine (just don't go on about it ad infinitum).

The long reply is that first time round Let It Be was in the can, and nobody involved with it wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole, so acrimonious was the fallout between band members during the recording sessions.
The project was eventually handed over to Phil Spector to mix. Spector added arrangements for orchestras and choirs that were never part of the original project, and the result of his efforts was released a month after The Beatles had officially split up.
It was an album that was not what was originally intended, which had some great songs on it that needed to see the light of day.
Paul McCartney was not too keen with the result (as he'd kicked the project off in the first place, and had specific ideas his song contributions), and the rest of The Beatles weren't interested at all, and happy to be out of what was a pretty toxic situation.

Let It Be ...Naked - McCartney has this nagging thing about Let It Be not being released as it was originally intended to be, and he's carried this for decades.
The remaining former Beatles have made up and they're all on friendly terms. So he tells them about about his wish to have the album remixed without all the embellishments of the 1970 release, and they give him their consent to go with it.
He handed the project to a couple of the EMI house engineers with a few notes on how the project should be handled, and left them to it.

Both albums are great!
George Martin was producer and was present at the recording sessions.
Neither album had the original producer present for final mixdown.

Take each one on its own merits.

The Steven Wilson remixing thing is a bit of a mixed bag.
His work with King Crimson material is superb.
The Yes remixed material is excellent too.
With Jethro Tull his remix of Aqualung is nothing short of astonishing. Heavy Horses didn't have a lot wrong with it to start with, so might have been better being left alone.

A well-reasoned and informed answer.

From this I can agree that if those who were involved at the time felt it wasn’t as good as they intended then having another crack and remixing is fair enough. I recall Rush did that with their Vapor Trails album 11 years later.

Earlier I listened to yesterday’s Adrian Chiles interview with Giles Martin. To paraphrase Chiles’ point which is analogous to my reservations, how should we feel if a descendant of Michelangelo repaints the Sistene Chapel ?

If it’s being an honest alternative to remastering (which can nowadays make as much of a difference as a remix, and often not for the better) with the intention of enabling us to get closer to the detail and performance of the original multi-tracks, then that seems fair enough. GM refers to Paul McCartney popping in and out during the process and scrapping an early version as being too different - modern - so maybe that’s what he feels he’s doing.

But I struggle with the motive behind some remixes. Deep Purple’s Made In Japan has been remixed more than once. The Deep Purple Appreciation Society, who have been responsible for lots of good material from the heyday being released, have been directly involved, however the Kevin Shirley version was highly divisive and a later remix has the stage left and right (organ and guitar) switched around which just feels totally wrong from an audience perspective. As one of the best live albums ever you have to ask why bother. Many fans keep buying these only because each release drip feeds extra tracks from the concerts compared to the original.

In spite of the involvement of sympathetic individuals I have a nagging fear that some of these remixes are just another way of getting us to buy the same product yet again in return for meddling with history. As you say, it’s probably a case of each on its merits.

Pete

Barry
10-11-2018, 23:15
I'm not at all interested in the imminent release of the The White Album. IMO it is one of the poorest offerings from the Beatles, and the fact it was a double LP, padded-out with a lot of dross does little to pursuade me to buy a new re-mix (or whatever they are calling it); the latter with additional fillers. :doh:

As to MacCartney vs. Lennon, IMHO Paul was the better musician, but Lennon was the better poet. After the Beatles split up, I followed Lennon's solo career and gave Wings a very wide birth.

walpurgis
10-11-2018, 23:31
After the Beatles split up, I followed Lennon's solo career and gave Wings a very wide birth.

I did the same.

It was one of 'those' moments. Rather like when Jefferson Airplane ceased to be and became Jefferson Starship.

Barry
10-11-2018, 23:34
I did the same.

It was one of 'those' moments. Rather like when Jefferson Airplane ceased to be and became Jefferson Starship.

I didn't follow the Starship either.

rockhopper
11-11-2018, 00:16
All this talk about the White Album prompted me to get my Beatles Mono box out. Overall I think this is superb but for me the White Album is pretty poor.

To get any understanding of the later part of side 4 needs something strong.

On the good side, if only all records were pressed as well as this box we would all be happy. Total silence apart from the music.

mikmas
11-11-2018, 01:12
As far as I'm concerned Lennon was a poet, musician and a genius. Mccartney was just a pop musician and most of his stuff was 'jolly jingles'. Band on The Run?...........my bum!!

Spot on - well said!
To be honest McCarthorse stuff always makes me retch - then and since ....

On the other hand, the only Lennon material I ever bought after the split was the Rock 'N' Roll album. Only stuff after the Ono bewitching that showed his true colours IMV.

In fact I just went on 't bay and picked up another copy (original 1975 pressing = £5) having swapped mine for beer token many years back ;)

mikmas
11-11-2018, 01:15
I'm not at all interested in the imminent release of the The White Album. IMO it is one of the poorest offerings from the Beatles,

Yup - bar a couple of tracks it was just plain dull ...

Dr Winston O Boogie
11-11-2018, 03:43
Still doesn't take away the steaming pile of crap that is much of Lennon's post Beatles work

I can think of quite a few million who will say you're wrong about that.:mental:

I also think the " dying quite young was a good career move " was in bad taste, to be honest.

I was in NY last year and visited the Dakota building and the Lennon tribute in Central Park, still hundreds of visitors, so maybe you're in a minority with your opinion.

Macca
11-11-2018, 11:01
I can think of quite a few million who will say you're wrong about that.:mental:

I also think the " dying quite young was a good career move " was in bad taste, to be honest.

I was in NY last year and visited the Dakota building and the Lennon tribute in Central Park, still hundreds of visitors, so maybe you're in a minority with your opinion.

Have to say I prefer Lennon on his own to Lennon in the Beatles. If you can overlook the Yoko Ono crap.

struth
11-11-2018, 11:06
i prefer Paul's solo stuff, although not so much wings. John's stuff was a bit pretentious for my liking. My son loves it tho. White is a good album, even if it was a bit all over the place at times; so were they tbh. Abbey Rd was probably my fav, the white and Sgt Pepper. iv got a decent collection of Beatles stuff.
Strangely, i wasn't in to them so much when young, preferring The Stones R&B style.. Maybe their badboy image too if honest

struth
11-11-2018, 13:41
its interesting and refreshing to listen to these Esher demos. Most were Lennons, and all were recorded at Harrisons gaff on his latest tape machine; an ampex i think. They wrote most while in India and they are still having fun.
Alas when they got to Abbey, they were distinctly cold towards each other. The songs are all great tho.

Pigmy Pony
11-11-2018, 14:49
Have to say I prefer Lennon on his own to Lennon in the Beatles. If you can overlook the Yoko Ono crap.

Perhaps listening to "Don't worry Kyoko (mummy's only looking for a hand in the snow)" will change your mind :eek: Talk about strangling cats!

Was the b side of "Cold Turkey" single. "PLAY LOUD" was boldly printed on the label. Might as well - it made your ears bleed regardless of volume.

Pigmy Pony
11-11-2018, 15:12
I might put a Beatles album on my Christmas wish list - I have all of them on vinyl except for Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's. Any suggestions?

I wanted a copy of White Album for ages, bought it a couple of years ago, played it just once. Abbey Road on the other hand I revisit frequently. My favourite by a country mile.

Sherwood
11-11-2018, 15:26
I might put a Beatles album on my Christmas wish list - I have all of them on vinyl except for Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's. Any suggestions?

I wanted a copy of White Album for ages, bought it a couple of years ago, played it just once. Abbey Road on the other hand I revisit frequently. My favourite by a country mile.

I have two albums which I have only played a couple of times and not for over 20 years.

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

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

IIRC, the latter was a 21st birthday present.


Geoff

Dr Winston O Boogie
11-11-2018, 21:22
These are stunning:

http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a595/tele19621/esher%20demo_zpsrvhvctvx.jpg (http://s1285.photobucket.com/user/tele19621/media/esher%20demo_zpsrvhvctvx.jpg.html)

Dr Winston O Boogie
12-11-2018, 12:12
I might put a Beatles album on my Christmas wish list - I have all of them on vinyl except for Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's. Any suggestions?

I wanted a copy of White Album for ages, bought it a couple of years ago, played it just once. Abbey Road on the other hand I revisit frequently. My favourite by a country mile.

Sgt Pepper, Giles Martin Mix.

Pigmy Pony
12-11-2018, 20:33
That would be nice, unfortunately we've just received a load of Amazon vouchers, so that would be the logical place to buy. But no way am I going to spend sixty bones on a copy. I'll look elsewhere.

struth
12-11-2018, 20:59
the deluxe Sgt Pepper is great.. Not as good as white imo

Bigman80
12-11-2018, 22:39
the deluxe Sgt Pepper is great.. Not as good as white imo[emoji50]

Pigmy Pony
13-11-2018, 08:07
I have Sgt Pepper's on CD and it never gets played. I think I heard it too many times in my youth. The vinyl would have to be bloody good to justify the cost. In the meantime I'll settle for Revolver or Rubber Soul, which I've never owned. And hold out for a Peppers bargain.

Barry
13-11-2018, 19:17
IMO, 'Rubber Soul', 'Revolver' and 'Sgt Pepper' are essential Beatles albums. The 'White Album' and 'Abbey Road' much less so.

montesquieu
13-11-2018, 20:04
IMO, 'Rubber Soul', 'Revolver' and 'Sgt Pepper' are essential Beatles albums. The 'White Album' and 'Abbey Road' much less so.


I was a huge Beatles fan in my teens in the 70s, played some of these to death. I bought the Beatles in Mono set out of curiosity really but looking back the albums pre Rubber Soul were little more than decent quality 60s pop .. it was what happened around 1965 and afterwards where it all got interesting. Sgt Peppers is one of those landmark albums but I could practically write out the score for bits of it it's so familiar .. I bought the remix and compared it to my original, but it hasn't got that much of a bashing. Abbey Road though I still listen to regularly in my view it's one of the best albums ever made. I like quite a lot of the White Album but there's a fair amount of indulgent bollocks on there too. Let it Be Naked was a brilliant project.

IMHO neither Lennon nor McCartney's solo careers got anywhere near what was achieved on Abbey Road or Sgt Pepper. Lennon's words are often provocative but he wasn't really much of a musician beyond bashing out (not very fancy) chords .. his poseur tendencies had a habit of getting out of control and as I opined earlier, a fair amount of his solo oeuvre is a steaming pile of crap. (I know I have some of it on the shelves from a more completist era of my life. I really ought to flog it off at some point).

The pair functioned better within a group when there were constraints on their tendencies - McCartney's towards being a bit sugary and naff, Lennon's towards being a bit of an arse and exposing his lack of education/knowledge about the political stuff he dabbled in.

It's clear to any musician that McCartney was by far the more skilled of the pair, a quality bass player for sure, but also a respectable guitarist ... but if people are being honest they would accept that a lot of the musical sophistication - a lot of the more interesting harmonic and even polyphonic stuff, the unusual instrumental textures - was put together by George Martin - working under direction I'm sure but still at a level way above what either could really originate. As a combination it worked really well. And after 1970, things were never quite the same again for either of them.

I'm not ignoring Harrison here, actually I rate him a lot and he had every reason by the time the Beatles broke up to feel he was being held back by the other two. All Things Must Pass has an easy claim to be the best solo solo album by a Beatle.

Bigman80
13-11-2018, 20:28
My 2p,

Abbey road is a masterpiece on side two.

Lennon did some really excellent material but ruined it with Yoko's dross.

McCartney was prolific but also churned outs some absolute garbage.
Together they were unbeatable, individually, the were 'only' Excellent.

Harrison never really had the ability to be prolific and keep the high levels he reached with 'Something' & 'While my guitar'

Ringo, less said the better.

The Beatles early stuff was great, I love it but I agree that SGT. P was just utterly mind-blowing. Revolver didn't hit that level and the White Album is 30/70% good/shit.

The album i play the most is Let It Be. I love how they synced and played some real music.

I have them all, a few times over. Stereo, mono, remastered and the new remixes. I'll never stop enjoying them and the fresh mixes by Giles are very good. Long may it continue.

Dr Winston O Boogie
13-11-2018, 21:30
" I opined earlier, a fair amount of his solo oeuvre is a steaming pile of crap" you see you said it, again and again, I say your wrong in your opinion. As is proven by the ongoing popularity of his music. Twice you have said this now and twice I say you are in an extereme minority with your opinion. But you already know that and that is the reason you repeated it..........so as to maybe get a reaction?

Dr Winston O Boogie
13-11-2018, 21:36
" Harrison never really had the ability to be prolific and keep the high levels he reached with 'Something' & 'While my guitar'"

All Things Must Pass & Living In The Material World. My Sweet Lord?

Ringo album is superb?

Macca
13-11-2018, 21:39
" I opined earlier, a fair amount of his solo oeuvre is a steaming pile of crap" you see you said it, again and again, I say your wrong in your opinion. As is proven by the ongoing popularity of his music. Twice you have said this now and twice I say you are in an extereme minority with your opinion. But you already know that and that is the reason you repeated it..........so as to maybe get a reaction?

I already said I disagree with Tom re Lennon but I'm also going to take issue with 'but looking back the albums pre Rubber Soul were little more than decent quality 60s pop'

I'd argue that it was actually extremely well crafted pop that stood out well above the rest of the music at the time and made them the legends they are now. If that hadn't been the case the later more <ahem> self indulgent albums everyone raves about would never have happened.

But hey it's all a matter of opinion. Not worth getting worked up about.

Dr Winston O Boogie
13-11-2018, 21:43
I was going to take issue with 'but looking back the albums pre Rubber Soul were little more than decent quality 60s pop'

I'd argue that it was actually extremely well crafted pop that stood out well above the rest of the music at the time and made them the legends they are now. If that hadn't been the case the later more <ahem> self indulgent albums everyone raves about would never have happened.

But hey it's all a matter of opinion. Not worth getting worked up about.

I only get worked up when someone is posting to get a reaction and posting on a thread dedicated to The Beatles (white album) that John Lennon wrote a steaming pile of crap or that him being murderd young done everyone a favour was posted to do just that and is not coming from a Beatles fan but someone trolling a thread or someone clueless about music?

Macca
13-11-2018, 21:46
I only get worked up when someone is posting to get a reaction.

Well it would be a boring thread if everyone said 'Yeah they were brilliant and so is every album and every song.'

montesquieu
13-11-2018, 21:49
" I opined earlier, a fair amount of his solo oeuvre is a steaming pile of crap" you see you said it, again and again, I say your wrong in your opinion. As is proven by the ongoing popularity of his music. Twice you have said this now and twice I say you are in an extereme minority with your opinion. But you already know that and that is the reason you repeated it..........so as to maybe get a reaction?

No need to get touchy!

montesquieu
13-11-2018, 21:51
... him being murderd young done everyone a favour

I never said that. Only that it was good career move.

walpurgis
13-11-2018, 21:58
Keep it friendly guys. If it gets obviously 'tit for tat', posts may get deleted.

montesquieu
13-11-2018, 22:03
Keep it friendly guys. If it gets obviously 'tit for tat', posts may get deleted.

Don't worry Geoff I realise now I'm dealing with a true worshipper here, I'm always respectful of people's religion. No more from me on the subject.

Bigman80
13-11-2018, 22:21
" Harrison never really had the ability to be prolific and keep the high levels he reached with 'Something' & 'While my guitar'"

All Things Must Pass & Living In The Material World. My Sweet Lord?

Ringo album is superb?

I was saying in comparison to Lennon & McCartney Volume in the Beatles and after.

BTW, The all things must pass album is absolutely superb.

Dr Winston O Boogie
13-11-2018, 22:22
I was saying in comparison to Lennon & McCartney Volume in the Beatles and after.

BTW, The all things must pass album is absolutely superb.

It is yes.

Bigman80
13-11-2018, 22:24
Also a well known fact that almost EVERY artist has sold more material once deceased. Michael Jackson, Tupac, Notorious BIG, Marvin Gay, Elvis. It is a lucrative event for the estate.

Stay Cool Sgt P!

P.S, I wonder how many folk would know who that picture is without being told?

Dr Winston O Boogie
13-11-2018, 22:28
[QUOTE=Bigman80;1030905]Also a well known fact that almost EVERY artist has sold more material once deceased. Michael Jackson, Tupac, Notorious BIG, Marvin Gay, Elvis. It is a lucrative event for the estate.

Stay Cool Sgt P!



Your from the WAM, you know who I am lol.

Sloop John B
13-11-2018, 22:51
I might put a Beatles album on my Christmas wish list - I have all of them on vinyl except for Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's. Any suggestions?



Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt. Peppers

.sjb

Bigman80
13-11-2018, 23:14
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt. Peppers

.sjb

Yup

Clive
13-11-2018, 23:22
I think some of the earlier comments about musicianship etc miss the point. The Beatles were of course about music but they were at least equally about about the cultural change of the time. To ignore this would be a major error.

Pigmy Pony
14-11-2018, 07:40
Well that's narrowed it down! I'll just start at the top of your list and work my way down.

I can't think of another band that polarises opinion more than The Beatles, but I can 't understand people who say they don't like The Beatles (Mrs. P is one) - Their work varies so much, even within any given album, there really is something for everyone imo.

If anyone said to me that The Beatles members weren't nearly as good on their own, I would tell that person to Back Off Boogaloo.

Dr Winston O Boogie
14-11-2018, 08:41
" If anyone said to me that The Beatles members weren't nearly as good on their own, I would tell that person to Back Off Boogaloo."

:lolsign:

walpurgis
14-11-2018, 08:46
I can't think of another band that polarises opinion more than The Beatles.

What about the loathesome Queen?

Bigman80
14-11-2018, 09:02
What about the loathesome Queen?[emoji50]

martian sunrise
14-11-2018, 09:10
Also a well known fact that almost EVERY artist has sold more material once deceased. Michael Jackson, Tupac, Notorious BIG, Marvin Gay, Elvis. It is a lucrative event for the estate.

it's a flawed stat. I'd argue that all except jacko up there would have been dead for at least 10 times longer than the amount of time they were producing music.

biggie made one album alive! he's been dead for 20 years, of course it will have sold more...

also - are you sure about michael jackson?

Bigman80
14-11-2018, 09:11
it's a flawed stat. I'd argue that all except jacko up there would have been dead for at least 10 times longer than the amount of time they were producing music.

biggie made one album alive! he's been dead for 20 years, of course it will have sold more...

also - are you sure about michael jackson?Well, those artists that have been dead for longer times than their careers will obviously have sold more but Yes i'm pretty sure about MJ. I think. [emoji848]

Btw, I don't mean Total sales I mean more sales. Like albums jumping up the chat due to an untimely death. See "Double Fantasy" and "Nevermind"

Bowie had his first US #1 album when he was dead!!

WESTLOWER
14-11-2018, 09:25
" If anyone said to me that The Beatles members weren't nearly as good on their own, I would tell that person to Back Off Boogaloo."

:lolsign:

IMO Ringo wouldn’t swing if you hung him!! :D

Bigman80
14-11-2018, 09:27
IMO Ringo wouldn’t swing if you hung him!! :D[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

martian sunrise
14-11-2018, 09:44
Well, those artists that have been dead for longer times than their careers will obviously have sold more but Yes i'm pretty sure about MJ. I think. [emoji848]

Btw, I don't mean Total sales I mean more sales. Like albums jumping up the chat due to an untimely death. See "Double Fantasy" and "Nevermind"

Bowie had his first US #1 album when he was dead!!

I'd def agree with death causing spikes in sales.

martian sunrise
14-11-2018, 09:44
IMO Ringo wouldn’t swing if you hung him!! :D

he had more solo success with thomas the tank

Marco
14-11-2018, 09:46
I only get worked up when someone is posting to get a reaction and posting on a thread dedicated to The Beatles (white album) that John Lennon wrote a steaming pile of crap or that him being murderd young done everyone a favour was posted to do just that and is not coming from a Beatles fan but someone trolling a thread or someone clueless about music?

As you're clearly a big Beatles fan, Barry, and in particular of John Lennon, many of your sentiments I agree with, I think you're getting a little too het up with views given (some of which I agree could've been expressed more sensitively) from folks who don't quite share your love of both. With respect, try an be a little less 'intense':)

When you post on emotive subjects like this, where people will often express opinions that are different from yours, sometimes controversially and in a forthright manner, you need to be calm and thick-skinned enough to take it on the chin, and respond in a way that doesn't turn the discussion into a bun fight - and incidentally that also applies to those who provoked you, and who similarly should be expressing their rather 'robust' views a little more considerately!;)

Anyway, folks, this is a MUSIC thread, so let's keep it lighthearted and concentrate instead on the musical merit (and perhaps the production/sonic) values of the album in question, and/or of the music of The Beatles in general, than use it as an opportunity to vent about your personal views of specific members of the band and their personalities or political persuasions. Cheers!:cool:

Marco.

Dr Winston O Boogie
14-11-2018, 09:54
As you're clearly a big Beatles fan, Barry, and in particular of John Lennon, many of your sentiments I agree with, I think you're getting a little too het up with views expressed (some of which I agree could've been expressed more sensitively) from folks who don't quite share your love of both. With respect, try an be a little less 'intense':)

When you post on emotive subjects like this, where people will often express opinions that are different from yours, sometimes controversially and in a forthright manner, you need to be calm and thick-skinned enough to take it on the chin, and respond in a way that doesn't turn the discussion into a bun fight - and incidentally that also applies to those who provoked you, and who similarly should be expressing their rather 'robust' views with a little more sensitivity!;)

Anyway, folks, this is a MUSIC thread, so let's keep it lighthearted and concentrate instead on the musical merit (and perhaps the production/sonic) values of the album in question, and/or of the music of The Beatles in general, than use it as an opportunity to vent about your personal views of specific members of the band and their personalities or political persuasions. Cheers!:cool:

Marco.

Your quite right Marco, apologies everyone no excuse but had a bad day yesterday.:grouphug:

Marco
14-11-2018, 09:58
No worries, mate. We all get them. Let's just keep the thread fun and lighthearted from now on - and that applies to everyone:)

Marco.

Bigman80
14-11-2018, 11:19
It's all good Barry. I'm not sure anyone here actively dislikes every Beatles track?

I'm a big fan.

Marco
14-11-2018, 11:43
As am I. The problem with these types of discussions is folks tend to get too 'deep' and overthink things, turning music, which should primarily exist to give pleasure, into some convoluted form of political analysis or intellectual posturing, the likes of which simply causes friction, because not everyone will agree.

Life's too short for that bollox! I do think that some folks [and I'm talking about generally, not specifically anyone on this thread] need to lighten up, enjoy life more, and stop taking everything so seriously:)

Marco [cares only about the TUNES, not any 'political messages', personalities or otherwise].

Dr Winston O Boogie
14-11-2018, 11:44
It's all good Barry. I'm not sure anyone here actively dislikes every Beatles track?

I'm a big fan.

Thanks Oliver.:)

Pigmy Pony
14-11-2018, 16:36
What about the loathesome Queen?

What's Julian Clary got to do with it?

Marco
14-11-2018, 16:39
Julian Clary? Darling, I though he was talking about you [you're lovable though, not loathsome]!:kiss::D

Marco.

Pigmy Pony
14-11-2018, 16:44
As am I. The problem with these types of discussions is folks tend to get too 'deep' and overthink things, turning music, which should primarily exist to give pleasure, into some convoluted form of political analysis or intellectual posturing, the likes of which simply causes friction, because not everyone will agree.

Life's too short for that bollox! I do think that some folks [and I'm talking about generally, not specifically anyone on this thread] need to lighten up, enjoy life more, and stop taking everything so seriously:)

Marco [cares only about the TUNES, not any 'political messages', personalities or otherwise].

Sorry Marco I'll try to be less serious in future. :booty:

Pigmy Pony
14-11-2018, 16:49
Hey, when I've put me slap on, it's "Lock up your husbands!" :)

Dr Winston O Boogie
15-11-2018, 08:28
I was listening to the White Album outtakes last night again superb, most I had no heard before.:)

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 08:29
I was listening to the White Album outtakes last night again superb, most I had no heard before.:)Mine still isn't here. I'm so fed up.

Dr Winston O Boogie
15-11-2018, 08:51
Mine still isn't here. I'm so fed up.

Where was it you ordered from, that is terrible?:steam:

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 08:59
Where was it you ordered from, that is terrible?:steam:The Beatles online shop!!!!

Preorder 8/10/18

Dr Winston O Boogie
15-11-2018, 09:06
The Beatles online shop!!!!

Preorder 8/10/18

Can you not cancel that one and order from Amazon Prime, it will be here tomorrow.

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 09:07
Can you not cancel that one and order from Amazon Prime, it will be here tomorrow.It's supposed to be in transit. No option but to see if it turns up.

Not sure of the point in preordering to get it a week after everyone else. I won't be doing it again.

The Black Adder
15-11-2018, 09:21
The Beatles shop isn't good... I have cancelled an order from them in the past.

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 09:24
The Beatles shop isn't good... I have cancelled an order from them in the past.I'm really annoyed about it.

The Black Adder
15-11-2018, 09:56
Yep.. I was too.

You would think the official website would have better service than all of them.

Hope you get it sorted.

Sent from my 9001X using Tapatalk

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 09:59
Yep.. I was too.

You would think the official website would have better service than all of them.

Hope you get it sorted.

Sent from my 9001X using TapatalkCheers Josie

The Black Adder
15-11-2018, 10:34
I don't who they use for distribution but is it SandBag?

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 10:35
I don't who they use for distribution but is it SandBag?I don't know. I'm gonna set them a shitty email if it doesn't arrive today

Macca
15-11-2018, 12:15
The Beatles shop isn't good... I have cancelled an order from them in the past.

In all fairness two of them are dead and the other two are cracking on a bit. Easy for these old folk to get confused with e-mails and such like and forget orders.

Maybe time they gave up trying to run a shop and handed over the reins to some younger blood. I think Liam and Noel out of Oasis would probably take it on.

Macca
15-11-2018, 12:16
Remember when Jagger and Richards used to run the corner shop on Stella Street? Even that got too much for them in the end.

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 12:17
:D:lol::lol:

The Black Adder
15-11-2018, 13:18
Stella Street... Classic

Sent from my 9001X using Tapatalk

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 13:35
emailed them and complained bitterly. Told them i want to cancel the order. Lets see what they say.

Dr Winston O Boogie
15-11-2018, 13:53
emailed them and complained bitterly. Told them i want to cancel the order. Lets see what they say.

Nice one let us know what they say.:)

Good video here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=108&v=0y7x47jeCck

Macca
15-11-2018, 14:00
emailed them and complained bitterly. Told them i want to cancel the order. Lets see what they say.


Go easy on them, they're probably having a hard day's night.

Sherwood
15-11-2018, 14:08
Go easy on them, they're probably having a hard day's night.

Will you be offering Help or will you Let It Be? :scratch:

struth
15-11-2018, 14:35
maybe you should come together, as all you need is love......I'll get me coat..........

Dr Winston O Boogie
15-11-2018, 14:41
But, Tomorrow Never Knows.

Macca
15-11-2018, 16:51
Will you be offering Help or will you Let It Be? :scratch:

I won't Help but Maggie Mae.

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 17:09
I won't Help but Maggie Mae.Oh gawd.

Bigman80
15-11-2018, 17:10
It's arrived!!!!

Dr Winston O Boogie
15-11-2018, 17:26
It's arrived!!!!

:rock:

Macca
15-11-2018, 18:10
'...And don't tell me it's the cover that sells the record because what about The White Album? There was nothing on that cover! Nothing!'

- Bobbi Flekman.

Barry
15-11-2018, 18:12
'...And don't tell me it's the cover that sells the record because what about The White Album? There was nothing on that cover! Nothing!'

- Bobbi Flekman.

Yes there was - an embossed serial number. :lol:

Stratmangler
15-11-2018, 18:31
Bobbi Flekman.

The hostess with the mostest?

Macca
15-11-2018, 18:38
The hostess with the mostest?

Yep. Money talks and bullshit walks.

Dr Winston O Boogie
16-11-2018, 16:40
I never knew Paul was playing drums on Dear Prudence.:thumbsup:

Dr Winston O Boogie
22-11-2018, 08:50
Anyone else picked this up yet?

Stratmangler
22-11-2018, 09:03
I was that impressed with it on Spotify that I bought the CD when I was in Tesco.
Giles Martin did a great job on the production work, and the clarity and insight is nothing short of incredible.

Dr Winston O Boogie
22-11-2018, 09:31
I was that impressed with it on Spotify that I bought the CD when I was in Tesco.
Giles Martin did a great job on the production work, and the clarity and insight is nothing short of incredible.

Which version was that.

Stratmangler
22-11-2018, 09:39
Which version was that.

https://d2s36jztkuk7aw.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/tile_2_column/public/tile/image/3CD_package.jpg?itok=56D9TnS2&timestamp=1537780385

Name
28-11-2018, 19:24
I've just received the CD set. I only have an original mono vinyl to this point. Sounds ruddy marvellous, my favourite fabs album by miles.

Name
28-11-2018, 19:47
Stragely I read otherwise, they loved each other deaply but had a few falling outs. If you listen to Johns comments on How Do You Sleep shortly before he was taken from us, he said it was more about himself than Paul. Him being a complete Dickhead is kind of insulting as he was human like all of us,he made mistakes, his heart was in the right place and he never hurt anyone...and gave us some great music.

I think Lennon was very much a troubled soul, all going back to his mother rejecting him and dumping him on his aunt Mimi. Personally I think his writing was all the better for it. He certainly added the acid to Maccas sugar coated pop. Genius both in my view. I saw the film Nowhere Boy and if it's halfway accurate it's a miracle he made it tothe Beatles stage of his life.

magiccarpetride
30-11-2018, 03:35
I am a big fan of the White Album. I purchased the 2012 vinyl remaster, but didn't like it at all. That's why, when the 2018 remix came out on the 9th, I traded my 2012 remaster for the remix.

I'll be honest -- I was expecting sonic miracle. Instead, I got a sonic turd.

Maybe a bad pressing? Who knows...

Comparing the 2018 remix with my original 1968 pressing, it's like comparing, I don't know... turd with the nicest pastry.

Everyone is oohing and aaahing about the remix, how the sound is so much better and how now we can hear so many new details. Which makes me scratch my head.

OK, take for example "Martha My Dear". If I first play the 2018, you could say 'yeah, nice'. But if I then play the original LP, all of a sudden the music comes to life. The intro piano leaps out of the left speaker, and when Paul enters with other instruments, you suddenly realize how there is so much more texture and finer details that you can hear on the original pressing. Where did those textures and details on the 2018 remix go?

Could it be that the master tapes have already deteriorated this much after only 50 years? I find that hard to believe.

Maybe the tapes developed a bit of hiss, which Giles tried to remove, effectively killing those vitally important transients in the process?

I guess I'll never know. They are pretty secretive about the mixing process, wouldn't even disclose which software was being used for the remix.

Whatever it is, the 2018 remix is a pale copy of the mighty original mix.

Bigman80
30-11-2018, 07:11
I am a big fan of the White Album. I purchased the 2012 vinyl remaster, but didn't like it at all. That's why, when the 2018 remix came out on the 9th, I traded my 2012 remaster for the remix.

I'll be honest -- I was expecting sonic miracle. Instead, I got a sonic turd.

Maybe a bad pressing? Who knows...

Comparing the 2018 remix with my original 1968 pressing, it's like comparing, I don't know... turd with the nicest pastry.

Everyone is oohing and aaahing about the remix, how the sound is so much better and how now we can hear so many new details. Which makes me scratch my head.

OK, take for example "Martha My Dear". If I first play the 2018, you could say 'yeah, nice'. But if I then play the original LP, all of a sudden the music comes to life. The intro piano leaps out of the left speaker, and when Paul enters with other instruments, you suddenly realize how there is so much more texture and finer details that you can hear on the original pressing. Where did those textures and details on the 2018 remix go?

Could it be that the master tapes have already deteriorated this much after only 50 years? I find that hard to believe.

Maybe the tapes developed a bit of hiss, which Giles tried to remove, effectively killing those vitally important transients in the process?

I guess I'll never know. They are pretty secretive about the mixing process, wouldn't even disclose which software was being used for the remix.

Whatever it is, the 2018 remix is a pale copy of the mighty original mix.Surprised by this. My 2018 beats my 1968 & 2012 versions easily for clarity and insight.

It actually sounds superior in most way BUT I don't think it has the same feel as the 1968 or the 2012. I like listening to it but I do think the magic is missing a little.

Not the same result as SGT Pepper, which I felt the remix was greatly improved over my other versions and has taken over as my go to LP.

Still good, but glad I didn't spend £80 on the deluxe version. I have that version in FLAC.

Macca
30-11-2018, 09:24
Could it be that the master tapes have already deteriorated this much after only 50 years? I find that hard to believe.

.

It varies with the formulations but in general analogue tape deteriorates quite quickly - 50 years is a very long time. If the recording was analogue early pressings are going to be a lot better regardless of whatever technology they can throw at the problem now. It's why first pressings are so expensive.

struth
30-11-2018, 09:28
got a 2xAlbum, LP, Limited Edition, Reissue on Capitol Records (usa) from 1995. it sounds good. but the tapes will be 23 years older i guess now. not heard the new lps but the latest 3xcd set is excellent.

Sherwood
30-11-2018, 09:41
Surprised by this. My 2018 beats my 1968 & 2012 versions easily for clarity and insight.

It actually sounds superior in most way BUT I don't think it has the same feel as the 1968 or the 2012. I like listening to it but I do think the magic is missing a little.

Not the same result as SGT Pepper, which I felt the remix was greatly improved over my other versions and has taken over as my go to LP.

Still good, but glad I didn't spend £80 on the deluxe version. I have that version in FLAC.

It won't sound the same as earlier versions because it has been remixed as well as remastered. When you say the magic is missing, what you are really saying is that you miss the familiarity of the older version(s). I am guessing that anyone coming to this album for the first time would prefer the latest version for its greater clarity and focus.

Geoff

Bigman80
30-11-2018, 09:43
It won't sound the same as earlier versions because it has been remixed as well as remastered. When you say the magic is missing, what you are really saying is that you miss the familiarity of the older version(s). I am guessing that anyone coming to this album for the first time would prefer the latest version for its greater clarity and focus.

GeoffYes Geoff, you could be right.

I do love the clarity and the feeling that a layer of cloud has been removed though. Some tracks are superb but i don't think I prefer the remix to the original. I hoped for the same feeling as when I heard pepper but it didn't happen.

Sherwood
30-11-2018, 09:49
Yes Geoff, you could be right.

I do love the clarity and the feeling that a layer of cloud has been removed though. Some tracks are superb but i don't think I prefer the remix to the original. I hoped for the same feeling as when I heard pepper but it didn't happen.

This is a form of "imprinting". We all have a tendency to "bond" with the familiar and things we experience in our formative years. I try to avoid this by ensuring that I listen to as much new music as old stuff.

I listened to all 6 volumes of the reissue as Tidal Masters. I thought the original tracks and the Escher demos were very good, but a lot of padding thereafter. I would certainly not purchase the complete versions let alone the 7 volume set with Bluray disc at 125 quid!!!

Geoff

Bigman80
30-11-2018, 09:52
This is a form of "imprinting". We all have a tendency to "bond" with the familiar and things we experience in our formative years. I try to avoid this by ensuring that I listen to as much new music as old stuff.

GeoffMaybe. Not convinced about that.

magiccarpetride
30-11-2018, 16:53
Surprised by this. My 2018 beats my 1968 & 2012 versions easily for clarity and insight.

It actually sounds superior in most way BUT I don't think it has the same feel as the 1968 or the 2012. I like listening to it but I do think the magic is missing a little.

Not the same result as SGT Pepper, which I felt the remix was greatly improved over my other versions and has taken over as my go to LP.

Still good, but glad I didn't spend £80 on the deluxe version. I have that version in FLAC.

Some people indicated that the best way to listen to the 2018 remix is on CD/digital. Seeing that the vinyl was cut from the digital master, it makes vinyl superfluous, no?

I don't know much about the merits/demerits of listening to digital masters on vinyl, so I'm a bit baffled. So many people have reported the exact opposite findings from mine, but looks like all positive reports are from listening the digital format of the remix.

I should probably swap my vinyl for CDs. Would that make sense?

Bigman80
30-11-2018, 17:04
Some people indicated that the best way to listen to the 2018 remix is on CD/digital. Seeing that the vinyl was cut from the digital master, it makes vinyl superfluous, no?

I don't know much about the merits/demerits of listening to digital masters on vinyl, so I'm a bit baffled. So many people have reported the exact opposite findings from mine, but looks like all positive reports are from listening the digital format of the remix.

I should probably swap my vinyl for CDs. Would that make sense?Morning my opinion it wouldn't. Not unless you've got a system that is better than vinyl anyway.

Barry
30-11-2018, 17:10
As far as I know, the 2018 version is a remix, so is bound to sound different to the 1968 version. Ringo Starr, when interviewed, said he was pleased his drumming is now more prominent in the new mix. Whether the mix down was taken from original tapes, safety copies or digital copies I don't know, but the point I am making is that often so-called remasters are actually remixes as well (the Rolling Stones' 'Let it Bleed' album is one such example).

magiccarpetride
30-11-2018, 17:12
Yes Geoff, you could be right.

I do love the clarity and the feeling that a layer of cloud has been removed though. Some tracks are superb but i don't think I prefer the remix to the original. I hoped for the same feeling as when I heard pepper but it didn't happen.

Hmm, interesting. My vinyl copy sounds quite cloudy, mostly on account of the inordinately bloated bass. The mid-bass bloom seems off the chart. Comparing it to the original 1968 pressing, the bass on the original pressing is leaner, much more taut, but goes noticeably deeper. Also, the menacing 'plonk! plonk! plonk!' and 'clunk! clunk! clunk!' of the bass guitar has now disappeared from the remix. Why did Giles feel the need to edit the sound of the pick hitting the bass strings? It just robs the music of the prevailing atmosphere of anxiety, eeriness and overall creepy vibe that White Album is legendary for.

magiccarpetride
30-11-2018, 17:18
As far as I know, the 2018 version is a remix, so is bound to sound different to the 1968 version. Ringo Starr, when interviewed, said he was pleased his drumming is now more prominent in the new mix. Whether the mix down was taken from original tapes, safety copies or digital copies I don't know, but the point I am making is that often so-called remasters are actually remixes as well (the Rolling Stones' 'Let it Bleed' album is one such example).

That's an interesting statement Ringo made. Again, I'm baffled because I hear his drums better on the original mix. Especially the kick drum and cymbals. Maybe he thought that moving his drums from the extreme left channel right smack in the middle of the soundstage makes them appear more prominent? I know some people are adamant that drums must always be positioned in the centre, to deliver the biggest impact.

I personally prefer the way George Martin typically mixed the drums, leaving them in one channel to mesh with the bass and rhythm guitar. It emphasizes how Paul, John and Ringo had that special chemistry when they melded their instruments and made the band cook on all cylinders.

Sherwood
30-11-2018, 19:05
That's an interesting statement Ringo made. Again, I'm baffled because I hear his drums better on the original mix. Especially the kick drum and cymbals. Maybe he thought that moving his drums from the extreme left channel right smack in the middle of the soundstage makes them appear more prominent? I know some people are adamant that drums must always be positioned in the centre, to deliver the biggest impact.

I personally prefer the way George Martin typically mixed the drums, leaving them in one channel to mesh with the bass and rhythm guitar. It emphasizes how Paul, John and Ringo had that special chemistry when they melded their instruments and made the band cook on all cylinders.

Of course, for most Beatles albums, the stereo mix was completed without input from the members of the band and after the "proper" mono version was completed!

Dr Winston O Boogie
30-11-2018, 19:11
Hmm, interesting. My vinyl copy sounds quite cloudy, mostly on account of the inordinately bloated bass. The mid-bass bloom seems off the chart. Comparing it to the original 1968 pressing, the bass on the original pressing is leaner, much more taut, but goes noticeably deeper. Also, the menacing 'plonk! plonk! plonk!' and 'clunk! clunk! clunk!' of the bass guitar has now disappeared from the remix. Why did Giles feel the need to edit the sound of the pick hitting the bass strings? It just robs the music of the prevailing atmosphere of anxiety, eeriness and overall creepy vibe that White Album is legendary for.

No bloated bass on mine just a perfect sounding album?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7t4GMZxlMM

Dr Winston O Boogie
30-11-2018, 19:31
I am a big fan of the White Album. I purchased the 2012 vinyl remaster, but didn't like it at all. That's why, when the 2018 remix came out on the 9th, I traded my 2012 remaster for the remix.

I'll be honest -- I was expecting sonic miracle. Instead, I got a sonic turd.

Maybe a bad pressing? Who knows...

Comparing the 2018 remix with my original 1968 pressing, it's like comparing, I don't know... turd with the nicest pastry.

Everyone is oohing and aaahing about the remix, how the sound is so much better and how now we can hear so many new details. Which makes me scratch my head.

OK, take for example "Martha My Dear". If I first play the 2018, you could say 'yeah, nice'. But if I then play the original LP, all of a sudden the music comes to life. The intro piano leaps out of the left speaker, and when Paul enters with other instruments, you suddenly realize how there is so much more texture and finer details that you can hear on the original pressing. Where did those textures and details on the 2018 remix go?

Could it be that the master tapes have already deteriorated this much after only 50 years? I find that hard to believe.

Maybe the tapes developed a bit of hiss, which Giles tried to remove, effectively killing those vitally important transients in the process?

I guess I'll never know. They are pretty secretive about the mixing process, wouldn't even disclose which software was being used for the remix.

Whatever it is, the 2018 remix is a pale copy of the mighty original mix.

I have posted a somewhat less than great AQ comparison for just about every track here, and the 2018 mix is the best even using the poor quality audio samples, so I am a little unsure where you get your opinion that this release is poorer in some way when the evidence shows that it clearly is not?

magiccarpetride
30-11-2018, 19:43
I have posted a somewhat less than great AQ comparison for just about every track here, and the 2018 mix is the best even using the poor quality audio samples, so I am a little unsure where you get your opinion that this release is poorer in some way when the evidence shows that it clearly is not?

The only source for me forming that opinion are my ears. I sit down, play track off the 2018 remix, then I play the same track off the original 1968 pressing. My ears hear drastic difference in terms of sound quality between the two pressings. I've demoed this thing to several people already, and they all agree with my opinion.

Dr Winston O Boogie
30-11-2018, 20:46
The only source for me forming that opinion are my ears. I sit down, play track off the 2018 remix, then I play the same track off the original 1968 pressing. My ears hear drastic difference in terms of sound quality between the two pressings. I've demoed this thing to several people already, and they all agree with my opinion.

Yes I have the original too and it was my go to pressing, but if you listen to the versions I have posted even with the poor AQ it is quite clear that the 2018 mix closely followed by the mono are the quintesential go to versions. I mean the evidence is there for everyone to hear , so clearly there seems to be a problem with your 2018 mix or your ears?

Macca
30-11-2018, 21:43
, so clearly there seems to be a problem with your 2018 mix or your ears?

Two different mixes two different opinions - you're straying a bit close to the line, Barry.

magiccarpetride
30-11-2018, 22:10
Yes I have the original too and it was my go to pressing, but if you listen to the versions I have posted even with the poor AQ it is quite clear that the 2018 mix closely followed by the mono are the quintesential go to versions. I mean the evidence is there for everyone to hear , so clearly there seems to be a problem with your 2018 mix or your ears?

I'm not discussing whether the remix is the quintessential go to version. I'm just discussing the fact that on my system, with the two pressings I play, the original pressing beats the 2018 remix in terms of sound quality. It beats it badly, not just by a slim margin.

And it's not only my ears -- a number of people who visited my listening room concur.

P.S. And, for the record, it's not my 2018 mix, it's Giles Martin's.

Barry
30-11-2018, 22:29
Guys - Let's not become too dogmatic. Remember most posts here are notionally prefixed with IMO or IMHO etc.

magiccarpetride
01-12-2018, 02:06
It varies with the formulations but in general analogue tape deteriorates quite quickly - 50 years is a very long time. If the recording was analogue early pressings are going to be a lot better regardless of whatever technology they can throw at the problem now. It's why first pressings are so expensive.

Thanks for your explanation. So since Giles Martin went back to the original tapes and converted them to digital files, two possibilities come to mind:

1. Either the original master tapes have indeed deteriorated in the ensuing 50 years, so the once lively and sparkly sound is now a bit duller, or
2. The original master tapes did not deteriorate to the point of sounding somewhat dull, but they nevertheless contained hiss and other noises and impurities.

If the second option is what the situation was during the remix, then it sounds to me like Giles tried to remove the blemishes, after converting the tapes to digital, by applying some noise reduction software.

Which is always a bad choice. I know 'cause I was doing a lot of recording and subsequently some mixing and mastering, and any time I'd use noise removal software, it invariably kills not only the noise but the actual liveliness in the recorded music.

To my ears, the 2018 remix sounds dull. If you play it just by itself, it's rather easy to conclude "hey, this is pretty pleasant sounding record." But if you then play the original White Album pressing, it's startling and astonishing how much more music you get to hear on the original pressing.

I'd blame a certain level of master tape deterioration combined with unnecessary dabbling with noise reduction filters.

Next time (if there is next time), I'd prefer they hire real pros to prepare the Beatles anniversary release. Let's hope they won't botch the Abbey Road 50th anniversary next year :nono:

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 04:09
I think you'd be best NOT getting a 50th Anniversary copy of Abbey Road, Alex.
I thought you'd have learned by now!

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 08:07
Thanks for your explanation. So since Giles Martin went back to the original tapes and converted them to digital files, two possibilities come to mind:

1. Either the original master tapes have indeed deteriorated in the ensuing 50 years, so the once lively and sparkly sound is now a bit duller, or
2. The original master tapes did not deteriorate to the point of sounding somewhat dull, but they nevertheless contained hiss and other noises and impurities.

If the second option is what the situation was during the remix, then it sounds to me like Giles tried to remove the blemishes, after converting the tapes to digital, by applying some noise reduction software.

Which is always a bad choice. I know 'cause I was doing a lot of recording and subsequently some mixing and mastering, and any time I'd use noise removal software, it invariably kills not only the noise but the actual liveliness in the recorded music.

To my ears, the 2018 remix sounds dull. If you play it just by itself, it's rather easy to conclude "hey, this is pretty pleasant sounding record." But if you then play the original White Album pressing, it's startling and astonishing how much more music you get to hear on the original pressing.

I'd blame a certain level of master tape deterioration combined with unnecessary dabbling with noise reduction filters.

Next time (if there is next time), I'd prefer they hire real pros to prepare the Beatles anniversary release. Let's hope they won't botch the Abbey Road 50th anniversary next year :nono:

Real Pro's, would you mind explaining what you mean, are you saying Giles Martin, Sam Oakell, Miles Showell are not real pros?

I think you seem to be alone with your opinion on this but never mind it's just that.

The tapes were in perfect condition much the same as the Sgt Pepper release, as long as it is good quality tape there is no reason for deteration if stored correctly.

Here is Michael Fremer's take on the Album:

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/beatles-re-mixed-giles-martin-any-good-page-2

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 08:18
Two different mixes two different opinions - you're straying a bit close to the line, Barry.

Apologies Macca, yes I was close to line.

Just gets a little frustrating when this album as has been reviewed by many experts in the field of audio quality and every one comes out positive. I have the original
played alongside the 2018 and also posted a video showing the being played in tandem but still someone is saying that it is poor. That is their opinion of course, but in my opinion and that of the vast majority of audiophiles it sounds jaw dropping, which is why it just does not make sence that someone would say it's poor or would not want any further releases done by Giles Martin, Sam Oakwell or Miles Showell?

Macca
01-12-2018, 08:23
I think you seem to be alone with your opinion on this but never mind it's just that.

The tapes were in perfect condition much the same as the Sgt Pepper release, as long as it is good quality tape there is no reason for deteration if stored correctly.

Here is Michael Fremer's take on the Album:

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/beatles-re-mixed-giles-martin-any-good-page-2

Lots of reasons why analogue tape degrades even if perfectly stored, scroll down to page 6 of this paper and they are all listed www.richardhess.com/tape/history/HESS_Tape_Degradation_ARSC_Journal_39-2.pdf

Macca
01-12-2018, 08:28
Apologies Macca, yes I was close to line.

Just gets a little frustrating when this album as has been reviewed by many experts in the field of audio quality and every one comes out positive. I have the original
played alongside the 2018 and also posted a video showing the being played in tandem but still someone is saying that it is poor. That is their opinion of course, but in my opinion and that of the vast majority of audiophiles it sounds jaw dropping, which is why it just does not make sence that someone would say it's poor or would not want any further releases done by Giles Martin, Sam Oakwell or Miles Showell?

I understand where you are coming from but fact is this is a re-mix not just a re-mastering so it is going to sound significantly different and that's not going to be to everyone's taste. For example I've had the original of the Stone's Let It Bleed and the SACD remix/remaster for years and I still can't decide which I prefer. The re-mix sounds more polished and 'hi-fi', but that doesn't automatically make it 'better'. I doubt Alex is alone in preferring his first pressing, albeit I'm pretty sure he will be in a minority.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 08:33
Lots of reasons why analogue tape degrades even if perfectly stored, scroll down to page 6 of this paper and they are all listed www.richardhess.com/tape/history/HESS_Tape_Degradation_ARSC_Journal_39-2.pdf

The Emitex tapes used in Abbey Road were and still are in perfect condition as Giles stated and confirmed as confirmed by Tim De Paravinci they are one the best for longevity and there were only a few tapes back in the day which are of a poor quality.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 08:36
I understand where you are coming from but fact is this is a re-mix not just a re-mastering so it is going to sound significantly different and that's not going to be to everyone's taste. For example I've had the original of the Stone's Let It Bleed and the SACD remix/remaster for years and I still can't decide which I prefer. The re-mix sounds more polished and 'hi-fi', but that doesn't automatically make it 'better'. I doubt Alex is alone in preferring his first pressing, albeit I'm pretty sure he will be in a minority.

I think that is just the point, it IMO is more raw and less HiFi than it could have been and again as confirmed by Giles, he wanted just that, not to polished and with much the same feel as the original.

Macca
01-12-2018, 08:37
The Emitex tapes used in Abbey Road were and still are in perfect condition as Giles stated and confirmed as confirmed by Tim De Paravinci they are one the best for longevity and there were only a few tapes back in the day which are of a poor quality.

I did have a search around and was unable to find any commentary on the condition of the tapes. But the inherent nature of analogue tape means that there can be no possible way that they are in 'perfect condition' after 50 years, although they clearly good enough to be useable. Do you have a link you can point me to where Martin discusses it?

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 09:12
I did have a search around and was unable to find any commentary on the condition of the tapes. But the inherent nature of analogue tape means that there can be no possible way that they are in 'perfect condition' after 50 years, although they clearly good enough to be useable. Do you have a link you can point me to where Martin discusses it?

The only tapes that get mentioned are the demos that lay in the vault.
So we're talking the additional material content, not the album itself.

The album itself would have been reworked from the multitrack tape transfers done for the project released back in 2009.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 09:22
I did have a search around and was unable to find any commentary on the condition of the tapes. But the inherent nature of analogue tape means that there can be no possible way that they are in 'perfect condition' after 50 years, although they clearly good enough to be useable. Do you have a link you can point me to where Martin discusses it?

The interview was with Giles at Abbey Road on the remixing of Sgt Pepper, I am trying to find it. They went back to the original tapes for the main album from the vaults also.

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 09:35
The interview was with Giles at Abbey Road on the remixing of Sgt Pepper, I am trying to find it. They went back to the original tapes for the main album from the vaults also.

They went to the vaults for the supplementary material only.
The album will have been remixed from the digital transfers done for the project released back in 2009.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 10:21
They went to the vaults for the supplementary material only.
The album will have been remixed from the digital transfers done for the project released back in 2009.

Sorry, Chris, they went back to the original tapes for the whole album.

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 10:24
Sorry, Chris, they went back to the original tapes for the whole album.

References?

When the entire catalogue was re-released back in 2009, part of the preliminary work was to perform flat transfers of all master tapes into the digital realm.
That process included all multitracks.
There is no need to roll priceless tapes yet again.

Sherwood
01-12-2018, 10:37
As I understand it, the Bluray disc includes a copy of the original mono master. Surely, that is what the 2018 remix (also on the Bluray) should be compared to. I would be interested in comparing the two but not at 125 quid!

struth
01-12-2018, 10:57
on amazon it says..

Double Vinyl

This 2LP ‘White Album’ release includes Martin’s new stereo album mix, sourced directly from the original four-track and eight-track session tapes.

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 11:01
on amazon it says..

Double Vinyl

This 2LP ‘White Album’ release includes Martin’s new stereo album mix, sourced directly from the original four-track and eight-track session tapes.

That's more than you get from official sources ....

struth
01-12-2018, 11:15
will try for a screen shot

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 11:18
will try for a screen shot

Of Amazon?
I wouldn't bother.

struth
01-12-2018, 11:18
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181201/ee982e4658020cbe513c3fc1feee15c0.jpg

Just trying to be helpful

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 11:22
Sourced from the original session tapes could equally apply to the transfers when the back catalogue was archived on digital media over a decade ago.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 11:24
The White Album as with Sgt Pepper they went back to the original four track and eight track masters, for the Esher demos they used Georges four-track home recordings.

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 11:27
The White Album as with Sgt Pepper they went back to the original four track and eight track masters, for the Esher demos they used Georges four-track home recordings.

That's not what it says here https://www.thebeatles.com/news/beatles-celebrate-%E2%80%98-beatles%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98white-album%E2%80%99-special-anniversary-releases

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 11:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve1vaEIXhV0

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 11:33
That's not what it says here https://www.thebeatles.com/news/beatles-celebrate-%E2%80%98-beatles%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98white-album%E2%80%99-special-anniversary-releases

From that review " All the new ‘White Album’ releases include Martin’s new stereo album mix, sourced directly from the original four-track and eight-track session tapes."

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 11:52
From that review " All the new ‘White Album’ releases include Martin’s new stereo album mix, sourced directly from the original four-track and eight-track session tapes."

So he's done it all in the analogue domain, eh?
Somehow I don't think so.

Everyone seems to be reading something extra into "All the new ‘White Album’ releases include Martin’s new stereo album mix, sourced directly from the original four-track and eight-track session tapes."
The mix is sourced from the original 4 and 8 track sessions - that they were sourced from the A2D archiving process of a decade ago is neither here nor there.

Macca
01-12-2018, 11:55
Sourced from the original session tapes could equally apply to the transfers when the back catalogue was archived on digital media over a decade ago.

Which would make more sense than going back to the analogue masters again, given they have had another 10 years of aging in the meantime.

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 12:03
Which would make more sense than going back to the analogue masters again, given they have had another 10 years of aging in the meantime.

Which is why the new stuff is the session takes, and a decent transfer of the Esher demos.
Those tapes have been digitally archived by EMI quite recently. They had limited value before, and were almost certainly unplayed in the intervening 50 years.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 12:10
Which would make more sense than going back to the analogue masters again, given they have had another 10 years of aging in the meantime.

The tapes as i said before were in a fantastic condition that is why they used them.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 12:12
So he's done it all in the analogue domain, eh?
Somehow I don't think so.

Everyone seems to be reading something extra into "All the new ‘White Album’ releases include Martin’s new stereo album mix, sourced directly from the original four-track and eight-track session tapes."
The mix is sourced from the original 4 and 8 track sessions - that they were sourced from the A2D archiving process of a decade ago is neither here nor there.

Did you watch the video I posted?

Macca
01-12-2018, 12:15
The tapes as i said before were in a fantastic condition that is why they used them.

But if you already have a digital transfer of those tapes it makes no sense to go back and do another one. If they use the transfer they did in 2009 they are still working directly from the original tapes so the statement you quoted remains true.


This new remix/remaster was not done in analogue as Chris has pointed out.

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 12:15
Did you watch the video I posted?

In short, no
How far back is it?

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 12:19
I am at a loss as to why you guys are doubting what they have said and explained. They went back as they did with pepper to the original tapes as that gave them the perfect template to work from. Why would Giles have said the tapes were in fantastc condition if not?

Macca
01-12-2018, 12:23
I am at a loss as to why you guys are doubting what they have said and explained. They went back as they did with pepper to the original tapes as that gave them the perfect template to work from. Why would Giles have said the tapes were in fantastc condition if not?

He may have been referring to the demo and outtake tapes, as Chris said.

It's tough because there's not a lot of hard info out there, sure he's been interviewed but no technical questions seem to have been asked and all the reviews just seem to bang on about how great the Beatles were and how great an album it is. All of which we knew already.

struth
01-12-2018, 12:30
Guess we might never know for sure. Not sure it really matters tbh

Macca
01-12-2018, 12:32
Guess we might never know for sure. Not sure it really matters tbh

I'm sure they would be happy to make it clear if someone actually asked them.

I agree it doesn't matter, either they used the 2009 transfers or they made new transfers, they are going to be exactly the same in any case (assuming the tapes had not degraded since 2009).

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 12:41
He may have been referring to the demo and outtake tapes, as Chris said.

It's tough because there's not a lot of hard info out there, sure he's been interviewed but no technical questions seem to have been asked and all the reviews just seem to bang on about how great the Beatles were and how great an album it is. All of which we knew already.

But the evidence is there, watch the video and of course the interview that was on youtube, where by Giles clearly stated the original tapes were in fantastic condition.

This is not what I am looking for but just a snipit of some tech informatio from Giles:

" We now can go back to the early generations of tapes. It's hard to explain, but my father had to record everything on a four-track — that means you can record four things on one tape. And that was bounced to another four-track. [Each time sounds are bounced to another tape the sound degrades]. What we do is we go back to the previous generation [the original tapes], so we're mixing off generations of tape that they never mixed off. [Martin here is referencing the final takes of each instrumental part, which were transferred to four-track tapes, which were then used to create the final mix.] So it's almost like a car that comes straight out of a paint shop. The tapes are glistening. What was recorded in '67 sounds pure and crystal clear — there's not any hiss or anything. And with this version of Sgt. Pepper that's what we try to do — we're trying to get you closer to the music."

Stratmangler
01-12-2018, 13:05
But the evidence is there, watch the video and of course the interview that was on youtube, where by Giles clearly stated the original tapes were in fantastic condition.

I've since watched the video link, and Giles Martin does not specify which tapes he's referring to, and the only stuff to have sat in the archive and unplayed for half a century are the outtakes & demos.
All the stuff required for an album remix had long since been archived digitally, and all the other additional stuff was flat transferred from tape to digital specifically for this project.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 13:14
I've since watched the video link, and Giles Martin does not specify which tapes he's referring to, and the only stuff to have sat in the archive and unplayed for half a century are the outtakes & demos.
All the stuff required for an album remix had long since been archived digitally, and all the other additional stuff was flat transferred from tape to digital specifically for this project.

Chris mate believe me there is enough evidence out there as well as what they have said on both Pepper and TWA that the orginal analogue masters were used to strip back the main album and rebuild from there, if you choose to ignore this fact then there is nothing else to say on the subject.

PS
I will see if Tim De Paravinci will post on here to clear things up.

magiccarpetride
01-12-2018, 16:39
But the evidence is there, watch the video and of course the interview that was on youtube, where by Giles clearly stated the original tapes were in fantastic condition.

This is not what I am looking for but just a snipit of some tech informatio from Giles:

" We now can go back to the early generations of tapes. It's hard to explain, but my father had to record everything on a four-track — that means you can record four things on one tape. And that was bounced to another four-track. [Each time sounds are bounced to another tape the sound degrades]. What we do is we go back to the previous generation [the original tapes], so we're mixing off generations of tape that they never mixed off. [Martin here is referencing the final takes of each instrumental part, which were transferred to four-track tapes, which were then used to create the final mix.] So it's almost like a car that comes straight out of a paint shop. The tapes are glistening. What was recorded in '67 sounds pure and crystal clear — there's not any hiss or anything. And with this version of Sgt. Pepper that's what we try to do — we're trying to get you closer to the music."

I'm not sure on what authority are we to blindly buy into Giles's assessment of the quality of the source material? Just because he says so? He has a dog in this fight, and of course he's gonna pimp it up.

I remain highly skeptical (much to your chagrin, no doubt). I know that fanboys would like nothing better than for all of us to join hands and sing kumbaya, but that's not gonna happen, so long as at least one impartial listener is left standing.

Again, I'm only basing my conclusions on direct listening. I don't care what Giles claims, what the marketing machinery claims, 'cause there is millions of dollars to be made off of this project, and, not to be too cynical, but it's not unlikely that they will put a massive spin on it.

In my humble opinion, we are dealing with yet another Emperor's new clothes syndrome here. After creating a marketing stir and loads of hoopla, they are now gushing about the phenomenal sound quality of the 'rescued' and 'revitalized' White Album. I'm calling bullshit on that, because my ears are telling me that it is a dull, softened and compromised release.

magiccarpetride
01-12-2018, 16:50
I'm sure they would be happy to make it clear if someone actually asked them.

I agree it doesn't matter, either they used the 2009 transfers or they made new transfers, they are going to be exactly the same in any case (assuming the tapes had not degraded since 2009).

There is another mantra they keep incessantly peddling. It's always about how the limitations of 'primitive state of technology' preventing previous releases from reaching their intended potential have now finally been removed, and we will now get the most perfect reissue. So with each bullshit iteration and unnecessary 'revitalization' project (euphemism for cash grab), they keep fooling the gullible to shell out money for something they not only already have, but have in a much more superior format.

Yes, the master tapes have been digitized back in 1987, but hey, you know how lame and primitive the technology was back then? It's ridiculous. So fast forward to 2009, and now finally we get properly digitized master tapes.

But not so fast! Fast forward to 2018 and you know how lame the technology was back in 2009? We now finally have state of the art analog-to-digital conversion gear, and we can finally properly digitize those master tapes which are, by the way, in absolutely brilliant condition.

And so on. In next five to ten years they'll repeat that same old tired mantra. You know how ridiculously primitive technology was in 2018? We now have super advanced analog-to-digital converters that can finally do proper justice to those master tapes (which are, by the way, in splendid condition!)

I think it's time we cut the charade. The Beatles music should not be within the jurisdiction of commercial, for-profit ventures anymore. That catalogue is our cultural heritage, and it needs to be curated by impartial experts.

magiccarpetride
01-12-2018, 16:52
I think you'd be best NOT getting a 50th Anniversary copy of Abbey Road, Alex.
I thought you'd have learned by now!

For realz.

magiccarpetride
01-12-2018, 16:57
Real Pro's, would you mind explaining what you mean, are you saying Giles Martin, Sam Oakell, Miles Showell are not real pros?

I think you seem to be alone with your opinion on this but never mind it's just that.

The tapes were in perfect condition much the same as the Sgt Pepper release, as long as it is good quality tape there is no reason for deteration if stored correctly.

Here is Michael Fremer's take on the Album:

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/beatles-re-mixed-giles-martin-any-good-page-2

By real pros I mean people without a dog in the fight, without vested commercial interests in the project. I think Giles had lost all credibility with this project (time will tell), and it's time we revoke his license for messing with the Beatles catalogue. George Martin was an undisputed genius, his son -- not so much.

I may be alone in my assessment on this forum, but there are a lot of people who are crying bloody murder on this botched release. A lot of my friends, to begin with, but also a lot of fans all over the net are appalled. So generally speaking I don't feel alone, nor singled out.

I am passionate about the Beatles music, and I want to listen to it in the most perfect format. I also shudder to think how many young people will get their first exposure to the White Album via these lame remixes.

Michael Fremer has obviously suffered major hearing loss in his old age if he cannot hear how dull the remix sounds.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 17:01
Alex Michael Fremmer is as impartial as it gets and he and many other experts all of whom would be as quick to dismiss this release all have agreed it sounds fantastic. Now you happen to not like it, thats all well and good but please don't say these and the vast majority are talikng BS or kings new clothes as that clearly to me and them is not the case.

I have not read one other remark on this being a "botched release" apart from yours I am afraid and as for it being all over the internet?

I have heard some fantastic sounding tapes of the Beatles and other at Abbey Road, listening through studio two's speakers, in studio two, this is IMO up there with them if not better.

Just a question who would these impartial experts be?

PS
George Martin had little to do with the White Album.

Sherwood
01-12-2018, 17:09
There is another mantra they keep incessantly peddling. It's always about how the limitations of 'primitive state of technology' preventing previous releases from reaching their intended potential have now finally been removed, and we will now get the most perfect reissue. So with each bullshit iteration and unnecessary 'revitalization' project (euphemism for cash grab), they keep fooling the gullible to shell out money for something they not only already have, but have in a much more superior format.

Yes, the master tapes have been digitized back in 1987, but hey, you know how lame and primitive the technology was back then? It's ridiculous. So fast forward to 2009, and now finally we get properly digitized master tapes.

But not so fast! Fast forward to 2018 and you know how lame the technology was back in 2009? We now finally have state of the art analog-to-digital conversion gear, and we can finally properly digitize those master tapes which are, by the way, in absolutely brilliant condition.

And so on. In next five to ten years they'll repeat that same old tired mantra. You know how ridiculously primitive technology was in 2018? We now have super advanced analog-to-digital converters that can finally do proper justice to those master tapes (which are, by the way, in splendid condition!)

I think it's time we cut the charade. The Beatles music should not be within the jurisdiction of commercial, for-profit ventures anymore. That catalogue is our cultural heritage, and it needs to be curated by impartial experts.

When did the owners of the catalogue relinquish their property rights? :scratch:

magiccarpetride
01-12-2018, 17:50
When did the owners of the catalogue relinquish their property rights? :scratch:

Copyrights come with a shelf life.

magiccarpetride
01-12-2018, 17:56
Alex Michael Fremmer is as impartial as it gets and he and many other experts all of whom would be as quick to dismiss this release all have agreed it sounds fantastic. Now you happen to not like it, thats all well and good but please don't say these and the vast majority are talikng BS or kings new clothes as that clearly to me and them is not the case.

I have not read one other remark on this being a "botched release" apart from yours I am afraid and as for it being all over the internet?

I have heard some fantastic sounding tapes of the Beatles and other at Abbey Road, listening through studio two's speakers, in studio two, this is IMO up there with them if not better.

Just a question who would these impartial experts be?

PS
George Martin had little to do with the White Album.

I did not imply that Michael Fremer is partial to any agenda (I happen to value his opinions a lot). But if he claims that 2018 White Album remix sounds great, I have no explanation other than he suffered massive hearing loss. Which is an undeniable fact of ageing, nothing to do with his impartiality.

There are a lot of negative reviews of the 2018 White Album remix scattered all over the net. Just because you haven't read any is not a sufficient proof there aren't any. Here is one:

https://thebeatleshistoryreview.blogspot.com/2018/09/summer-2018-were-happy-beatles-time-1-6.html?m=1

One quote from the above post:

"Just like in the world of paintings, literature or sculptures, estate-caretakers, mothers, sons, daughters, let alone wives, second wives or what, these are mostly inadequate judges of anything regarding the legacy they are supposedly trying to take care of. There is no reason to assume that when it comes down to the music and the archives of The Beatles the expertise and conditions are better. Sharing the same breath, bed, saliva or DNA does not guarantee anything. It is about time to discuss morals and how the Beatles legacy is best served."

Impartial experts are qualified sound engineers, with proper credentials, who have no commercial interest in the project.

George Martin produced the White Album. If that means he had little to do with it, then the definition of a producer just got drastically changed.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 18:03
Impartial experts are qualified sound engineers, with proper credentials, who have no commercial interest in the project.

Plenty out there have said it sounds fantastic including Michael Fremer. Try google


George Martin produced the White Album. If that means he had little to do with it, then the definition of a producer just got drastically changed.

Read up on it, loads of info out there.

magiccarpetride
01-12-2018, 18:14
Plenty out there have said it sounds fantastic including Michael Fremer. Try google



Read up on it, loads of info out there.

George Martin walked out to enjoy his vacation in September. But he was back in October 1968 to finish up the job, and is the producer of the White Album.

struth
01-12-2018, 18:15
sure its not to everyone's liking; nothing is, lets face it.
I personally think its very good, and certainly as good as the Pepper remaster that came out recently. The Demo's are even better imo..
If Alex thinks it stinks then that's his right. No point in arguing about it.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 18:18
sure its not to everyone's liking; nothing is, lets face it.
I personally think its very good, and certainly as good as the Pepper remaster that came out recently. The Demo's are even better imo..
If Alex thinks it stinks then that's his right. No point in arguing about it.

No probs just debating. Also, Alex did not just say it stinks but did some rather long posts as to why, which I replied too.

I think it sounds fantastic and simply adding a few facts as to why, otherwise we don't have a white album thread.

Dr Winston O Boogie
01-12-2018, 18:25
George Martin walked out to enjoy his vacation in September. But he was back in October 1968 to finish up the job, and is the producer of the White Album.

George Martin had very little input into the White Album and was a producer for the most part in name only.

Sherwood
01-12-2018, 20:33
Copyrights come with a shelf life.

So when did Macca die? :scratch:

struth
01-12-2018, 20:46
So when did Macca die? :scratch:

Sony have the copyright although Paul did start a litigation and came "to a settlement" with Sony.. think the rights to most of their stuff is copy protected for 70 years now. there early stuff isnt in europe... pre jan/63 is free i think

Sherwood
01-12-2018, 20:59
Sony have the copyright although Paul did start a litigation and came "to a settlement" with Sony.. think the rights to most of their stuff is copy protected for 70 years now. there early stuff isnt in europe... pre jan/63 is free i think

The current UK law protects copyright for 70 years after publication or the death of the performer.

struth
01-12-2018, 21:13
The current UK law protects copyright for 70 years after publication or the death of the performer.

yeah, though it was now 70. McCartney had to do a lawsuit at time after Jackson died to try and get them back due to a US law I think that had time constraints. Sony paid 750 mil for jacksons 50%. shows how much these things are worth.

Sherwood
01-12-2018, 22:17
yeah, though it was now 70. McCartney had to do a lawsuit at time after Jackson died to try and get them back due to a US law I think that had time constraints. Sony paid 750 mil for jacksons 50%. shows how much these things are worth.

Agreed, but the original suggestion that the album be "nationalised" is just bonkers. Having said that, we should re-nationalise rail, the postal service and public utilities. I don't care about the remix, just stop them being vehicles for private profit!

magiccarpetride
02-12-2018, 06:10
So when did Macca die? :scratch:

1966.

magiccarpetride
05-12-2018, 15:59
George Martin had very little input into the White Album and was a producer for the most part in name only.

I didn't know that. I knew that he had little to do with "Let It Be", but I thought White Album was still under his jurisdiction. I am aware that he was disappointed that the boys have abandoned the recording approach they perfected in 1967, but at the same time he was aware that the Beatles were all about change, moving on, and never repeating themselves.

There are numerous photos of him in the studio with the Beatles during the White Album sessions. Was he there merely for shooting breeze?

Dr Winston O Boogie
05-12-2018, 19:39
I didn't know that. I knew that he had little to do with "Let It Be", but I thought White Album was still under his jurisdiction. I am aware that he was disappointed that the boys have abandoned the recording approach they perfected in 1967, but at the same time he was aware that the Beatles were all about change, moving on, and never repeating themselves.

There are numerous photos of him in the studio with the Beatles during the White Album sessions. Was he there merely for shooting breeze?

He was there but had from what I can gather rather more of a backseat as the band themselfes took more controle over the recordings.

Sherwood
05-12-2018, 19:48
yeah, though it was now 70. McCartney had to do a lawsuit at time after Jackson died to try and get them back due to a US law I think that had time constraints. Sony paid 750 mil for jacksons 50%. shows how much these things are worth.

My guess is that they will extend the protection to 80 years once Cliff makes it to his 90th birthday; and then periodically until he gets to 110 years old!

Pigmy Pony
06-12-2018, 11:40
Cliff's catalogue will be given to the public in the form of one song per Christmas cracker.

magiccarpetride
06-12-2018, 20:08
The Beatles’ engineers forced to make new master to save original “sticky, sludgy” Please Please Me tapes

https://www.uncut.co.uk/news/the-beatles-engineers-forced-to-make-new-master-to-save-original-sticky-sludgy-please-please-me-tapes-5360