The Beatles Remastered

[Isaac]

Im a pretty big Beatles fan. Their entire catalog is being remastered and released on 9/09/09. My question is, what does that mean for me? Is the quality really going to be that much better than the cd collection I have now? Am I going to have to invest 300+ dollars on this new remastered edition? I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this.

 

[blackfoot]

Im a pretty big Beatles fan. Their entire catalog is being remastered and released on 9/09/09. My question is, what does that mean for me? Is the quality really going to be that much better than the cd collection I have now? Am I going to have to invest 300+ dollars on this new remastered edition? I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this.

Usually, it means squat. Or they have messed with it somehow, as in adding to it. I am sure it is better, but not enough for me to tell.

 

[johnniegold]

The last couple of "remastered albums" had Paul re-tooling songs at the mixing board.

With The Yellow Submarine Songbook you could hear some subtle differences in the mixing of the songs but not much.

With Let It Be...Naked, the "remastered" effect is much more obvious. Paul really cleaned up the recording to make it sound the way The Beatles intended it to sound when they recorded it in 1969.

This remastered version is drastically different from the original release. The remastered version really changed the feel of the original recording. More often than not, that is a bad thing. In the case of Let It Be... Naked, it was fantastic to hear just the Beatles (w/Billy Preston) play these songs the way they intended instead of getting the ,imo, misguided Wall of Sound treatment by Phil Spector.

These austere versions of Let It Be and The Long and Winding Road become hauntingly beautiful songs as opposed to the very "stringy" and "choral" arrangements of these songs by Spector.

But if I listen to Beatles 1 which was supposed to be remastered and the original CD's that were released in 1988 can I discern a huge difference? No.

Will I be replacing my current collection of Beatles CDs? No.


I'm sorry, what was the original question?

 

[Isaac]

I completely agree with you Bob in regards to Let it be...Naked. Now that was such a dramatic difference to the studio version. I dont suppose ill be replacing everything, but just wanted to get some opinions.

BTW...am I the only one that thinks the album LOVE is great. Lucy in the sky has a unique new opening...and the blackbird/yesterday is a great meld of the two songs.

 

[Brodirt]

It means hold onto your wallet. That or get ready to purchase the same records for at least the 4th time. I f'in hate the record industry.

 

[blackfoot]

It means hold onto your wallet. That or get ready to purchase the same records for at least the 4th time. I f'in hate the record industry.

+1

 

[johnniegold]

Although Love is an interesting recording, it is more of a novelty item in the world of Beatle recordings. It it interesting to see the layering of songs on top of one another or the clever editing by George Martin and his son.

But I would rather listen to the original songs.


Btw, when are the remastered versions coming out and is it just the British releases or the American releases too?

 

[SRock]

Well said Bob. I won't be spending the scratch either. I have all of their songs, that means I can spend more on shave goodies!

 

[Isaac]

Although Love is an interesting recording, it is more of a novelty item in the world of Beatle recordings. It it interesting to see the layering of songs on top of one another or the clever editing by George Martin and his son.

But I would rather listen to the original songs.


Btw, when are the remastered versions coming out and is it just the British releases or the American releases too?

The release date is 09/09/09. From what I have read its the entire Beatles catalog, British and American Releases. It also coincides with the release of The Beatles: Rock Band game.

 

[blackfoot]

The release date is 09/09/09. From what I have read its the entire Beatles catalog, British and American Releases. It also coincides with the release of The Beatles: Rock Band game.

Rock Band Game?

 

[dpm802]

As I understand it, Re-Mastering a recording will improve the sound quality, expand the dynamic range, remove clicks and pops and scratches from the original recording, etc.

I've listened to some Re-Mastered works I've downloaded from the Zune Marketplace, and the same albums in non-processed form. I think I can hear an improvement, but its hard to tell.

If I were you, I wouldn't buy any duplicates of Beatles records that you already have. It probably won't be worth the extra money. Just get the Re-Mastered discs to fill in any missing albums in your collection.

 

[Isaac]

Actual Game Play
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpXz6TFUbis

Commercial Trailer for the game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmQXaScIhyg

 

[blackfoot]

Actual Game Play
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpXz6TFUbis

Commercial Trailer for the game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmQXaScIhyg

I play Guitar Hero and have never before had any desire to get Rock Band. Thank you very much!

 

[Isaac]

I play Guitar Hero and have never before had any desire to get Rock Band. Thank you very much!

I am seriously going to get the 3 guitars and drum kit if not for display purposes alone

 

[whitebar]

I guess I'm the odd one here but I'll most likely be ordering one of the box sets. I'm just trying to decide which one. There will be both a stereo box set and a mono box set. I'm leaning toward the mono but haven't decided for sure.

 

[Spacegeezer]

As I understand it, Re-Mastering a recording will improve the sound quality, expand the dynamic range, remove clicks and pops and scratches from the original recording, etc.

I've listened to some Re-Mastered works I've downloaded from the Zune Marketplace, and the same albums in non-processed form. I think I can hear an improvement, but its hard to tell.

If I were you, I wouldn't buy any duplicates of Beatles records that you already have. It probably won't be worth the extra money. Just get the Re-Mastered discs to fill in any missing albums in your collection.

Theoretically. In reality, most recent remasters of albums have resulted in reduced dynamic range, increased compression and digital clipping artifacts.

The problem is that most companies know that people want to hear a dramatic difference with an expensive remastered disk, when a true sonic restoration might be extremely undramatic - or the original analog tapes may have degraded significantly in the twenty or thirty years since the last digitization and it's now impossible to produce a higher quality digital copy.

In some cases, (see the T.Rex/Marc Bolan DVD "Born To Boogie") magic is performed on incredibly degraded analog media. But most "remastering" should not be confused with restoring, and ends up going completely against the original intentions arrived at in the mixing room years ago.

Or, sometimes, an artists vision was simply improved by the limitations they faced at the time. Some would say George Lucas's revisits to his classic movies rarely improve them, even if on the whole they look and sound more crisp and modern as a result.

 

[Laz]

I am looking forward to picking it up. I have all their stuff on CD. I doubt that there will be much difference with the later albums. But I am looking forward to hearing the earier stuff in stereo. They have been working on this for over three years now and I think the earlier recordings will sound much better with some sterio separation.

 

[Johnny Dale]

Good info on the Let It Be - Naked. I have all of the remastered ones from the 80's so I won't need the newer ones. I will look into the Let It Be though.

 

[jazzman]

I'll probably fall for it. When the Beatles catalog came out on CD in the '80's, they were mastered pretty well for that era, but CD mastering has advanced a great deal since then. I've had good and bad experiences with second and third generation reissued CDs. Most of the good experiences were good only because the original 1980's CD reissues of older LPs were so bad--screetchy trebles, missing lower octaves, unnatural vocals--that they couldn't help but do a better job. The standout for worst reissue of a reissued CD of an original LP has to be the Layla set that came out in a 12 x 12 box in the '90's. The producers intentionally screwed with the sound, moved instruments to different places in the soundstage, cut the cojones off of the bass, and removed the sound of Clapton's pick starting each guitar note. But I suspect that the surviving Beatles will do a first class job with this one, extending their attack on my wallet to the fifth decade.

 

[johnniegold]

In some cases, (see the T.Rex/Marc Bolan DVD "Born To Boogie") magic is performed on incredibly degraded analog media. But most "remastering" should not be confused with restoring, and ends up going completely against the original intentions arrived at in the mixing room years ago.

Or, sometimes, an artists vision was simply improved by the limitations they faced at the time. Some would say George Lucas's revisits to his classic movies rarely improve them, even if on the whole they look and sound more crisp and modern as a result.

On a similar note, as well as Beatle-related, the remastered version of both the DVD and CD of The Concert for Bangla Desh is also considerably improved from the originals.

The concert footage is given new life and the audio recording is unbelieveably better than the original, somewhat muddled recording.