Beatles remasters--that McCartney guy is pretty good!

[Infernal Affair]

May I ask why?

Most of The Beatles albums were originally mixed in mono, so a lot of that mindset went into recording them. Most Beatles purists will go for the mono mix.

And sometimes the stereo mixes are a little strange like you'll have things on one speaker side just for the sake of them being there. I think the mono mixes generally sound better when it comes to Beatles albums, but I think the stereo boxset is the better deal. I'll probably pick up that version.

 

[rcarraher]

I think George, and Ringo were the Beatles that got the short end of the stick.

BTW this review is really entertaining: Invalid Link Removed

I'm hopin' that article was tongue in cheek George wasn't one of the monster lead guitarists in history, actually he was more of a melodic/hook player than a great soloists al la Page or Beck or Clapton. But he was a perfect fit for the Beatles, a more than adequate lead player and a pretty damn good song writer who happened to be in a band with two of the greatest song writers of all time. Not to mention two of the biggest egos.

Ringo goes unrecognized, but I think him and Paul really locked, and that is something that is hard to find. Listen to some of the early stuff and the recordings with Best, Ringo was so much better, so much for fun. Also, Ringo was left handed but played his kit setup for a righty. This lead to some interesting sounds. The fills were almost "backward" he'd come off the snare with his left hand leading and end up on the snare, instead of the other way around. This really turned on orthodoxed drummers at the time and really contributed to the "newness" of their sound.He was/is no Ginger Baker, but he was rock solid, and his open high hat and his 4 on the 4 floor kick really drove the energy. He moved the beat which IMO renewed rock n roll. John Lennon even attributed him and Paul to the solidness of the band at the time, and Lennon didn't hand out compliments very often.

 

[derJackal]

I'm hopin' that article was tongue in cheek

That article needed a dozen buttermilk biscuits to sop up all the sarcasm gravy.

 

[rcarraher]

Most of The Beatles albums were originally mixed in mono, so a lot of that mindset went into recording them. Most Beatles purists will go for the mono mix.

And sometimes the stereo mixes are a little strange like you'll have things on one speaker side just for the sake of them being there. I think the mono mixes generally sound better when it comes to Beatles albums, but I think the stereo boxset is the better deal. I'll probably pick up that version.

A good reason for this is that stereo recording equipment was still pretty primitive and didn't reall allow for much in the way of over dubs. I think the first album was pretty much done "live" in the studio (albeit with many takes) to capture the sound they had live in clubs, also the energy required would have been hard to capture with all of the boys in booths laying down parts. Even after the first two albums, the attempts at over dubbing were pretty primitive, they'd take the four track tape, and record it back onto one track and then ly down, for instance, Johns harmonica or Pauls piano on the remaining track. There stuff used to be really wild to listen to thru head phones back then, but even by 1970 it was obvious that the stereo mixes didn't travel through time well.

 

[rcarraher]

That article needed a dozen buttermilk biscuits to sop up all the sarcasm gravy.

Ain't that the truth. One thing that got me thinkin' tho', when Paul grew the mustache, that was what started the Paul is dead thing. Rumor was that he'd died in a car crash and had been replaced by a double they put a mustache on. Reality was that he'd chipped a tooth (can't remember whether it was a car crash or some other accident but he obviouly didn't die) and grew the mustache to hide that.

It would have taken at least a dozen of momas biscuits to sope up the gravey.

 

[waynobass]

I never had the slightest problem hearing the bass before.

Doesn't Paul have enough money already? Is he trying to be the "remaster" of our wallets?

(Yes I'm playing devil's advocate.)

 

[Ric5]

I know there have been plenty of discussions on TalkBass about the merits of Paul McCartney as a bass player, and this thread is not really intended to start another one of those.

However, I've been listening today to some of the new Beatles remasters and--now that you can actually hear so much more of the bass lines in the recordings--I am completely re-floored by just how good and inventive a bass player that man was. When you consider what most rock and roll music was like during the early to mid 60s it is pretty astounding to me just how creative and complex his playing was. I would suggest to those who might be on the fence about his skill and his importance to the instrument, that you might take a listen to these new CDs.

I must admit that, as someone old enough to have bought every one of their albums on their original release dates, I have always been a huge Beatles fan, so I do come to the party with some bias. But I think these remasters are really worth a listen--even to those who don't quite "get" the Beatles.

Paul didn't play all of the bass lines. Paul, John, and George were all guitar players first ... Paul took the bass job, but Paul also played guitar, and keyboards on several tracks, and John and George play bass on some of the tracks.

But I must agree .. Paul McCartney is a nice melodic bass player.

 

[kai_ski]

I'm hopin' that article was tongue in cheek George wasn't one of the monster lead guitarists in history, actually he was more of a melodic/hook player than a great soloists al la Page or Beck or Clapton. But he was a perfect fit for the Beatles, a more than adequate lead player and a pretty damn good song writer who happened to be in a band with two of the greatest song writers of all time. Not to mention two of the biggest egos.

Ringo goes unrecognized, but I think him and Paul really locked, and that is something that is hard to find. Listen to some of the early stuff and the recordings with Best, Ringo was so much better, so much for fun. Also, Ringo was left handed but played his kit setup for a righty. This lead to some interesting sounds. The fills were almost "backward" he'd come off the snare with his left hand leading and end up on the snare, instead of the other way around. This really turned on orthodoxed drummers at the time and really contributed to the "newness" of their sound.He was/is no Ginger Baker, but he was rock solid, and his open high hat and his 4 on the 4 floor kick really drove the energy. He moved the beat which IMO renewed rock n roll. John Lennon even attributed him and Paul to the solidness of the band at the time, and Lennon didn't hand out compliments very often.

Yeah I think that review was written as a satirical underlining of the vast influence the Beatles have had on rock n roll, even among their contemporaries.

I only made the comment about George and Ringo, because of all of the sentiment in this thread about Paul being underrated as a musician. IMO George was the most theoretically advanced of them all, and Ringo has some of the best 'open' grooves I've ever heard, but they rarely get the attention they deserve.

 

[greggster59]

May I ask why?

The mono mixes were extensively worked on for the initial releases in the UK by The Beatles and George Martin. The stereo mixes were done very quickly afterwards without the Beatles participation for the US market at the distributor's insistence.

I don't know the reason for this but most portable radios in the 60's only had one speaker and AM radio (mono) was the dominant format of the day.

I was able to get a copy of the CD Singles collection last year in which all 21 singles The Beatles released were included in their original mono format. They sounded great. This is even more true on the new remasters, which BTW were not subject to peak limiting as mentioned regarding the stereo mixes in another post.

Here's a link that discusses it a bit more: http://gizmodo.com/5216258/sorry-stereo-but-beatles-in-mono-rocks-a-lot-more

The mono mixes are well worth checking out.

Cheers!

 

[nellie48]

IMO Paul's bass playing is phenomenal. But, for those of you who are not impressed, consider the whole package. I cant name one bass player who could sing as good as he could on bass (live) and also had his song writing talent.

 

[rcarraher]

I never had the slightest problem hearing the bass before.

Doesn't Paul have enough money already? Is he trying to be the "remaster" of our wallets?

(Yes I'm playing devil's advocate.)

Pauls doing fine, but Heather has had to cut way back since she only got 58 mil four years ago....I really think that this is the best the albums have ever sounded and I'd like to think that that is the main reason why they waited 20 plus years to update the quality. But, what I'd really love is if they had gathered a bunch of old footage of them live and some of the interviews and thrown in a companion DVD....next year, you say?

 

[DesertCreature]

Doesn't Paul have enough money already? Is he trying to be the "remaster" of our wallets?

(Yes I'm playing devil's advocate.)

I thought it was to pay off Michael Jackson's creditors.

I'm buying it anyway.

 

[Jim Campbell]

A good reason for this is that stereo recording equipment was still pretty primitive and didn't reall allow for much in the way of over dubs. I think the first album was pretty much done "live" in the studio (albeit with many takes) to capture the sound they had live in clubs, also the energy required would have been hard to capture with all of the boys in booths laying down parts. Even after the first two albums, the attempts at over dubbing were pretty primitive, they'd take the four track tape, and record it back onto one track and then ly down, for instance, Johns harmonica or Pauls piano on the remaining track. There stuff used to be really wild to listen to thru head phones back then, but even by 1970 it was obvious that the stereo mixes didn't travel through time well.

i dunno...i had some of the parlophone albums,and a very good sound system since the mid 70-'s and i'd say the sound quality was on par with the ecm stuff.........i think the vinyl was the let down more than the recording

 

[Honk'n_down-low]

Paul is great no doubt and I love the Beatles. Jamerson was playing and being heard at this time - and you can't discount his amazing playing when discussing what was the norm for Bass Playing at this time i.e., root fifth etc....

While Jamerson may not have sang and played - he played a role for sure in shaping the Songs that are a Phenominal body of work. If I recall correctly, I believe The Beatles were fans of Motown and I believe they could not have heard that music without being influenced by it. I would love either boxes set as I do not have a complete collection of any of their releases. The mono set if it is that good would be worth getting - but the cost of the Stereo set is more affordable. When I heard the first song on the radio yesterday - I could immediately hear the difference and the Bass was more prominent for sure - sounded great!!

 

[mccartneyman]

Doesn't Paul have enough money already? Is he trying to be the "remaster" of our wallets?

(Yes I'm playing devil's advocate.)

Purchase is voluntary. McCartney gave me a career. I'll gladly spend $200 every 20 years to thank him.

 

[TC2112]

These sound great for a cd remaster. I have the stereo and mono sets. I still prefer my vinyl to any processed, compressed, and digitized sounds. They did mix these hotter than previous efforts, but it feels very compressed. Like they were maxed out on volume so they had to level it out or "Normalize" the audio. It's better than the previous efforts on CD, but I still don't know if audiophiles will be happy

 

[rcarraher]

Paul is great no doubt and I love the Beatles. Jamerson was playing and being heard at this time - and you can't discount his amazing playing when discussing what was the norm for Bass Playing at this time i.e., root fifth etc....

While Jamerson may not have sang and played - he played a role for sure in shaping the Songs that are a Phenominal body of work. If I recall correctly, I believe The Beatles were fans of Motown and I believe they could not have heard that music without being influenced by it. I would love either boxes set as I do not have a complete collection of any of their releases. The mono set if it is that good would be worth getting - but the cost of the Stereo set is more affordable. When I heard the first song on the radio yesterday - I could immediately hear the difference and the Bass was more prominent for sure - sounded great!!

Jamerson WAS loud for the time. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact he kept his action so high. This made him have to dig in and really attack the neck. It would of kept the average player from getting to cute, or fancy too. But not the master. Paul said, even back in '64 that Jamerson was the man.

 

[wittynamehere]

I have to say I don't mind paying for remasters, if they are as good as it sounds like they will be. Despite having purchased their catalog on casette when I was a kid, some albums multiple times as I wore out Abbey Road and Rubber Soul, then I bought them again on CD.

I am pretty irritated that the mono recordings are so much more expensive than the Stereo ones. I will definately buy the stereo recordings, but I doubt that I will feel too badly if I happen upon mp3's of the mono ones in some dark alley of the internet......

 

[McHaven]

Isn't the mono mix supposed to be the superior mix? If I remember from Geoff Emerick's book, the Beatles saw stereo as a gimmick and toyed around with stereo mixes, whereas serious concentration went into the mono mix.

 

[jerry]

But, what I'd really love is if they had gathered a bunch of old footage of them live and some of the interviews and thrown in a companion DVD....next year, you say?

Oh you just know that's coming, give a year or two.