• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Beatles remasters--that McCartney guy is pretty good!

#61
I must say that I have been impressed with the level of detail in the Rockband game regarding instruments played on certain songs. Meaning, PM is shown playing his Hofner on early tracks, Fireglo Rick on Revolver/Pepper tracks and the painted Rick on MMT and the refinished Rick on Abbey Road. I am more impressed that they have John and George playing bass on the correct tracks and Paul playing a Jazz bass on While my Guitar Gently Weeps. BUT... I had two questions that you all might clarify. The Game has John playing bass on Helter Skelter (a Fender VI I believe) but the tone on the CD is more Rick or Jazz. Was this the case?

Also, even bigger, it has Paul playing a Hofner on Something, which I always assumed was a Rick. Since this was correllated with the Apple folks, I would assume this is correct. Any thoughts????
 
#64
Bluesy Soul said:
It was primarily the Playboy polls in which he repeatedly scored at the top, IIRC. I don't remember the Downbeat polls ever placing him ahead of Ray Brown or Ron Carter or Paul Chambers.
Click to expand...

Forgot about the Playboy polls...they had polls?!?! ;)
Actually, I do recall reading a Carl Radle interview & he talked about being #3 in Playboy's "Best Jazz Bass" (between Ray Brown & Mingus)....said he envisioned Mingus calling Brown & asking how the Hell is this Carl Radle.

The 1st Downbeat mag I got (1975 or so) did have Peter Cetera, Jack Bruce & Chris Squire within the Top 25 Bass Category. At the time, those were the only guys I knew on the list! ;)
 
#66
rcarraher said:
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...
Click to expand...

It is certainly true that James played agressively with high, taut action; but the recorded volume levels were determined by the recording console, not James' attack or the volume knob on his Precision bass. I think Jamerson was louder primarily due to the fact that, compared to traditional pre-Motown mixes, Motown mixed in the bass lines more prominently because: 1) they were generally rhythm section-driven; and 2) they knew what they had in James and showcased him.
 
#67
Bluesy Soul said:
It is certainly true that James played agressively with high, taut action; but the recorded volume levels were determined by the recording console, not James' attack or the volume knob on his Precision bass. I think Jamerson was louder primarily due to the fact that, compared to traditional pre-Motown mixes, Motown mixed in the bass lines more prominently because: 1) they were generally rhythm section-driven; and 2) they knew what they had in James and showcased him.
Click to expand...

It is also my understanding that EMI in England, particularly in the first few years of recording the Beatles, had very conservative specifications for recording low frequency information--more so than many other labels at that time. (I don't know if it's true, but I have read that they were concerned that the needle wouldn't stay in the groove if there was too much bass.) But if you compare the level of bass output on the earliest Beatle recordings with other albums recorded in the late 50s or early 60s (particularly Jazz albums--and Motown records, for sure) they pale. That to me is one of the nicest parts of these remasters--it certainly sounds as if they have (finally) eq'd a bit more bottom end into the mix.
 
#68
McCartney always complained to George Martin along the lines of "Why can't we get a bass sound like they do in America?" Thus, I believe it had to be production and engineering. I know that I recorded on a three-track tape in a local studio in 1965 and we got a better bass sound that what was heard on the Beatles first few records, taking the bass direct. The engineer was very influenced by Stax/Volt bass sounds.
 
#69
T-MOST said:
Sure, the band is one of the biggest of all time but I don't see the (bass) genius in it. Paul (to me) is an average bassist at best. He cant touch the taste and melodic/harmonic complexity of james Jamerson. Now thats bass playing (from the same era too). Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

McCartney's bass playing on Sgt. Pepper's (just to name one LP) is the equal or even surpasses anything Jamerson did at that time. Just my opinion.:)
 
#70
rcarraher said:
I'm hopin' that article was tongue in cheek:mad: 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.
Click to expand...

Excellent points.

Ringo and George were crucial to the Beatles. I get so tired of detractors!

Ringo is criticized for his drumming, for just "being lucky" to be in the Beatles. He didn't force himself into the band, THEY ASKED him to join because he was the best drummer in Liverpool.

What exactly SHOULD the drums sound like on SHE LOVES YOU or RAIN? They sound exactly as they should, because Ringo Starr was the perfect drummer for the Beatles. They all knew this. The Beatles were on the verge of major success. Why on earth would they, at that crucial crossroad, get a medicocre drummer to be in their band? The answer is, they wouldn't. Ringo was the missing element to make them great, he was also the most popular Beatle in the USA, and defined rock drumming for a generation.

George was a major performer in the Beatles. He gets the short end of the stick in the songwriting department, but so would have Pete Townshend, Mick Jagger, and Keith Richards had they been in the Beatles with John Lennon and Paul McCartney. George sang a LOT and played a LOT of guitar in the Beatles. Millions of young men picked up the guitar because of George Harrison. And his songwriting eventually eveloved to make him one of the greats in pop music history. Just writing SOMETHING alone will do that.
 
#71
Rob Martinez said:
McCartney's bass playing on Sgt. Pepper's (just to name one LP) is the equal or even surpasses anything Jamerson did at that time. Just my opinion.:)
Click to expand...

McCartney certainly had the taste thing down...IMO, no one approached Jamerson's melodic/harmonic complexity in Pop bass. McCartney played figures, Jamerson was playing lines with a ton of variation. The road bassists for Motown were pretty much overwhelmed.
No doubt, I love them both...but "surpassing anything Jamerson did" is a bit over the top.
Just my opinion. ;)
 
#72
Rob Martinez said:
McCartney's bass playing on Sgt. Pepper's (just to name one LP) is the equal or even surpasses anything Jamerson did at that time. Just my opinion.:)
Click to expand...

I concur, Jamerson is great but in reality McCartney is the most ifen Melodic bassist out there, not only Sgt.Peppers, listen to the yellow submarine album also and well all have a quality to them :hyper: McCartney is great once again..
 
#73
I've been rediscovering Paul's playing through these remasters all week. Really stunning. I'm especially mesmerized by Rain, I Want You/She's So Heavy, and Something, but I'm sure this leaves out many equally great performances.

The fun part has been comparing the stereo remasters, the 1987 cds, and the mono remasters. It's like a kaleidascopic look at the beatles sonic history and at the evolution of recording and transfering. I only wish I had original LPs to compare (and sell for a mint on ebay!)

Here's the annoying news: the mono recordings are only available as a (very expensive) box set. So any mixing and matching will require getting duplicates. And you may well want to do some mixing / matching.

Here are my votes in the mono vs. stereo department:

1. Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Beatles for Sale, Hard Days Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver: definitely best in mono. These mono mixes were carefully crafted, while the stereo mix was done as an afterthought when the musicians and George Martin had left the studio. The stereo mixes are just bad (hard panning, etc.). The stereo version Rubber Soul was presumeably made from George Martin's 1987 remix, but this sounds every bit as bad to me.

2. Help: I like the stereo version better. This is the other album remixed in 1987 by Martin, and it sounds like a whole different thing. A truly modern stereo mix, with space, air, a big soundstage, and reasonably placed instruments and vocals.

3. Magical Mystery Tour, The Beatles (White Album), Sgt. Pepper: I like the stereo mixes. Not everyone agrees. George Martin supposedly said "you havent heard pepper til you've heard it in mono." And while I agree on some of the tracks (the songs have a lot of individual character on all these albums) overall I think the stereo mixes were done pretty well, especially on Pepper, and I find the scale and separation and depth to more than make up for the ocasional thin vocals or other flaws in the in the mix. Your own ears will have to be the judge.

4. Abbey Road and Let it Be: these are easy ... no mono mixes were ever made. And the stereo remasters sound great.

5. All the singles, collected under the Past Masters name: these were a ridiculously mixed bag for me. Volume 1. (everything through 1965) sounds better to me in mono, not surprisingly. But with the singles from 1965-70, I often strongly prefered one mix or the other, and in many cases found it hard to choose. Often the instruments sound better in the stereo mix, and the vocals sound better in the mono mix. Or the sound is better in the stereo mix, but the panning itself is so annoying that I don't care. I went with the stereo mix of Rain and the mono mix of Paperback writer ... and these were the A and B side of the same record. So obviously this is really subjective. You'll just have to trust your ears, or better yet, be less of a geek than me, make a choice, and be very happy!

edited to add: i don't think the remasters have been overcompressed. They're slightly louder than the 1987 CD releases, but I don't get any hint of loudness war participation. I've been looking at some files side by side in Logic, and don't see any signs of significant dynamic differences, although I don't quite know what I'm doing here. Maybe there's a plugin that can analyse this stuff?

Also, they supposedly didn't do any compression or other monkey business on the mono masters, and I don't hear obvious dynamic differences between the mono and stereo mixes. If someone else does, I'd be curious to hear about it.
 
#74
Nice review. Too bad we cant pick and choose what albums to get in mono and stereo. I have all the '88 releases on CD and it is hard to justify buying the remasters on stereo with the mono's sounding so much better. So, I guess Im gonna have to bite the bullet and buy the mono box set.
 
#76
Rob Martinez said:
Seems to me all the LPs should have been put out in mono, and LET IT BE and ABBEY ROAD in stereo. I am still unsure what to do, but I am sure as hell not buying both collections.
Click to expand...

I've been debating whether to get them in mono or stereo. I have the original vinyl for the 60's, even the album done in German (which really sucks if you speak the language) and Thru Rubber Soul, they are in Mono. Of course, the vinyl is in bad shape since I played them for probably 15 years before transfering them to reel to reel. I bought most of them again on CD from the 86 remasters. I had read that hey did a pretty good job of the stereo remasters this time around, but I think you just helped me make a decision. :D

BTW, I checked out your band site. You guys sound fun, love the play list! Next time I'm down that way, I'll be checking your calendar.
 
#77
Rob Martinez said:
Seems to me all the LPs should have been put out in mono, and LET IT BE and ABBEY ROAD in stereo. I am still unsure what to do, but I am sure as hell not buying both collections.
Click to expand...

You could get the mono box set and get abbey rd. and let it be separately. luckily the stereo albums have been released individually.

it's unfortunate that they didn't do this with the mono versions. If record company's guilty of just begging the world to download their music illegally, it's apple corp.
 
#78
rcarraher said:
I've been debating whether to get them in mono or stereo. I have the original vinyl for the 60's, even the album done in German (which really sucks if you speak the language) and Thru Rubber Soul, they are in Mono. Of course, the vinyl is in bad shape since I played them for probably 15 years before transfering them to reel to reel. I bought most of them again on CD from the 86 remasters. I had read that hey did a pretty good job of the stereo remasters this time around, but I think you just helped me make a decision. :D

BTW, I checked out your band site. You guys sound fun, love the play list! Next time I'm down that way, I'll be checking your calendar.
Click to expand...

Would love to have you! It's a blast to play all those classic tunes.

I will get the remasters, just a matter of time.
 
#79
paulraphael said:
You could get the mono box set and get abbey rd. and let it be separately. luckily the stereo albums have been released individually.

it's unfortunate that they didn't do this with the mono versions. If record company's guilty of just begging the world to download their music illegally, it's apple corp.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is a great idea. Just need to see if I can locate a mono set!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back