Title: Beatles Remasters? Post by: Daniel S. on August 08, 2006, 12:32:39 PM Is that still happening? Didn't the guy who runs Apple say something about their catalog being remastered? Any news? Also, if they do remaster the entire catalog, do you think they'll remaster the Past Masters cd's? Title: Re: Beatles Remasters? Post by: cta on August 13, 2006, 06:39:15 PM Neil Aspinall said there was going to be some remastering, but usually that means an attempt to "clean up" the sound. "Remix" is what would be interesting. Pick up their 1999 re-release of Yellow Submarine with remixed songs. They sound GREAT. I wish they'd do that with all the Beatles albums because the stereo on the Beatles catalog is so separated. I can understand why George Harrison said that The Beatles in stereo sounded "very naked" because I think Martin & Co. were just in a hurry to slap together a stereo version for the albums and work on the more standard mono of the time.
Title: Re: Beatles Remasters? Post by: matt-zeus on August 18, 2006, 02:30:22 PM Neil Aspinall said there was going to be some remastering, but usually that means an attempt to "clean up" the sound. "Remix" is what would be interesting. Pick up their 1999 re-release of Yellow Submarine with remixed songs. They sound GREAT. I wish they'd do that with all the Beatles albums because the stereo on the Beatles catalog is so separated. I can understand why George Harrison said that The Beatles in stereo sounded "very naked" because I think Martin & Co. were just in a hurry to slap together a stereo version for the albums and work on the more standard mono of the time. I agree, remix the lot of them in proper stereo, i'm no purist so I don't think it really matters how they're mixed as long as they sound good. The Yellow Submarine album was amazing and i really liked the Let it be naked album too, so they've already done the two 'lesser' albums in their catalogue. It's similar with the BB in a way, I'd much rather listen to the stereo remix of PS than the mono, so decent stereo on Revolver and Rubber Soul would be great. Even though the Beatles albums are one of the most important back catalogues, they arguably have the crappest reissues - they are all nearly 20 years old, the sound is bad, the packaging is below substandard, no sleevenotes, no bonus tracks etc. The past masters stuff should have been included as bonus stuff on there at least. In the way of the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Queen and Led Zeppelin, their CDs just recreate the original vinyl because they feel they are still 'current' and don't want to be seen in an historical context (Unlike the excellent CD resissues by the Beach Boys, The Who, The Waterboys, Elvis Costello etc), I mean of course they still are relevant, but they do themselves a disservice by not handling their back catalogues with more care, they might think that the music 'speaks for itself' so they wouldn't need sleevenotes and bonus tracks etc, but we are talking about albums which are getting on for forty years old and people sometimes need/want context and information, perhaps its just me. :-\ Title: Re: Beatles Remasters? Post by: cta on August 23, 2006, 03:28:09 PM Well, with those groups you mentioned in your list of folks who have remixed, they are still alive and have the most control over the songs. I'm sure Macca wouldn't mind giving it a shot...but you know how The Martian is. Probably she'd send one of her wide eyed oddball space cadets with countless obscure lawyers and stop it ever from happening. Not just that, Little Boy Blew still owns the songs from what I understand.
Title: Re: Beatles Remasters? Post by: Daniel S. on August 23, 2006, 08:20:11 PM Little Boy Blew still owns the songs from what I understand. ??? Who might that be? Title: Re: Beatles Remasters? Post by: GoodToMyBaby on August 23, 2006, 08:47:02 PM Little Boy Blew still owns the songs from what I understand. ??? Who might that be? Title: Re: Beatles Remasters? Post by: Daniel S. on August 23, 2006, 11:18:06 PM You mean Michael Jackson? Oh, I get it. |