OT POLL: do you give a crap about Beatles remasters?

[mholloway]

curious what folks 'round here think about this, been discussing it a lot lately with friends....

[UKRuss]

Not really interested in the Beatles at all. I mean, I'm 40 and to be honest they were still before my time.

We grew up with Boney M and The Bee Gees.

[Dexes]

Didn't Jackson buy the rights to all beatles songs? So is a new repress out now to pay for the funeral?

[Tone Deft]

I'll have to hear them to decide.

I don't like any of the poll options.

1 - idiotic.
2 - the old sound fine but the new could be better, as in the re-release "Let It Be... Naked."
3 - interweb conspiracy whining that has nothing to do with the music.

[rasputin]

I'll have to hear them to decide.

I don't like any of the poll options.

1 - idiotic.
2 - the old sound fine but the new could be better, as in the re-release "Let It Be... Naked."
3 - interweb conspiracy whining that has nothing to do with the music.

Maybe, maybe not -- but I do remember seeing "the standard records" (e.g., Dark Side of the Moon) being re-released every few years; first quadraphonic vinyl, then ELCAsets, then a CD, then a MFSL Gold CD, then a remastered CD, then another remastered CD, then a boxed set with alternate mixes, and on and on and on.

For christ's sake people, can't you move on? I'm as nostalgic for the music that I heard in high school as the next punter, but there has been a mountain of fantastic music since then, and frankly I can't be bothered to spend too much time rehashing golden oldies.

My theory has always been that the average person's favorite music was that of the time that they felt they were at the peak of their lives. For most Americans this was either in the last year or two of high school, or soon thereafter.

[leedsquietman]

They are worth it because the previous remasters were cack, rushed and just put out quickly to cash in on the format.

The new remasters use much better converters, clocks and equipment, have had several top mastering engineers working on them in tandem and they are not crushed to death for the loudness wars.

[leedsquietman]

Why all the whining about moving on - the world of electronic music can't get enough of it's 70's VA synths (everyone wants Moogs or moog emulations, TB303s, Prophet Vs etc) and 80's beatboxes (Tr909, Linn Drums etc). Great music remains so whatever it's age is. Look at the plugin world - so many trying to emulate Pultechs and Fairchilds and LA2As etc from the 1960s. Difference being the Beatles influenced more musicians and helped to push technology in a way that has them remembered and revered by millions still, in a way which I can't imagine Deadmau5 being remembered in 5 years, let alone 45+ years later.

[Anubis]

of course I give a crap! This is the first truly musical remastering of their catalog.

"the transfer was achieved using a Pro Tools workstation
operating at 24 bit 192 kHz resolution via a Prism A-D converter"

I'd love to listen to Sgt. Pepper's in mono again, but alas those albums are only available as a boxed set.

The Beatles were way ahead of their time, even by modern standards. They were in fact the first "samplists".

[Tarekith]

I could care less. I'm sure I'll shun myself from the musical community forever by my following statement, but there are two groups I could never understand the hype over:

- The Beatles
- Jimi Hendrix

Not saying they aren't good musicians or songwriters, but i never understood the diehard fanaticism people have with them. It's just "ok" music to me.

[OvertoneZero]

zomg you didn't

[leedsquietman]

It's not so much that the Beatles and Hendrix were amazing music, (some of their catalogue is but much of it is just average, some is poor).

The Beatles pushed technology - phasing, flanging, massive use of sound effects, bringing non standard instruments i.e. sitars, MOOGS (the Beatles were one of the first big acts to use a Moog, on 'Here Comes The Sun'). What they did in conjunction with people like George Martin and Geoff Emerick and others inspired others to carry on the baton and push the technological boundaries. And look at the difference from something like 'She Loves You' early in their career to 'A Day In The Life' just 5 years later. Few artists can morph their sound and image so much and still be popular - maybe David Bowie is the only other example I can think of.

Hendrix - That guy set down the whole precursor for hard rock/metal and funk rock. You can't not listen to something like Voodoo CHile (slight return) one of the awesomest rock tracks from 1968, with all it's weird FX, kick ass guitar tones and with a vocal that cuts through like a knife through butter. And something as beautiful as 'Little Wing'. Mitch Mitchell was one of the greatest rock drummers.

For all the critics, remember this - Will you be induced into the rock and roll hall of fame? Will your records still be selling 40 years from now? Will people still be waxing lyrical about you in half a century ?? If not, then you gotta give these guys some respect ...

I'm not a huge fan of Madonna, but I give her respect for 25+ years of success.

[Tarekith]

I don't have to be inducted into a hall of fame to have the opinion that I don't understand the hype.

[Tone Deft]

Tarekith - curious as to who your rawk gods are. you play guitar right?

for Hendrix his live version of Like A Rolling Stone is epic. man and machine acting as one, his fingers were part of his soul, effortless, feeling every note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwZ8I8wOGA

Beatles wrote amazing tunes. Lennon and his one chord vamp songs (Come Together) and McCartney with his incredibly melodic compositions (Strawberry Fields.)

to each their own. TBH it'd be pretty lame if we all liked the same things.

[elxicano]

Tarakeith, your post makes me want to yell. Still, with that said, there is hype too (along with mysticism, fanaticism, etc...), which I don't get either, but I honestly love a lot of songs form the Beattles and Hendrix. So, perhaps it is simple a matter of taste, even though I desperately want to shake you until you agree.

As for the poll... I don't like the choices, so I didn't vote.

I'm interested in what what was done different. I'm actually anxious to give a listen, but I'll meet those new masters with quite a bit of caution and skepticism. I loved the originals, so I want to know if it's possible for these to be better or not.

[Tarekith]

LOL, I know my point of view is not popular, don't worry. I had a bass playe friend of mine ready to kick my ass when he realized I was not kidding when I told him I thought Jimi was a sloppy guitar player.

My rock gods? Hmm, from a guitar standpoint I've always admired Steve Vai for his weird take on things along with his flat out virtuousity. Satriani is, more or less the reason i got into making music in the first place, though I admit his stuff is really ho hum and straightforward these days. From a songwriting perspective I think it's pretty hard to beat Fleetwood Mac, Billy Corgon (that'll raise some tempers), or Jane's Addiction. From a rock perspective of course.