Makes you wonder if new bands would sound better if they were in mono. Most new bands' songs are recorded in stereo
Or, does it mean that the beatles really aren't that good and that the fact the songs were put into mono made the songs sound better than they were? Does seperating out the instruments into 2 channels expose the songs as weak?
I haven't heard any of the stereo versions myself. This article explains that you can now hear the errors of the instruments with the stereo versions.
Originally posted by uzless Makes you wonder if new bands would sound better if they were in mono. Most new bands' songs are recorded in stereo
Or, does it mean that the beatles really aren't that good and that the fact the songs were put into mono made the songs sound better than they were? Does seperating out the instruments into 2 channels expose the songs as weak?
I haven't ...[text shortened]... nstruments with the stereo versions.
I don't think any music today is recorded entirely in mono.
"...Does it mean that the beatles really aren't that good and that the fact the songs were put into mono made the songs sound better than they were?"
Not at all.
"Does seperating out the instruments into 2 channels expose the songs as weak?"
It certainly may in this case. I don't know the process of remastering mono recordings into digital stereo but I don't really see the point if it ends up being something that makes the original lose its aesthetic value. Obviously recording in stereo now is superior to recording in mono, which was the standard when these recordings were made, but I'm very skeptical about retrofitting the original mono recordings into stereo.
Originally posted by darvlay I don't think any music today is recorded entirely in mono.
"...Does it mean that the beatles really aren't that good and that the fact the songs were put into mono made the songs sound better than they were?"
Not at all.
"Does seperating out the instruments into 2 channels expose the songs as weak?"
It certainly may in this case. I don't know t ...[text shortened]... de, but I'm very skeptical about retrofitting the original mono recordings into stereo.
Yeah, it's sucky, they should just leave it alone. I've got a remastered version of Across the Universe in stereo and it sucks balls.
Originally posted by Starrman Yeah, it's sucky, they should just leave it alone. I've got a remastered version of Across the Universe in stereo and it sucks balls.
But WHY does it suck. Does it suck because it doesn't sound right? Or does it suck because now you can hear the song as it really is and the way it really is is a crapy song?
"Anyone who says they are influenced by The Beatles, alarm bells start to go off; it means they are going to be completely ordinary. It's about writing this perfectly-crafted music, the classic song - in inverted commas. It's not about being adventurous."
"Anyone who says they are influenced by The Beatles, alarm bells start to go off; it means they are going to be completely ordinary. It's about writing this perfectly-crafted music, the classic song - in inverted commas. It's not about being adventurous."
Nah -- The Beatles can inspire you to go the other way.
"Anyone who says they are influenced by The Beatles, alarm bells start to go off; it means they are going to be completely ordinary. It's about writing this perfectly-crafted music, the classic song - in inverted commas. It's not about being adventurous."
I liked this joke:
"Q: What year did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs? A: 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966..."
09 Sep '09 18:162 edits
The Stereo Remastered Beatles
Back to Top