09 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by darvlayMakes you wonder if new bands would sound better if they were in mono. Most new bands' songs are recorded in stereo
Has anyone listened to the Stereo remastered Beatles reissues yet?
Lot of mixed reviews on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.ca/Stereo-Box-Set-Beatles/dp/B002BSHWUU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1252514406&sr=8-1
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.
http://thestar.com/entertainment/music/article/692701
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by uzlessI don't think any music today is recorded entirely in mono.
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.
http://thestar.com/entertainment/music/article/692701
"...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.
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by darvlayYeah, 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.
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.
09 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayObviously recording in stereo now is superior to recording in mono, which was the standard when these recordings were made
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 de, but I'm very skeptical about retrofitting the original mono recordings into stereo.
Was this true only of pop music?
For instance, from what I can tell, the vast majority of jazz was recorded in stereo starting in the '50s.
I would assume that the same would be true of classical music, but I don't have enough to know.
10 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanBut 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?
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.
11 Sep 09
These guys speak sense and you all should listen to them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8246313.stm
"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."
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by SeitseNah -- The Beatles can inspire you to go the other way.
These guys speak sense and you all should listen to them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8246313.stm
"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."
What is the other way?
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by SeitseI liked this joke:
These guys speak sense and you all should listen to them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8246313.stm
"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."
"Q: What year did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs? A: 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966..."
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by darvlayI bought and listened to the white album, and I think it was pretty good.
Has anyone listened to the Stereo remastered Beatles reissues yet?
Lot of mixed reviews on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.ca/Stereo-Box-Set-Beatles/dp/B002BSHWUU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1252514406&sr=8-1
I think there was an improvement in some tracks like dear prudence, but I didn't notice much difference in others like back in the USSR.
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by generalissimoCan you explain what you thought the improvement was?
I bought and listened to the white album, and I think it was pretty good.
I think there was an improvement in some tracks like dear prudence, but I didn't notice much difference in others like back in the USSR.