Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. 09 Sep '09 16:46
    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
  2. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    09 Sep '09 18:16 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by darvlay
    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
    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.

    http://thestar.com/entertainment/music/article/692701
  3. 09 Sep '09 18:43
    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.

    http://thestar.com/entertainment/music/article/692701
    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.
  4. 09 Sep '09 20:31
    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.
  5. 09 Sep '09 22:40 / 1 edit
    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 de, but I'm very skeptical about retrofitting the original mono recordings into stereo.
    Obviously recording in stereo now is superior to recording in mono, which was the standard when these recordings were made

    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.
  6. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    10 Sep '09 20:57 / 1 edit
    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?
  7. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    11 Sep '09 12:47
    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."
  8. 11 Sep '09 12:49
    Originally posted by uzless
    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?
    ?

    What are you talking about?
  9. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    11 Sep '09 12:57
    While you're at it, how do you feel about the Beatles' children getting together to record previously unreleased Beatles demos?
  10. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    11 Sep '09 12:58
    Originally posted by Seitse
    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."
    Nah -- The Beatles can inspire you to go the other way.

    What is the other way?
  11. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    11 Sep '09 13:10
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Nah -- The Beatles can inspire you to go the other way.

    What is the other way?
    Björk?
  12. 11 Sep '09 13:46
    Originally posted by Seitse
    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."
    I liked this joke:

    "Q: What year did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs? A: 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966..."
  13. 11 Sep '09 17:07
    Originally posted by darvlay
    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 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.
  14. 11 Sep '09 17:12
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    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.
    Can you explain what you thought the improvement was?
  15. 11 Sep '09 17:14
    Originally posted by darvlay
    Can you explain what you thought the improvement was?
    I think the drums and bass (in most songs) were clearer and stronger.