Members Anderton Posted May 31, 2017 Members Share Posted May 31, 2017 Some people think the Beatles did Sgt. Pepper's, leave it alone, don't mess with our memories. Others consider it fitting that a classic album should be remixed using today's technology and the original tapes to reveal aspects that lacked clarity in the original. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted May 31, 2017 Members Share Posted May 31, 2017 I listened to the NPR interview with Giles Martin. If Mr. Martin presented the intent of the remix correctly, it's more like cleaning an old painting rather than a "remix" as usually meant. They went back to the unbounced original tapes and worked up from there with no bouncing - so the degradation from bouncing has been removed. From the sound clips on the NPR audio article, the increased clarity is impressive. Mr. Martin also admitted that, in at least one instance, they couldn't quite match the power of the original mono mix (the remix is stereo of course.) I think it was A Day In The Life. It's not like they've touched the original - it's still here, available. Why not remix? Let it stand or fall on its merits. It's not like altering something forever. nat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 It's not like they've touched the original - it's still here, available. I heard that they were considering using the remix as the only one available for streaming. I haven't confirmed that, but if that is indeed the case, I'd be against it. I think it would be too revisionist if it was used as a replacement; as a supplement or new take on what was originally done, I find it a lot less bothersome. BTW, I have not heard it yet - I decided I was going to wait until June 2, which will be exactly 50 years (to the day) after I heard the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted May 31, 2017 Members Share Posted May 31, 2017 After hearing what Paul did with "Let it Be-Naked". I'm most interested to hear this remix of Pepper. Listening to the original version of Let it Be is still a great listen...The newer mix is just an interesting a tasty treat, with different sequencing as well. Remixing Pepper is not a deletion of the original...Just a different perspective. A 1957 Chevy is still a 1957 Chevy if you put a new engine in it or a different paint job. It;s still art...Just different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Etienne Rambert Posted May 31, 2017 Members Share Posted May 31, 2017 I listened to the NPR interview with Giles Martin. If Mr. Martin presented the intent of the remix correctly, it's more like cleaning an old painting rather than a "remix" as usually meant. They went back to the unbounced original tapes and worked up from there with no bouncing - so the degradation from bouncing has been removed. From the sound clips on the NPR audio article, the increased clarity is impressive. Mr. Martin also admitted that, in at least one instance, they couldn't quite match the power of the original mono mix (the remix is stereo of course.) I think it was A Day In The Life. It's not like they've touched the original - it's still here, available. Why not remix? Let it stand or fall on its merits. It's not like altering something forever. nat Great mono mixes are amazing. I'd be interested in this project if they were attempting to remix it back to mono. But I'm not curious how it sounds remixed into stereo using today's tools. Back in the day, bouncing tracks wasn't all bad. It could sometimes yield some surprising results on a recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted June 1, 2017 Members Share Posted June 1, 2017 I listened to it on Apple Music... I was not impressed. Honestly, I`m so done with these "re-mixes" of the Beatles. Lets just leave their legacy alone, I think they did fine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted June 1, 2017 Author Members Share Posted June 1, 2017 I have a different perspective. Several of the albums I did back in the 60s and 70s have been re-released, and I would be thrilled if the tape hiss had been cleaned up, and the bass not rolled off to accommodate the limitations of vinyl. As to bouncing not being a bad thing, I believe what's happening in this case is there were multiple bounces happening, e.g., two bounces of tracks down to four tracks, then those two bounces bounced down again to two tracks so something else could be added to the remaining two tracks. So if the original bounces could be put in a DAW, they can be mixed together without the degradation of the original bounces. What would make the difference in this case would be if all the Beatles or even just George Martin were still alive, and they gave it the imprimatur of "This is how we wanted the album to sound, but couldn't with the technology of the time." Personally, I'm interested in checking it out. It doesn't sound like it's a "remix" in the usual sense of the word, more like a cleaning up. But I guess I'll find out soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted June 1, 2017 Members Share Posted June 1, 2017 Again from the NPR article, it's pretty clear that the remixing did involve significant changes in stereo placement at times. The old stereo techniques don't, IMHO, enhance the material much, what with drums or bass shunted entirely off to one side, etc. Mr. Martin did say something to the effect that the remix did have something to do with making the material more amenable to modern ears. Altering the very period-specific stereo treatments was part of what they did with that goal in mind. So the material doesn't immediately strike people as so dated - which is the kiss of death for some people, while the dated aspects add charm and "authenticity" for others... Seems sensible to me- but if you are wedded to the old stereo treatments, you may feel like "now they've gone too far". This entire issue - messing with an original artwork - is very, very old ground. All the pathways of the discussion have been trod innumerable times in other fields, over other works. Shakespeare, for example, has been variously "restored", "corrected", "enhanced", "modernized", "improved", "made relevant", "re-imagined", "translated into the modern idiom", even had characters and sections cut and added to "to make it better" by the lights of some day's egotistical cutting-edge editors. In contrast to some of the travesties visited on many older works of art (colorization of certain old black and white movies comes to mind) this remix of Pepper seems pretty tame, respectful, thoughtful. nat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted June 1, 2017 Author Members Share Posted June 1, 2017 In contrast to some of the travesties visited on many older works of art (colorization of certain old black and white movies comes to mind) this remix of Pepper seems pretty tame' date=' respectful, thoughtful.[/quote'] Yes, good point...also some of the "re-masters" of older albums have been horrible. The best ones I've heard are the Blue Note re-masters, they just make the sound quality better and leave everything else alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Notes_Norton Posted June 2, 2017 Members Share Posted June 2, 2017 I generally don't go out of my way to hear remixes and don't get excited about them. On the other hand I've heard plenty because I don't go out of my way to avoid them either. And I haven't heard this remix. However I generally don't like them. The original mix was the interpretation by the original artists, it's what they saw as important to hear with the technology of the day. While I can hear things I haven't heard before, there are other parts that I love that can and often do get buried in the new mix. It's a little like "colorizing" an old black and white movie. Black & White (actually grey-scale) is an art form in itself. It emphasizes composition in a very different way from color, and those films were shot with B&W in mind. To me it's also like doing a Shakespeare play with modern costumes. "My horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse, (While Richard is driving a tank). Or the Montagues and Capulets having a gun fight while reciting 1600s era English lines in iambic pet But of course, there is a little contradiction going on here. I write aftermarket styles for Band-in-a-Box. Some of the styles I wrote in the 1990s could be done better now with the advances in the BiaB app itself and my growth as a style writer/arranger for auto accompaniment apps. I want to but I don't. For two reasons (1) I would want to replace all of my customers' styles with the new version, and that's totally impractical and (2) I think the time would be better served by writing new styles The same goes for my backing tracks. I make my own backing tracks for my duo (I play drums, bass, guitar, sax, flute, wind synth, and keyboard synth) because I can, and I want them to sound like I want them to sound, I want room for me to play solos and the response parts to the vocals, and I want it in our best key without artifacts. But I listen to some of the backing tracks I did in the 1980s and think I need to re-do them because I'm better at that now, and the technology is better too. But I think my time would be better served learning new songs. I've redone a few important songs, but since we have a book of over 500 songs, I just don't play the old ones that often. And that brings me around back on topic. The tracks I've re-done sound different. Better or worse? That's a judgement call. But the mix isn't the same, and sometimes I prefer the old mix. The tone of the instruments have changed due to newer gear and that's sometimes good but I wrote those parts with the old voices. If I were to do it again from scratch, I might have done it very differently. So with the re-mix. If you cleaned up the first Zeppelin album (which was mud city by today's standards), would it sound better? I don't think so as the mud to me is part of the overall sound. So sooner or later I'll be exposed to many of the remixes, and in most cases (but not all) I'll prefer the original. But others will be delighted with the new and that's OK too. That's why there is chocolate and vanilla ice cream (I prefer pistachio). Insights and incites by Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mark L Posted June 2, 2017 Members Share Posted June 2, 2017 By all accounts Giles Martin has done an amazing job. I've just ordered the 2-CD version off Amazon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Okay, I've heard it. First thought? Even fifty years later, it's still a spectacular album, and a stunning artistic achievement. :philthumb: Second thought? Wow - what an increase in definition and separation - almost at the cost of some "glue" - the tracks sound much cleaner, especially the original heavily-bounced "rhythm section" tracks. Ringo's drums are much more present. It seems like a reverential remix, without going too hog wild and ignoring the original intent. As a supplement to the original, I think it's great, but as a replacement? The original is the original, and that's how it should stay. This isn't bad at all - it's quite good - but it shouldn't be used as a "replacement" for the original work IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted June 3, 2017 Members Share Posted June 3, 2017 Okay, I've heard it. First thought? Even fifty years later, it's still a spectacular album, and a stunning artistic achievement. :philthumb: Second thought? Wow - what an increase in definition and separation - almost at the cost of some "glue" - the tracks sound much cleaner, especially the original heavily-bounced "rhythm section" tracks. Ringo's drums are much more present. It seems like a reverential remix, without going too hog wild and ignoring the original intent. As a supplement to the original, I think it's great, but as a replacement? The original is the original, and that's how it should stay. This isn't bad at all - it's quite good - but it shouldn't be used as a "replacement" for the original work IMHO. That's exactly my reaction. It all sounds more "played" and alive. But it's still not the version that took the world by storm. nat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted June 3, 2017 Author Members Share Posted June 3, 2017 So...should I buy it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mark L Posted June 3, 2017 Members Share Posted June 3, 2017 So...should I buy it? Buy it? You're Craig Anderton. You have things given to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 So...should I buy it? Heck no - just go stream it on Spotify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Luke17 Posted June 3, 2017 Members Share Posted June 3, 2017 I heard that they were considering using the remix as the only one available for streaming. I haven't confirmed that, but if that is indeed the case, I'd be against it. I think it would be too revisionist if it was used as a replacement; as a supplement or new take on what was originally done, I find it a lot less bothersome. BTW, I have not heard it yet - I decided I was going to wait until June 2, which will be exactly 50 years (to the day) after I heard the original. June 7th for me....:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.