Don't Laugh: Recommend Me Some Beatles (See Post For Details.)

[Fab4ever]

Lots of great ideas here. But PLEASE don't overlook the one about the remastered albums -- they will be released Sept. 9 - less than a month away!

 

Here's a VERY subjective list of my favorite moments in Beatles songs - which could end up being very different than yours'.

 

http://christopherave.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/my-favorite-beatle-song-moments/

[Extreme Mixing]

I personally really enjoy their psychedelic stuff, so releases with "Rain", "I Am The Walrus", "Lucy In the Sky with Diamonds", and "Tomorrow Never Knows" are things I think are really great. I tend not to prefer their earlier "I Want To Hold Your Hand" stuff so much. But this is just me.

 

That's pretty funny, Ken. I guess they just hadn't invented Psychedelic music during the early years, so that's why there isn't so much of it on those records!!!

 

I'd also suggest making visits to Alan Pollack's site for a Beatles Harmony lesson that puts their adventures in perspective. It's great. Lots of tools of harmony that are commonly used today were invented, or at least rediscovered by Lennon and McCartney in their early 20s.

 

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml

 

Steve

[Gus Lozada]

Save some money and don't buy anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boosh]

I'd go for Gimme Shelter - Rolling Stones.

[boosh]

The whole remastered thing seems a good plan but there's one thing that bothers me.

 

The guy who produced all of it was awesome but his mixing wasn't all that (personal opinion).

 

I want a Bruce Swedien mixed and remastered Discography.

[claveslave]

The Christmas messages are good for a laugh.

 

Edit: I've deleted the link since it may infringe copyright. Dunno. You can do a google.

[rasputin1963]

I will be very curious to hear the new re-masters.

 

What-- what qualities--- do you suppose we'll hear in them... that we haven't yet heard all these years?

[samtrips]

 

What-- what qualities--- do you suppose we'll hear in them... that we haven't yet heard all these years?

 

 

'Roll up for the magical mystery tour- now you can hear the tightening of Lennon's sphincter as he prepares for take four of 'Your Mother Should Know'. Hear Harrison's curry breath on 'Within You Without You'. And prepare to be dazzled at the presence of Ringo's (then) new shoes on the outro to 'Dear Prudence'. The Beatles remasters - for any cash we missed the first, second and third times around.'

[Lee Flier]

The whole remastered thing seems a good plan but there's one thing that bothers me. The guy who produced all of it was awesome but his mixing wasn't all that (personal opinion). I want a Bruce Swedien mixed and remastered Discography.

 

 

I really hope you're kidding.

[Philter]

 

I would agree that starting from the beginning and hitting them in order would be the way to go. However, I realize that people who didn't grow up with them may not enjoy all the different phases (you have no idea how painful it is for me to say, and admit that...). So, I'm going to suggest 3 to give you a sense of each phase: 1. A Hard Day's Night (1964) - For me, the peak of the "lovable moptop" stage. The best of the early Beatles singles just grab you at the first chord and don't let go, and the title track, well, does that. As do many of the others on this record.

 

 

A Hard Day's Night is a great sounding recording.

[bfrance]

Thanks for all of the input so far, I really appreciate it! So, it sounds like the remasters are worth the wait. I may pick up the anthology dvd set as a precurser to those.

 

Keep the input coming, great conversation so far!

 

-Ben

[bfrance]

Yeah, the 62-66 / 67-70 compilations give you a great overview of their careers. What type of music are you normally into? If you can give us a basic idea of that, we can probably make a better suggestion for you in terms of "where to start". My personal favorites? Revolver, Abbey Road and Sgt Pepper. They're all great though. Please Please Me is incredible, and a great place to start - I like the "start at the beginning and work your way through chronologically" suggestion too - but remember that they changed significantly over the years, and it's hard to give you one album that is representative of everything they did.

 

Thanks for the input Phil. Music wise, I listen to a variety of things. (I know, it's a cliche...)

 

Lately, it's been heavier music, like Trivium, Mastadon, etc. However, some all-time favorites include Jeff Buckley, Rush, Queensryche, (pre-Chris Degarmo leaving,) Dream Theater, Depeche Mode, Queen, Tori Amos, Steve Vai, etc, etc...(the list could go on and on forever.)

 

I think I may take the advice of starting at the begining and working forward from there.

 

How about books? Is the Emerich book a good read? (I'm becoming kind of a recording info junky, which I guess is a good thing, as this is what I'm wanting to do long-term.)

 

Thanks again,

 

-Ben

[UstadKhanAli]

 

The whole remastered thing seems a good plan but there's one thing that bothers me. The guy who produced all of it was awesome but his mixing wasn't all that (personal opinion). I want a Bruce Swedien mixed and remastered Discography.

 

 

Not Hugh Padgham?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

That's pretty funny, Ken. I guess they just hadn't invented Psychedelic music during the early years, so that's why there isn't so much of it on those records!!!

 

 

Clearly they needed to get going on the mind-altering drugs much sooner. No matter, at least they got around to it.

[chipmcdonald]

What you should check out first depends on your "plans".

 

If you're thinking about listening to a whole record, I'd suggest _Revolver_.

 

Revolver is far enough past their "rock and roll roots" that you won't be exposed to what I think is off putting to some non-Beatles aware people, that being the "mop-top rock and roll screaming girls-cliche" era. It's fully into their... expressive... period, where they really started pushing things forward without leaving their past too far behind.

 

Otherwise, all the other records have either extremely adventurous detours, or subtleties that may not be evident upon a casual listening.

 

Also, each record has it's own character. When someone says they're "influenced by the Beatles" that drives me nuts, because different bands have been influenced by *specific* Beatles records - or even just one song. Or Lennon/McCartney/Harrison, which is it's own thing

 

So it's not easy, nor does it make sense really to recommend something from the catalog, I think. I would say start from _Rubber Soul_ or _Revolver_ forward at first, since prior to that the brilliance is in the small deviations from the "rock and roll norm" that don't hit you over the head as obviously as something like "I Am the Walrus" or "A Day in the Life".

 

/ about to play two sold out _Abbey Road_ tribute shows this weekend

[teleman55]

hard days night-rubber soul-revolver.

that's a nice starting 3 pack.

add meet the beatles and sgt pepper for a nice starting five pack.

[chipmcdonald]

 

So, it sounds like the remasters are worth the wait.

 

 

1) Nobody has heard the "remasters" yet, so we don't know.

 

2) If they sound appreciably different - well, that's sort of not really what got them to where they are, is it?

 

3) After reading Geoff Emerick's book, and having heard various things, I'm kind of of the state of mind that depending on which country a "master" was sent to, what people have been listening to is all slightly different.

 

The point being, if the "remasters" sounds "that much better", it's not really what people have fallen in love with all along. If there's ever been such a thing as "magic" in a mix, it's with their recordings, and it's in that analog soup of non-linearity that is completely a universal anomaly of wonder. You hear things that aren't there; you *don't* hear things that are there, but are actually right in front of your face. It's a very delicate thing, and something I think can easily get messed up.

 

It's really a strange, strange phenomenon: I'd almost say that with the Beatles, unlike most any other band, their music is almost multiple different things depending on the playback medium.

 

One of my earliest music memories is hearing "Strawberry Fields" on a 45, played on a crummy little portable record player in my parent's garage. A very narrow-bandwidth thing, all sorts of euphonic resonance, plus dust noise, scratches, a plethora of non-linearity.

 

Listen to it on headphones - a different sound. On a nice stereo, different. On a car stereo in traffic, different. You focus in on different things in all of these circumstances.

 

it's a very imperfect thing. Unlike what everybody on the planet is trying to do today, their mixes DON'T translate worth a frak IMO.

 

And that's a beautiful thing. The songs are of course the essence, but

the face that their mixes sound so completely and sometimes wildly different on different playback arrangements, means you're constantly reinterpreting what you've accepted as a "standard"

 

Some mixes are drastically bass heavy. Some massively compressed. Some eq'ed in a wacked out way. It's all over the place, and that's what makes the listening experience almost new every time you hear their stuff on a different system.

 

That is what I fear will be lost with the "remasters"

 

I don't see how they can make them "better" without losing that non-linear charm.

 

I've got a Queen cd that has "You're My Best Friend" on it, from the original masters and the "remastered" version as well. That song's hook is very odd: it's *the drum fill* that sets up the chorus.

 

On the original, it's very warm, bassy: "BAH BOOOMA BOOM BOOMA BOOM BOOM". "Some" (these days) might even say that it's over eqed in the bass.

 

On the remaster, it's "nicely high passed and gently compressed": "BA booma boom booma boom boom..."...

 

Which completely ruins the charm of the fill, and likewise the HOOK and character of the song!!!!

 

That really drove me NUTS.

 

I am terrified by what the "remasters" are potentially going to sound like, I may have an aneurysm.

[chipmcdonald]

(and while I'm on a roll...)

 

I listened to _Abbey Road_ on vinyl tonight on a friend's high end tube stereo. I haven't heard it on vinyl since I was a kid.

 

Something jumped out at me (aside from the aforementioned "curious anomalous differences on different systems"):

 

On the stacked harmony part of "She's So Heavy" as it fades out, their voices do a through-zero sounding flange. It doesn't sound deliberate; it sounds like a Curious Phenomenon of their voices flanging against each other, somehow.

 

I always notice that when I hear it, it's a curious thing.

 

Tonight I hear it on this nice analog system, on this "Pseudo-best pressing" release, and *it's not there*.

 

On my IPod mp3 version it hear upper-partial overtones modulating upward, very distinct. It's not there on this record I heard tonight. It's either Fraunhoffer doing something remarkable audible and musical, or it's some sort of crazy filter ringing... I don't know. Maybe other people here can listen to it and see if they notice what I'm talking about, and then listen to an analog copy and see if it's there?

 

Anyone have it on cassette?

 

Anyhow...

[Phil O'Keefe]

I have it on cassette, CD, vinyl and MP3. If you can give me the location (min/sec), I'll give it a listen sometime in the next day or two.

 

 

Disclaimer - my turntable isn't the greatest...

[boosh]

I really hope you're kidding.

 

Half/Half

 

I love the Beatles and George Martin,... still I'd love to hear what Bruce would have done to the stuff if he got the chance,...

[rasputin1963]

 

you *don't* hear things that are there, but are actually right in front of your face.

 

 

 

Yep, like that Hard Day's Night opening chord. I never dreamed it was so complex harmonically till our discussion earlier this year.

 

Indeed, I never knew that more than one guitar was making that sound.

[Richard King]

(and while I'm on a roll...) I listened to _Abbey Road_ on vinyl tonight on a friend's high end tube stereo. I haven't heard it on vinyl since I was a kid. Something jumped out at me (aside from the aforementioned "curious anomalous differences on different systems"): On the stacked harmony part of "She's So Heavy" as it fades out, their voices do a through-zero sounding flange. It doesn't sound deliberate; it sounds like a Curious Phenomenon of their voices flanging against each other, somehow. I always notice that when I hear it, it's a curious thing. Tonight I hear it on this nice analog system, on this "Pseudo-best pressing" release, and *it's not there*. On my IPod mp3 version it hear upper-partial overtones modulating upward, very distinct. It's not there on this record I heard tonight. It's either Fraunhoffer doing something remarkable audible and musical, or it's some sort of crazy filter ringing... I don't know. Maybe other people here can listen to it and see if they notice what I'm talking about, and then listen to an analog copy and see if it's there? Anyone have it on cassette? Anyhow...

 

Now you've gone and done it. You made me sit down and listen to the song (high bit rate MP3 of the record). I'm having some monitor problems at the moment so I can't really do a proper listening, but.... I swear that after the "YEEEEAAAAAA" scream I can hear a voice saying something (probably head phone leakage?) and, on copy I hear a breakup in the middle of the scream (a crackling sound). So, what is that person saying in the headphone leak???? It's at approx 4:30 into the song. Got to run, but I'll listen for what you mentioned when I get back later today (after I rebalance the monitors)

 

about to play two sold out _Abbey Road_ tribute shows this weekend

I'd be there if I were in the area, but then, since it's sold out you'd have to comp me some tickets.

[Lee Flier]

Half/Half I love the Beatles and George Martin,... still I'd love to hear what Bruce would have done to the stuff if he got the chance,...

 

 

I love George Martin's work with the Beatles, but I don't want to hear him remix Thriller.

 

I love Van Gogh - in fact I prefer his color choices to da Vinci's - but I don't believe he could have improved the Mona Lisa if he'd only touched up the color a little.

 

Ted Turner thought people would like it he "colorized" old black and white movies, and almost no one did. Everyone thought it was awfully disrespectful to the original filmmakers who were very conscious of the "limitations" of black and white film and made it an art form in its own right. And I can't imagine a modern day filmmaker, no matter how brilliant, who'd be conceited enough to think he could "improve" on those classics.

 

People have reasons for making the artistic choices they make, generally, and most fellow artists respect that - the good ones anyway. Just sayin'.

[Lee Flier]

 

On my IPod mp3 version it hear upper-partial overtones modulating upward, very distinct. It's not there on this record I heard tonight. It's either Fraunhoffer doing something remarkable audible and musical, or it's some sort of crazy filter ringing... I don't know. Maybe other people here can listen to it and see if they notice what I'm talking about, and then listen to an analog copy and see if it's there?

 

 

Maybe I'll do that later today. But it wouldn't really surprise me.

 

Another thing that wouldn't surprise me is if the Beatles (and a lot of people) were deliberately using weird phase relationships to artistic advantage, and remastering for different formats inadvertantly eliminates something they actually intended to do.

[Lee Flier]

If they sound appreciably different - well, that's sort of not really what got them to where they are, is it? The point being, if the "remasters" sounds "that much better", it's not really what people have fallen in love with all along. If there's ever been such a thing as "magic" in a mix, it's with their recordings, and it's in that analog soup of non-linearity that is completely a universal anomaly of wonder. You hear things that aren't there; you *don't* hear things that are there, but are actually right in front of your face. It's a very delicate thing, and something I think can easily get messed up.

 

Yeah... exactly what I just alluded to.

 

I agree, but it really all depends whether the goal with these remasters is to "improve" the recordings or simply to make them sound more true to the originals than previous remasters for CD have. The previous masters are awfully good for the most part, but the techniques and the gear for remastering stuff from analog have definitely improved.

 

Also, as you point out, the original records were mastered a lot of different times in different countries anyway. They hold up to most of that quite well, and a lot of collectors enjoy hearing the different masters which bring out different qualities. I got the Capitol CD box set of the first 5 albums last year, and I have to say... the Capitol stuff sounds better than the Abbey Road stuff to me. Maybe it's because the mastering techniques are better with this more recent release, or maybe Capitol's master tape was in better shape even though it was a second generation copy... I don't know. But to me it has more depth and excitement like the originals had. And of course, other people might heartily disagree.

 

So I'm not too worried at this point. If Paul's involved and Martin's involved, these will probably be good. And if not, there's always my vinyl.