The Beatles

[Slim]

Paul is 80 today. Feels like a moment. And he'll be playing Glasto in a few days' time.

The future is stranger than I imagined it would be, in some ways.

[Matt2112]

I've always liked him as a musician and songwriter.  Clearly he has a remarkable natural aptitude for both, despite - or perhaps because of - no formal musical training.

Looking forward to his Glasto appearance - on the old site there was a annual thread which, erm, "reviewed" the festival...usually started by me.

So it's tempting to go OT and bang on about how the other year Nile Rodgers & Chic being followed by headliner Ed Sheeran resulted in the biggest anticlimax in Glasto history, when a simple swapping of their slots...ah, it's for another thread. 

[Jonners]

neither like or dislike Beatles or Mccartney.

But I have loved watching the various documentaries that seem to be around at the moment, fascinating to watch

[Slim]

I'm very intrigued by reports of the new Revolver remix - although the masters are two-track, de-mixing technology has been used to isolate the vocals and the instruments - even individual drums on Ringo's kit have been isolated - and reportedly, the results are stunning.

Stereo production was in its infancy in 1966 and until now there's not been much that could be done to rescue it. The new tech changes all that; the instruments and vocals can be moved around separately on the soundstage.

Lots of outtakes and alternative recordings and all that as well, although I find those to be of limited value personally.


https://variety.com/2022/music/news/beatles-revolver-deluxe-edition-remix-giles-martin-interview-1235362815/

[Slim]

Just listened to the preview of Taxman from the Revolver remix on Spotify while comparing closely to the 2010 remaster version - it's a big improvement. All the instruments have more presence. It sounds really full and punchy and most of all, the stereo mix sounds more natural. Terrific!

[Slim]

My 2CD copy of the Giles Martin Revolver remix arrived yesterday.

Some Beatles fans are actually angry about Giles having the temerity to remix one of the all-time classic records in the history of recorded music. I think that's silly, personally. For one thing, copies of the original stereo mix - and indeed the mono mix - are still readily available.

But more importantly the new mix completely respects the original recording. It doesn't detract from it in the slightest. Quite honestly I think it respects the original instrumental and vocal performances more faithfully than the '60s stereo presentation, which was a little bit gimmicky and used stereo as a novelty in some respects. And actually - until Abbey Road, the mono versions of these albums were considered the definitive presentation.

The new stereo mix made possible by the de-mixing sorcery is a tasteful and neutral presentation that provides a much more natural stereo soundstage than the original. It really sounds much better, especially on headphones where the stereo gimmicks of the '60s mix are positively grating.



Best of all, there's a clarity and presence in the new mix that's just not quite there on the old stereo version. I listened carefully to both incarnations of Eleanor Rigby - in the old version Paul's vocal is slightly distant, somehow slightly veiled - in the new one, it sounds like it was recorded in a state-of-the-art studio this morning. Every inflection comes across vividly.

The booklet, with an introduction by Paul is nice to have as well.

I hope the older Beatles albums will get this treatment. Have a listen to the stereo version of It Won't Be Long from With The Beatles for example, with John's voice coming out of the right speaker and the rhythm guitar in the left. It sounds ridiculous and I'd always prefer the mono version.

[Slim]

One minor niggle about the new remix - Giles has removed the amp hum from the very beginning of Taxman! Actually the first thing you hear on Revolver and definitely part of the experience; it just gives a sense of the ambience of the studio.

Some folks are complaining that "The Beatles wanted us to hear the amp hum" and similar; I don't think that''s really true, it's just something we'd come to know and love.

[Pudders]

My 2CD copy of the Giles Martin Revolver remix arrived yesterday.

Some Beatles fans are actually angry about Giles having the temerity to remix one of the all-time classic records in the history of recorded music. I think that's silly, personally. For one thing, copies of the original stereo mix - and indeed the mono mix - are still readily available.

But more importantly the new mix completely respects the original recording. It doesn't detract from it in the slightest. Quite honestly I think it respects the original instrumental and vocal performances more faithfully than the '60s stereo presentation, which was a little bit gimmicky and used stereo as a novelty in some respects. And actually - until Abbey Road, the mono versions of these albums were considered the definitive presentation.

The new stereo mix made possible by the de-mixing sorcery is a tasteful and neutral presentation that provides a much more natural stereo soundstage than the original. It really sounds much better, especially on headphones where the stereo gimmicks of the '60s mix are positively grating.



Best of all, there's a clarity and presence in the new mix that's just not quite there on the old stereo version. I listened carefully to both incarnations of Eleanor Rigby - in the old version Paul's vocal is slightly distant, somehow slightly veiled - in the new one, it sounds like it was recorded in a state-of-the-art studio this morning. Every inflection comes across vividly.

The booklet, with an introduction by Paul is nice to have as well.

I hope the older Beatles albums will get this treatment. Have a listen to the stereo version of It Won't Be Long from With The Beatles for example, with John's voice coming out of the right speaker and the rhythm guitar in the left. It sounds ridiculous and I'd always prefer the mono version.

Perfectly put James. Respectful of the original recording but a far better sonic experience than the original stereo mix and, the cleaning up adds to the end result and doesn't sound jarring at all. I'm with you as far as the mono recordings of the early albums goes and used to have a mono LP of Revolver that hard times meant had to be sold off (yes, I'm an idiot!).

I think it was about the time that the Anthology discs came out that I found out that the mono recordings were completely separate studio sessions and therefore unique in their own right. It just hadn't occurred to me. I should really try to acquire those, but think the cd versions only available in a (pricey) box set?

[Pudders]

Now I look I see the mono mix is available on the super (expensive) deluxe edition...or Spotify

[captainkurtz]

Wasn't going to get this but reading that review makes me want it - sounds like the treatment that it's been given is very much like the recent Pink Floyd 'Animals' release.

As an aside - I'm very glad I picked up a Beatles In Mono vinyl box in 2016.  £249 seemed a lot at the time, but seems a snip now..

[Slim]

Paul is 80 today. Feels like a moment. And he'll be playing Glasto in a few days' time.

The future is stranger than I imagined it would be, in some ways.

And Paul just keeps going .. https://www.paulmccartney.com/live/got-back-tour-2024

Twenty years ago if someone had told me Paul would still be touring at the age of 82 I don't think I'd have believed it. Fifty years ago the idea would have been considered absolutely ridiculous, beyond a joke.

Isn't it extraordinary that acts that were massive 50 years ago or more can still be selling out big arenas or stadiums? Paul may be an exceptional example of that but Elton was still attracting huge crowds when he retired from touring last year, for example. It really says something unfortunate about the stagnation of popular culture.

Anyway - Paul's voice is shot now and I do think it's a shame he's persisting with this.

[Thenop]

Tour average time shows: 2h52 mins. He's not doing things half either it seems..
Never seen him live, did see the Stones in (I think) 89 or 90. 1989 or 1990 that is..

[David L]

His own daughter once famously called him a "tight bastard". Wants to make as much as possible, I reckon. He might not be able to sing but it won't mean the tickets will be any cheaper.

[Slim]

If that's true I can't really understand it. He already has what amounts to a money fountain just from royalties.

Actually for laughs I've just worked this out: he makes £55 million a year from royalties. That's like having your own £10 note printer spitting out 107 of them every minute.

[dom]

Think he just loves the adulation of the crowd.  Doesn't need to do it, but I can imagine nothing would beat that feeling