QueenZone discussion #1203709
New Beatles remasters
| 4 x Vision 05.10.2009 17:09 |
To anyone who has heard the new Beatles remasters i really urge you do part with the cash and give them a listen... they are fantastic. I'm not their biggest fan, but don't doubt their ability or fact they were the biggest band ever (even more so than Queen), but I can't help but marvel at the sound quality of these remasters. Should they have had the technology available that Queen had as they started (with all the enthusiasm that comes with it that a new band has), do you think that they could have made even better material or would they have got carried away with the technology and taken the charm out of their songs? Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed if they had had that technology available at the time? This is obviously a hypothetical discussion and i know it'd be impossible to answer with any certainty. i sadly don't know enough about the Beatles and i'm just curious after hearing these remarkable remasters. |
| Micrówave 05.10.2009 17:13 |
Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed? You might wanna make sure those are the remasters you have. Or maybe you should stop buying remasters and buy a pair of Stereo Speakers. |
| maxpower 05.10.2009 20:40 |
Please explain Microwave what you mean by that last comment ... |
| mooghead 06.10.2009 02:46 |
Yeh, what you on about microwave? |
| mooghead 06.10.2009 02:48 |
The fact is, the Beatles DID do the big, epic, multi layered stuff and most of their music was on 4 track which makes their material even more extraordinary. |
| maxpower 06.10.2009 06:20 |
I was hoping it wasn't some snide comment but I think it was, 4 track was all they had until Abbey Road which was done on 8 track which why the mono masters are the real deal for the majority of the back catalogue, but there were little tricks they could use by "bouncing down" tracks using the 4 tracks & then using another tape but it wasn't much compared to these days which is testimony to what The Beatles did achieve. |
| coops 06.10.2009 10:56 |
I play Beatles cd's as much as Queen stuff, and have been doing so since the 60's, and these new discs are like hearing it all over again. Well worth it. I hope to get the mono set soon. |
| mooghead 06.10.2009 13:37 |
maxpower wrote: I was hoping it wasn't some snide comment but I think it was, 4 track was all they had until Abbey Road which was done on 8 track which why the mono masters are the real deal for the majority of the back catalogue, but there were little tricks they could use by "bouncing down" tracks using the 4 tracks & then using another tape but it wasn't much compared to these days which is testimony to what The Beatles did achieve. Ultimitely, regardless of how many tracks you have to record on the stuff still comes out of 2 speakers. Whats best? Quality or Clarity? You are right, thanks to gifted musicians/writers and probably the greatest producer ever the Beatles would not have benefited greatly from having 24+ tracks. |
| John S Stuart 06.10.2009 17:13 |
Van Basten 9 wrote:
To anyone who has heard the new Beatles remasters i really urge you do part with the cash and give them a listen... they are fantastic.
I'm not their biggest fan, but don't doubt their ability or fact they were the biggest band ever (even more so than Queen), but I can't help but marvel at the sound quality of these remasters.
Should they have had the technology available that Queen had as they started (with all the enthusiasm that comes with it that a new band has), do you think that they could have made even better material or would they have got carried away with the technology and taken the charm out of their songs?
Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed if they had had that technology available at the time? This is obviously a hypothetical discussion and i know it'd be impossible to answer with any certainty. i sadly don't know enough about the Beatles and i'm just curious after hearing these remarkable remasters.
Totally disagree: The 2009 CD's are not worth the extra money, not only that, they are they not worth being called remasters. If you have the old CD's - stick with them - there is not that much difference. /queenzone/1200380.html PS: Why post this in the Queen serious forum? |
| Sheer Brass Neck 06.10.2009 23:30 |
Forgetting that the Beatles had only four tracks to work with, I don't see the sonic comparison. You can't compare eras. Maybe The Beatles would have been forgettable if they formed circa 1973, and compared unfavorably with Queen. But circa 1963, The Beatles were sonic innovators who did what they did with what the technology of the day that they had. To me, the greatness of Queen has been obscured by limited (24 track) technology. For example, there are a shitload of guitars (7 or 8) on Sweet Lady that the technology of 1975 didn't do justice to as they were buried in the mix. The Hollywood release of ANATO hinted at what the band was trying to achieve, but didn't succeed. Hearing what Brian layered, especially in the chorus, was revelation. It was genius. Yet Bon Jovi had 72 tracks with more overdubs than Brian ever dared on the song Keep the Faith. But 72 uninspired tracks aren't better than 4 or 24 amazing tracks. It's always the song, and Queen were like The Beatles younger brothers who wrote and produced great songs, learned their craft and did better with what they had to work with. |
| Micrówave 07.10.2009 13:01 |
What did I mean? I meant that they hired Phil Spector to sit around and paint. Right? Oh wait, he actually worked on a few tracks. He was known for the Wall Of Sound, you guys ever hear of that? And he didn't need a 24 track studio to do it in either. |
| mooghead 07.10.2009 17:37 |
Nope, still making no sense... |
| maxpower 07.10.2009 18:43 |
Yup makes no sense as the Let It Be version he produced was awful as the the Naked version proved which is ironic considering the initial concept was a stripped down approach then Lennon brings him in to polish it up. Then having a go at McCartney for Abbey Road & George Martin for the sugary sound, again its another contradiction. I know this is a Queen forum but maybe whoever runs this site could create an "other music" section other forums on other band websites have them |
| 4 x Vision 07.10.2009 23:26 |
John S Stuart wrote: Van Basten 9 wrote: To anyone who has heard the new Beatles remasters i really urge you do part with the cash and give them a listen... they are fantastic. I'm not their biggest fan, but don't doubt their ability or fact they were the biggest band ever (even more so than Queen), but I can't help but marvel at the sound quality of these remasters. Should they have had the technology available that Queen had as they started (with all the enthusiasm that comes with it that a new band has), do you think that they could have made even better material or would they have got carried away with the technology and taken the charm out of their songs? Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed if they had had that technology available at the time? This is obviously a hypothetical discussion and i know it'd be impossible to answer with any certainty. i sadly don't know enough about the Beatles and i'm just curious after hearing these remarkable remasters. PS: Why post this in the Queen serious forum? I DO apologise for not seeing your previous post... I don't always get the search feature to work. Have you actually read some of the other stuff that comes up in the Queen Serious Section btw??? My post did include Queen quite clearly? Sorry it didn't meet with your defintion of SERIOUS though... I'll know better in future!!! Apologies. Thanks for the link to the other discussion. |
| 4 x Vision 07.10.2009 23:40 |
Micrówave wrote:Is the big Queen multi layered sound something that the Beatles would have employed?You might wanna make sure those are the remasters you have. Or maybe you should stop buying remasters and buy a pair of Stereo Speakers. Really no idea what you're talking about here. The remasters TO ME sound amazing, and give greater depth into the talents of the group in the studio. You clearly hear new things from nearly every song, especially with layered vocals. Think you just like being a smart arse that the majority of folk here just discard as "talking shite". I wonder how many folk just jump over the comments you make these days. You clearly have no wit of any sort... so why keep trying? All those posts... and just bullshit replies. You are one sad bastard. Look forward to your witty reply, or maybe you should just not bother and go find some mates who you can talk too instead of wasting your time being a twat here. |
| Kamenliter 08.10.2009 02:02 |
I've listened to a number of songs from the remasters back to back with the older versions and the new versions sound much, much better. There's a lot more clarity to the sound. It's like taking an old dark, photo into Photoshop and playing with the levels and just taking away the grime and brightening it all up. Big difference, at least to my ears. |
| brians wig 08.10.2009 05:02 |
John S Stuart wrote: Totally disagree: The 2009 CD's are not worth the extra money, not only that, they are they not worth being called remasters. If you have the old CD's - stick with them - there is not that much difference.Sorry John, but I've heard both the originals and these remasters, and i have to say that the new remasters are MUCH better than the originals are. I did a side by side comparison with some selected songs from different albums and the new ones are much clearer and richer in sound than the originals. Tha "hard left/right" mastering of the originals has been fudged a little so there is some cross-over and it's not as "hard" anymore. To be fair though, I would have preferred a new remix of the albums to remove this "hard left/right" mix. It's quite possible that you are just losing some frequencies in your hearing range - something that affects everyone as they get older... As for the cost, you're right. I'm absolutely appalled that the Stereo Remasters & The Mono Masters aren't packaged together. They really are talking the michael by expecting people to fork out up to £350 for both sets. |
| John S Stuart 08.10.2009 08:13 |
brians wig wrote:John S Stuart wrote: Totally disagree: The 2009 CD's are not worth the extra money, not only that, they are they not worth being called remasters. If you have the old CD's - stick with them - there is not that much difference.Sorry John, but I've heard both the originals and these remasters, and i have to say that the new remasters are MUCH better than the originals are. I did a side by side comparison with some selected songs from different albums and the new ones are much clearer and richer in sound than the originals. Tha "hard left/right" mastering of the originals has been fudged a little so there is some cross-over and it's not as "hard" anymore. To be fair though, I would have preferred a new remix of the albums to remove this "hard left/right" mix. It's quite possible that you are just losing some frequencies in your hearing range - something that affects everyone as they get older... As for the cost, you're right. I'm absolutely appalled that the Stereo Remasters & The Mono Masters aren't packaged together. They really are talking the michael by expecting people to fork out up to £350 for both sets. Mr Wig, you seem to be just offering me an 'either - or' situation - and that is not the choice. For a fairer comparison, the Beatles remastered material in 1995,1999, and in 2006. Against THOSE remixes - the new releases just do not stack. I offer you a challenge. Chose any 3 tracks of your choice, and I will submit 3 of mine. I am confident that my tracks would win all six comparisons. My question is why - After - remixing what (IMO) could be described as definitive mixes - resort to the same tired old '60 style of mastering? (PS: Check your PM!) |
| AlexRocks 08.10.2009 12:46 |
Three years from now they will already put the Beatles catelog on Blu-Ray the way I said that the music industry should be adopting blu-ray... |
| mooghead 08.10.2009 13:21 |
ffs, are you still banging on about blu ray? 18 months/2 years ago you were boring everyone to death by saying the Quen back catalogue will soon be on blu ray. It wont take off as a music format. |
| ok.computer 08.10.2009 20:03 |
Well I dunno...I listened to an original Sgt Pepper on a Linn Sondek through one of their Majik systems....sounded pretty good to me as it was. |
| john bodega 09.10.2009 01:52 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Maybe The Beatles would have been forgettable if they formed circa 1973, and compared unfavorably with Queen.It's an interesting thought but I don't see it. Aside from some of their early experiments with sampling and the fact that they were the first big act to use headphones in a studio, it wasn't the technology that made the Beatles interesting - it was the songs themselves. Setting aside most of the awful covers that have been done since the originals were released, a number of the songs hold up in any decade. One can't accurately guess if they would've been as successful if they'd appeared 10 years later because if they hadn't existed, '10 years later' would've been a different scenario altogether. Whether a band makes it or not really has more to do with the personalities in it, and I think the Beatles would've been at least moderately successful, no matter when they'd come about. Of course there's a healthy swag of Beatles material that isn't what one would consider high art ... but that goes for any band that has 100-200 songs. The first time I got my hands on every Queen song ever done, I had some pretty nasty shocks I can tell you. |
| 4 x Vision 10.10.2009 12:47 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Zeb, out of curiosity and nothing else, are you a bigger Beatles/Lennon fan than Queen... or do you see them on level par (In your opinion)? |
| john bodega 10.10.2009 13:49 |
To be quite frank I would feel cheap, dirty and base if I gave a comparison a serious thought ... they are different acts. Even with ELO, who are way closer stylistically to the Beatles than Queen ever were, one still can't make a direct comparison. I have a pretty open minded view about both of the bands. They pretty much fill out the list of my all-time favourite songs, and I can't speak highly enough of the talented individuals in each band. They've also both put out some terribly average material that I'd rather forget!!! Haha. I probably find the personalities of the Beatles members more interesting than I do those in Queen... not to say I admire Lennon more than Mercury for instance, but because of his flaws I find him far more interesting to read about. Freddie (and Brian for that matter) are people I identify with more readily because when they're not doing 'the job', they're pretty average sounding fellas. I dunno how to answer your question. I love both bands, for differing reasons. The quality in both cannot be disputed. One can say 'this music is not for me' with either Queen or the Beatles, but to poo-poo the quality (which is there in buckets) would be nutty to say the least. |
| 4 x Vision 10.10.2009 15:28 |
Zebonka12 wrote: To be quite frank I would feel cheap, dirty and base if I gave a comparison a serious thought ... they are different acts. Even with ELO, who are way closer stylistically to the Beatles than Queen ever were, one still can't make a direct comparison.I have a pretty open minded view about both of the bands. They pretty much fill out the list of my all-time favourite songs, and I can't speak highly enough of the talented individuals in each band. They've also both put out some terribly average material that I'd rather forget!!! Haha. I probably find the personalities of the Beatles members more interesting than I do those in Queen... not to say I admire Lennon more than Mercury for instance, but because of his flaws I find him far more interesting to read about. Freddie (and Brian for that matter) are people I identify with more readily because when they're not doing 'the job', they're pretty average sounding fellas. I dunno how to answer your question. I love both bands, for differing reasons. The quality in both cannot be disputed. One can say 'this music is not for me' with either Queen or the Beatles, but to poo-poo the quality (which is there in buckets) would be nutty to say the least. Yeah, i knew it'd be a difficult question to answer. Was just wondering if you may have been a more die hard Beatles fan, than that of Queen. I'm the same these days. That is, I'm not so Queen-only minded. As the years go on i've got to be more open minded (as one does i think when they realise there is more than just Queen out there... maybe age does that). Have you ever thought off what may be the best 4 man line-up if you had to choose from Q and Bs??? PS... glad to see you're a fan of ELO too, fantastic group, they don't get the recognition they deserve these days among the younger generation. I';ve been listening too 10cc and ELo all day, as both have came up in topics. |
| mooghead 10.10.2009 15:51 |
" I admire Lennon more than Mercury " Both brilliant members of a band but utterly shit solo 'artists' |
| Negative Creep 10.10.2009 15:57 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Freddie (and Brian for that matter) are people I identify with more readily because when they're not doing 'the job', they're pretty average sounding fellas.Really? I've never got the impression Freddie was average sounding - quite the opposite! How average is owning multimillion pound property, collecting extremely expensive koi carp, having personal assistants, going on massive drug benders and being extremely promiscuous etc etc etc? |
| The Real Wizard 11.10.2009 11:28 |
mooghead wrote: " I admire Lennon more than Mercury " Both brilliant members of a band but utterly shit solo 'artists' Ever heard Double Fantasy in its entirety? It's a great record, never mind the fact that it's his swan song. Even the Yoko tracks are good, and it flows well. |
| john bodega 11.10.2009 14:53 |
Negative Creep wrote: Really? I've never got the impression Freddie was average sounding - quite the opposite! How average is owning multimillion pound property, collecting extremely expensive koi carp, having personal assistants, going on massive drug benders and being extremely promiscuous etc etc etc?These are all things that an average guy can do - provided he writes a few hit songs. :P |
| john bodega 11.10.2009 15:00 |
mooghead wrote: Both brilliant members of a band but utterly shit solo 'artists'I just don't see it myself; not in Lennon's case. I'll readily admit that he wasn't consistent ... it was plainly obvious when he was hard up for material and writing 'to order'. His first solo album really ought to be forced on any musician who goes into their craft with contrivance in mind, though. I make no bones about saying that it should be required listening; if one can't appreciate the music itself then they should dig the philosophy of doing a bunch of blunt and honest tunes. He was far from being listenable 100% of the time but a shit artist?? No way... in a field where any clown can get away with calling themselves an artist, he WAS one... At least when he had something left in the tank. I guess that's the shitty thing about music history. A lot of the best acts were nonetheless victims of their own success and the contracts they were under. The money must've been fantastic but I personally would be depressed if I had to squeeze turds out by a deadline and expect people to pay money for it. Better to sit and wait for a good song to come along. As for Mercury .... mmmmmm ..... I think his heart was in the right place. And maybe I just have a hard time seeing through the outdated sounds of the time, but I think he erred. The material on Barcelona was pretty outstanding at times but I can't see why they went with so many synths. When you can comfortably afford to buy Neptune, you should be able to get on the phone to a real orchestra. |
| john bodega 11.10.2009 15:01 |
Sir GH wrote: Ever heard Double Fantasy in its entirety? It's a great record, never mind the fact that it's his swan song. Even the Yoko tracks are good, and it flows well.I'll second that. I probably have a bigger appreciation for the rougher version of "I'm Losing You" that didn't make the album, but the song itself works either way. The stuff on Milk and Honey is great too. I sometimes forget that those songs were unfinished (with the exception of "Borrowed Time", that one's pretty obvious). |
| maxpower 12.10.2009 12:24 |
Double Fantasy would have been a harder record if the material recorded with Cheap Trick had made it on, but Yoko ruined it for me the John Lennon Anthologies prove it to me |