I mainly listened to classical and Jazz music and Mozart happens to be my favourite composer.
Nevertheless, I recall 3 years ago while I was cruising along the beautiful country roads in southwest England I turned on the FM radio and there were the Beatles songs. I couldn't help dancing in my car along with the music and my hands were off the steeling wheel, scaring my mate sitting next to me to death.
Unfortunately the 2 Beatles albums I bought don't have the "audiophile" sound. They sound pretty harsh and completely lacking of fidelity.
I like the early Beatles. Do you have any particular CD albums you can recommend that sound respectful, even if not audiophile grade? by which company? Titles? CD codes?
Regards,
Bill
Nevertheless, I recall 3 years ago while I was cruising along the beautiful country roads in southwest England I turned on the FM radio and there were the Beatles songs. I couldn't help dancing in my car along with the music and my hands were off the steeling wheel, scaring my mate sitting next to me to death.
Unfortunately the 2 Beatles albums I bought don't have the "audiophile" sound. They sound pretty harsh and completely lacking of fidelity.
I like the early Beatles. Do you have any particular CD albums you can recommend that sound respectful, even if not audiophile grade? by which company? Titles? CD codes?
Regards,
Bill
You do need to know that the first four Parlophone albums were recorded on 3-track machines. The intent at the time was mono for AM radio. Albums weren't even considered that big of a deal by the labels - especially pop music. The first Beatles album was recorded in it's entirety in one day.
No one at the time ever thought the Beatles music would survive this long let alone at the level of popularity that it still holds.
If you are looking for more 'hi-fi' you might check out the 'Yellow Submarine SongTrack'. These are re-mixes that we done in Pro Tools from original tracks. There are 5.1 mixes of some songs on the 'Anthology DVD' series.
Word has it that 'they' are working on 5.1 re-mixes with original takes (prior to the considerable bouncing down that was done) of 'Sgt. Pepper' & "Abbey Road'.
Also keep in mind that from the first album through the 'White Album' the Beatles concerned themselves with only mono. If you have any stereo versions - they were never around for those mixes and the stereo mixes were usually done rather hastily for marketing reasons only.
Remember that AM radio ruled during this period.
No one at the time ever thought the Beatles music would survive this long let alone at the level of popularity that it still holds.
If you are looking for more 'hi-fi' you might check out the 'Yellow Submarine SongTrack'. These are re-mixes that we done in Pro Tools from original tracks. There are 5.1 mixes of some songs on the 'Anthology DVD' series.
Word has it that 'they' are working on 5.1 re-mixes with original takes (prior to the considerable bouncing down that was done) of 'Sgt. Pepper' & "Abbey Road'.
Also keep in mind that from the first album through the 'White Album' the Beatles concerned themselves with only mono. If you have any stereo versions - they were never around for those mixes and the stereo mixes were usually done rather hastily for marketing reasons only.
Remember that AM radio ruled during this period.
Old thread, but I have a question for you Beatles experts.
I recently went into a used record store that I often visit, and found a sealed copy of Abbey Road. I looked it over and decided to get it- $13. My thinking was that it was some sort of reissue.
When I got it home and played it, I noticed that the vinyl was very heavy; another possible indication that it is a reissue.
It has the Apple logo on the record center, but it says manufactured by (I think) Columbia. I'm pretty sure that was what it said (I'm at work now, so I'm relying on memory).
Anyway, I am not really familiar with this particular recording, so I don't know how it was produced. The sound of it was off, somehow. It sounded like a digital remaster- extremely clean, but uninvolving and not at all analog-like. Are my ears playing tricks on me, or is there something rotten going on with these (possible) reissues? I suspect that when it was digitally masted for the CD they might have made a new master for the LP's and had them pressed. Anyone know anything about this? Are my ears playing tricks on me?
I recently went into a used record store that I often visit, and found a sealed copy of Abbey Road. I looked it over and decided to get it- $13. My thinking was that it was some sort of reissue.
When I got it home and played it, I noticed that the vinyl was very heavy; another possible indication that it is a reissue.
It has the Apple logo on the record center, but it says manufactured by (I think) Columbia. I'm pretty sure that was what it said (I'm at work now, so I'm relying on memory).
Anyway, I am not really familiar with this particular recording, so I don't know how it was produced. The sound of it was off, somehow. It sounded like a digital remaster- extremely clean, but uninvolving and not at all analog-like. Are my ears playing tricks on me, or is there something rotten going on with these (possible) reissues? I suspect that when it was digitally masted for the CD they might have made a new master for the LP's and had them pressed. Anyone know anything about this? Are my ears playing tricks on me?
IMHO , the older i go , the more i love the Beatles 
Sgt. Pepper is in my opinion there best album. Ahead of its time. Of course I like all of there music good or bad by anyones definition. Of course can anyone name any one group or singer that hasn't had a bad song? It's personal taste. They all grew as musicians as the years went on and they improved in there playing ability as well. They made there mark in music history and still do today. I see high school and middle school kids wearing beatles shirts all the time where I live, my kids grew up listening to the beatles (as well as other groups).
One of the more interesting Beatles debates I think. A drummer friend once remarked, pretty convincingly, that with a more technically accomplished or even more "talented" member, the beatles might have had a better drummer, but they would have foregone an essential part of the magic recipe. Ringo was, probably owing to his personality and ear, generally just a hairs-breadth behind the beat - perfectly content to back up the main attraction and temper their enthusiams. But in this fashion, he very much contributed to the Beatles "sound".
I guess only another professional drummer would have paid such close attention, but my friend went on to list a half dozen other examples of drummers' influence on their bands, his particular favorite example of this being Jai Johanny "Jaimoe" Johanson of the Allman Bros - not necessarily by their standout technique, but by their influence on the other musicians' timing. I have since paid attention to this whenever I hear a Beatles song and am convinced of it. They would have been a different group with a "better" drummer - but might never have found the charm.
Maybe the greatest accomplishment of the Beatles was the astonishing ability to displace one of the most cheesily contrived band names in the history of popular music with a word that now owns its own iconographic space in our minds. You had to be pretty damn good entertainers, when all is said, to have done that.
Can't say I like the Beatles, aside from Norwegian Wood, which is a truly lovely track. I don't think that automatically means I don't like music though -just that I don't like their's very much. I acknowledge their infuence, and what they achieved, and the fact that they changed the face of popular music. But I'd rather listen to the Stones, from that generation of musicians. Sorry.
I think it's difficult in some ways to say as much, because a lot of people get very precious / pretentious about the Beatles, in the same way that, sadly, a lot of classical music fans / musicians can be. I stress the words 'can be' and 'a lot' at this point, lest anyone think I'm sggesting that applies to every single Beatles fan / classical musician and enthusiast. I'm not. But I suspect we all know the type. Pity.
I think it's difficult in some ways to say as much, because a lot of people get very precious / pretentious about the Beatles, in the same way that, sadly, a lot of classical music fans / musicians can be. I stress the words 'can be' and 'a lot' at this point, lest anyone think I'm sggesting that applies to every single Beatles fan / classical musician and enthusiast. I'm not. But I suspect we all know the type. Pity.
I agree 100% with Scottmoose. Except for "Revolver" there really wasn't anything else to get excited about. None of them were critically acclaimed musicians. Slightly above average I'd say. Hey Jude runs on about 20 bars too long and what the heck is "Yellow Submarine"? Some reference to drugs like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? Or some of the trash on the "White Album"? Very overated and I do not own a single album, CD, cassette, or mp3 by them.
On the other hand, I really like some of George Harrison's stuff when they finally broke up. Yep, those silent guys (and Ringo) probably deserve more credit than they got.
Now, you want to talk about music and influences - nobody beats Dylan. Nobody.
A band that got some acclaim but were swept under the rug by the Beatles juggernaut was Badfinger. They had a similar sound to the Beatles, but were much better musicians and song writers - heck, they were even on the Apple music label, but never received the accomplishments that were bestowed to the Beatles. To bad. Just listen to the first four songs of their greatest hits cd and you'll see what I mean.
The Beatles themselves were often quoted that they never really understood their popularity - that it made no sense. (Dylan too)
But having said that, there still is no doubt the mark they made in music history. Kind of like your first lay...it doesn't matter whether she was pretty or not, you still remember your first time - Well that's what the Beatles were, they were primarily the first and so, get so much credit - deserved or not.
On the other hand, I really like some of George Harrison's stuff when they finally broke up. Yep, those silent guys (and Ringo) probably deserve more credit than they got.
Now, you want to talk about music and influences - nobody beats Dylan. Nobody.
A band that got some acclaim but were swept under the rug by the Beatles juggernaut was Badfinger. They had a similar sound to the Beatles, but were much better musicians and song writers - heck, they were even on the Apple music label, but never received the accomplishments that were bestowed to the Beatles. To bad. Just listen to the first four songs of their greatest hits cd and you'll see what I mean.
The Beatles themselves were often quoted that they never really understood their popularity - that it made no sense. (Dylan too)
But having said that, there still is no doubt the mark they made in music history. Kind of like your first lay...it doesn't matter whether she was pretty or not, you still remember your first time - Well that's what the Beatles were, they were primarily the first and so, get so much credit - deserved or not.
I like the Bettles early music the most. I don't care for some of the later stuff.
To say they suck, NEVER! My wife doesn't like them tho, so it's just a matter of tast. The early music is simple and basic, but that doesn't mean that the songs aren't great. I like the early Rolling Stones music the most ( I think all the new stuff sucks) and it's usually the same with just about any rock band. The same with G&R. They broke the mold when they first came out and then faded away.
The only rock band to get better instead of worse is Aerosmith. They had some cool starter songs, broke up, came back, failed, came back again, and rocked the charts and created some great hits. They had multiple hit records later in life. I have them on SACD. You never know how strangly complex Steven Tylers voice is unless you hear it on SACD on vinal.
To say they suck, NEVER! My wife doesn't like them tho, so it's just a matter of tast. The early music is simple and basic, but that doesn't mean that the songs aren't great. I like the early Rolling Stones music the most ( I think all the new stuff sucks) and it's usually the same with just about any rock band. The same with G&R. They broke the mold when they first came out and then faded away.
The only rock band to get better instead of worse is Aerosmith. They had some cool starter songs, broke up, came back, failed, came back again, and rocked the charts and created some great hits. They had multiple hit records later in life. I have them on SACD. You never know how strangly complex Steven Tylers voice is unless you hear it on SACD on vinal.
Right place ,Right time, Right sound at the time. I agree all where less than great musicians more along the lines of average, though some grew as the got older. You really have to give credit to Brian Epstein and George Martin for doing some great marketing though. A group that made there mark in the music world just like many before them and many after.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.