Post by DSD September 16, 2009 (11 of 51)
|
|
Titus said:
I prefer the DVD-A "Love" CD, compared to the new remastered stereo releases.
Love does prove that the Beatles deserve release in high resolution. Perhaps after everyone buys the remastered CDs, EMI will release them on DVD-Audio or BluRay Audio?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titus said:
I prefer the DVD-A "Live" CD, compared to the new remastered stereo releases.
I prefer recordings true to the music's original intent.
|
|
|
Post by Aeryn Sun September 16, 2009 (13 of 51)
|
|
Thanks, all, for your responses. I am particularly interested in yours, Edvin, as I have noted a keen ear in past posts. I bought the Abbey Road disc to compare to my older CD and what I have found is there has been some EQ changes, louder bass in the lower spectrum, and a general loudness all around. Less obvious to me has been the clarity, although I THINK I can hear a slightly less edgy quality on this album. Are there any of the albums that show a more marked change? I would think the oldest albums may have gotten the best end of the remastering process insofar as they originally had the least amount of "bounces" and overdubs which would bring the quality of the sound down, and would also have the most "air" in the recordings. While I can understand the lack of a higher resolution approach, perhaps the best approach would have been to let a producer/engineer perform a more natural soundstage to the recordings, if possible. I am guessing that even a recording like "Kind of Blue" was also close miked to the individuals and then the imaging assembled to present a more natural presentation of the band in performance, I wonder if the same could have been done with the work parts of the Beatles recordings? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Aeryn Sun September 16, 2009 (14 of 51)
|
|
Oops forgot to add, does the "Love" DVD-A parts sound better than the parts as played in the new remasters? Also, the Beatles were a big part of my musical teaching tool as a performer (I play bass in a rock band, prior to that, guitar), and while I do believe McCartney a very good and inventive player, to say he was the best rock bass player ever is really over the top, there were others who contributed more to the bass players canon and were much more solid, inventive players, at the top being James Jamerson. McCartney certainly belongs with the top players, but is not, IMO, the very best.... thanks
|
|
|
Post by DSD September 16, 2009 (15 of 51)
|
|
Aeryn Sun said:
Oops forgot to add, does the "Love" DVD-A parts sound better than the parts as played in the new remasters? Also, the Beatles were a big part of my musical teaching tool as a performer (I play bass in a rock band, prior to that, guitar), and while I do believe McCartney a very good and inventive player, to say he was the best rock bass player ever is really over the top, there were others who contributed more to the bass players canon and were much more solid, inventive players, at the top being James Jamerson. McCartney certainly belongs with the top players, but is not, IMO, the very best.... thanks
My vote would be John Entwistle, I've watched him play and he is very impressive. He plays very difficult "walking" bass.
|
|
|
Post by tream September 16, 2009 (16 of 51)
|
|
DSD said:
My vote would be John Entwistle, I've watched him play and he is very impressive. He plays very difficult "walking" bass.
Of course, the advantage that Paul has over John Entwistle is that he is still alive, not dead for 7 years. Sorry, couldn't resist.
|
|
|
Post by Aeryn Sun September 16, 2009 (17 of 51)
|
|
tream said:
Of course, the advantage that Paul has over John Entwistle is that he is still alive, not dead for 7 years. Sorry, couldn't resist.
and yet Paul cannot, even 7 yrs later, come close to the Ox's playing ability... sorry, couldn't resist ;)
|
|
|
Post by Goodwood September 17, 2009 (18 of 51)
|
|
Aeryn Sun said:
and yet Paul cannot, even 7 yrs later, come close to the Ox's playing ability... sorry, couldn't resist ;)
Yes but when one starts talking of virtuosity the likes of Billy Sheehan eclipse all of them, and he is also still very much alive.
Usually apology about resisting blah, blah.....
|
|
|
Post by Edvin September 17, 2009 (19 of 51)
|
|
Aeryn Sun said:
Thanks, all, for your responses. I am particularly interested in yours, Edvin, as I have noted a keen ear in past posts. I bought the Abbey Road disc to compare to my older CD and what I have found is there has been some EQ changes, louder bass in the lower spectrum, and a general loudness all around. Less obvious to me has been the clarity, although I THINK I can hear a slightly less edgy quality on this album. Are there any of the albums that show a more marked change? I would think the oldest albums may have gotten the best end of the remastering process insofar as they originally had the least amount of "bounces" and overdubs which would bring the quality of the sound down, and would also have the most "air" in the recordings. While I can understand the lack of a higher resolution approach, perhaps the best approach would have been to let a producer/engineer perform a more natural soundstage to the recordings, if possible. I am guessing that even a recording like "Kind of Blue" was also close miked to the individuals and then the imaging assembled to present a more natural presentation of the band in performance, I wonder if the same could have been done with the work parts of the Beatles recordings? Thanks
Thanks!
You will get the most natural performance from the early albums as they were recorded very much as a band, as opposed to one instrument at a time. My mouth opened when I first played the remastered Please Please Me since what I heard was a band in a clearly defined room. The sound is very natural and dynamic.
Dave says it doesn't sound like The Cavern and since it isn't recorded there, why should it? Also, The Cavern was nearly 50 years ago and I know I wouldn't trust my memory that far back.
I don't think The Beatles or George Martin were interested in a "natural soundstage" after 1964. They were pioneers, innovaters, always on the lookout for some new sound.
Best, Thomas
|
|
|
Post by raffells September 17, 2009 (20 of 51)
|
|
Edvin said:
Thanks!
You will get the most natural performance from the early albums as they were recorded very much as a band, as opposed to one instrument at a time. My mouth opened when I first played the remastered Please Please Me since what I heard was a band in a clearly defined room. The sound is very natural and dynamic.
Dave says it doesn't sound like The Cavern and since it isn't recorded there, why should it? Also, The Cavern was nearly 50 years ago and I know I wouldn't trust my memory that far back.
I don't think The Beatles or George Martin were interested in a "natural soundstage" after 1964. They were pioneers, innovaters, always on the lookout for some new sound.
Best, Thomas
Hi Thomas,
A Cavern still exist and its almost identical being only a few matres (yards) from the old one.Clones are going to be licensed in a few major cities around the world.
Macca did a return gig there a couple of years ago.Search hard enough on the net and anyone can get a video.A visual of the place will show anyone why they never recorded there and hardly anyone else would.Yes there are a few bootlegs...The new one doesnt have that odour that you could nearly die for (with?) but it now actually serves beer.
Once hearing the sonics you are hardly likly not going to remember them.The modern term Boom Box understates it.
My sideways reference to their " originals" is actually quite incorrect as they started in the basement of one of the houses and did their first gigs about a mile from the Cavern.
Nowadays their is a special "Magical Mystery Tour" on an old bus from that era.It takes people to a lot of the historical places,homes,Penny Lane,Stawberry Fields,and returns you to the Cavern and or the Beatles Hotel as its know locally.
It does not give access to John and Pauls homes which are owned by the National Trust Organization.A seperate tour to these is also worthwhile as they are maintained in their 60s style.Again a very informative guide is provided.
It was said that even Paul couldnt get in one day when he came back to vist.Apparantly No Ticket to....????.Bob Dylan turned up there recently.I bet that was jaw dropping.It was reported that he did not kiss the floor as is occasionaly the custom.
..Ringos original home is about to be demolished.
Could agree more with your final sentence.They even said so in a song.
|
|
