And We Are All Together / The Beatles Thread

[Happy Trees]

Re the bold part — Is that right? I really need them to reprint Recording the Beatles.

Yes. All four of them weren't always present for every song, and there are some examples of stereo mixes being done without any of them present - but they would listen to them and approve them later in those cases. If they didn't like it, it would be remixed again with them present or not. This is the typical case for any band, even today. But before that, George Martin oversaw and approved of the stereo mixes, but I guess his opinion didn't matter. There are a lot of examples of Apple planting the seeds of notions like this, by taking something that is slightly true but irrelevant or being vague/general about it, and the fans and the music press running with it and making it a "thing". They excel at this kind of manipulation, and Beatles fans are very susceptible to this because they view anything said about them through "official" channels as being irrefutable gospel. The whole "artificial intelligence on the new Beatles song" thing is another example - they didn't even know what it actually meant, so it got a massive amount of press - cha-ching! Meanwhile, George Martin insists that the first two Beatles albums were never released in stereo and has no memory of remixing Help and Rubber Soul for CD. The Beatles would argue over who wrote what parts of songs and they can't even remember who played which instruments on songs. But these things are supposed to matter.

[Happy Trees]

And I dare anyone find a thread on a music forum about a technically challenged album that doesn't have a comment by some dumbass that it needs to be worked on by Peter Jackson and Giles Martin. That will tell you all you need to know about the far reach of The Beatles bullshit press hype machine.

[Birds in Hell]

My parents' well-worn copy of 1967-1970 was one of my gateways into music in general.

I'm not crazy about revised/expanded tracklistings for what are already well-established compilations, and ones released when all the Beatles were still alive. There's something canonical about those original albums, despite their omissions.

I'd rather see a new compilation released that highlights the new mixes.

Well, see...my argument would be that none of that is relevant because many of the new mixes are a hot mess.

Don't get me wrong, no disagreement from me on that point. Some of them are bafflingly bad.

WTF is that new mix of Old Brown Shoe.

[Anders]

The new mix of Old Brown Shoe is definitely worse than the original.

[Matters]

According to some article, the 54 year span between their last number 1 “The Ballad of John and Yoko” and their current number 1 “Now and Then” is a record for longest time between number 1’s.

[Anders]

Yes, that's true for the UK.

[wease]

Did neither of those tunes released with the Anthology hit number 1?

[oasisfan35]

Did neither of those tunes released with the Anthology hit number 1?

No. 2 and No. 4

[wease]

Interesting

[Kevin Davis]

It's very common for people who critique the Beatles remixes to be accused of being against them in general

I wouldn't call myself a purist, per se, but one of the things I specifically like about listening to recordings from different eras of history is how they can bottle up the essences of specific times and places, cataloguing headspaces and impulses that were unique to the moment of creation, and telling us something about what creators and audiences valued, within the context of what they had to work with, at the time of any given work being cut loose into the world. Oftentimes, this feeling is the direct result of recordings being stamped by any number of technological limitations, questionable mixing/production fads that seem ludicrous in hindsight, lack of experience/precedent for how to do certain things, general errors in judgment, etc. IMO, modern remixes that stamp out these historical anomalies in the service of making the recordings more palatable to modern audiences do so -- some more than others -- at the expense of some intangibles that are unfortunate to lose, while at the same introducing entirely new sets of technological limitations, questionable mixing/production fads that will seem ludicrous in hindsight, lack of experience/precedent for how to do certain things, general errors in judgment, etc. So, while not against them in general, I think the odds are very heavily stacked against them.

Granted, I've unwittingly purchased a number of artists' catalogs in modern "remixed" versions without even knowing it (Miles Davis, the Who), just because those were the versions that were on the market when I was discovering those artists, and now the original versions sound like curiosities to me. So I understand that, over time, for better or for worse, these remixes can take on lives of their own, that they don't by design take something that would have otherwise been purely enjoyable and render it purely unenjoyable, and certainly if they work in the service of the songs continuing to be discovered, part of the cultural conversation, etc., then it's hard to completely begrudge their existence even if they suck from a technical standpoint. But, having long since internalized this music, I'm not inherently interested in how someone 60 years later with no connection to the original sessions has been paid to "improve" these recordings using modern technology (some of which, I imagine, is as primitive now as stereo mixing was in 1966). Not for me.

[Buby]

Interesting

They had their limitations at the time of their release.
Even though "Real Love" should've definitely hit No 1.

[Happy Trees]

IMO, modern remixes that stamp out these historical anomalies in the service of making the recordings more palatable to modern audiences do so -- some more than others -- at the expense of some intangibles that are unfortunate to lose, while at the same introducing entirely new sets of technological limitations, questionable mixing/production fads that will seem ludicrous in hindsight, lack of experience/precedent for how to do certain things, general errors in judgment, etc.

This. But despite arguments by many that "no harm has been done", the intention is often to restrict availability of the original mixes to boost sales of the new versions (as has happened with the Beatles) or to delete them outright, and many foolishly believe that they are a huge improvement over the originals and that it's a genuine reason for their existence.

Granted, I've unwittingly purchased a number of artists' catalogs in modern "remixed" versions without even knowing it (Miles Davis, the Who), just because those were the versions that were on the market when I was discovering those artists, and now the original versions sound like curiosities to me.

In many cases this was done because of misplaced or deteriorated master mixes (as was the case with both artists you mentioned), but there was at least an attempt (however inept) to "replicate" the originals. And some remix engineers (Steven Wilson, for example) and the artists who utilize them strive to recreate an appropriate vintage vibe while using current technology to merely improve the sound quality and not to distract people with shiny objects.

The situation with the Beatles is another offensive ball of wax entirely. They've got exclusive rights to questionable/primitive new technology that they can exploit and hype to gullible consumers, and garner a lot of attention and money doing it, to the detriment of the music (which they merely view as "been there done that").

[Anders]

Interesting

They had their limitations at the time of their release.
Even though "Real Love" should've definitely hit No 1.

Real Love is great. Happy they made it to no.1 this time.

[Matters]

I remember watching the 3 day airing of the Anthology series on ABC. I’d already heard many Beatles songs thanks to my parents but that series is what made me want to dive into everything they’d done. Other than hearing Ten for the first time, The Beatles Anthology might have been the most important musical experience in my life of becoming an active music listener.

[Anders]

I’ve never seen Anthology. Really want to.

[LetMeSleep]

I’ve never seen Anthology. Really want to.

Same. Let's watch it together. I'll bring some lamingtons.

[Anders]

[Anders]

I’ve never seen Anthology. Really want to.

Same. Let's watch it together. I'll bring some lamingtons.

Sounds great.

[Matters]

I like A Day In the Life but I don’t understand why it regularly gets referred to as the best Beatles song.
My attempt at objective nominations would be:

A Hard Day’s Night
In My Life
Tomorrow Never Knows
Hey Jude
Something

[Anders]

It was an interesting bracket, I voted in most rounds. Top 16 songs were:

A Day In The Life
Something
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Hey Jude
Strawberry Fields Forever
Abbey Road Medley
Yesterday
In My Life
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
Eleanor Rigby
Across The Universe
Blackbird
Penny Lane
Here Comes The Sun
Here There And Everywhere
Let It Be