Showing posts with label beatles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beatles. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

It's The Beatles!

It's The Beatles!

After every news outlet on Earth has been salivating over the impending release of the Beatles Rock Band, it's easy to overlook that there's an even bigger Beatles release on this 9-9-09 that shouldn't be overlooked because it's finally remastered perfectly. But first, a little back story.

The Beatles go back to my upbringing as when I was only a young lad my uncle would have a garage full of old records and I would hang out there learning about computers while he played record after record of Beatles albums. The influence was there from the get going and really, I haven't looked back since enjoying the sounds of the music in the original Mono as well as various Stereo quality releases, but it has never been this good before.



Back in April, on my birthday, the news was released that there was going to be a remastered edition of The Beatles catalogue.
We are delighted to announce the release of the original Beatles catalogue, which has been digitally re-mastered for the first time, for worldwide CD release on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 (09-09-09), the same date as the release of the widely anticipated "The Beatles: Rock Band" video game.

Each of the CDs is packaged with replicated original UK album art, including expanded booklets containing original and newly written liner notes and rare photos. For a limited period, each CD will also be embedded with a brief documentary film about the album. On the same date, two new Beatles boxed CD collections will also be released.

The albums have been re-mastered by a dedicated team of engineers at EMI's Abbey Road Studios in London over a four year period utilising state of the art recording technology alongside vintage studio equipment, carefully maintaining the authenticity and integrity of the original analogue recordings. The result of this painstaking process is the highest fidelity the catalogue has seen since its original release.

Can anyone believe that the Beatles CDs that you can buy in the stores now are the exact same ones that people were buying in 1987? Seriously, If anyone deserved the remastered treatment the most, it was the Beatles.

I think this is what everyone was waiting for after the release of "Love", high quality remasters without any of the song Mash Up stuff, that was involved in the Vegas show. I loved the LOVE album because it sounded so good for that very reason. Then you have the remastered mono versions... Wow, can you get me anymore excited?


Christ almighty, just how high were these guys? To answer that, they were so stoned they let Ringo sing!

The mono versions of the albums are the ones that the band was involved with the mixing of, and are quite different sounding than the stereo versions. I may sound like a snob here but if you listen to the mono version of Sgt. Pepper, it'll be so much better than the Stereo version.

Since we live in 2009, It's assumed that stereo is always the way to go. I mean, you have at least two car speakers while driving, right? But in this case you really should get over it and realize that "Drums in the left speaker" thing, is in fact, a separation that is very uncomfortable to listen to as well as ruins a lot of the mixing involved in the song resulting in a lot of lost sound.



This is going to sound like a nerd debate, but stay with me here. When talking about mono vs stereo, let's put it this way. When The Beatles recorded most of these, the popularity of stereo recordings was almost entirely a US phenomenon til about the late 60s. In most parts of the world, having big two-speaker stereo rigs was a rare indulgence, not a common sight. As a result, most non-US recordings tended to be mono first, stereo second, meaning that the bands and engineers would carefully mix a mono recording that they knew would be played on record players, radio stations, etc, to sound as good as possible. Then, as an afterthought, they made a nice, clean little stereo mix for audiophiles and record nerds.

In the US, the reverse was true by the early 60's a stereo mix was prepared that was then combined and remixed to work in mono. The only exceptions to this were pop singles, which had to stand out on tinny radio speakers to move product, and cheaper, fly-by-night teen sensation recordings meant to hit the market, make money, then get out (ie, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, the Surfaris, Bobby Vee, etc).



The biggest tale tell sign of this was shown in the mixing for Sgt. Pepper. The mixing for the mono session for the album ran over about three full days. The stereo mix was done in an afternoon. You can hear the difference. Plus, some of the effects Martin and the band were using didn't translate well to stereo - Lucy in the Sky suffers from this the most as it benefits in mono from thick psychedelic effects that are totally lost in the stereo version. You can also tell byt the fucked up stereo panning of "Eleanor Rigby," or the "Two guys n one speaker, the other two in the other" stuff that shows up in Rubber Soul. The stereo mixes were an afterthought right up until the White Album.

For a while I was enjoying the Mono and Stereo remastered editions from Bootlegger Dr.Ebbetts that were floating around. These were really amazing in the quality and from what I hear and to give you an idea on how great in quality these are, Dr Ebbetts has decided to hang up his needle and cease doing anymore work on The Beatles calaogue. He sent out an email saying he's heard the new masters and they're far superior to what he put out. That to me was the best thing to ever hear as his were damn great.



The best way to describe all this with regards to what works and what doesn't in stereo release is Balance. You don't have anything getting drowned out with the remasteres, and you start to hear things you didn't notice before. Some things jump out at you, others don't. I think the album that benefits the least from this remastering is The White Album. Then again, it sounded pretty good to begin with. Others that really pop to mind after listening to them are:

Please Please Me - is absolutely perfect in mono. You could barely even hear Paul in the old mixes or the stereo remaster but on the mono disc it's like you're standing directly between John and Paul competing for the lead.
Revolver in mono is delicious I want to eat it up for seconds and then have some more of it. If you're on the fence for the mono stuff, it's so worth it for the Revolver-era stuff. Sending the drums entirely to one channel was probably mind-blowing in its day, but it sure didn't stand the test of time, so I'm glad that they finally fixed that.



Though if you think they're done taking your money, just you wait. Apparently they're waiting until the 50th anniversary in 2012 to do the Deluxe Editions with the remixes, bonus tracks and high-def 5.1 stuff. Especially the tracks that were remixed for The Beatles Anthology and the 5.1 remixes of Help! and Yellow Submarine.

I'm still amazed by how well they could write and construct these great songs on such a consistent basis. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around it. Yesterday on a fucking napkin
and all in 7 years! Insane. Don't think it's because they weren't touring as often. Back then they would pack in more gigs and The Beatles were working seven nights a week in clubs doing twenty minute solos. So it's utterly amazing that nowadays two albums in a year is unheard of, let alone twelve in seven years.



Especially when you factor in that these guys were making films and TV appearances all the time. They were real busy and could still churn brilliant songs out so regularly. I gues Let It Be was when it all boiled over for them, although even that album has some pretty amazing songs on it. Then they cap off their career with Abbey Road. An album that I consider to be up there... then again, I consider all their albums to be pretty damn special.

The Beatles are awesome, stereo or mono, just go out and buy the god damn thing because it's utterly an amazing collection of work by four very talented men.

Are You Ready To Rock?

Are You Ready To Rock?

That's right, I know you're gearing to rush out today, on this 9-9-09 and pick yourself up some Rock Band: The Beatles. Well tough shit, loser. Everyone else is going to do the same. It's Beatles day and if you can't tell by the amount of Beatles blogs I've written today, I'm excited. Though the downside here is that everyone else will be rushing to the local Bestbuy and WalMart to get their Breakfast with the Beatles on. You'll more than likely wont be able to find it anywhere.

What is a young impressionable fake musician to do? Put your heart in with Jesus and get yourself Guitar Praise!
JAM WITH THE BAND!

Strap on the guitar and play along with your favorite bands—tobyMac, Relient K, Flyleaf, Newsboys —and more. SHRED the riffs…THUMP the bass…BLAST that solid Christian Rock!

check out the killer tunes and the flash video here


Sure it's no Strawberry fields, but where would you rather be forever? Heaven or some fruit filled field? Living is easy with eyes closed... which is pretty much what religion is, right? Ha. I know, it's like when you were a kid during Christmas and you asked for a specific name brand toy from your parents and then you open your presents on Christmas morning to find that they got you a generic brand toy. Instead of a Sony Walkman, you got a Son-I Walkfriend.

I have to say, they missed out on a real opportunity by not having a gimmick guitar with a cross for a head. Maybe stylized text that says "inri". They could have called it Guitar Martyr.



Besides that, The Beatles are a band that parents weren't happy with their kids listening to back in the old days. When John said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus the christian reaction was not good. The reaction was instantaneous. Radio stations across the country, but especially in the South and Midwest, stopped playing the Beatles records. Death Threads began pouring in directed at all the members and bonfires appeared and went up where people burned albums and other memorabilia as the fuel to the flames.

In South Carolina, for example, the Klan Grand Dragon Bob Scoggins nailed a Beatles record to a large cross and set it on fire. Other Klansmen justified their campaign on the grounds that not only were the Beatles blasphemous, but that they were not really 'white' either. Oh, comedy, I tell you. In Cleveland, the Reverend Thurman H. Babbs threatened to excommunicate any member of his congregation who listened to the Beatles. Way to destroy all those sought after Beatles memorabilla that is worth a ton of cash these days, you christian wack-jobs!



Children, don't settle for anything less. While Christian rock may technically be considered "Rock" it's still not good. Besides, if you invite your friends over and they see you with this instead of Rock Band Beatles, you'll end up having a lot fewer friends. Be the cool kid, Obama told you to dream big and achieve it at any cost possible. Dreaming big in the sense of actually getting a real music video game and not some stupid religious knock off.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Stop, Collaborate and Listen

Stop, Collaborate and Listen

Whenever artist come together, it's always a risk. It's like the best of all worlds, right? Especially if you like the music of all who is coming together. Well, for those of you still reading get a load of this. Dylan, McCartney and Ringo Starr are going to collaborate.

Legendary musicians Sir Paul McCartney ,his fellow ex-Beatle Ringo Starr and Bob Dylan are to team up in California over the summer, where they are expected to work on new songs it has emerged.

All the three in 60’s have shared the stage together before but have never created music together and its naturally expected that the union of three veteran musicians will create new musical sensation !

The news comes after Dylan declared earlier that he found the idea of working with the former Beatle “exciting”.

McCartney’s spokesman then declared their man would be “very interested” in a collaboration.

This could be one of the most amazing musical moments in recent memory. Then again, we should weigh in the pros and cons

Arguments For
Dylan and McCartney are amazing song-writers
Dylan is on top-form lately
It's a great moment in musical history anyway for them all to work together

Arguments Against
High profile musicians collaborating with other high profile musicians often ends in mediocre product
Dylan's singing seems to be nothing more than gas escaping at this point
McCartney is not on top-form lately
McCartney is a massive asshole
Ringo Starr

Don't get me wrong with the Ringo Starr hate. We can all admit that he was never the greatest drummer. But the universe is a weird place where Ringo Starr is considered a bad drummer and Meg White still performs live. That's the real example of weak drumming held up by overcompensating guitar work. if I were starting a rock band tomorrow I'd much rather have Ringo Starr in it than someone like Neil Pert or Carter Beuford. Ringo had the taste not to make the drums front-and-center, and I respect that. Add in that he was consistent for every take when the Beatles would go 100+ takes in studio. With that said, the best work Ringo has ever done is narrate Thomas The Tank Engine.


I do hope that it's Beatles-era McCartney and not the one who wrote "Somebody's Knocking at the Door". As for Dylan.. Dylan Colaborations are always a gamble. The Traveling Wilburys? Awesome. Dylan and The Dead? sheeeeeesh...

You know what, forget this whole post. This is going to suck. These guys haven't produced consistantly good music for decades. Had this happened in the 70's or certainly the 60's this would have been big news. Buy Paul McCartney's 'All My Best' album and move along. That's all he's done for the past 35 years.

I suppose it would be nice if all the musicians I didn't like formed one gigantic super group, then I'd have to only avoid one band. Here's hoping that they just give them all drugs and they make completely amazing music. If they let them stay sober, it'll probably be garbage.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Will You Still Need Me When I'm 64?

Will You Still Need Me When I'm 64?

I ran across this interesting message board with a lot of old pictures of cities from back in the 40's-50's. Something about that Beatles song popped into my head. Most of these places are close to, if not older than the 64 mark. So let's take a stroll down memory lane and look to the past of places and wonder what sort of stories and history time has planted into them.

Atlanta 1951


Back before it was a Delta hub... Ok, It'll always be a delta hub.



Ah, the signs of Coke, The Braves and the south rising once again.

Kansas city 1953


I hear they have some crazy little women and I'm gonna get me one.

St Louis 1949


The only thing I really care about St Louis is their BBQ.


New Orleans 1951


Oddly enough, visiting there in 2005, it still looks very much the same.



I wonder how much of that was under water with Katrina.

Harrisburg 1941


Back when we didn't care about pollution. Most Americans still don't.

Chicago, not sure when


Ah, that would be a nice place to eat a Hawwwt Dawwwg



Looks like a good place to call home. That is if you don't mind having a baseball team that hasn't won a world series since before this picture was taken. Whoooops!

Baltimore 1940


After watching the wire, FUCK going to Baltimore. Omar Little will get me.

Finally we get to where my heart is at..

Los Angeles 1952


It looks the same. Only back then you didn't have the massive signs advertising for PASSPORTS and other places you can get fake I.D's



As much things change, they stay the same.

Let's see how they hold up in another 64 years. Let's hope I can type then as well.