Beatles Remasters

NOTE: I originally posted this missive on Sim-Outhouse, the flight sim forum where I am a member, and where there are multiple Beatlemaniacs. Other than a few grammatical corrections, and the post script, it is unchanged.

IMHO, before Rubber Soul, the Beatles were basically a 4-member combo. Rubber Soul was the transitional album. By the time they get to Revolver, they are a complete pastiche with rock n' roll influences. Sgt. Pepper repeatedly makes the Top 5 of establishment rock critics' Greatest Albums of All Time lists, but I submit that there's very little rock n' roll on it. What does "Within You Without You" or "Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" have to do with Little Richard or Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps?

Remember: just my opinion. Not the Voice of the Burning Bush.

Alright. I now own or have heard the remasters of Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, and Revolver. In short, I'm willing to say that if you're a Beatles fan with a good cd player and stereo receiver, the remasters are worth at least a listen. Whether they're worth buying is an issue between you and your wallet.

I've had Sgt. Pepper the longest, because this was the initial cd release that had been most disappointing to me. I had an old Dolby B cassette recording made for me by a college friend from LP on good equipment that I felt sounded much better than that first compact disc release. With the new remaster I could hear the difference even through the little Altec speakers and sub-woofer on my computer. Playing Pepper through my kiddie disc player with line out to the Bose speakers, the difference was enormous. They've really cleaned up this recording. I can only imagine what it sounds like through a really high-end system. Something like the aforementioned "Mr. Kite" is especially immersive, and "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" sounded like the band was right in the room with me. I could hear defined bass notes, and clear drum fills that I couldn't hear on the previous CD editions. Abbey Road is also very impressive, especially "I Want You/She's So Heavy".

Funny, one thing this set of reissues has definitely done is get me to play Compact Discs again. I play nearly all of my music on the computer nowadays; it's just easier than hunting through a stack of discs. I suspect a lot of people are going to download these cuts straight to their iPods and lose a lot of definition. This is an important point. I know that on my system, once the cds were converted to MP3 files, even on maximum quality, I couldn't hear much of a difference between the new versions of Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour and the older CDs, and that's how a lot of people are going to experience them. These are going to be the people who report to the music blogs that they've been ripped off. I should mention here that it's now possible to buy a sound card/home theater combo online or at an outlet store that's a hair breath away from a pricey stereo system in quality, but I don't know a lot of people who own thsse, so I can't say in confidence what they'd sound like. The people I know who are having religious experiences listening to these reworks are generally audiophiles with higher end systems who have preserved their hearing against modern amplification at rock shows and in dance clubs. Your friends who are saying "What?" all the time may not hear the difference.

I, personally, being p*ss poor, will probably get Past Masters I& II before the end of the year, and then stop. With my current sound equipment, the boxed set isn't worth it.

JAMES

PS There's a nice little QuickTime mini-documentary included with each cd. It's pleasant to watch for Beatles people because you get to hear the bands' recollections in their own voices, but it's nothing hard core Beatlemaniacs haven't already heard. On The Beatles there’s a sample mini-doc, and lots of videos.

 

But you still wanted the music right? i suppose you never buy an album right?

if you dont want it and dont like it dont buy it, dont D/L it for free either, but youve admitted to what is paramoint to theft. What you have done is just admitted your guilt to illegal d/l of music, this sort of thing is what really bugs me as an artist. I dont like Mc Cartney but i will have his music for free

Doesnt matter whos dead or whos alive an artist or person who owns copyright is still entitled to payment for the music.

 

IMO all the beatles music has been so overly exploited at this point that it should all just be public domain, like jingle bells. many people wealthy and unwealthy give their music away for free online. just because you feel somehow that someone is entitled to payment for something they have already sold several incarnations of doesnt make it right just legal. if the remaining beatles really had a connection to music as opposed to business they would give it away for free just like the music was given to them for free by their imagination and insight. this is like a computer company selling you an OS and than charging you for updates.

I in fact do pay for music when supporting an up and coming band and always pay for tickets and merch when going to shows(which is usually where the artist makes the most money).

who do you think has made more money radiohead or paul mcartney?
radiohead gives their music away for free mcartney doesnt.
the same goes for countless indy, punk and folk bands.

 

You stole it is what the law would state, it is not public domain and i dont give a flying who made more money its not about that its about the copyright owner and that mate doesnt give you the right to decide who should do what with the music. Public domain is for music that behond the statute of limitations for copyright pre 1923, i think the beatles music has about 40yrs to wait.


If you take $200 worth of tools from a hardware store without paying your a thief, same applies, i dont make the laws thats just what they are. Because i choose to give my music away does that mean you can have my mates c.d for free as well?

If you want public domain go here, this is where i get my free music
Free Music for everyone

Other than that i always pay for my music, if you want it PAY for it end of story

 

yea right and I suppose you've never made a tape for a friend or gotten one from a friend or even worse taped something off the radio?
yea right
just so you know every time you play someone else's songs you need to be sending them royalty money. oh you dont? didnt think you did.
like I said just because something is law doesn't make it right .
and when you look up tabs you should really be spending 20$ on the book.
and when you look at a copy of a fsm for your car you need to pay 60-300$ for your own.
dont tell me what is right and wrong and dont assume what is right for you is right for anyone else. thats called ignorance...
but good luck riding your high horse and try not to cry when you eventually fall off.

 

You are a thief and one who isnt very intelligent as to post your antics on an open forum.

I would know more about royalties than you could ever dream of. Dont try and justify what you did by trying to pass the buck to me.

Only tapes i have made were from recording i have bought and is a 1 of, which i am allowed to do, if i like it i buy it, so dont put me in the same basket as youself. If you saw my vinyl and my c.d collection you would immediately retract your statement. I dont listen to the radio i dont tape what isnt mine i dont owe noone a penny. I dont look up tabs and everything i have recorded that was a cover which is one tune Rory Gallaghers Barly Grape Rag i paid to do it.

Think before you brag about illegal D/L's next time and you wont come under scrutiny.

You are a thief, the thief, the one who thinks they are riding some sort of holier than thou high ground. Hope you get caught and have to pay for it and by the way, ignorance is bliss.

 

He is not a thief, he is a copyright infringer, which like patents, is a right of protection of distribution granted to the creator and is a civil matter. If he stole YOUR physical CDs, then he would be a thief and a criminal.

 

It is classified as thieving, he is not taking copyright he is downloading physical content, you better check what people has been busted for and its classification, last girl in the US copped a $200,000 fine and or 6yrs in jail. Copyright violation is when i use your music in this instance for my own gain or reward by selling, broadcasting or performing without paying for the right to use it. He is downloading for his own reward rather than paying for the content so he is stealing from the copyright owner. After the net come alive alot of laws had to have added alot of subclauses and each country is different. You download the latest movie whats it called? illegal!!

I really dont give a flying frogs butt what he does or anyone else but to come on the forum and mouth off about his d/l ing efforts is looking to get yourself busted. $200US is a fair bit of cash in anyones language that hes not paying out so instead he stole the content.

Seen too many people lose just reward with their music because someone doesnt want to pay for it. I am a member of APRA i get paid for my work wether its broadcast or used by another artst or legally downloaded. I aint big but it, my royalties pays some of the bills. Some are just lucky enough that it sets them up for life.

Its not personal its just how he presented it.

 

I have been looking for a set of the beatles for a while. Initially I wanted to just get all the songs on itunes because this will be for my ipod. To my sadness there are no beatles songs on itunes so I will probably just end up getting this and then ripping it to my ipod and keeping the disks as hard copies. I might wait until they have dropped in price a bit though. Its either getting this or an Epiphone Dot I have been looking at lol.

 

Can I go back to the copyright vs theivery question?

If you already bought the original albums on vinyl wouldn't downloading this set just be the equivilent of making your one allowable copy?

Just something to think about