Pictured, from left in Abbey Road Studio 2: Guy Massey, Simon Gibson, Sean Magee, Sam Okell, Steve Rooke,
Paul Hicks and Allan Rouse. (Photo © Richard Skidmore 2009)
(Allan Rouse joined EMI in 1971 as an assistant engineer in the demo studio at the Manchester Square head office, frequently working with Norman (Hurricane) Smith, The Beatles’ first recording engineer. In 1991, he copied all of Beatles' master tapes (mono, stereo, 4-track and 8-track) to digital tape as a safety backup. He spent four years after that working with Sir George Martin as assistant and project coordinator on the TV documentary "The Making of Sgt. Pepper" and the CDs "Live at the BBC" and "The Beatles Anthology.' It was Rouse, along with Abbey Road senior engineer Guy Massey and and assistant Guy Massey, who produced the 5.1 surround and stereo mixes for the reissue of "Yellow Submarine" in 1991. He later helped initiate what led to the remixing of several John Lennon albums and the new sound mixes for the film "Gimme Some Truth" and the "Lennon Legend" DVD. Rouse has worked exclusively on Beatles projects in recent years, including "The First U.S. Visit" and the "Help" DVDs, and the albums "Let It Be…Naked" and "Love" along with George Harrison’s "The Concert for Bangladesh" DVD and album.)
Q: When was the re-masters project first discussed? When did the work actually begin? When did it (or will it) end?
Allan Rouse: As far as Abbey Road’s involvement, the project began at the beginning of 2005 and ended with Apple Corps Ltd and EMI’s approval at the beginning of this year.
Q: Where was the work done?
Allan Rouse: All of the work was done within Abbey Road Studios.
Q: From the comments from those who have been to the listening sessions so far, it appears that calling this "Yellow Submarine Songtrack 2009" is inaccurate. What can fans expect from the new CDs?
Allan Rouse: The "Yellow Submarine Song Songtrack" was a ‘remix’ which required going back to the original multi-track tapes and recreating a new stereo (and 5.1 surround for the film soundtrack). In the same way as the “Anthology” and “Help!” DVDs were created, along with “Let It Be… Naked” and “LOVE.” The re-masters are made from the original Sixties mono and stereo master tapes, and because of this, do not allow for the changes that can be made when mixing. Therefore, the improvements that occur with the re-masters are: vastly improved digital technology (since their first release on CD in the eighties); in addition, new technology has allowed us to remove or improve technical faults with the recordings, for example bad edits, tape drop outs, sibilance etc. Noises that were part of The Beatles’ performances such as breaths, lip noises and squeaky bass drum pedal were left alone. Finally, EQ has been used where appropriate to enhance the sound.
Q: What were the basic instructions given at the beginning of the project?
Allan Rouse: There were no instructions given at the beginning of the project. Once the team had decided how we were going to approach the project, EMI and Apple Corps Ltd. were consulted for their approval.
Q: What has been the toughest technological challenge facing the remastering of the Beatles recordings?
Allan Rouse: Recognising that it impossible to achieve most of the changes which are possible when re-mixing and not to want to try, regardless of the technology that is available today.
Q: How were the new recordings evaluated by Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia?
Allan Rouse: Once the team was satisfied, CDs were provided to Apple Corps Ltd. for their approval.
Q: Which are the most challenging: the early recordings because of their age or the later ones because of their complexity?
Allan Rouse: No album or track was more challenging than another, but the treatment to them changed accordingly, along with the changes in The Beatles’ music and the way in which they were recorded, all of which presented different issues. This is the reason that the work was done chronologically, allowing the team to progress with The Beatles’ sound.
Q: Which recordings -- the mono or stereo recordings -- lend themselves to better remastering?
Allan Rouse: By virtue of the fact that a mono mix has all the elements layered on top of each other it makes it very difficult to make EQ changes without interfering with things you may not wish to. But because of this it also disguises some of the technical problems that were more evident in the stereos, so less work had to be done in this regard. The opposite is true of the stereos, in that because of the separation it was possible to make small EQ improvements where vocals, for example, appear on one side without seriously interfering with the instrumentation. This greater space between instruments and vocals, though, permitted more of the technical issues to be audible; subsequently more time was spent dealing with those than in the monos.
Q: Have the original multitrack masters been transferred to computer to clean up the tape hiss?
Allan Rouse: No. Removing tape hiss from the mono and stereo re-masters was rarely attempted and when it was, it was used subtly and only to reduce the level of the noise, not to remove it. Less than 1% of the catalogue was treated.
Q: Have the pan problems from the original stereo mixes been fixed?
Allan Rouse: This can only be achieved when mixing from the multi-tracks.
Q: How are the new mono mixes being created?
Allan Rouse: New mono mixes have not been created.
Q: How does what's being done for this project differ from how the songs are being handled for "LOVE" and "The Beatles: Rock Band"?
Allan Rouse: Both “LOVE” and “The Beatles: Rock Band” were created by using the 2 track, 4 track and 8 track master tapes. In the case of “Rock Band,” to recreate the original stereo mixes but enabling the track separation that such a game demands. “LOVE” was not only a re-mix to both surround and stereo, it was also a creation that combined instrumentation and vocals from one title and added them to another, providing unique material. The re-masters are the original Sixties mono and stereo mixes created by George Martin, Norman Smith, Geoff Emerick, Ken Scott, Phil McDonald, Glyn Johns and The Beatles.
Q: Is there a general assumption that can be applied to the remastered CDs (e.g. more bass, less noise) or did each track have to be dealt with individually?
Allan Rouse: Each track was dealt with individually. Whilst bass may be one of the differences, so too are other frequencies, which were used to enhance and in some cases reduce. A small proportion of the tracks were not EQ’d at all as the improved transfers to digital had provided a sound that the engineers felt could not be improved upon. Many more had very little EQ applied and some a bit more, but at all times with the utmost consideration for each song.
Comments
What's the difference between EQing (kosher for this project) and remixing (not kosher)?
Stacia: The remasters are, according to what is said here, a cleaning up of the original tapes and using them as guideposts. Remixing, like was done on "Yellow Submarine Songtrack," is restructuring the sound of the original tapes. That isn't what was done.
I really am excited to hear these, but the fact that those horrible old stereo mixes are still being used makes me very upset. I just don't understand why on earth they are being released. George Martin, Geoff Emerick and the Beatles themselves have derided them on not being authentic or what the band approved so why even release them. Release the monos for authenticity sake and new stereo mixes for the mass consumption, throw the old stereo mixes in the garbage or put them as extras in the mono box.
They had a chance to use today's technology to improve upon the original stereo mixes and they blew it. The remixes on Yellow Submarine, such as Eleanor Rigby and Nowhere Man with the centered vocals, are breathtaking and I was desperately hoping the same treatment would be afforded to the rest of the pre-White Album catalog. All we are going to get is slightly scrubbed and EQd same ole same ole. At least the mono versions will be available. What a disapointment.
agn, Will: Keep in mind that the reports from those who have heard them have been extremely positive.
WOW ... after reading this all I can say is "what a rip off" a true waste of time and effort on there part, you would think that the group that got it so right in the 60's would get it right now and make up for past mixing mistakes and bring the catalog up to date with modern times. These people have no reason to pat them self's on the back they really messed it up by sterilizing the tapes and taking away all signs of the personality that was there, if I want I can take the old CD's and (EQ) give it more bass or treble which although won't sound exactly like the remastered set , will sound pretty dam close, most remastered CD's I have heard in the past are louder than the original and have more bass and thats all, like going from a 6 cylinder to a V8 engine (a six will get you there) they have a lot of nerve asking for $12.99 (13 bucks) per CD when most new CD's sell for $9.99 these days for old music that everybody's already heard... a true miss step on there part. I am very sadden.
I feel sorry for Steve M.
Three of the four people who have left comments thus far have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to audio (at least Stacia admitted to it)...
Nice article, but the interviewer should have asked Mr. Rouse why was the catolog not remixed? Thats the question I want an answer to!!
I am a music producer and musician, and most of the people who are not so much into audio technology mix up the facts about remixing and remastering. as far as i know as an old beatles fan, for example the early beatles recordings were mostly done in a way, that they had not the possibility to have the vocals on a seperate track (because they layered overdubs from one two track machine to another adding another overdub and mixing this together right away- because of the lack of more additional tracks). Only if you have the lead vocal for example on a single track (without other instruments interfering) you can pan them in the middle...the later recordings of the beatles were done on 4- and later on 8-track machines where they could record seperate tracks and had more freedom while mixing. but i like the idea that they left the "recording magic" alone and just remastered the catalogue, because otherwise they "would have painted a moustache on the mona lisa's face" (Giles Martin).
Excellent article, Steve. Personally, I'm thrilled that the Beatles' catalog has been remastered and will be released in its original mixes. I felt several songs (including Eleanor Rigby) were ruined in their remixes on the Songtrack.
FYI, you repeated Guy Massey's name twice:
>It was Rouse, along with Abbey Road senior engineer Guy Massey and and assistant Guy Massey, who produced the 5.1 surround and stereo mixes for the reissue of "Yellow Submarine" in 1991.<
Thanks again for the great read.
Ah..remixing? Panning the vocals into the center? Well kid, ya just got to wait till the NEXT re-release of this audio gold mine on SD cards in 2016.....
In all candor. While I am in favor of the Beatles being
remastered to achieve better fidelity.This whole Beatle re-issue is much ado about almost nothing! There are no actual remixes ala Submarine Songtrack or LOVE. There are no bonus tracks, no new video of any consequence.No downloads..This is just a slight sonic upgrade that should have been done anyway. I would appreciate reporting on this new Beatle re-issue for what it is a big red herring designed to part fans from their money. We are in the midst of a huge recession to issue this remaster series without for example remaining archival tracks like Carnival of Light or the so called new Beatle song "Now And Then" Or the Beatles christmas album Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl on CD.and or downloads and some sorto f new video for Now and The or Carnival of Light..Or actual remixes of Pepper Abbey Road and the White album. Not to mention downloads!
Forgive me for saying so but your just hustling hooey with your Apple pals!
What isn't answered is WHY it was decided right from the beginning of the project in 2005 that remixing of the original multi-track tapes would not be done? What prompted the team to get together in the first place, seemingly with no instructions or idea of what was to be done? (The team got to decide what it would/would not do---without asking or receiving permission---and then simply presented the results to Apple (the Beatles and/or wives) and EMI??? Why bother doing anything? Who was in charge of this? Why weren't the companies involved from the get go? What were they imagining the team was doing? If new technology was NOT going to be used completely, they just wasted their and our time and money. And why, considering what was "done" did it take four years? None of this makes even the slightest bit of sense.
George Martin's stereo miexes are the best. The 80s CD's were could be better.
Do not complain, we have waited so long...
Remasters first. $$$. Remixes second. $$$ 5.1 Surround third $$$. Capitol Volume 3 at some point. $$$. Eventually stereo and mono on the same disc. $$$. New product now and then. This has to last to keep the money coming in over a long period of time. Let's just hope they don't drag it out a song or two per album like they've done with the Beach Boys' stereo remixes.... And, this is what people have been complaining about for years; the lack of a remastered product. It's here. The rest will come.
Sorry Marc, but George Martin's stereo mixes were an afterthought and, with all due respect, are total crap. Simply channeling the voices to one side and the instruments to the other does not constitute "stereo." And that we have waited so long to get basically nothing "new", is why we have every reason to complain. They spent four years polishing crap is what it comes down to.
There were several questions asked of Allan that showed a complete lack of understanding of what the remasters are all about:
* "Have the pan problems from the original stereo mixes been fixed?"
* "How are the new mono mixes being created?"
* "How does what's being done for this project differ from how the songs are being handled for "LOVE" and "The Beatles: Rock Band"?"
For goodness sakes, were these loaded questions for nubes??
Of course he wasn't asked if they attempted to repair the multiple splices in She Loves You or the drop-out/edit towards the end of This Boy... no cigar!
I thought the "drop-out" in "This Boy" was in the very first part of the song. That's where I hear something wrong...things go strangely quiet for a milisecond.
I would much rather hear the lost Beatles songs that are supposed to be similar to Free As A Bird. That was a thrill
mother was still alive then and those two songs were a kick.
There is another one that is supposed to be similar to the
Revolutions nine ? Why are they not included ? All this technical acoustics talk puts me right to sleep. As a school teacher about the last thing I will afford is several hundred dollars for Beatle songs I own on LP and CD already! Bring on the new songs already or some kind of new animated movie where
the beatles have a new adventure like they did in Yellow Sumarine.THey could use the Abbey ROad songs this time for the new movie or better yet they could use the new Free As A Bird songs! This remaster program is a real dud. You sound like a bunch of hi fi nerds behind the stereo shop ruining the Beatles! Dont you boys understand we want the new songs and a movie! Not this sound wave jazz that we are getting instead.You boys are very selfish!
All fans please note that the Hollies who's early recordings were done in the same studio with George Martins right hand man Ron Richards and suffered from the same pan problem were beautifully remastered in stereo (or binaural) on the "Hollies 30th Anniversary" CD with great results so there is no excuse except to say that Apple Corps dropped the ball on this one and are ripping the fans off. I am a true audiophile and have the equipment & ears to prove it, as the day (9/09/09) comes closer and the weasel's at EMI expose them selfs in interviews and pat them selfs on the back for what they think is a job well done it is my wish to purchase a new box of Q-tips for all of them pictured above who are involved in this sad travesty.
My deepest sympathy goes out to all the young (or old) people out there who will never know the difference and think "hey this sounds great".
One More Thing ... that is Tony Hicks (of the Hollies) son Paul pictured above you would have thought that his dad would have taken the time and showed him a thing or two about recording ... he did come from a good gene pool.
On the original stereo mixes being attacked - are we referring only to Rubber Soul and Revolver? And where is it written that the Beatles and others involved derided those mixes?
Can't all you people just get over yourselves? If you aren't into it, shut up and don't buy it.
I think Allan Rouse sums up the re-mix issue quite nicely when he states "Recognizing that it's impossible to achieve most of the changes which are possible when re-mixing and not want to try, regardless of the technology that is available today."
Sounds like Allan was receptive to a re-mix but was restricted by the parameters of this project.
Most of you seem to have no sense of the importance of musical history.
You must have loved Ted Turner's "colorizations" back in the 80's...
I agree with many of the comments here: This effort should have been done 10+ years ago. By 2009, we should have the catalog fully remixed from the ground up.
I honestly do not believe that remixing takes away from the "integrity" of the songs (as I've seen some folks suggest): the results of the mixing/mastering sessions of the 1960's were totally appropriate for the time. No argument there. But professional audio has truly taken a quantum leap from the 1980’s (when the first Beatles CD’s were released) and even the 1990’s. The digital world that – like it or not – we are firmly a part of today requires a different approach in terms of achieving the best possible sound/balance/overall quality. Merely remastering mixes from the 1960’s brings us only to the 1990’s...
Hell, if Allan Rouse felt he was compromised in putting this release together (and that’s the feeling I get in reading the interview above), then why should I part with several hundred hard-earned dollars?
Mike d.... I own the colorized King Kong and love it you can see the fur on the puppet move with every scene. .. the eyes are more forgiving than the ears SORRY Dude
TheyKnittedHim .. couldn't agree with you more.
Ugh. Why am I getting a sinking feeling in my gut that these new CDs are going to be nothing more than original masters given the "compression" treatment?
looks like someone put on their douchebag cap and decided that what fans wanted the Beatles to enter the Loudness war.
If this is true, Rousse & company have nothing to be proud of.
If these things are sub-par: anyone out there know if we can launch a class-action suit for selling a faulty product? Maybe that would teach them something.
In the meantime, back to my half-speed vinyl, I guess...
Everyone who's freaking out and expecting the remasters to be compressed like these horrible modern recordings, please relax. Last month I read an interview with one of the Engineers involved in the project (unfortunately I forgot where the interview was from and which engineer it was)and he stated that they absolutely made sure that compression was NEVER used to affect the dynamics of the original recordings. He made it quite clear that the team was very aware not to crunch everything into one giant black soundwave. So, I have to believe him and take the optimistic route on this. We'll find out for sure in about a month- but I really think these guys are sensitive to the historic value of these recordings!
I agree with a couple of people here re: remixes. George Martin's stereo mixes, to be blunt, stunk. At least re: Rubber Soul and Revolver. The Beatles themselves gave stereo the "oh yeah, we need to do that" afterthought, and barely had any input. Re-mixes, ala YS, LOVE and LET IT BE...NAKED are what we SHOULD be getting. But, like an idiot, I'll buy this over-hyped round of meager offerings, like every other Beatles fan lemming.
Wait till 9/9/9 folks and you will hear the difference.
Btw, there are 60s bands who had their CD's remastered for the third time. We waited 22 years!
what a colossal letdown. the guy who said this should have been done years ago is spot on. and to the guy hauling out the horrendously inappropriate and so, so tired "colorization" argument, i say please. i suppose if you went back to the original 3-strip color elements of a technicolor film for the blue-ray, that would be horrible too. whatever. because the beatles were meant to be heard with vocals on the right side of your room and the band on the left side of your room because, besides giving you a headache, it's obviously best. right.
First, mixes were _part_ of the performance, especially starting with Revolver. Most of the advanced techniques like ADT, phasing, flanging could only be applied at mix-time, by literally _playing_ the oscillator. A remix would imply losing this (as these effects are _not_ on the multitracks, only on the resulting masters). That alone explains the vast differences between mono/stereo versions of tracks; the flanged Eric Clapton solo on the mono version of WMGGW does not exist outside the master tape. So, as much as I appreciate efforts like YSS and Love, I want a non-remixed pristine version of each Beatles album first; then, they can have all fun repiecing She Loves You.
Second, the 4-track mixing desk at Abbey Road was *not* designed for true stereo mixing; not all tracks could be panned at will; that explains the odd original stereo mixes (on Rubber Soul and such). Don't blame George Martin.
Wayne: It sounds like you may have read the excellent and exhaustive "Recording the Beatles" book. You're certainly right about the physical characteristics/stereo mix limitations of the REDD desk.
One thing to consider, though: with the clear descriptions of the techniques & gear used during the actual mix sessions in the "RTB" book , I'd be willing to bet it's entirely possible to recreate many of the authentic effects in a modern remixing scenario. Certainly, the gear still exists and many of the original players are - thankfully - still with us. (As an aside: the "RTB" book is so good that I wish the Anthology team could have benefitted from it during their remix work back in the '90's.)
I point this out only to try and highlight that remixing the catalog can be done with both sensitivity to history as well as with an acknowledgement of the progress in modern technology. Ultimately, I feel this approach does the most justice to the Greatest Band Ever.
From what I gather this Beatle remaster program is a modest
sonic upgrade. Perhaps slightly more than modest. I myself am
a beatle freak. I have all the albums. I bought them on vinyl then on CD. I bought the anthologies and the BBC album. I even have the Decca sessions and Beatle reunion tracks. But except for an audiophile or professional sound engineer, who in their right mind would spend hundreds of dollars for this ? For what reason ? I recenty bought a few sixties and seventies bands that had been remastered. But those were full of extra tracks and other bonus materials. I don't think the average person on the street will even notice the difference in fidelity on this Beatle project unless you prompt them. Am I being obtuse here ?
Who in their right mind would spend hundreds of dollars for this ? Outside of a professional engineer or groupie ? All this engineering talk about remasters who cares! Is there even one bonus track or remix or unearthed concert or anything ?
>>All this engineering talk about remasters who cares! Is there >>even one bonus track or remix or unearthed concert or anything ?
Surely you must be mistaken. This is Apple we're talking about. They stopped caring a long time ago about "value for money". We'll have to part with more money and wait a lot longer for anything "new" from the Beatles.
FFS - it's the Beatles we're talking about here. Why all the bitching about bonus tracks? That's what the 6 Anthology CDs were for.
The original albums needed to be remastered from the original master tapes for reasons already mentioned - a lot of effects were added during the mixing process which cannot be replicated in a new mix. It would be like retouching the Mona Lisa in Photoshop. Sure, it'll look "better" but it won't be what the artist intended.
Buy the new discs or don't buy them - who cares. Be grateful for the wonderful music you'll get to hear and stop bitching about things you haven't even heard yet.
moogerfooger ... you sound like the Church Lady .... I'm so grateful ... I can't begin to tell you how GRATEFUL I am. They could have given us both on one CD, remixed and remastered and still had room for the unreleased tracks mentioned before here, 40 + year old music for the price of 13 bucks.... some body's going have a nice Christmas and it isn't Michael Jackson.
"Who in their right mind would spend hundreds of dollars for this ?" All the people on this page bitchin'.
And why not remaster the tracks and make them sound real good and then "fly in" the remix elements onto the experimental tracks, using the remastered tracks as a guide. (Do they still have those tape loops from Tomorrow Never Knows?) Oh, and before you fly in, let me have those remastered tracks.
And if you guys want that new remixed sound, there's a rare album out there called Give My Regards to Broadstreet. Many of the Beatles songs are already redone just they way you want them. They don't sound like sixties recordings at all.
There’s no way Apple will be able to please everyone; they’d be fools to try. Remixes would have been great. Maybe we'll get them someday. Who knows. I’m not sure the early 2-track Beatles records can be meaningfully remixed.
The price per disc for the stereo CDs is not obscene, and buying the box is optional. The mono box makes sense because most fans who want ANY of the mono discs will want ALL of them.
If Apple was just after the money, then we’d have a Presleyan avalanche of inessential compilations. But when Apple got control of the catalog, they DELETED all the cash-in collections from 1976-82. If all they wanted was your money, “Reel Music” would still be in print and they’d be licensing tracks left and right. Name five various-artist collections with EMI Beatles tracks.
Is this the ultimate, perfect Beatles release? No. But it's a long-overdue upgrade of the existing catalog, with mono and stereo mixes and, it seems, the "Yellow Sub" EP. How is that bad?
Two posts caught my eye:
>>And if you guys want that new remixed sound, there's a rare
>>album out there called Give My Regards to Broadstreet.
This is hysterical.
>>If Apple was just after the money, then we’d have a Presleyan avalanche of inessential compilations...
I think the overriding problem with Apple is the very lack of worthy/essential releases. I don’t think any fan that checks Steve’s page or takes the time to check other fans’ comments would want a deluge of worthless repackages. Hell, we can make those ourselves. Apple is testing the water with the remasters. They know how we feel and it’s apparent that they really don’t care. If these sets sell well, we’ll see more from Apple. It’s really that simple.
So does this mean there still won't be an bass evident on "With the Beatles" and we're stuck with "A Hard Day's Night" sounding pretty much like it did on the 80s cd? I don't know that this will be worth bothering with. Glad I didn't pre-order. I'll wait to read peoples' reactions before laying down more than $200 for a box set. Did you notice that the mono cds are in jackets pretty much like the US issues and that the stereo cds are in 3 panel digipaks? And yet the mono costs more?
Alright Ron, you got me. The Abbey Road techs kept turning the bass down. Company policy.
Once you agree to fixing that, the door is open.
But I hear the remasters are worth having. That's the bottom line.
The monos are for the purist, the collectors. But.... I hear Mono Pepper is better. Hard to beleive , but hearing is believing. I'm not buying the monos, so I may never know.
although I am upset about the lack of remixes, I think anyone should put to rest the idea that these will be minor upgrades. one only needs to look at the Capitol Album box sets for that. Go to a good stereo and play "No Reply" from the 80's Beatles For Sale, then play the same song from the remastered Capitol Albums box set. The difference is huge, the new master sounds infinitely better, sharper, clearer, and more fulfilling. Even with the bad original mixes. Whenever someone asks me what the deal is with remastering I play them that example or I've Got a Feeling from the original Let it Be then from Let It Be Naked, again, night and day. (although LIBN WAS remixed as well)
Let It Be Naked has never been remastered or remixed to my knowledge.
To: will ... any card carrying Beatle fans know that the Capital CD were nothing more than a money grab from Capital (whoring out the cash cow during a bad year for them), these CD were the equivalent of running ones finger nails down a chalk board. I think you might be another candidate for some Q-Tips too. :) Just joking don't come looking for me.
I'm not sure why this article seems to be the one that's being attacked, as most everything said in it has already been said before. We knew well before this that these were remasters and NOT remixes. So what's the deal? In the audio world there is a massive difference between the two and it seems to me like most have been clamoring for remaster as opposed to remix for so long. You're getting one of the two. Can't that be good enough for now? And if the answer to that is no, then I fully expect you will NOT be buying these CD's, right? Because if you do, then you openly admit that it's not that big of a deal to you, and that you are excited for the remasters. Because $200 (double if you're buying both sets) is a lot of money to just throw away on something you're disappointed with before it's even in your hands.
As usual with retail purchases, the choice is yours. If you think it's worth your money, buy it. If not, don't. That speaks louder than any message board post.
The Capitol Boxes may have been a cash cow but there is no doubt that they sound different from the '87 masters. And Let It Be Naked was the very definition of a remix and a drastic one at that with all of the orchestrations and etc removed. Listen to either compared to the original with some good headphones and you really hear a difference. I just did it again and it is dramatic at times. Now the Capitol mixes have a ton of issues of their own with some awful choices and really bad effects added (i.e. I Feel Fine, which is unlistenable) But on some of the songs particularly like I said before, No Reply the difference between the remastered stereo and the old release mono is quite noticeable.
But I am FOR the remixes, let the monos stand as the historical record.
And also, I will be at the stores on 9/9/09 for the stereo box, mono box, and rock band. I have been saving up a long time for this day...
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!