What does Steve Hoffman think of the new Beatles Sgt. Pepper remix?

Designed for young people with Bluetooth speakers. LOUD.
Subtle as a flying mallot.

 

"So why is this mix so derided on here?"....are you serious?

As for respect, it's just people expressing their opinion. The opinion is that the remix is aimed at the youth market.

What do you want? All reviewers of art, books, music, theatre, film, etc to confine their critiques to beginners because all other practioners are "deserving of respect" and thus beyond criticism?

No one is saying the team who put this remix together are not competent - well I don't think they are - but rather that they made bad choices.

 

The remix is great. What’s not to like? This is what I like about it:

1. Centered drums
2. Vocals more up front and centered
3. You can hear each instrument clearly
4. Little to no panning
5. Drums nice and loud. You can hear Ringo’s playing more clearly.
6. The Beatles sound like a rock band and not a pop band.
7. Sounds modern. This will sound fresh for many years.

 

that's great... he must be doing well in managing his earnings...you should be proud.

 

Modern? The oldest bridge over the River Seine in Paris is called the Pont Neuf (the New Bridge). "Modern" is a very ephemeral thing.

This album was recorded in 1966/67, not 2017.

 

Serious question: How old are you?

 

I still have my 1987 CD of Sgt Pepper but I was curious and checked the availability of it on Discogs, I saw one in "Mint" condition for $7.99 plus $3.99 shipping.
What the heck, I ordered it.

50 years down and 50 years to go until the 2067 100 Year Anniversary

 

Awesome!
Thank You for taking the RANT hat from me, I feel much more calm now.......
I love the remix, especially on the picture disc edition.........Audio heaven.
Beave

 

What’s different sonically about the picture disc?

 

I don't need expensive audio-analyzing equipment, neither do I need the advice of a sound engineer to tell me what I should be listening to ~ I have two ears and a brain that work just fine for telling me what sounds good !

Nothing wrong with asking or checking around before spending money on a music purchase; just remember it's like asking someone where there is a good restaurant to eat at.

 

Somone on the street, or someone you know?

 

makes no difference; either way

 

bherbert said: ↑
I prefer the 2017 remix but that has more to do with the fact that it’s much heavier than the original stereo. The original stereo mix has a more relaxed vibe. More spacious and the music really breathes. Especially the 87 cd. I think it depends on what styles you prefer:
Pop Beatles or Rock Beatles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll take the psychedelic/groundbreaking/iconic/alive/dynamic sound of the original Sgt. Pepper's.

The 1967 original Sgt. Pepper's that definitely rocked more than Revolver.

And was plenty powerful...in its own way.

Without, unlike the remix, having to resort to using loudness like a blunt instrument.

To prove it rocks.

And, in the case of the remix, to mask a lack of art, intelligence, and finesse.

The original was WAY more than just pop, at least to informed hearts and minds. And to ears that were open to hearing...

And soon came the White Album.

Which rocks plenty.

But doesn't stop there...

You may have to turn up the volume of the original Sgt. Pepper's some.

To hear it really rock, in so many places.

But yet, even when the original Sgt. Pepper's volume is turned up loud, it still maintains the crucial variable dynamics.

The best of both worlds.

The original didn't sacrifice one (dynamics) to overemphasize the other (rock).

Unlike the remix's dependence on "rocking" the listener via compressed loudness.

The original also doesn't sacrifice the psychedelic, unlike the remix.

 

I would sure trust my wife's palate, or my best friend's, for certain types of food.

 

Serious question: why does it matter??

 

Does his opinion matter less to you if he was 21 versus 61?

Might want keep in mind that many of our own opinions on music were probably fleshed out in our teen years. Or should we distrust those as well and, if so, at what age does an opinion on musical taste actually have any weight in a discussion?

 

It does make a difference, surely.

 

Serious question: Why does it matter why it matters?

Inquiring minds, you know...

Trying to understand why someone views things in a certain way.

Why someone views the original Sgt. Pepper's as pop music.


Just trying to put the pieces together.

In the scheme of things, maybe it doesn't matter.

But age/generational sensibilities/experience...sometimes can be a factor...

Continually discounting the original Sgt. Pepper's as "pop music"...may make certain others wonder about age...whether someone is directly and personally aware of what was taking place in the Sixties and how Sgt. Pepper's in 1967 was so much more than "pop" music.

Calling the original Sgt. Pepper's "pop music", to some people, let's face it...is somewhat of a putdown.

There's nothing resembling pop music in A Day In The Life.

Or Within You Without You.

When Sgt. Pepper's came out, Rock music was viewed as Art...for the first time.

So...there's a questioning of seasoning...maturity...one's age...one's experience.

It's not a putdown...necessarily.

Which is more of a putdown: "Seriously, how old are you?"

Or continually stating that the original Sgt. Pepper's is a pop album?

Well, I guess it depends on which generation you come from.

To some extent...at least.

 

Who? The ones who "bleat"?

 

Because younger listeners are generally more accustomed to compressed sound quality on modern recording and are thus better able to accept it, while older listeners are often more demanding when it comes to expecting greater dynamic range.

As you say, respect is earned. People on this board generally like Steve's work and thus appreciate his perspective on these questions. On the other hand, a lot of people here (though certainly not everyone) do not like Giles Martin's work and thus are more likely to be skeptical of his pronouncements. Why should one automatically be respectful towards him if they do not enjoy the results?

 

Of course, veryone is very much entitled to that opinion but when that opinion is the expressed in such a way as to be insulting, that then IMO is overstepping the mark. To say this release is solely for a younger generation " kiddies " and not for true audiophiles, is equally deriding and insulting, and gives an air of self-superiority which looks to be in all intense purposes is very insulting to those involved in this release.

This pack mentality (to the point where professional in the business were either hounded off or removed or refuse to post ) on here is well documented on the WWW and is easily found with a quick search.

 

Crushed with the release.

 

I believe that Martin himself has said that he was aiming to make Pepper more modern sounding and appealing to a younger audience, didn't he? If this was the intent, how is it insulting to reiterate this?

 

Why do I get the feeling that we're dealing with the newest incarnation "Sgt Pepper" here? It wouldn't be the first time he tried to play sock puppet.

 

Seems to be case of young/old members here preferring the 2017 over the 1967 mix and some older members who prefer the George Martin/ Geoff Emerick original version, original concept..Beatles were present ( at least for the mono) at the mix.