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

I prefer all of the releases.

 

Pop music was being considered art years before Pepper

Some younger people fit in the latter category also, we've talked about it here. This is about musical preference not age

 

Giles Martin seems to have started the name calling by creating/inventing the following straw man: "The socks and sandals" crowd.

He rolled out this line more than once, in more than one interview, when talking about the remix.

And when putting down people who he viewed as critics...or potential critics.

I'd rather he deal with people's direct criticism of his past work...or what he thought would be the criticism of this remix...rather than resort to labeling critics as the "socks and sandals" crowd.

Perhaps it's easier to be dismissive with one liners.

Than it is to directly address people's valid criticisms.

Also, he was not just addressing people's criticisms by continually rolling out the "socks and sandals" one liner.

He was also involved in summarily putting down some people's passion for mono, if I'm remembering correctly.

Giles may wear socks with sandals behind closed doors, I don't know.

A closet "socks and sandals" kind of dude, perhaps.

Really, I don't know and I don't care whether he wears socks with his sandals.

Or nylon socks.

With his wingtips.

Or whatever.

Sorry, I miss Sir George Martin and what he brought to the Beatles.

He didn't pop out of nowhere and suddenly begin working with the Beatles.

 

Let's go back in time for a moment....

When I was a youngster, singles were still generally cut hot because the record companies wanted to get your attention on those. As well as how radio stations compressed songs as well. So this isn't really a modern thing, unless you mean modern = the last 50 years or so.

Fast forward to today and not only do you have modern artists brickwalling their new albums, but the older artists are doing the same thing (new and remasters both). Using your logic, any artist over the age of say 50, and assuming their demographics is still in that older range, would be more likely to cater to a demanding older listening base and keep things much more dynamic.

But that doesn't happen. The reason why imo is because most of the older audience cares about as much about dynamic range as the younger audience does (which is little to none). Perhaps you have more "golden ear" audiophiles who are older versus younger but that is still a niche audience.

 

33

 

If he did say this it was obviously received by said critics as tongue in cheek, as all the reviews I have read have loved the remix.

 

Please re-read my exact statement: "When Sgt. Pepper's came out, Rock music was viewed as Art...for the first time."

 

The misconception here is that it shouldn’t be stereo remix vs original stereo vs original mono. Each one has something to offer and is worthy of enjoyment. No side should fell like they have to be in a position to pick and choose. No one should feel like it’s blasphemous to prefer one over the other.

The remix is not a case of “painting over the Mona Lisa” nor is preferring it an insult to Geoff Emerick and George Martin. Also, criticizing a vintage mix shouldn’t be viewed as blasphemous or as a personal attack on those who created the original mix. We can’t have that while at the same time thinking it’s ok to do it toward those who remixed it. That’s hypocritical.

The remix isn’t going to replace any other mix and we can choose what mix of each song we want to listen to. We should be so lucky to have multiple versions to choose from. Some are acting like the very existence of the remix is offensive and is keeping them from enjoying the album. Listen to the other mixes and move on. Same for those preferring the remix. Enjoy it and move on.

 

Tongue in cheek.

Next time I insult someone, I'll just say that it was "tongue in cheek".

I could easily come up with a one liner to describe Giles Martin.

Easily.

And then if people took offense or started to defend him, I'd say that my one liner about Giles, the one liner I keep using to sum up Giles Martin...was "tongue in cheek".

It was just Giles being Giles, of course.

Who wouldn't feel insecure and defensive...if they were in his position?

 

Tristero, you very well know the snide comment saying it was for the “kiddies” was insulting.

 

It’s not just the remix which rocks. The original mono mix rocks just as hard. IMO the original stereo mix has all the power sucked out of it because of the hard panning. The drums are especially weakened by the panning as well.

I must say though that Sgt Pepper was never one of my favourite Beatles albums. I’ve always preferred Revolver and everything before it. IMO the Beatles peaked in 1966. The reason I call the stereo mixes pop music is because they are much tamer and more relaxed than the mono mixes. I prefer the mono mixes because they just rock a lot more.

 

Tell that to Pete Townshend

 

It's the difference between saying "I want the kids to buy it" and "I'm sure the kiddies will buy it". The former is fair enough, the latter is what's been said in this thread and is a deliberate insult.

 

I'm not sensing that at all. The remix can be rightfully criticized and not be immune from criticism...and can actually make someone appreciate and enjoy the original iconic 1967 album even more.

 

There is a difference between using the words ‘young people’ and ‘kiddies’. The latter is definitely meant in a derogatory manner.

 

Please tell me more about this and which album you're referring to? I just know how the "adult" media, beyond the youth culture media...the so called serious media...reacted to Sgt. Pepper's. I'm not saying their opinion is more important than someone else's...but there's definitely documentation on what Sgt. Pepper's meant in terms of concept albums and in terms of the culture as a whole.

 

Yes. Some people like pure rock and some people like more than just pure rock.

 

I love the remix just as I love the mono one. Like someone already said we're lucky to even have a choice. I never listen to the original stereo mix (at least not on headphones) so to have a proper stereo mix done based on the mono one is excellent. Very pleased it happened and I HOPE the rest of the catalogue is going to get a similar treatment where possible. Still need to get myself the remixed 1 album either way.

 

Not a specific album but rock music as "auto-destructive art" you can read Pete's auto biography or the many interviews he's given about stage performance and the group's musical re-enactment of that spectacle in their studio recordings going back to 1964. He was consciously aware of the artistic practice of what they were doing with rock/pop, even if the audience or critics were not

Later, the band's manager deliberately courted a reviewer & photographer from the Daily Mail newspaper to review the band's auto-destructive performance, and write about it in serious critical fashion, but I can't recall their reaction was now... I think they were too busy drinking in the venue's bar to see much of it

 

I wouldn't disagree but it wasn't Giles' directed mission to create a version of the album with compression on CD and on DVD/Blu-ray. I haven't heard the LP version but, given that the LP would be able to handle less compression than the CD/DVD/Blu-ray, it makes sense (if there's a perception that audiophiles will automatically gravitate towards vinyl, then it also makes sense in a way). Giles wanted to create something that had the impact of the mono but in stereo and he achieved that for the most part, anything else that they asked him to do would be just part of what he was paid to do. If Giles didn't do it, someone else would and they might make it even worse and the Martin name has value. Is it the right thing to do? It's all commerce to EMI.

I'm sure that the mission was also to create something that had elements that would make it sound more contemporary than it sounded. It's a mixed mission and message one supposes.

 

I disagree. Virtually all new recordings aimed at younger audiences are distorted and compressed these days, some extremely so--it's very rare when we see DR in the double digits. I'd estimate that DR6 is roughly the average. It's almost unheard of to see anything up above DR9. You are far more likely to see better dynamic range with a remastering of an older release, though obviously results can vary depending on the engineer and the band. In my experiences, the cases where you're less likely to see good DR on a vintage band tend to be the big name bands like the Stones and the Beatles who are intentionally trying to stay modern for younger audiences. To me, this reinforces the notion that most younger listeners aren't overly concerned about dynamic range, while older listeners are more likely to be.

 

Sorry, you lost me about half way. When was I talking about Sgt. Pepper being art or pop? Quite frankly, who cares?

 

This is almost certainly the case, which tends to confirm Tristero's point: "older listeners are often more demanding when it comes to expecting greater dynamic range".

Again, this is primarily a matter of personal preference, but if respect should be shown for one type (non-audiophile) of listener's personal preference, it should also be shown for the other type's (audiophile).

 

I thought you were referring to Tommy. I have to go somewhere right now...but I think Tommy came out after Sgt. Pepper's. I was talking about which rock album was first viewed as Art...in a way that transcended generations and cultures. Something more universal in nature.

I don't at all dispute what you are saying about Pete and the Who's stage performance: there was plenty of theater going on.

And some of their earliest work is quite sophisticated.

Even as they could rock harder than anyone...for a time.

I'm not putting down the Who.

In some ways the Who was working in different territory, so to speak...compared to the Beatles.

 

I care and I did need to address the age issue. That your post, that I was replying to, was addressing.

Granted, I extended my remarks...

If you don't care, that's fine.