Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by JonUrban, Mar 12, 2003.
Great News - maybe.
I would love to hear it, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Exciting news, but I too will believe it when I see it.
Wow. If it were to happen and the disc were well received, I think I'd have to give serious thought at that point to selling off my SACD player and getting a good universal one.
But given Apple's remastering track record, I'm not confident the results would impress.
And I too will believe it when I see it ...
Interesting. But first question I thought of:
Why Elliot Scheiner instead of Peter Cobbin (who did the multichannel mix for Yellow Submarine)?
On the dreaded DVD-A vs SACD topic:
While I'm not surprised that multichannel mixes are probably going to happen, its just too premature to say it'll be DVD-A. Especially since Dark Side originally was rumored as a DVD-A but became a SACD (presumably with Sony's influence). I'm sure Sony is campaigning hard for Beatles on SACD. And don't forget that Sony co-owns the Beatles publishing rights. I would think that gives Sony plenty to bargain with.
With half the publishing rights and a botload of cash, Sony has a lot of influence to either get The Beatles on SACD or block any DVD-A release outright I think.
The publishing rights have nothing to do with the masters. Additionally any chip the rights may have is being held up by Jacko and his crazy law suit against Sony.
With all Sony's cash, you'd think they'd tend to their own house first and release more of their catalogue on SACD. Dylan is great, but there are titles that would sell far better for them if they put their might towards it.
My understanding is the the publishing rights don't give you a hell of a lot of power other than scooping up royalties. If somebody wanted to use Beatles song in a movie or TV show or something, then the publisher has a lot of power...
Would it be cheaper for Sony to just buy EMI???
Why block a DVD-A??? Why not a dual release... or is that too much for the SACD campers to accept...Unbelievable.....
I would think if they can say yes or no to a song being used in a movie or commercial, they also could block a re-release, or re-mixing onto any new format. Or at least, they could tie it up in the courts for a while. Perhaps there is someone versed in entertainment law hear that may be able to clarify this? Or perhaps Steve may have some useful knowledge concerning this?
Unfortunately, business doesn't work that way. That is why it is called a foormat 'war'. And all is fair, etc.
The publishing rights have absolutely nothing to do with the original recordings. Those EMI owns and can do what they want with. If you want a Beatles recording in a commercial or a movie, EMI and the surviving Beatles have to OK it. They can do as they see fit when it comes to the original recordings.
Not being an expert on the subject, I believe Gabe is 100% correct. EMI owns the copyright on the sound recordings and they can release it how they please. Using the actual composition (not the original copyrighted sound performance) in a television commercial or motion picture is where the publishing rights come into play. If someone wanted to use the original Beatle performance in their commercial or movie, then both EMI and Sony would have to clear it.
I know that Sony does not have any say in what EMI (Apple) releases but -
My question is this: Could Sony use their publishing rights' royalty rates as a bargaining chip?
All I can say is, if they are going to mix The Beatles for 5.1, I would prefer to see almost anyone but Elliot Scheiner do the mix. Scheiner is one of the biggest proponents of gimicky 5.1 mixes, and is on record as saying he believes in having instuments and voices coming from all over the place. Scheiner's work on Night at the Opera is a good example. A great disc for those who like radical 5.1, but it bears little resemblance to the original. Even SOUND AND VISION (which never criticizes ANYTHING) trashed it.
My thoughts exactly. Offering the publishing rights as incentive to release the catalog in the SACD format. I'm sure that would get the attention of a few heads at EMI/Apple. I'll bet Sir Paul and Yoko would be interested in hearing that offer....
Now that the cat is out of the bag....
I've known about this for awhile. I have a contact at EMI who has shared some of the things going on over there. The entire Beatles Catalog was supposed to be remastered a couple of years ago, then the surround formats came out. It was then decided to wait a bit and remaster for surround as well as hi res stereo. 5.1 was a must from the start, which meant DVD-A. (yea, I KNOW SACD does it too)
THEN, the hybrid SACD/Redbook came out. Now that Hybrid DVD-A / Redbook is here, my feeling is:
THe Beatles LP output remastered on one DVD-A / Redbook disk containing
Normal 16 bit Redbook layer Stereo
Hi Res stereo Layer
5.1 DVD-A layer
5.1 Dolby Layer
I do NOT think that we're going to get mono versions of anything after With The Beatles.
I also think that EMI is going to somehow give us the stereo versions of PPM and WTB , along with the mono. Perhaps these will not have the 5.1 layer because they are two track, altho, they *could* do a surround mix with the vocals across the front channels and the music tracks across the back chanles. I heard a homemade 5.1 track of "I Saw Her Standing There" done this way and it was very very good.
As far as Abbey Road goes, it should sound Terriffic in 5.1
Start buying those new surround systems, you SACD heads!!!
Hasn't ANYBODY ever actually LISTENED to the Beatles' stereo mixes, like, say, Abbey Road? The Beatles were the #1 proponents of "having instruments and voices coming from all over the place". Mixes like Sun King, Here Comes The Sun and You Never Give Me Your Money are TOTAL pan-fests. The ONLY time they went for a natural in-studio ambiance was on the aborted Get Back LP. IMHO, ONLY an aggressive 5.1 mix would do The Beatles intentions justice & Scheiner is the best 5.1 mixer out there. His Gaucho mix, for one, is a masterpiece.
Am I the only person who thinks that formats should survive based on their own merits, and not bribery?
I guess we could have had Beta instead of VHS, CED instead of Laserdisc, and DivX instead of DVD if the right companies had the foresight and resources to bribe third parties.
I'm not saying that SACD is an inferior format. But is it so weak that it needs bribery to support it?
Larry, I could not have said it any better!!
apparantly, many folks here are stuck in a time warp and have never listened to the stereo Sgt Pepper, ANOTHER mix where instruments are flying all over the place. The Beatles, especially John Lennon thought that was an amazing mix. So do I.
Even Ringo said, and I quote "Surround Sound is quite amazing............... If 5.1 had been available in 1967 we would have used it"!!
There is definitely room on DVD-A to include the original mono.
Why not include both? One cannot deny that much effort was put into the mono mixes and that for many people those were the original recordings.
I don't have to be opposed to the stereo mixes to think that both mixes should be available.
Luckily I'm prepared for either format right now
Bring em on! It would be Beatlefest day here in Massapequa.
JohnG (hoping and a wishing)
Do you think John would have used 5.1 for Revolution #9???
It is not "bribery" to alleviate the costs of implementing new product introductions...companies do it all the time. Sony is smart for doing this and it is clearly working.
Also, Warner has done the same on DVDAs I have been told by industry sources. It is the norm to have recording equipment "donated" on these types of albums...this is an industry that still offers payola for playing certain hits after all.
Separate names with a comma.