Beatles Downloads - Another clue for you all?

Should be:

"An Apple a day keeps Dr. Ebbets away."

 

I disagree with it being non news. This is the closest thing we've come yet to an official announcement in my eyes.
Just say EMI/Apple had everything in place for an announcement detailing the magic date when Beatles remasters would be available commercially for download, with a bunch of vendors embargoed until straight after the announcement was made. Then some over zealous web developer at one of said vendors inadvertantly sticks the press release on their live site 5 days early. Of course EMI would be right in there denying everything.
Remember that Wippit are a bona fide music site with a lot of other EMI artists songs available for download currently. They would surely have to know what was going on before us mere mortals wouldn't they?

I know for most people here the downloads won't mean much, but it's almost guaranteed they'll come out before the physical remasters, and I for one will be taking great interest in them, as they'll be a 'pointer' to how the remasters are going to sound, especially with regard to things like: are the 1st 6 albums going to be available in their original stereo configurations etc.

Chris

 

Should be this:

"An Apple a day keeps Dr. Smith away..(oh, the pain)

 

Breaking up the albums for the "Beatlefans-to-be" would be a great disservice to them IMO.

Peace Love and You Know my Name (Look up the Album)
Marky

 

Chris, with all due respect, how do you interpret this as anything close to official Back in January, many legitimate websites and online music companies were annoucing an imminent release of the remastered downloads, citing inside sources at Apple. Even my own sources at EMI indicated that the remastered CDs were only a month or two away from being released... but things change in this business. I'd be shocked if the author of this story got a direct quote from someone at Apple... considering Aspinall is on vacation until the end of the month. Before he left, he did say, on the record, that Apple Inc. had no exclusivity clause, so I don't think there's any REAL news in the article. Time will tell. Ron

 

Ron, Chris is referring to the fact that Wippit had a link on their site to a press release (dated 14th March), regarding Beatles downloads, and not to an article in the press. This could be read as meaning that someone at Wippit has info., but has spoken out of turn, so to speak. We'll see what tomorrow brings. Or. Not.

 

Ron,
I know where you're coming from and I know you'll probably hear the real deal before any of us.

All I'm trying to say is this is a new slant on things. This time it's not some hack trying to make a story out of half truths and gossip. This time it's a UK music download site fed by a lot of the major labels including EMI, posting prematurely and then at EMI's request removing what has been taken to be a press release which would almost certainly be sourced from something official.

Yes, it could be false for a number of reasons eg, publicity (they've got that), but why risk the wrath of one of their possibly biggest customers, especially with regard to an act that could be a big cash cow for them (and any other download site Apple/EMI choose to deal with)?

In the end it's all down to one's opinion but I'd tend to go with the take that there has to be some element of authenticity in what they've posted and subsequently pulled, even if, as you briefly mentioned, it was in regard to say something as simple as a release schedule that's already been pushed back.

Whatever happens, it's all gonna kick off pretty soon and all of us Beatle freaks are getting mighty twitchy waiting for it to happen, that's for sure!!

Chris

 

This is exactly the problem.

None of us here should reasonably give a da*n about pending re-issues
because it is almost a certainty that they will sound WORSE than
what's already available.

 

I hear ya. Remember though, that things do change. Amazon UK had the the next two Monkees Deluxe sets listed... I think 14 March as well. One would assume they got this release date directly from Rhino, but it's not known if this was the case. It's possible, that the information was correct, but i'd be surprised if it was. That being said, NOTHING much would surprise me when it comes to Neil Aspinal. But it would be rather shocking if the downloads became available with NO advanced notice and with Aspinall on vacation. 'Nothing is real....' Ron

 

Why Ron

 

I know ... I was just countering your anti-download scorn...

 

Should be:

"An Apple (Corps) a day keeps Dr. Ebbets in business."

 

Hi Mal.

 

Is it not "a corpse a day keeps Apple away"?
Just my 2 cents

 

......and so all has been revealed.

Wippit ARE making available Beatles downloads, but just not the type we were expecting........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6447627.stm

Chris

 

hehe...didnt see that coming, ha?

And another Beatles remasters thread dies a silent death.

 

Did the 1962-66 and 1967-70 discs sound better than the material that preceded them?

Did the Yellow Sub Songtrack disc sound better than the material that preceded it?

Did the Beatles One disc sound better than the material that preceded it?

Did the Let It Be Naked disc sound better than the material that preceded it?

I rest my case!

 

It makes no difference to me if the old cd's still sell well. The Beatles need a tuneup as far as cd reissues go. How could a group like the Monkees have 2 or 3 reissues in the time of the Beatles first releases on cd. In fact, I'd like to hear brand new mixes of all their old stuff. Pete Townshend did it, why can't Paul do it. The new Who mixes sound brilliant. The old copies are so widely distributed, who needs the same version. It's there. Give us something new.

 

Never heard the expression "once bitten twice shy"?

Or, as George W would say:

"..fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again..."

 

We're taking over the world

 

In some cases, YES. Some songs sound better on the Red and Blue albums... some noticably do not.

Yellow Submarine Songtrack is REMIXED. You can't compare the like songs. That being said, many of the songs are significantly better-sounding than their previous mixes, and once again, some are worse.

1 is a horrible sounding CD. There was no reason for the mastering to be so poor. I concede this one to you. Thankfully Peter Mew, who remastered 1 is not remastering the catalog this time. If he was, I'd be very inclined to side with you.

Let It Be...Naked is also a remixed album. In some cases, different takes or combined takes of songs, comprise the album. One can't compare apple to oranges.

My contention all along has been that the standard album catalog has never been remastered before so there is no comparitive basis to determine whether the remasters will be better or worse. When the Singles and EP boxsets were remastered they indeed sounded better than the songs on the official CDs. Most of the songs aren't on the albums, but some are, and they all sound better on these sets. They also used a properly-calibrated deck when transferring the mono mixes, except for the first 2 singles and the respective B-sides. I also think things are different at EMI now. There was no rush to get these out this time. That's one excuse used by those involved in 1987. Believing they will not sound as good as the 1987 CDs seems shortsighted to me. But of course, you are welcome to share your opinion too. Ron

 

But you didn't mention "LOVE". Is it because it hurts your case? Yes, it's an album of remixes and general messing about, but then so is "Let It Be Naked". The 5.1 mix of LOVE on the DVD sounds good, even if the CD is overly limited. And the new "Living In The Material World" remaster, which was done at Abbey Road and is certainly "Beatles related" sounds mighty fine. Plus most of the 1962-66 and 1967-70 discs DO sound better - there are a couple of anomalies on 1962-66 disc, but a lot of the 1967-70 disc sounds v. good indeed. And then there's the Anthology DVD which sounds great.

I say the jury is out on this one.

One thing is for sure - it would be hard to make the first 4 albums sound worse than they did on the 1987 CDs!

[EDIT: I notice that Ron posted while I was composing this post. I would have written a slightly different post if I'd read his first!]

 

No need, it was a well-written post My only reason for not comparing remixes and remasters is that they are very different. But yes Love sounds very good, even better on the DVD-A. And you are absolutely correct about the remaster of LITMW, it sounds wonderful, and the same crew is working on the remasters. Ron

 

Ron,

It appears that no matter what anyone says about the upcoming remasters.........there are people who just believe that they can't sound anything but WORSE than things are now. It amazes me that anyone can say that for a fact, when they haven't heard a single note. I guess they just assume that because of the past, the future will be exactly the same (or worse)............

I am more than content to wait and see what happens. If it exceeds expectations..............GREAT. If it doesn't..........oh well. Hopefully, EMI has been listening, and paying attention.

Optimistic here..............