Giles Martin: Update the Beatles

Yes, it's called a 5.1 remix, or a 2018 mix & master.

Don't get too caught up in what they call it. It's just a name. You'll always know the difference, I know you will.

 

Let It Bleed is a great sounding album; the overall sound Stones records took a flying leap with Beggar's Banquet, IMO.

 

Jimmy Miller the 6th Stone

 

Good post although we disagree on a couple of points.

Does anyone know of any interviews with Giles Martin in which the negative responses to his Pepper mix are addressed? I can't help but wonder if in reading any of these, he took a step back and thought, "maybe I *did* go over the top here and there" leading him to take a different approach towards The White Album.

 

Except it was never really that way. Sessions "I Want You" started just weeks after the Get Back project stopped. And after a planned month off, marriages and busts and all that, sessions resumed, re ording Oh Darling, Octopus's Garden, Something, You Never Give Me Your Money and more work on I Want You.. plus the rush-released single Ballad of John & Yoko/Old Brown Shoe. So, there was no rush to put on a happy face. The sessions went on for quite some time... about as long as "Pepper". As with the WA, George Martin did not produce every session... Chris Thomas was involved for most of the Spring '69 sessions. Ron

 

the only thing I can think of when asked about reading comments on the innerwebs about the Pepper's 50th he said no because he would go mad if he did

 

Wasn't if funny back in the day when you'd get an album as a Christmas or birthday present? Can't exactly wrap an album without giving away it's an album, it would be like wrapping a baseball bat
I did trick my sister one year: I bought her a Macy's gift certificate (this was before gift cards, youngsters) and I took some poster board and cut it into the shape of an album and put the cert inside. She kept picking it up before Christmas sarcastically saying "gee i wonder what this is...". She was quite shocked when it came time to open it! Funny.

anyway, back to all things WA...

 

I don't think the lyrics or the supposed meaning of them is for kids even though John and Paul may be referencing the Nursery Rhyme at times. Of course they originally were also making a political statement or conveying a warning.

 

IMO, there's nothing wrong with "moving" instruments around in the soundstage to "modernize" the sound (drums center back, ferchristsake!) as long as they don't *change* the instrumentation (Hey, Beatle-fans, I added a drum-loop to Norwegian Wood and it sounds so 21st century!)

And, man, that term "slippery slope" is sure over-used and used for the silliest of contexts these days. It's not like "modernizing" these songs will lead to people being allowed to marry cats. You're being a bit over-dramatic about it.

 

My only complaint with the Pepper mix is I miss Lennon's swooping "ahhhhhs" in "A Day In The Life"

Otherwise I think it's spot on.

What are other complaints?

 

He is in the clear, he stated several times, that if (70+ years old "it sounds like we are in a room") Paul and Ringo, as well as George and John's estates didn't like something, he would not be doing that job and the release would not happen.

And by the looks of it, majority of casual listeners and non-hardcore Beatles fans response to the remix was positive.

 

I miss them on every mix.

(it's Paul)

 

Oh, duh... yeah it is. My bad.

Guess I need to turn in my fan-boy card now.

 

While I think it's a great alternate "listening experience" and brings out many very cool aspects of the album that weren't as apparent in the original, I don't consider it "definitive" in terms of ever replacing the original. To be totally honest, I don't hear it as definitive even in terms *of* a remix. I feel Giles went a bit "too much" in a few areas in attempt to make it sound "heavy". As I've said elsewhere, what Peter Cobbin did with the Pepper tracks on Yellow Submarine Songtrack, is more what I was looking for.

 

The 6th Stone was Ian Stewart. Miller might be the 7th.

 

Personally there are some things I like in the Pepper remix, and some that I don't. As for being definitive mix, even the promo campaign kept repeating that the definitive mix was 1967 mono. I am not sure if it's going to replace the original mono and stereo mixes.

Yes in some areas he went too much, but in other areas went too little (not really following exactly to all the mono mix properties and decisions etc). And the Songtrack was apparently criticized for compression too.

My point was that he probably listens more to ex-Beatles and their estates opinions than minority that has a gripe or two with this new remix. Who knows, maybe he did make 1+ and Pepper 50 not so loud but then Paul came in and said hey that's not loud enough, it doesnt sound like we are in a room playing!

 

..anything's possible. I'm pretty happy with about 75% of the "1" remixes. What I can't understand is some of the seeming carelessness...like that delayed piano chord in BOJAY; the actual distortion in parts of Let It Be and Something. That aside, ideally, it would have been great if Giles and Emerick worked on these remixes together. While the former-I feel-does have somewhat of a flair for doing these remix "things", the latter would have helped a long way in maintaining the integrity of the originals.

 

Ah, you just reminded me of that! Also, I remembered Eight Days a Week outro.

Yeah, a couple of people being around for balance of decisions and better QA couldn't hurt. But Emerick, I am not so sure. There was that video and he said that original mix (and mono one, at that too) is the definitive version because they were going and looking for sound textures, the same old stories that they wanted piano not to sound like piano, etc. And to remix is like repainting a Mona Lisa. But maybe he is just bummed out that he is not a participant of such remixing projects, that's why he is sort of "passively opposing". Then again, his mixes for the cancelled "Sessions" album that later were recycled in Anthology 1 are something and a half, and were (and still are) heavily criticized. And he wasn't engineering all their albums anyway.

 

Hmmm. I actually like the early Stones production. Oldham is underrated. And the stuff they did at chess...wow.

 

giles is working heavily on destroying that integrity...

 

Because it can and should sound better than the recording from 1968.

 

I actually created a hybrid of the 1st 3 Pepper songs from Yellow Sub Songtrack (EU vinyl) and the 2017 Pepper mix (also vinyl), just to hear if that works better for me. Spoiler alert: it does!
Still don't love some of the panning choices, particularly the non-centered bass and drums, but I don't hate it any more either.

 

This is always my go-to position, whether it's Abbey Road with a drun-n'-bass mix, or Citizen Kaine having a sled with a bright red rose on it. Painting a mustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa is a far cry from painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. And if the artwork in question is significant enough historically, or important enough pereceptually to have an effect on the population, there's probably no corporate entity that will have the reason, success or wherwithal to just "slip" an altered version in there without comment and repraisal. The public would then have to face the knowlege of the alteration, and adopt an opinion that the improvement was worthwhile...based on their own ignorance...as well as the strident, shrill protests of publically-accepted "experts", giving the replaced artwork no chance to be experienced without the public being aware they're seeing a fake. The market forces alone will protect the original from losing its' significance.

 

Meanwhile, let's just see how earth-shattering the new, "improved" version of DeeJay Pee-Sime's new joint Graceland changes the music world, now that it's dropped...

 

At least on Ringo's vocal tracks