POLL:Should the Beatles’ stereo albums have been remixed in 2009?

The idea for this thread came from this very good article:

theatre of noise: The Beatles Remasters: Changing History

The author gives his thoughts on the 2009 remasters. Here are some of my thoughts which were influenced by the article:

1. The 2009 stereo remasters were an improvement in clarity. However, limiting was used to make them sound more modern in order to suit modern sensibilities. This changed the music. Apple Corps should have just been honest and remixed the albums to fit modern sensibilities and expectations. Modern sounding remasters were a half way measure.

2. There would have been more engineers involved in the remixes. More input and opinions. Paul Hicks, Guy Massey and Steve Rooke would be involved and Peter Cobbin might have given input as well. It would have been a group effort.

3. The engineers would have been very cautious about using too much limiting and compression. If they did use it, it would have been used very sparingly and not pushed to the limit.

4. In 2009 streaming was not at it’s peak yet. It would have been a perfect time to sell a remixed catalogue because they would likely have sold more boxes. A lot of Beatles fans possibly didn’t buy the stereo box because they had the 1987 cd’s already.

 

Shame they're not following #3 with the remixes of Peppers (and Imagine even tho different guys), hopefully The Beatles next month will buck the trend and be mastered with dynamics fully intact.

 

No.

But, personally, I would love modern remixes as a separate release. My thought would be a big, chronological box with just everything dumped in it without consideration of single/album... etc.

That way the fans that care can get everything in a big dump. Then, they could siphon off material for compilation releases, like "1" or the red and blue sets, for more casual fans.

But, I would also label all releases using "modern" remixes as such so "people who care" can make sure to get the mix they want.

 

When I heard the remixes on the Anthology dvd’s I realized that Abbey Road’s engineers could indeed make audiophile quality remixes of the Beatles catalogue.

 

There was enough space on CD for the original stereo and a 2009 remix but they never would have gone for that

 

I really hope so. It’s always been my dream to own all the Beatles albums in remixed form. So far, the remixes have been good but spoiled by the use of too much compression.

 

You want "modern"? That's "modern."

 

I heard the remix of "Sgt. Pepper/With A Little Help..." on a oldies station & I hated it. Everything sounds "too forward " & compressed for my taste.

 

Voted "no" because we did need a digital update on the original stereo mixes. The remixes could be saved for later. I know Giles is already prepping 50th anniversary Abbey Road and Let It Be, and will soon be working on 55th anniversary Revolver and 60th anniversary PPM and WTB.

 

If the original continues available, why not?

 

For years I've felt that the Beatles music-most, if not all of it- would come to us remixed. I think, in general, the 09's offer the best sound-digitally-of the original mixes...that's just my opinion...so that said, I'm glad they "happened". The remixing has now begun in earnest and I believe that no album (certainly from Rubber Soul onward) will be left unturned. So in the end of it all, we'll have 'everything" if we're each alive long enough to see (hear) it.

 

yes, very important point. The remixes must always be considered "additions"/alternates to the originals...never replacements. While this many indeed happen in the future, I don't think it'll be in our lifetimes.

 

No. What we need are the original stereo mixes on vinyl mastered from the original analog tapes (AAA).

 

It depends on who is doing the remixing. My remixed Jethro Tull cd’s sound crystal clear and modern but are not compressed.

 

The 2009 catalog was a marketing jip. The lead up to its releases, was a lot of misinformation about whether it been remastered or remixed. It was nothing more than remasters with the bass goosed up a tiny bit.

None of the mono albums could be purchased individually and when I picked up Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour from the 2009 batch, it sounded like a waste of money.

Since that time the 2014 US Capitols have been a much better value and the remainder I've stuck to the 1987 cuts.

 

1. If I recall correctly, remixes were made for the majority of the albums in 2009, and Sgt. Pepper’s was already remixed by Geoff Emerick in 1998. Not 100% sure on this information, but I have heard it on these forums before; so take that for what you will.

2. There is already a wide variety of Beatles material that has been remixed and released technically from the sixties onwards.

3. Limiting is not changing the mix. It is just a mastering process.

 

It'll happen eventually. Wouldn't be shocked if some of the work is already done and they're just padding out the time between the 2012 release.

As for the poll question, nah. The music is 50 years old and has already been released plenty of ways; this is just 1 more way of being able to re-release it multiple times. Most people have absolutely no idea what the terms remaster and remix mean and the ones who do would probably buy both versions. Why do it all in 1 when you can release it twice.

 

Kinda late for this to happen

 

I'm not a big fan of remixing the Beatles albums either and I'm not really happy with the way they remixed Sgt. Pepper. It's loud and in my opinion inferior to the original stereo mix.

 

...being totally honest here...based on everything I read and heard at the time, not once did I think the '09's were going to be remixes. In addition, it wasn't just a matter of bass-increase...in fact in some cases-Old Brown Shoe being a prime example-the low end, overall, sounded more well rounded, texturally (not as boomy as on the original master).

 

A resounding YES. Here is an Amazon review of the 2009 Beatles remasters (mono and stereo). The reviewer sums up my thoughts perfectly.

Lord Robert

A Rock n Roll Swindle

Posted 9 September 2009

“Don't you think that this is a massive con. I was gutted to find out that these re-issues are simply lifted from the stereo and mono masters. Rather than going back to the original source tapes of the actual recordings and mixing them from scratch (see The Byrds, Who re-issues). People complain about the CD re-issues of the 80's, but I assume these are the same, with a heavier bass. Surely Apple should admit a large bulk of these recordings (mid-period in particular) were mixed badly in the first place. They were mixed on the assumption that they would be played on small mono box record players or for those with more cash on early stereo equipment which be demonstrate the width of stereo by putting vocals and drums often on one channel !.”

“So I can still look forward to vocals far too high in the mix and the drums and bass in the distance somewhere. Or the awful stereo mix of Rubber Soul and Help.”

“Hundreds of hours of pointless remastering and the only thing they got right was the Yellow Submarine Songtrack”

“5 stars for the music - none for Apple”

Amazon.co.uk review

 

I've got no proof to support my contentions but I think the work done in preparing tracks for Rockband was also serving the purpose of preparing "early draft"remixes of key Beatles material. It could be argued that a sizable chunk of Beatles tracks were remixed and released in 2009 when Rockband came out.

 

That's fantastic and all but this is a thread about the 2009 remasters. Do you dislike those as well? Should they have been made?

I like the 2009 remasters better than the 1987 CDs but neither sound that great since we are talking about the greatest poo music ever laid down. Glad the 2009 remasters were made though.

 

I can imagine how the conversation went at Apple Corps in 2005:

Jeff Jones: The catalogue has not been touched in 20 years. We need to update the packaging and sound.

Paul: Sounds good to me. There’s a new boat I wanna buy LOL.

Ringo: Ok. If we have to. Let’s not exploit the fans though.

Yoko: Ok. We should update the sound. I think John would want that.

Olivia: Ok.

Jeff Jones: We should remaster the stereo and mono albums. The mono and stereo albums will be released as separate boxes.

Paul: That’s why we hired you. We’re gonna make a killing!

Ringo: Why not put the mono and stereo mixes on on disc? Why make the fans pay twice?

Yoko: Should we not remix the albums? Look how good John’s albums sounded after Peter remixed them.

Olivia: Ok.

Jeff: I hear what you’re saying Yoko. However, my job is to make as much money as possible for you guys. We’ll worry about remixes in 10 years. For now, let’s extract as much money as we can from the boomers. They’re gonna buy these boxes. That’s for certain.

Paul: Exactly. By the way. What’s the difference between a remaster and a remix?

Ringo: Alright Jeff.

Yoko: Ok. Why cd though? SACD? Blu-Ray audio anyone?

Olivia: Ok.

Jeff Jones: Beatles fans are old school. Let’s give them cd. It will save us a lot of money. Alright, so we’ve made a decision. We’re not gonna give the fans value for money. We’re not gonna remix the albums for another 10 years. Let’s first bleed the boomers dry and then we’ll remix the albums and sell them in very expensive box sets. I know remixing makes the most sense but let’s make these suckers re-buy the same thing over and over again.

Paul: Jeff, you’re a genius. We’re gonna make so much money!

Ringo: I was thinking of buying another house in LA.

Yoko: Ok.

Olivia: Ok.

 

It’s 2009 and Giles and Sam Okell are chatting over a cup of tea at Abbey Road.

Sam: We’ve started remastering the stereo albums. Probably gonna take a few months.

Giles: What’s the approach?

Sam: Boost the bass and make everything louder.

Giles: Why not remix the stereo albums?

Sam: I know right. The Love remixes you and your dad did sounded incredible. So much better than the original stereo mixes.

Giles: Maybe we’ll remix them one day. Then the true tapes will be revealed. I’ll chat to the inner circle. Maybe we can remix them one day.