The Beatles 1 and 1+

One edit piece take for the outro. The intro edit piece was not used.

 

Yes, but if the left channel ending is the same on both versions (1964 stereo / 2015 stereo remix), then Giles can't have used the original ending (unless he mixed-and-matched between takes).

 

Yes. One edit piece take (15) plus the full song (13) = 2 takes of the ending.

 

It'll confuse people calling it a "take". It's on overdub onto the edit piece take which is maybe a 10 second long piece of 4-track

 

Yes, that was my original suggestion as a possibility a few posts up and many post way back. We maybe hearing the original ending (at least in the left channel).

 

Don't really know (haven't studied it, don't particularly care to), but was just clarifying that in theory (assuming the ending on take 13 was complete) 2 takes of the ending exist.

 

Yes, but I can only conclude (for now) that there must have been two overdub attempts onto the 4-track (there probably would have been an extra track available as this section had no vocals).

Have a listen to the mono. I couldn't really tell if that might also use this 'wrong' ending (it's lower in the mix).

 

If they used the actual edit piece then nothing should be out of place. The extra drums/guitar should be exactly as they were when recorded on the 4-track 50 years ago.

This is a real mystery.

 

To be fair, this is where people are going to talk about this thing, and due to the nature the boards, it's gonna play out over many pages. If it were at a water cooler or at a cafe, it would probably play out between 2 to 10 minutes.

Just like when people are talking cars, houses, or sports teams, they're going to chime in on what they think misses the mark. If we had transcripts of some of our conversations, many of us would wonder why we seem to be constantly focusing on negative aspects, even those of us who don't consider ourselves negative people, when all we think we were doing was kicking around something of interest to us.

This is the real tragedy of the shuttering of some many music sellers; with fewer outlets, more and more of our profound thoughts have to be funneled into this particular forum. So many profundities in such a confined space can indeed be overwhelming…

 

That's the OTHER possibility; that you have multiple attempts at the extra drums/guitar (on track 2, 3, and 4) and Giles just chose the wrong one to use. Normally you would erase over the previous attempt but if you have three empty tracks to use maybe they did attempts on all three.

 

I mentioned this before in the other thread full of overlooked info, but a clue is hiding in the 5.1-mix: both edit pieces are there, separated on channels. You can even edit an original and alternative take outro version that way.

 

[EDAW:]
Maybe someone here will be kind enough to post extractions (being under 30 seconds per forum rules). I don't have the ability or else I would have.

That seems to be the answer then which is multiple attempts at the overdub on 2 or 3 tracks of the 4-track. Up until "1+" we've only heard the best attempt. The remixers used the wrong track for the stereo mix and both tracks (good and bad) for the surround mix.

 

Exactly my thoughts as well. What we are hearing could very well be the original full take.

 

Last 10 seconds of 8DAW:

Left: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zkbjodkgzc4rhaa/1-08_5.1_L.flac?dl=0
Center: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5p1pt1j5tdrkl0d/1-08_5.1_C.flac?dl=0
Right: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjhstqwr63dgt7h/1-08_5.1_R.flac?dl=0
Surround Left: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xm3420x4338xjmi/1-08_5.1_SL.flac?dl=0
Surround Right: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wwphstyw1hy6wwy/1-08_5.1_SR.flac?dl=0

 

How specifically are things separated?

 

Wow, didn't know the surround channels were mostly just reverb of the front channels. Sheeesh!

 

Welcome to our complaints of a vast majority of the 5.1 mixes on this set. Like I said a couple weeks ago: we essentially got 3.1 mixes. Yes, not all, but about 80%.

 

After listening to left/center/right extractions lined up in my DAW I'm hearing the correct overdub low in the mix (center) but it's drowned out by the bad overdub (right-ish). I can mute the right channel and move the center to the right and get a better end.

EDAW end better.WAV
https://www.sendspace.com/file/z7a9sv

EDAW bad overdub.WAV
https://www.sendspace.com/file/b35bxi

 

Good work! There's definitely something going wrong in the two right channels. Even the guitars sound slightly out of time in the first few strums.

 

It's a deal-breaker for anyone interested in the surround mixes. They are almost all just reverbed version of the fronts. Simply unjustifiable.

 

Well done and thanks.

This confirms for me the likelihood of two outros (or outro parts) being audible in the new remix. Whether this is by design or by accident is the big question. Whilst it occurs at the end and doesn't affect the rest of the mix (which I like by the way), this outro issue brings to light the perils of remixing. A lot of people won't hear it or notice it or even care if it gets pointed out to them. I care though. Is it a deal breaker on this project or future remixing projects? For me, no. I just want better care and/or judgement to be taken and shown. Old mistakes in the original 50 odd year ago mixes are acceptable. That's how we heard them back in the day. New "mistakes", "oversights" or "intentional decisions" (however people want to describe them) like the outro of Eight Days A Week are not a good thing. Justifying these new issues on the basis that previous anomalies and imperfections were made by the original recording team at EMI is also bad. Technology, time, intimate knowledge of the material and a custodial responsibility for the Beatles recordings should be enough to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen today. I am totally flabbergasted that this and the other known and well discussed "issues" with some of the remixes were allowed to reach the public.

 

I'd appreciate it if you would clarify something. You say:

Your point here seems clear: A remixed passage that is intentional is one thing, but a remixed passage that is unintentional is something else, with the obvious implication being that the former may be either good or bad but that the latter is almost by definition (except perhaps in the rare case where an accident produces a result that some consider to be good) bad. OK. But you then say:

This assertion is absolute: such and such are not a good thing. But you include "intentional decisions" in this assertion. Would you care to clarify this?

Agreed.

 

Agreed. The more I consider these things the more I think this was a rush job, especially considering how the surrounds were handled and that the LOVE mix of A Day in the Life was used. I believe that Giles Martin simply did not have enough time to complete the project as he would have liked. The added echo in the front channels of some mixes (She Loves You, Ballad of J&Y) is a head-scratcher.

 

Yeah, I don't get how reverb added to simulate the sound bouncing off the wall behind you is preferable to having the mono track coming directly from the front speakers only and having THAT bounce off the walls behind you. Huh? What?

 

I think that it is an overall good package, but I would agree that the things that are wrong with it seem to be products of a rush-job.

The only problems with that theory are the self-proclaimed "insiders" here that claim they knew it was being worked on for over a year.