The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's 50th Anniversary (Content, Sound Quality & Discussion Thread Only!)

If you read ahead, you will know the answer by now I guess.

 

No, your mistaken comment will haunt you for all eternity!

 

Is there any obvious example of a particular fix done for the 2009 mono, which was left as is for the 2017 mono? I'm curious to see if I'd be able to notice the difference, especially if it was very, very minor.

 

Yes, it appears so.
I am going to make it my life's mission to take and destroy every 2cd edition of this that I can!

 

Don't know tbh. I don't have the Mono CD box set (yet). Would like to know fix details as well though.
Reportedly the mono disc in the Pepper box is quieter than the 2009 one. So the music here is less limited or completely unlimited at least.

 

Well, I come up with a different conclusion. I suspect, but don't really know, that some of the objection to the Beatles' stereo mixes in recent years comes from headphone or earphone listeners. I've always liked the stereo mixes because they work pretty well in my listening room. First two albums plus Rubber Soul excepted. Those are better in mono no matter how you slice it.

 

As bad as the Rubber Soul stereo mix is, you still hear a lot more of the elements in stereo than in mono where everything is stacked up on top of each other. I have always enjoyed listening to one channel of those albums just to isolate the vocals or the instruments and hear them on their own.

 

Pepper Mayham continues on the Hoffman Music Forum a month after its official release.

 

No idea. I don't have the Mono box and because of the number of counterfeits out there I probably won't get it. But I kept reading about this being the definitive version of the album so always wanted to hear it.

 

I hear ya. I guess I'll have to do a comparison, it's just soooo much work....

 

I'm sure someone on here has already done that or at least it's been commented in during this whole Pepper celebration.

As an aside - I saw comments recently as to whether the album is correctly shortened to "Sgt. Pepper" or "Sgt. Pepper's". While growing up I always heard it called "Sgt. Pepper" for short and having very recently been through some old music papers from the early 1970s that's how retailers and journalists referred to it.

 

Personally I'm glad they kept the vocal in, otherwise we wouldn't have the unique intro from Paul

As an aside, I was just comparing the mono Rita with the 2017 vinyl and Giles's remix really brings the track to life

 

Just sharing interesting interview with Paulie.

 

I finally caught up! At one point I was 80-90 pages behind, and tried to
read 5-10 a day. Now I can make comment (as unoriginal as it is).

I bought the 6disk version.
Packaging is great (though I too was momentarily confused thinking it was vinyl).
The book is also very nice.

Stereo, I compared each song with 2009 cd.
I think the MIX here is far superior to the original mix.
The placement of sound is much more pleasing and seems to be more thoughtful.
The mastering (if thats right - a little shy with all the experts here), I thought was not
so good. It is loud and to me at least, it spoiled some of the benefit of the
beautiful mix.

Outakes are great. Many are new (unbooted) and sound wonderful.
I'm a big fan of beatles outtakes, and these are a great addition.

mono - sounded just like the 2009 version to me, so a but of wasted space,
though nice to have the bonus tracks.

I haven't had a chance to listen to the 5.1 yet.
So I have more enjoyment coming my way.

My 2c.

 

Yeah, I was wondering about that Fixing a Hole bit. Paul obviously hears a scat recorded earlier and reacts to it, but it's highly unlikely that the vocals were recorded LIVE with the instrumentation. As for Lovely Rita - strange. I am sure they have isolated vocals as such, as is obvious from the remix. They could have just remixed the take as they please it seems, ommitting the elements which appeard earlier.

 

As far as I can tell, all the outtakes are presented with the tape running at standard speed. Anything that sounds sped-up or slowed-down is only because those parts were recorded with an altered tape speed. Also, no parts are synced from earlier generations on the outtakes, so Take 9 of Lovely Rita has the bounced-down elements of Take 8 (and so combines the acoustic guitars and piano on one track and drums on another) plus Paul's lead vocal overdub. All of this comes from one 4-track tape.

The end of Fixing A Hole has a vocal overdub in the coda. The 'second' vocal you hear is traces of the original live vocal that it replaced (picked up by other mics).

 

but if it's a second vocal, how is it take 1 then?

 

Why not? Everything on that tape is 'Take 1', whether it was live or overdubbed.

When that was reduced to another tape it only then became 'Take 2'. The take numbers pertain to a particular piece of tape, not a single performance.

 

okay, but... doesn't take 1 imply that the entire performance is live without overdubs? how can a take 1 have any overdubs by definition? I am not doubting your words, just trying to understand how it works.

 

No. It started off that way when every recording was a live performance captured directly to tape. But when you have mutitrack tapes that allowed overdubbing onto a basic take, take numbers did not change for the overdubs. Only if that 'take' was then transferred/reduced to another piece of tape would the take number change.

It was a way of keeping track of the various bits of tape, rather than a record of a performance.

 

Let's use one-man-band Paul as an example:

On a 4-track tape, for example, there are 4 parts (tracks) that can be combined into a whole. Paul starts off the first take by filling up track 1 with him on drums; then Paul can OVERDUB piano on track 2; then Paul can OVERDUB guitar and vocals on track 3; and finally Paul can OVERDUB bass on track 4.

This ALL constitutes TAKE 1 (as it was done first).

If Paul wants to try it all again and does another go-around of the same 4 things, then that would be called Take 2.

 

well, yeah, that's if you're one-man band working as you please. But, yeah, Slane finally explained it to me. There must have been a fourth free track for the vocals. Makes perfect sense. Thanks, folks.

 

The same situation of course applies to a band. They can do the same thing (for each of the tracks) as one-man-band Paul for their Take 1. I just thought it would be simpler to understand if one person was doing all the playing.

 

I think the vocal coda overdub of Fixing A Hole was actually recorded OVER the original vocal track. It's just that the original vocal can still be heard as leakage on the other tracks that were recorded at the same time (drums, bass, maracas, harpsichord).

 

You're right about the mastering it is loud. If you have a TT the vinyl is a little better.