What does Steve Hoffman think of the new Beatles Sgt. Pepper remix?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by NGeorge, May 31, 2017.

  1. ohnothimagen

    ohnothimagen PORKCHOPS! Productions

    Jeatleboe, by chance? That dude gets around...
    Hell, I remember reading quite a few "These remasters are gonna suck!!!!" posts during the immediate pre-09/09/09 hype. Almost as if people knew beforehand or something:p

    IMO the 2009's don't suck, per se- the early albums are fantastic, especially Beatles For Sale. It's how they goosed the bass on the later albums that takes a bit of getting used to.
    Twenty years later I paid $11.99 for my first copy of Pepper (cassette). Inflation, man:laugh:
     
    bobcat likes this.
  2. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    Yes, I do agree that there were technical limitations. (Just as digital has its limitations/downfalls.) The Beatles and their production team still managed to create great sounding records. Full sounding records.

    And, of course, they could have made different decisions to better ensure that some instruments remained more "up front". In a way, the remix puts EVERYTHING up front. That has its positive and negative effects. (Smearing and lacking spaciousness and dynamics being one casualty...)

    I'm one who actually prefers the panning stereo of George Martin and the Beatles. That helped to ensure that the various instruments weren't all smeared together.

    I'm not really a vinyl person, although I've heard about the needle issue. I listen to early release Beatles cassettes, many of them paper label. I know and have heard all the negatives about cassettes. But maybe cassettes, not needing a needle that was prone to "jump and skip"...didn't experience such a roll off of the bass.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
  3. Psychedelic Good Trip

    Psychedelic Good Trip Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    SPLHCB 2017 Remix--up front and in your face.

    For good or bad I like it and like having another pepper listening option.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
    billnunan, WilliamWes and The Bishop like this.
  4. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    I'm glad people like another listening option.

    I'm also glad people are allowed to critique it...
     
  5. DRM

    DRM Forum Resident

    I like your avatar switch back to Batman, away from the peppermint swirl. [​IMG]

    You mentioned that you like Revolver better than Sgt. Pepper's.

    Recently I heard someone comparing "Taxman" to the theme song for Batman.

    [​IMG]

    Too bad Revolver didn't get a remix.

    Some say it could really use one...

    But congratulations to Sgt. Pepper's.

    For being worthy of a 5oth anniversary celebration and a remix attempt.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
    bherbert likes this.
  6. YpsiGypsy

    YpsiGypsy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Then why do the record companies continue to release material as if it were the late 1990's?
     
  7. WonkyWilly

    WonkyWilly Forum Resident

    Location:
    Paradise, PA
    I think Steve was right on the money when he said this was a "missed opportunity".

    Allow me to clear up some misconceptions that are permeating this disaster of a thread.

    - People on this forum are 100% against remixes.
    This is flat out not true. There are several mixing engineers who are very highly regarded here, but Giles Martin isn't one of them.

    - The SP remix haters are "against compression", even though it was used on the original mix.
    This is also not true. The problem isn't the fact that compression was used, but the amateurish way in which it was applied. You can hear instruments swelling and poking in and out of the stereo spectrum. This is unprofessional and unacceptable...something that would have been a problem in the 1980's. Many of the remix worshippers have admitted that they "cannot hear the problem at all", which indicates to me that their opinions on mixing and sound quality are questionable at best.

    -
    The remixes have higher DR's than some of the original mixes.
    That's because the original mixes used compression as well, but used it properly.

    - Excessive loudness can be "cured" by turning down the volume.
    This is nonsense. Another indicator of questionable knowledge. Audiophile 101.

    -
    The remix haters are the only folks who are being "rude".
    I suggest that you read the entire thread again. Some folks have joined this forum and participated in this thread only, specifically to troll remix haters.

    I hope that I was able to make some valid points, and to clear some things up.
     
    supermd, vudicus, formu_la and 8 others like this.
  8. thrivingonariff

    thrivingonariff Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but the application of the term "amateurish" to the use of compression on the SPLHCB remix is, in addition to being provocative (which has its place, but is probably best avoided at this point), not really accurate, IMO. Wouldn't "heavy-handed" or "excessive" be closer to the mark (for those who see this remix that way, that is)?
     
    Ephi82, Billy Infinity and MoonPool like this.
  9. violetvinyl

    violetvinyl Forum Resident

    So, using compression properly leads to lower DR values? Therefore, dynamics are not important?
     
  10. YpsiGypsy

    YpsiGypsy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    "I like the peppermint swirl" said Meg White
     
    RandelPink, DRM and bherbert like this.
  11. bherbert

    bherbert Forum Resident

    Location:
    South Africa
    Why was Ron Furmanek shunned? From what I’ve read he would be the person who would have produced audiophile quality remixes.
     
    billnunan and Steve E. like this.
  12. bherbert

    bherbert Forum Resident

    Location:
    South Africa
    I’ve read a few interviews where Giles Martin mentions that the Sgt Pepper remix was partly done so that it would not sound out of place next to modern music on streaming sites and apps that people use these days. So that it would ‘hold up’ next to the Kanye West’s and Katy Perry’s. He said that he never wants Sgt Pepper to sound old. Fair enough. But why did they decide to just do Sgt Pepper? What about the rest of the catalogue? And why did they skip Rubber Soul and Revolver? Just seems like a massive blunder by Apple Corps. Questions, questions....
     
  13. delmonaco

    delmonaco Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    But this is nonsense, IMO. No matter how loud and bass heavy the Beatles music is mixed/mastered, it would never sound similar to what's in the charts nowadays (if they don't add some additional beats and instrumentation). Using the same logic one can make a new recording of Beethoven 9, or to use some of the already available, to master it at DR 5, and to expect the kids get hooked.
     
  14. Culpa

    Culpa Forum Resident

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Because Sgt Pepper was a mainstream cultural event and generational touchstone unlike any of their other LPs (with the possible exception of Meet The Beatles in the US).
     
    DRM likes this.
  15. I am not young. But here is my feeling. Young music consumers who are into Kanye West, Katy Perry, etc. split into two groups: the ones who don't like The Beatles and the ones who like them. And I personally have no reason to assume (prejudices) that the ones who like them are not deeply aware that this music is very old and supposed to sound that way. ...To say nothing of the young (pleonasm?) classical musicians/students themselves, who are aware of dynamic range like no one else!
     
    Contact Lost, DRM, delmonaco and 2 others like this.
  16. Psychedelic Good Trip

    Psychedelic Good Trip Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York


    Guess pepper 2017 remix had to be made young fan friendly. To sell in today's times. IMHO.
     
  17. WonkyWilly

    WonkyWilly Forum Resident

    Location:
    Paradise, PA
    No. Not "Heavy-handed". Just "incorrect". It has been incorrectly used. That's why I say "amateurish". It sounds like a bad remix production from the 80's when they were still trying to figure out how digital compressors worked. If he had applied the compression properly, there wouldn't be all this swelling and poking. It sounds cheap.

    When 1+ first came out, it was the first thing I noticed when I listened. I contacted a friend of mine who is a very popular engineer and the first thing he said was, "How about that lousy pumping compression?". It was the first thing he noticed too. Why so many audio-minded people seem to not notice (or care) baffles me, quite frankly.
     
    DRM likes this.
  18. Ephi82

    Ephi82 Forum Resident

    Location:
    S FL
    Hey Wonky,

    Quite the list! I dont agree with much of it.

    You state that "There are several mixing engineers who are very highly regarded here, but Giles Martin isn't one of them." How is it that you state as fact that Giles is not highly regarded here? Show me the poll.

    Seems to me that he has his detractors, but also lots of supporters here. The music buying public has voted in support with their purchases. Yup, I know, the public i not as smart as you....

    In an earlier post in this thread you said that Giles used cheap digital compressors for SP 17. I asked you to identify what the compressors are and how you came to that information.

    You never responded.

    I dont think you responded because you made it up.

    Care to respond now, Wonky?
     
  19. Ephi82

    Ephi82 Forum Resident

    Location:
    S FL
    Great post.
     
  20. WonkyWilly

    WonkyWilly Forum Resident

    Location:
    Paradise, PA
    I said that it sounds like he used a cheap compression plug-in. I have no way of knowing exactly what he did or what tools he used, but the (poor) results are clearly audible.

    The problem is not that he used compression at all, but that he used it improperly.

    I haven't heard a "professional" production with this much unintentional swelling and poking since the 80's.

    But I do understand that most folks haven't a clue what I'm talking about.
     
    vudicus and DRM like this.
  21. WonkyWilly

    WonkyWilly Forum Resident

    Location:
    Paradise, PA
    Uh....no. That's not what I meant at all.

    People are going to argue that the "original mixes used compression as well".

    I am trying to explain that the original mixes used analog compression properly. The new remixes use digital compression improperly.

    The problem is not the general use of compression, but the improper application of it.
     
  22. thrivingonariff

    thrivingonariff Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    OK, but my point was, in part, that it seems unlikely to me that the team wouldn't be aware of the effects that you're hearing. I think it's more a matter of them finding those effects a tolerable cost of achieving the overall sound that they wanted, which was aimed at a younger demographic.
     
  23. WilliamWes

    WilliamWes Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    It's a fresh new year, and last year at this time, in the poll conducted on this forum, almost no one thought we'd get a huge box or anything at all, but there seem to be so many people still stressed out about a 7 month old release. I'm wondering why we as Beatle fans haven't gotten all the negativity out of our systems yet? Not everything Apple does is perfect-no entity or individual is perfect, and we all have the versions of Sgt Pepper that we love the most. I'm sure every poster has said their piece by now.

    It's a new year, let's let the stresses of yesteryear be, look forward, and enjoy life and music a little more. :cool:
     
  24. delmonaco

    delmonaco Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Obviously this was the goal, but I wonder how valid is the approach. The "mainstream" kids will continue to listen to whatever is modern and in the charts, and wouldn't start listening to 50 years old music only because it's loud. And the kids that fancy vintage art don't need it unnecessarily "updated".
     
  25. thrivingonariff

    thrivingonariff Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    I suspect that the point made by the other poster was in response to this:

     

Share This Page