Abbey Road 50th Anniversary Discussion. What Can We Expect?

I'd assume thats correct. Both Pepper and WA included the original mono on the blu ray. I can see them doing the same for AR with the original stereo mix

 

I'm going to release the contents of the first disc of the super deluxe Abbey Road reissue. I have not been authorized to, so any information you receive from me you are to keep to yourself, as I could be penalized for distributing it.

Disc 1: (All tracks remixed by Giles Martin at Abbey Road Studios)

1. Come Together
2. Something
3. Maxwell's Silver Hammer
4. Oh! Darling
5. Octopus' Garden
6. I Want You (She's So Heavy)
7. Here Comes the Sun
8. Because
9. You Never Give Me Your Money
10. Sun King
11. Mean Mr. Mustard
12. Polythene Pam
13. She Came in Through the Bathroom Window
14. Golden Slumbers
15. Carry That Weight
16. The End
17. Her Majesty

 

This is not what I'd call a revelation

 

It's more like a revelation NEIN...

 

Wow. You heard it here first folks

 

I think what our dear friend is hinting at with this post is that Ringo mentions having a get together on 26 September, not a release. That's probably a listening party date and the release will be in October sometime.

 

Could be. No problem, it's coming and that's what really matters.

Ringo sure acts like the official Apple spokesman these days, doesn't he?

 

LOL. Ringo.

 

Whoa. I'm honored to have been noticed in a positive manner by Apple Corps. Made my day.

I shall now play Hey Jude, the greatest thread closer in history, 10x in celebration.

 

Strange that the White Album listening party was also on September 26 last year...

 

If by chance I get things early, i’ll Give you another chance at a bite of the Apple

 

And we'll all be grateful for this, be sure! Thanks

 

Ringo might have his years mixed up.

 

Then how could Paul complain in court that the album did not match what he wanted for his songs?

Sorry, but the interpretation I get is that the final say always stays with the producer of the album — not the artists or their manager.
Until The Beatles, that was George Martin.
Martin and Epstein — not The Beatles — decided on the output of the band, and when they needed singles, with the exception of "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane," where EMI told Martin (not The Beatles) they needed two songs for release.
When Martin is unable to deal with the arguments, The Beatles is produced by the band themselves — so they have complete control.
Abbey Road goes back to having George Martin, but he's now working directly with the band to get what they want.

Let It Be is produced by Phil Spector. Spector was hired by Klein, who represented Lennon, Harrison and Starr.
Klein had no obligation to make sure McCartney was represented well because McCartney wasn't his client, and it was no longer a unanimous approval system as underlined by his very hiring.

Further proof is that, as a member of Beatles Inc., Paul McCartney did not need to notify the others of his intent to release McCartney.
It wasn't until Klein didn't place it as an immediate priority for release (preferring to release after his actual clients) that Paul got upset, had to get Ringo to move one of his LPs, and announced it was over.

1962-1966 and 1967-1970 were both made through consultation, but keep in mind that — by that point – Klein was done, Apple Corps Ltd. was still under license to EMI over The Beatles' output, and no one was representing them really as a quartet, and no one really wanted to see The Beatles fighting in the press over a compilation that was designed to prevent another, unauthorized compilation from stealing money from them.
When Apple Corps Ltd. shuts down in 1975 at the end of the contract, EMI stops needing consultation, which is how you get the annual releases until 1982.
The Beatles had to let EMI know after the fact that they wanted the movie medley halted, and stepped in early to stop Sessions on the grounds they were going to do their own soon.

Thanks. Usually sessions are the year before, which is why I connected the 75 album with 74 sessions.
I do remember that Lennon was unhappy with Spector after that, which is my greater point.

The original was released 26 September. My guess is that Ringo either misspoke or they are going to shift the dates according to Christmas release windows.
Which, if rumours are right, will force Paul's next Archives into the new year.

 

Paul's latest Archives came out twenty-eight days after the SDE The Beatles. Unless they're gonna get closer than that, I don't think MPL worries about going up near Apple.

 

Never said it was an evil plot or conspiracy. Could be???? Mmmmm......

Maybe I need to make my posts a little more clearer. When I say rewriting Beatle history I'm mean Biographers not the Beatles stating most incorrectly that, THE BEATLES WENT OUT ON A HIGH NOTE WITH THEIR GREATEST ALBUM YET which is bull.

I know what you mean and I mostly agree. But I have never heard: John, Paul, George and Ringo every saying, "Yea, we finished on a high note."

This reminds me of a passage in a Beatle book where the biographer was reading way to far in between the lines and coming up with conclusions that have never been substantiated:

".....They read the names outloud of the Beatles.
John, Paul, George and Richard. And the audience rose to their feet and clapped in approval of their Christian names...."
What the organic fudge?! First off most English Christians have Christian names. That comment is ridiculous. Secondly what? He is a mind reader now!? The audience clapped because it was the bloody Beatles not because the loud one was named after John the Apostle and the bass player was named after some guy who had a vision on the road to Damascus. Get out of here!

You are right though....

Just my Canadian nickel..Our nickels were silver back in the 60's. You could still get the odd silver dime or nickel in Canadian change up until 1987.

 

Did anyone watch the interview with Ringo talking about the let it be movie? Boy, he sure does sound older now and it sounds like he wears dentures now

 

O.k. no one shoot me but the 24 stone man has a question: Didn't Steve Hoffman himself ask people to fill out the equipment profiles? it isn't mandatory. This is not done so Steve and others can say, "What?? Pioneer 78' receiver, Dual 505, Nad CD player and Polk Speakers. Sorry buddy but your opinion does mean anything...Now get lost!..." Steve wants to know what his compact disks and viynl sound on every kind of system. And he has said this more than then once. No one should be embarrassed to put his or her system on here. No one!!

Who is an audiophile???

The rich guy who spends $25 000 on his system and says, "I am never going to upgrade this system. Even though I know I can get upgrade and have a better sounding system I don't care.."

The poor guy who saves up all his money for a year and buys the best system he can afford. Say a Bay And Bloor Radio More for Your Mozart System for $1500. And the poor guy plans to upgrade because he wants the best sound possible.

The audiophile here is the poor guy. The rich guys just has too much money.

I would rather here from some guy who has a Nad receiver, Sony CD changer from 1988, a Dual 505 and Boston Acoustic A-100 who loves music then some guy who's got some super expensive overly bright $100 000 system.

 

Same thoughts here. They don't give a damn on these things.

 

Yes, he's definitely older now then he was in the 60's or even a year ago

 

Let's give him a break. He's nearly 80

 

I'm curious how they'll divide the songs up on the cassette version of the remix. Any clues or early indicators? Will they try to maintain the integrity of the original U.K. Abbey Road cassette release?

 

“We’re going to promote it, of course. I have heard it, the remaster, and it’s great. And we’re having like a get-together, or I’m going to a get-together at EMI in England, in Abbey Road. I think it’s the 26th of September, so if you’re not busy get over there.”

Ok, I don't exactly know where this quote was attributed to, but this is my take of the comment......I could be right or I could be wrong...not 100% sure so you can be the judge in the end.

Ok, I'm going to a get together at EMI in England...so obviously some sort of event..I'm guessing private will be there

Then he says "In Abbey Road. I think it's the 26th of September, so if you're not busy get over there" Since EMI is not located on Abbey Road, I would say that this a second event, one that is public as he's asking folks to get over there. And if Ringo will be present....maybe others in the Beatle family will be there, Paul's Cavendish House is a short walk away

Just my take on what was said, while folks focused on the remaster part, it struck me strange having been to EMI before that it and Abbey Road were mentioned together

So that's my guess! Shoot me if I'm wrong but it seems clear to me

make sense or am I crazy?

 

Sorry I must have missed a page. Did a member get insulted here? I gather it was some remark over his Hi-FI system. Or am I wrong?

Back in 1980 my father bought me my first HI-FI system at Pascals. (That's a hardware store)
$350 CAN. I put $50 of my own money in.

BSR Turntable with S shaped arm.
Ridgewood 35 per channel receiver
Driftwood 3 way speakers with 12 inch woofer. The drivers were made out of paper I swear!

Anyway I though our forum was different. Let's all try to respect one another.

 

quicksrt said: ↑
Of course he did, and the other's in the group were also obligated to consult with Paul on a Beatles album's final mix.

You are way overthinking this. Paul had every right, and the band had some obligations as well. This is different than Paul being granted his rights, and the band fulfilling their obligations. This is why Paul could and did sue. Not sure how you ran off the tracks thinking that all was peachy, Paul had no standing because they pushed the album out like they did. AK wanted to test his power of three against one. He got short term success there, and long term termination.

The producer in general is working for the band with obligations to the label. I am not speaking of the way things started out with the Beatles contract (things can differ), I am replying to your statement with "always" in it. Band chooses producer if they have the insight to do so in general. Many producers have been fired in the middle of an album's production, and fired by the artist or band. By the time Apple Records was a going concern, things like power, choice, and recording/production/mixing leverage had shifted (in the band's favor). Last thing, martin was working "for" the band at the end rather than with the band.