If that's going to be your question, and your answer, you obviously don't have a high tolerance for people trying to answer your initial question for you. Apparently empathy isn't your strong suit. Which makes me wonder, why bother coming to a communication forum in the first place. To brag that our views are irrelevant to you? Why not just spray-paint your opinion on a wall, and go home satisfied.
This is so untrue it's ridiculous. Even at absurdly high prices sales have increased every year for at least the last decade, then there's all the vinyl that is bought second hand. It's very alive on eBay. Of course it's a current trend but it's been a significant and long running one. Personally I think vinyl will be around as a relevant, in demand and being manufactured thing, for a very long time, longer than any of us, having a similar role to hardback books or collectors editions, there for people who want something more, something to own and collect. I don't mind dialogue, like this post I'm replying too, but the one I responded harshly too and I apologise for, was pure antagonism.
I certainly won't be the one arguing it's "essential", but I'm also not real fond of any increase in technology being written off as "the new gimmick". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. With the way stereo works (phantom center, etc) you don't really *need* anything more than quad to represent a 3D, 360° audio field. But as we've seen with movies, it's all about how you want to highlight stuff. I guess Atmos having speakers that give you the impression of things being above you are neat. I don't need that for music. But I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand, either.
Oh, you mean a niche market? I misspoke. I agree that there will continue to be a niche market. But I would not expect every mix of every recording ever to be newly manufactured on vinyl for a niche market medium. I was not antagonizing you.
Yeah. iirc, Wayne originally wanted something insane like a ten-CD set to play simultaneously (maybe even twenty??) and they had to negotiate with Warner Brothers down to four CDs. That aside, I think what was eventually originally released (the 4-disc set) could be considered "what was originally intended." I don't think the album was made/intended for surround-sound at all, as the unpredictable nature of four separate sound sources was part of the intent.
Of course not, but it's fair to say these aren't just any recordings. The Beatles albums weren't even out of print on vinyl throughout the 1990s and 2000s, they only were only for a very short while, around 2010, to sell the current stock and create demand for the 2012 vinyl reissues. It isn't much to ask that albums that are historically important and ever popular are kept in print as they were originally produced and mixed. They'll be available again before too long anyway, once the sales of the remixes die down, they'll bring back the originals remastered again, or all analogue. Plenty of people will be aware that they are listening to a piece of history that isn't historically correct with these remixes. One of the reasons the 2014 mono vinyl box goes for getting near £1000 now is because of it's incredible attention to historical detail. No modern digital remix can replicate that.
That's what bothers me. I personally don't care how many remixes they want to do, but leave the original mixes (or as close as the 2009 releases came to original) in print and readily available.
It was a rhetorical question. What I meant to get across is what is on those multi track tapes is just as relevant and interesting as a stamp of vinyl made a few generations down the line decades ago.
I understand what you were saying, but I'm not sure I agree for the following reasons: Is it really historically important though? How many people still care about The Beatles? And I don't mean people here on this forum; I mean everyone in the entire world. That begs the question: who decides what is or is not important, anyways? There are a number of people who think Kanye West is more important. They are not necessarily right, nor are they necessarily wrong. But I think it's important to remember that one's world view isn't the only worldview. Ergo, what you and I may consider "historically important" may not be considered historically important by the people who actually determine what is or is not historically important. I know this may seem heretical (The Beatles??? Not historically important??!!), but it's just practical, and relies on a really Eurocentric standard of what is or is not historically important. Keeping something in print as they were originally produced and mixed is really impractical as society (and technology) evolves. I mean, can I go to the store and buy a Gutenberg Bible? I probably can but it's not actually printed on his original moveable type printing press on parchment paper. Or should Gershwin only be read as sheet music instead of heard? Should every film made before the 1980s be continually shown in theaters? Should The Odyssey only be read in ancient Greek? I mean, you could answer yes to all these questions but the logistics of making these things happen is quite unreasonable and most likely improbable. Your argument really seems to imply the "Artistic Intent" argument-- "This is what The Beatles intended." This a very slippery slope... What did The Beatles actually intend? Did they even intend you or I to still be listening to their music literally 50 years later? (Hint: They didn't. It was just disposable pop music). "No modern digital remix can replicate that." That is not a mathematically correct statement, when taking the actual physics into account, but that's a whole 'nother story.
Yes, Pepper and Abbey Road feature Atmos mixes on Apple Music. You can see the icons for what tech is applicable on the album page such as Atmos, Lossless, etc. (left). With the proper hardware connected, the "Dolby Atmos" icon appears on the song page (right) which confirms that's what you're listening to.
Seems to me that a Giles Martin-Dolby Atmos treatment of their psychedelic period, particularly such songs as “Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite”, “I Am The Walrus”, “Blue Jay Way”, etc.,where stuff is swirling all around the soundfield would be a wonderful thing to hear.
It's not like the Beatles are this obscure indie band who only sold 1000 copies of their sole album. The original mixes are some of the most easy-to-find records and cds in existence. And those mixes aren't going to function on streaming services due to the nature of device limitations and listener expectations of how music is mixed in the current year.
Well, that and the notion that all four of the band members at the time as well as the producer personally approved the given mixes at the initial time of release. That would be a key reason to prioritize keeping those as the primary point of reference.
You can't collect them because you don't own them. You own the right to play the files on your equipment and even can't sell that right.
Okay. Fair enough, and I'm sorry if that sounded challenging to you. I'm trying to express that, what was laid down on the multis, was never intended to be more than an eventual stereo mix, at the time. But, like all artifacts, sometimes more can be made from them than just the original intended purpose. We are, after all, in a thread discussing Giles Martins' viewpoints on "spatial audio", and with that comes further consideration than just the traditional purposes derived from the original artifacts. In fact, all responsible parties signed-off on giving permission to turn their entire catalog, into a "mash-up" project, called LOVE years ago...and agreed to keep their hands off until it was finished...and then, again, they signed-off on the new project, both stereo and 5.1 mixes. One would say, the same way the boys approved of stereo mixes after they had done the monos and approved those first, in every album they recorded originally with the intent for a mono recording to be "the official". They gave their approval of new stereo versions of those, and intentionally or no...those became the most-accepted versions of most of their output in this era...even though, they had only considered the monos as the "real" products. Now, why would artists who have so much invested in the mono versions of their albums, give the mixes over to the engineers after the fact...so their newer versions a day later would end up superseding what they walked out of the studio satisfied of? And...why would they sign-off on giving yet another engineering team permission...to resurrect the original multis, and re-arrange them into something totally foreign, one might say "perverting" their original versions? Why, indeed? Trust. They trusted the results in both the later stereo mixes, and the even-later stereo and surround-sound "mash-ups", were a valid interpretation of the work they had already considered, "finished product". And, they still got paid pretty good coin for it, as well.
One more example: Yellow Submarine, the movie. They had already produced the music. In many cases, they had already produced the promotional films for many of the songs IN the movie...which, recall, were not even considered actual "visual interpretations" of songs, as promotional videos became in later years. Yet, they allowed artists in animation and cartooning/psychedelic art, the total hands-off permission, to re-interpret the visual representations of their own songs, with no further artistic input by themselves for the production of this film. And only after it was complete...they signed-off once again, giving their blessing, for Blue Meanies and Apple Bonkers and all the rest...someone elses' artistic vision...to be a part of representing that music to the public, in the name of the band that had performed it. And so...if all these are approved interpretations, or RE-interpretations of the music the artists had originally "finished"...why fear a further re-interpretation of their music, in 5.1, 7.1 or ATMOS-style re-configuration? Who are we to judge, what the parties involved with every legal and artistic right to do so...have already given blessing to?
It is and it's fantastic. A simple pair of Airpods (Apple says it will work with any headphone, I haven't tried yet) and a few clicks in Apple Music and you are hearing the circus swirl all around your head when listening to Mr. Kite. And, as the article states, Pepper is not even the best Beatles Atmos for headphones, Abbey Road is. I am hearing things I've never heard before, instruments, vocal nuances, Come Together and Something are particularly incredible. And the placement of the instruments in the sound field is real- crickets in Because move around your head, the organ in I Want You is behind your right ear, it's amazing.
