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

Not sure I'd say glorious, there's something a bit off with the 87's, they are a bit flat maybe. But they do carry across the feel of the albums as they were - they are a faithful translation of the albums into a new medium, rather than an attempt to redo them. They aren't fatiguing at all.

 

The old CD must be quite detailed. The 'cutting in and out' being heard is due to EQ?

 

That's bad, but not untypical for a shop.
Beatles CDs carried a high premium here, and held their value. I sold the moment that rumours about the remasters leaked, but quite a while before they actually came out. I didn't sell them to a shop. CDs were never sealed here, and I had looked after them.
The ones I rebought were cheap and battered, but play ok.

 

I'll be waiting for Steve's review of the new 2017 Sgt Pepper vinyl LP.

I was surprised by my own reaction -- on my system I was actually brought to tears in several sections of it, so immersive, clear, and revelatory it was. I've been so used to the 1967 version all these years, to the point that although I have ultimate respect for it, I never listen to it much at all anymore. But this 2017 version...wow, it's like listening to the album anew, and being completely taken in emotionally by every song, more so than I've ever been before. By the time I got to the end of the Sgt Pepper Reprise, with eyes still misty I just burst out in laughter, it was so good.

 

I enjoy the '87s as well and regard them as fairly faithful sonic representations of the original vinyl pressings. It's odd though that as the 2009 stereo remasters came out, many folks strongly criticized the sonic qualities of the '87s describing them as brittle, cold, and sterile among other things. Admittedly however, I don't much care for the '87s from "Please Please Me" through "Rubber Soul". For those, I much prefer the 2009 mono set. Speaking of mono, I do not like the 50th anniversary mono edition of "Pepper", as I perceive something wonky with its EQ as well as some possible added compression. Outside of the bonus material, I'd prefer to simply pretend that this "Pepper" anniversary thing never happened. When and if Steve speaks out on this issue, I'm certain his critique will be levelheaded, insightful, and very interesting!

 

LOL

 

Il join the many here by saying il stick to the 1987 CD. Perfect to my ears. I'm all set.

 

Not sure what you 're getting at but what I meant is that you can actually hear when some of the multi-tracks cut in, sort of a fraction of a second before vocals or certain instruments. AFAIK, most if not all of the 87 CDs were flat transfers from dub tapes (who knows which ones and which generation) and had no additional EQ, compression or limiting as in the case for the later releases. So what I was getting at is the 87 Sgt Peppers CD has a different, more natural sort of detail than an exaggeration of certain frequencies due to EQ which you hear on the latest remix or say, the MFSL LP with its boosted lower and upper ends.

The 87 Sgt Peppers and White Album in particular, were always highly regarded (for some Abbey Road too) but variable with the other albums.

Btw, after listening to the 50th Anniversary release a few times now, I kinda like. It grows on you.

 

I just took a listen to the 1987, and it is just so dull compared to the remix, which I'm enjoying more with each listen.

I guess it must be the earbuds.

 

That makes sense for CD, but not many people are playing blu-ray in their car. They had two digital masterings done. They could've easily put one on the blu-ray and one on the CD. They even addressed that they made the decision to use the unlimited for vinyl and limited for all digital. So it was something they considered. Using the unlimited for the blu-ray would've gone a long way to curb some mastering complaints. I wouldn't have cared what was on the CD.

 

Much better!

 

But then you have to listen to that crap mix.

 

For heaven's sake, it's not a crap mix!

 

Sure it is. Tons of stuff hard panned, one song at entirely the wrong speed, mixed before anyone had a clue how to mix rock n' roll for stereo, and virtually zero involvement by any actual Beatles. I'll probably still mostly turn to the mono version, but definitely am planning on picking up the vinyl of this new mix. The mastering of it is one thing, but the mix itself is pretty great.

 

Our work here is done.

 

I'm not a fan of the hard panning, instrument placement on the 1967 version but I still find it far more natural sounding than the new mix.
The new mix has better placement of the instruments, but the eq etc. is all wrong in my opinion.

Also, you're not allowed to play the "beatles had little to do with the Stereo mix" card as they had even less to do with the new one!

 

You're 35 years old. That explains it all...

 

They signed off on it, that's good enough. I don't think they even listened to the 1967 mix at the time of it's release.

 

Other than having no nostalgia for it, (which, technically, I should, since the '87 CD's are what I grew up with. But I never played them again after discovering the monos in the early 2000's) what difference does that make?

 

I'm 36 and I prefer the 1967 to the 2017.
Not everyone in that age bracket thinks the same way.

 

Do you really think that none of the 4 Beatles listened to the Stereo version?
Sorry, but I highly doubt that.
Let's not forget George having the Stereo White Album re-cut in the States as he didn't like the mastering.
If he cared that much about a bad cut, there's no way he would not have let a mix out that he didn't find acceptable.

 

I know you know this, but a bad cut and a bad mix are two different things. And yes, I really do think none of them listened at the time, or at least cared. They were all about mono, as their studio presence indicated, and they've said many times in interviews. A lot changed between June of '67 and November '68 as far as stereo availability and label preferences (did US labels charge more for stereo releases at the time? That seems like something labels would do.). The US release of the White Album was stereo-only, so Martin's concern about the LP cut had nothing to do with the mix.

 

Prompted by Steve's comments, I listened to the 1987 CD in my car earlier this afternoon, cranked up high - it sounded very thin & "tizzy" in places (though Paul's bass in Getting Better and Lovely Rita was every bit the equal of the remix), although I should really put it on the proper stereo & make sure it simply wasn't the deficiencies of my cheap car system.

 

Sgt. Pepper is not a Rock & roll album. They made it to sound as some common hard rocking uniform sounding piece with this new remix, and they missed the general artistic idea of the original album, IMO.

 

Not really. Care to explain it for some of us?