Will remixing the Beatles’ catalogue keep their music relevant in the coming years?

My brother is a grammar school music teacher and will play his students Beatles music from time to time and they love it.

 

Why?

 

I have no idea if remixing will do the trick...but brickwalling them all-to-hell sure will! Maybe a little No-Noise, for that nice, "skinhead sheen"...?

 

The Beatles will remain relevant because they have a timeless quality, and far reaching influence.
In regards to mixes...I think history shows that people ultimately want the original versions of most things they collect, rather than the ”modernized”, fad of the moment versions, that pop up here and there.

 

Yeah, the ending on the 'Revolution' remix isn't that good, though it didn't bother me too much. Giles maybe tried to make it more modern, as 'echoing' effects happen on lots of songs these days.^^
I'm sure this was just some 'unique' idea there and we won't hear something like that again later on a White Album remix eventually. Well, who knows...

 

The Beatles music is timeless.

But not all people are aware of this or can discern this...

"I like the Beatles so much. I really do. But they'd be really great if they sounded different than how they sound."

 

I think he did it (the echoing "allrights") in context with the mash-up idea where almost anything went long as it came from the original tapes. I don't believe he'd dare do anything like that with the proper songs as they were officially released. Something tells me that if he remixes The White Album, opinions will be much more universally positive as opposed to the relatively mixed reactions Pepper got. TWA is much more conducive to a more "modern", heavier sound than Sgt. Pepper was. So is Revolver for that matter; it'd be nice if he did that one first (and sooner) and surprised us all.

 

Yeah, maybe have their name spelled like this: Beatle$ and put a computer-generated dance beat behind it to make the band totally soul-less, then they young kiddies might get it

Also, I don't believe in the "old people music" nonsense. I think anyone of any age can appreciate good music and musical instruments being played, especially on some nice speakers. And I can listen to something that's 100 years old, if I haven't heard it, it's "new" to me.

 

Because I enjoy clarity in my mixes. Many of the mixes used bounced tracks which created a lot of compression. Remixing allows the tracks to breathe better.

Not to mention, many of the early tracks would benefit from a slight separation in double-tracked vocals. Or if Ron Furmenek mixed them, vocals split left and right, backing track in the middle, and the instrument overdub to the right.

 

Trust me, I would love for Furmanek to mix them. Unfortunately, Giles isn’t going to be booted anytime soon. Our current choice is either a Giles remix or none at all. I personally will take a Giles remix.

 

Still never gone sound that modern, unless they overdub drum machines and othe modern types of touches.

 

I listened for years and years to the Beatles music in AM radio mono. I couldn't even discern McCartney's bass lines because they were not audible or just buried... I remember a point in time many years later while playing the song, I'm a Loser, and just going bananas as I finally heard the bass line on that song...Oh my God ! (and this was not music coming out of one speaker). And then a few years later hearing the Yellow Submarine DVD in 5.1 !! SO I say...remaster, remix and release away. Whether its the catalog LPs or take 3 of It Won't Be Long. Give us 7.1, or even Dolby Atmos 10.1.

But back to the OP question - the kids of today and tomorrow are going to be way more affected by what their friends, their parents, and grandparents play - as well as social media rather than the fact that something is remixed. But the songs are so good and timeless - I think that whatever form the Beatles Fests that we know about now - turn out to be in the year 2030, they will still be happening and there will be folks of all ages still attending.

 

I dont agree with some of your reasons. I agree that Ron would absolutely be the best choice.

Id like a remix also. I have nothing against it. What I am against is the strong possibility that this may be the one chance that the Beatles catalogue will be remixed and imo so far it has been a travesty done by Giles and his team. And the choice of the later doing it is really null and void to me. I wont be purchasing future remixes that are a hack job like he did on Pepper.

Maybe his philosophy will suddenly change, but I doubt it.

 

It's funny you say this, because Giles uses tons of noticeable, badly-applied compression to just about everything he remixes. So his remixes do anything but "breathe".

 

Furmanek? Is that an alias for Peter Cobbin?

 

Relevant? No.

Of course, there will always be young folks that will be drawn to melodic, creative, guitar-band based pop music - so new Beatles fans will always come around, but the numbers may dwindle with each successive generation.

 

No. Remixing the album adds no relevancy whatsoever IMO. That’s not to say The Beatles are completely irrelevant, but the remixes certainly aren’t doing anything of the sort. I keep seeing posts on the forum suggesting that remixing albums like Sgt. Pepper in a more modern style will appeal to younger generations, but that isn’t true. The only people buying these things are people who are already Beatles fans. The original mixes of the albums are not turning younger people away from The Beatles’ music; most people probably don’t even notice the mix. I know I didn’t when I first started listening to The Beatles. As a Beatles fan and a member of the “younger generation,” I feel qualified to say that The Beatles are still relevant to a certain degree among young people, but that has nothing to do with remixes, rereleases, or deluxe editions.

 

Holograms.

 

This is a tough one, and by no means do I, or would I want to sound sarcastic, tho it's like do they need to keep updating or making special editions to keep Star Wars relevant?
I feel confident both will stand the test of time no matter what.
And besides these guys (both) did things in there time that were untouchable and never done and still today people can't create that same magic feel with so much more.
The Beatles are/were magical and it was not just in the production, it was in the songs and the people who created and played them. Long live!!

 

A more general point is: will remixing classic back catalogues keep the music industry alive, in some form?

I would say: probably not. The number of fans who will buy multiple iterations/editions of an album is tiny in the great scheme of things.

Plus, I don't think the Beatles catalogue really needs tampering with, as most of it was well-produced to begin with.

 

Probably not. If curious young fans seek out the Beatles, it's hard to imagine they'll care to0 much about a particular mix. It's the songs that will make a difference, I think.

 

No. They've had their day in the sun and once the last generation that grew up then die, they will be a band in the past. Their music will still be great but relevance? Relevance is related to the context of the time.

 

Admittedly, The Beatles Rock Band video game was a ingenious way to gain younger fans. Finally allowing Itunes downloads helped too, but to a much smaller extent (many young folks "own" no music, everything is streamed).

 

i think it depends on "if handclapping comes ever in fashion again"... if they can bring the claps to the forefront, remixes will surely help...
look also into this thread:
How innovative a handclapper was Paul?

 

In answer to the original question....

No they won't. And no amount of digital fixing or remixing will change that. What we hear is a body of work that defined a period of history - the ramifications of which are still relevant today, and will echo through eternity.