Beatles

Brad Vautrinot · 02-17-2008, 08:00 AM

I just had a nostalgia attack for the Beatles and want to buy some CD's of their music. I know there's been a ton of CD's released over the years and a lot of them have terrible sound and production values. Can anyone direct me to some Beatles CD's that sound wonderful?

Brad

Jack Gilvey · 02-17-2008, 08:52 AM

The original releases are pretty bad. They exemplify "early digital" to me, probably because they are. The "Yellow Submarine" Songtrack from a couple years ago is good, as is the cd version of "Love" (the DVD-A is astonishing and worth buying for the 5.1 DTS track alone, btw, in case you don't have DVD-A capability).

Colin Jacobson · 02-17-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Vautrinot

I just had a nostalgia attack for the Beatles and want to buy some CD's of their music. I know there's been a ton of CD's released over the years and a lot of them have terrible sound and production values.

Not sure what you mean by "production values" - do you mean the original production? That's not gonna change no matter how well-mastered the CDs may be. Not that I think there's anything wrong with the production - those albums were well-produced, IMO.

And there haven't been a "ton" of CD releases over the years. In terms of the original albums, you can essentially find only ONE release for each. Exceptions: there were Canadian CDs of "Help!" and "Rubber Soul" that used the original mixes, and there was a Japanese "Abbey Road" with a different mastering. Good luck getting any of those for less than $100 - they're very desirable and rare.

Otherwise, the CDs for the original albums are the same ones that've been on the shelves since 1987. They've released other new compilations since then, but the originals haven't changed in 21 years...

Brad Vautrinot · 02-17-2008, 12:41 PM

Thanks, Jack.

Colin, by production values I meant well mastered - ones that have as full a tonal range as possible and don't sound like a tinny one track pseudo stereo. I think you know what I mean. Some CD's sound awesome while others deserve to be burned at the stake. I see many other artists' older albums being re-released with, and I paraphrase, "newly re-mastered, sounds better than ever, cleaned up, etc.", ad nauseum. Just wondering if there are some Beatles CD's that are better than others and which ones, if any, to stay away from. Thanks for your help.

Brad

Zack Gibbs · 02-17-2008, 01:30 PM

It's been reported for YEARS now that the entire cataloge has been/will be remastered to be put up on iTunes, and that new CD releases will follow after. This isn't just rumor either, all the various "apples" have commented on it, yet here we are, February 2008 with no Beatles in site. *sigh*

**HTF Ads**

Ockeghem · 02-17-2008, 02:44 PM

Brad Vautrinot:

Quote:

I just had a nostalgia attack for the Beatles and want to buy some CD's of their music. I know there's been a ton of CD's released over the years and a lot of them have terrible sound and production values. Can anyone direct me to some Beatles CD's that sound wonderful?

There have been quite a few releases over the years. However, not all of them are (as you probably know) legitimate releases. I own roughly 250 LPs of the Beatles music (from about twenty countries) and over 200 CDs, including a ton of stuff the wasn't released legitimately. (For example, I own around seven or eight recordings of many of the releases on Please Please Me and With the Beatles. It's wonderful being able to trace to some extent the compositional processes by listening to the earlier and subsequent versions of one and the same song. Listening to Don't Bother Me in keys other than what it was legitimately released in is a real treat.)

The North American releases do sound quite different than the British in many respects, esp. with regard to sibilance with the drums. I don't mind the sound, since I enjoy both the American and non-American releases for different reasons. I just put on a different set of ears. So I suppose I really cannot define for you what sounding 'wonderful' might be. But one piece of advice I might be able to share is that for the earlier albums (up until around SPLHCB, I believe, you probably want to purchase the British albums first (or pehaps I should say not the original North American releases) since these most often contain around fourteen (as opposed to eleven) tunes per album.

Happy hunting and listening.

Brad Vautrinot · 02-17-2008, 06:53 PM

Thanks much, Scott & Zack

Brad

Josh Simpson · 02-19-2008, 01:23 PM

1987, people. 1987. It's sad to think how desperately these need remastered. That doesn't mean I want "louder is better," but a fresh remaster. Oh well, they will eventually come.

Keith Paynter · 02-19-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ockeghem

Brad Vautrinot:

There have been quite a few releases over the years. However, not all of them are (as you probably know) legitimate releases. I own roughly 250 LPs of the Beatles music (from about twenty countries) and over 200 CDs, including a ton of stuff the wasn't released legitimately. (For example, I own around seven or eight recordings of many of the releases on Please Please Me and With the Beatles. It's wonderful being able to trace to some extent the compositional processes by listening to the earlier and subsequent versions of one and the same song. Listening to Don't Bother Me in keys other than what it was legitimately released in is a real treat.)

Amen Ockeghem! Though I don't like to identify my sources for bootleg material (and we're not really supposed to discuss them anyway), I do like the fact that so many that were released in the 80's have a sonic quality that rivals and (more often) surpasses the official releases, especially where session reels are concerned. Where they came from in terms of timing with Mark Lewison's marvellous book is still a hot subject of debate.

I will however, go to great length to say that, even though they are from later generation masters, the Capitol Records box sets are a revelation in sonic quality, especially where mono mixes are concerned. Being a Britmix fan, the stereo version of The Beatles' Second Album is still a sonic bastardizing with all the extra compression, 'duophonic' mixing, and reverb, but the fact that overall there are stereo and mono mixes of songs not found elsewhere (including the British singles and EP box sets) is reason enough to have them.

Ockeghem · 02-19-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Paynter

Amen Ockeghem! Though I don't like to identify my sources for bootleg material (and we're not really supposed to discuss them anyway), I do like the fact that so many that were released in the 80's have a sonic quality that rivals and (more often) surpasses the official releases, especially where session reels are concerned. Where they came from in terms of timing with Mark Lewison's marvellous book is still a hot subject of debate.

Keith,

Thanks. Yeah, I'm always a bit cautious when I discuss those types of materials on message Boards. One of the best Beatles books I own is the You Can't Do That! Beatles Bootlegs & Novelties Records, 1963-1980, by Charles Reinhart. But as good as that gem is, there is even some conflicting information as far as where certain performances (let alone recordings) took place.

As far as the sonic quality is concerned, I most definitely agree with what you said. And I also I enjoy the sound of my LPs over that of CDs in many cases. I just put on a different set of ears.

Quote:

I will however, go to great length to say that, even though they are from later generation masters, the Capitol Records box sets are a revelation in sonic