Showing posts with label The Beatles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Beatles. Show all posts
Monday, August 08, 2011
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
For Sale by heartless corporation: number 3 Abbey Road
According to a number of sources EMI’s parent company, Terra Firma is trying to sell Abbey Road Studios in an attempt to stave off the wolves at Citibank. Sadly the studio is only expected to bring in something like tens of millions of dollars when the amount necessary to stop the $3 billion dollar loan from going into default is over $190 million dollars. If that's the case it's a bit like throwing the deck chairs off of the Titanic thinking that it will stop it from sinking. Also sad is the fact that many feel the “brand” of Abbey Road is worth more than the facility itself.
Abbey Road of course is most famous for having been the studio of choice for the majority of Beatles recording sessions and many early to middle period Pink Floyd recordings, though not “Dark Side of the Moon” as many sources are erroneously claiming. According to some sources EMI doesn't consider a recording studio an essential asset. That's not a joke by the way the music industry has lost it's way so badly it doesn't even see the value in owning a first class facility in which to record music. In this day and age a lot of music can be recorded using a computer and pro tools, many consider anything over and above that to be a luxury.
Abbey Road of course is most famous for having been the studio of choice for the majority of Beatles recording sessions and many early to middle period Pink Floyd recordings, though not “Dark Side of the Moon” as many sources are erroneously claiming. According to some sources EMI doesn't consider a recording studio an essential asset. That's not a joke by the way the music industry has lost it's way so badly it doesn't even see the value in owning a first class facility in which to record music. In this day and age a lot of music can be recorded using a computer and pro tools, many consider anything over and above that to be a luxury.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Even more Beatles remasters news
In addition to The Beatles remasters being released on CD in mono and stereo versions Mojo recently broke the inevitable news that they will also see a vinyl release as well. Thus far there is no news on pricing, stereo and/or mono, or whether they will be sourced from the 24/192 digital masters or analog masters. But it's good news for record lovers everywhere. For those on the complete other end of the spectrum the catalog will also see release on a USB drive according to Reuters news agency, just in time for Christmas of course. Apparently, the release will be limited to 30,000 units. Probably in much the same way that the mono boxed set was "limited" to 10,000 units. In addition to the 320 Kbps MP3 files the drive will also contain the albums in FLAC at 24 bits 44.1 Khz. It's good to see that they are offering people something at higher resolutions than MP3. Now the only question is when will they release the music in 24/192 (possibly on Blu-Ray) because we ALL know that it's coming sooner or later.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
The Beatles Mono vs. Stereo
There has been quite a bit of discussion on this blog about the importance of The Beatles catalog in mono. This video does a great job of demonstrating many of the variations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0p6tOVlKK8&fmt=22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0p6tOVlKK8&fmt=22
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Yet more Beatles mono news
Just to make The Beatles mono-mania that's going on around here a little more absurd earlier today I received the following email from amazon:
Hello from Amazon.com,
Our records indicate you purchased a Beatles Mono Box Set, and we wanted to update you on its availability.
This new information will not affect your pre-order--if you pre-ordered a mono box set, you will receive it.
The manufacturer has informed us that they will be producing additional mono box sets due to high demand. While the box set remains a limited-production item, it will not be capped at 10,000 copies for the U.S. market, as originally reported.
That's good news for those who haven't already ordered.
Friday, August 28, 2009
IT'S ALMOST HERE!!!
Both myself and my blogmate have been anxiously awaiting the release of The Beatles remasters box sets, particularly the mono set since they were announced. For those not aware the mono boxed set is limited to 10,000 copies in the United States and amazon.com is already sold out. Now being "limited edition" means nothing in and of itself however, since it is of limited appeal there is every chance that it will go out of print. So why all of the the excitement for the mono set?
George Martin and The Beatles spent days, sometimes weeks mixing the mono version of most of their albums. The stereo mixes were done usually by an assistant engineer. Sometimes it was even worse, the stereo mix was done by an apprentice engineer. Paul McCartney briefly mentions this in the extra material on The Beatles Anthology DVDs. Saying roughly, "the stereo mixes were done one day while we (George Martin, the producer and The Beatles) were at lunch." With the exceptions of "Yellow Submarine", "Let It Be", and "Abbey Road" the mono mix was the baby. The stereo mix was the bastard redheaded stepchild at best.
At first blush this sounds like a massive oversight. But as Mr. McCartney goes on to point out ". . . ninety-Eight percent of people were listening in mono." Stereo was new, many thought it was a fad and wouldn't last. Many Hi-Fi enthusiasts resisted it in the beginning. It meant a serious amount of money needed to be spent. They were forced to buy another amplifier, another speaker, a new preamplifier, and a new turntable.
Will the sound live up to the expectations? If the review on Tone Audio is any indication the answer is a resounding YES! Also of interest is an ongoing thread on the Steve Hoffman forum. Amazon has some interesting podcasts on the remasters on the right hand side of the page. In addition to two 10 minute interviews with two of the engineers involved in the 4 year project there are there are numerous half minute samples of various Beatles songs to enjoy until the sets ship. September 9th can't arrive fast enough!
George Martin and The Beatles spent days, sometimes weeks mixing the mono version of most of their albums. The stereo mixes were done usually by an assistant engineer. Sometimes it was even worse, the stereo mix was done by an apprentice engineer. Paul McCartney briefly mentions this in the extra material on The Beatles Anthology DVDs. Saying roughly, "the stereo mixes were done one day while we (George Martin, the producer and The Beatles) were at lunch." With the exceptions of "Yellow Submarine", "Let It Be", and "Abbey Road" the mono mix was the baby. The stereo mix was the bastard redheaded stepchild at best.
At first blush this sounds like a massive oversight. But as Mr. McCartney goes on to point out ". . . ninety-Eight percent of people were listening in mono." Stereo was new, many thought it was a fad and wouldn't last. Many Hi-Fi enthusiasts resisted it in the beginning. It meant a serious amount of money needed to be spent. They were forced to buy another amplifier, another speaker, a new preamplifier, and a new turntable.
Will the sound live up to the expectations? If the review on Tone Audio is any indication the answer is a resounding YES! Also of interest is an ongoing thread on the Steve Hoffman forum. Amazon has some interesting podcasts on the remasters on the right hand side of the page. In addition to two 10 minute interviews with two of the engineers involved in the 4 year project there are there are numerous half minute samples of various Beatles songs to enjoy until the sets ship. September 9th can't arrive fast enough!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Find of a Lifetime?
Being a semi-serious Beatles fan I was aware that Capitol had not released the earliest Beatles album or single in the US, that honor went to a small Chicago label named Vee Jay. While at Second Hand Tunes in Evanston, IL. I came across a copy of The Beatles - "Introducing. . . The Beatles Englands No.1 Vocal Group." on the Vee Jay label. Of course my Southsider skepticism was immediately raised but for $20 and with my best friend whom I still owe a wedding present being a HUGE fan I figured that I'd take the chance. After all if a record this rare would be found anywhere, why not Evanston it's pretty much Chicago after all.
As I often do I called my buddy from the record store in a hushed voice as to not tip the store's staff off to what treasure I might have found and asked for his input. Of course he also knew that the first album had been issued on Vee Jay but didn't know of any distinguishing marks to spot a possible fake. After arriving home I Googled the title hoping to find a website with a little guidance. The first site that I found had an encyclopedic amount of information. Apparently the The Beatles first US album is one of the most faked albums ever. The fact that Vee Jay issued many, many variations of the album in a short period of time can make identifying an original a bit difficult. The copy that I purchased had many of the signs that it was the genuine article but it failed one or two of the crucial tests. In the end it looks like it is one of the better forgeries that was produced, fooling many professionals in fact. I hope that he isn't too disappointed. Below are photos of the label and back cover of the version of the forgery that I ended up purchasing.
As I often do I called my buddy from the record store in a hushed voice as to not tip the store's staff off to what treasure I might have found and asked for his input. Of course he also knew that the first album had been issued on Vee Jay but didn't know of any distinguishing marks to spot a possible fake. After arriving home I Googled the title hoping to find a website with a little guidance. The first site that I found had an encyclopedic amount of information. Apparently the The Beatles first US album is one of the most faked albums ever. The fact that Vee Jay issued many, many variations of the album in a short period of time can make identifying an original a bit difficult. The copy that I purchased had many of the signs that it was the genuine article but it failed one or two of the crucial tests. In the end it looks like it is one of the better forgeries that was produced, fooling many professionals in fact. I hope that he isn't too disappointed. Below are photos of the label and back cover of the version of the forgery that I ended up purchasing.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Mono, it's not just for kissing any more
Today Chris lent me the Limited Edition MONO version of Pink Floyd's "Piper at the Gates of Dawn." I can hear the head scratching from here. "Why would you want to listen to the expensive near impossible to find mono version when there is a cheap stereo version easily available?", you ask. Well it's simple the band and the producer were involved in the mixing of the mono version, but NOT in the stereo mix. The stereo mix was done in a rush by an apprentice engineer at Abbey Road/EMI studios. The Floyd never approved the stereo mix! To this day when asked about the album they are quick to point out that the mono mix is the only one approved by the band.
Interestingly the majority of the The Beatles albums are similar. George Martin and The Beatles spent days, sometimes weeks mixing the mono version of most of their albums. The stereo mixes were done usually by an assistant engineer. Sometimes it was even worse, the stereo mix was done by an apprentice engineer. Paul McCartney briefly mentions this in the extra material on The Beatles Anthology DVDs. Saying roughly, "the stereo mixes were done one day while we (George Martin, the producer and The Beatles) were at lunch." With the possible exception of "Abbey Road", the last album they would record the mono mix was the baby. The stereo mix was the bastard redheaded stepchild at best.
At first blush this sounds like a massive oversight. But as Mr. McCartney goes on to point out ". . . ninety-Eight percent of people were listening in mono." Stereo was new, many thought it was a fad and wouldn't last. Many Hi-Fi enthusiasts resisted it at the beginning. It meant a serious amount of money needed to be spent. They were forced to buy another amplifier, another speaker, a new preamplifier, and a new turntable.
This market seems to be getting some attention lately. The Beatles have issued two boxed sets of Early American albums in both mono and stereo. The problem is these are the American versions which I believe are missing between 1 and 3 songs per album, compared to the British versions. The Beatles American record label REMOVED songs from Beatles albums and would then combined them later to make separate EP releases, to squeeze out a couple of extra bucks. These are also remastered from the American masters (read at least second generation, possibly worse.) Of all major artists it still continues to amaze me that The Beatles back catalog has not been remastered. Does Paul McCartney have too much money? I'm sure that Ringo Starr could use a couple of extra bucks, and Yoko is always up for profiting from the memory of her dead husband.
Interestingly the majority of the The Beatles albums are similar. George Martin and The Beatles spent days, sometimes weeks mixing the mono version of most of their albums. The stereo mixes were done usually by an assistant engineer. Sometimes it was even worse, the stereo mix was done by an apprentice engineer. Paul McCartney briefly mentions this in the extra material on The Beatles Anthology DVDs. Saying roughly, "the stereo mixes were done one day while we (George Martin, the producer and The Beatles) were at lunch." With the possible exception of "Abbey Road", the last album they would record the mono mix was the baby. The stereo mix was the bastard redheaded stepchild at best.
At first blush this sounds like a massive oversight. But as Mr. McCartney goes on to point out ". . . ninety-Eight percent of people were listening in mono." Stereo was new, many thought it was a fad and wouldn't last. Many Hi-Fi enthusiasts resisted it at the beginning. It meant a serious amount of money needed to be spent. They were forced to buy another amplifier, another speaker, a new preamplifier, and a new turntable.
This market seems to be getting some attention lately. The Beatles have issued two boxed sets of Early American albums in both mono and stereo. The problem is these are the American versions which I believe are missing between 1 and 3 songs per album, compared to the British versions. The Beatles American record label REMOVED songs from Beatles albums and would then combined them later to make separate EP releases, to squeeze out a couple of extra bucks. These are also remastered from the American masters (read at least second generation, possibly worse.) Of all major artists it still continues to amaze me that The Beatles back catalog has not been remastered. Does Paul McCartney have too much money? I'm sure that Ringo Starr could use a couple of extra bucks, and Yoko is always up for profiting from the memory of her dead husband.
Ten Favorite albums
Originally written: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
In no particular order here goes:
1. Dire Straits-Brothers in Arms Very atmospheric and melancholy. Meticulously arranged and recorded. It's ironic that this album has only one upbeat song and that is probably the most famous cut, "Walk of Life." It is also the least representative of the rest of the album.
2. The Who-Who's Next For my money the ultimate hard rock album, containing the ultimate hard rock song "Won't Get Fooled Again." Great songs and great performances. It's hard to believe that this album was really the cobbled together bits and pieces of a failed masterpiece.
3. The Beatles-Abby Road On this album they were hitting on all cylinders and couldn't make a mistake if they had tried. Great songs, cool vocal harmonies, and they take risks with song structure that no one else had nor has anyone else since. This may be the only time that a band did their best album as their last. Let it Be was released later but it was recorded first.
4. Robert Johnson-The Complete Recordings I discovered Robert Johnson because he was mentioned so many times by Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. He only recorded about three sessions over the course of two years in the late 1930's but the impact that this music has had can't be under estimated. Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton of Cream all admire this guy and have covered his songs.
5. Led Zeppelin-Physical graffiti Possibly their most diverse album. I love Led Zeppelin so much it was really hard to choose just one but this album will give you an idea of what they were all about. Also unlike most double albums there is no filler songs and no repeated musical ideas.
6. Pink Floyd-The Wall What can I say about this masterpiece that hasn't already been said? Many will tell you that Dark Side of the Moon is a better album and musically and sonically it probably is. Where this album really comes into it's own is the sheer scale of the story it tries to tell. It is a concept album with a plot and numerous subplots. Briefly it is about: the death of a parent, the oppression of the modern education system, an over protective mother, the fear of nuclear war, the isolation that fame causes, the excesses of stardom, and ultimately madness.
7. The Beach Boys-Pet Sounds An album about the kind of romantic first love that only comes once in a life time and it's inevitable end. No one every comes close to touching these guys when it come to their ability to harmonize with each other. This is almost more of a Brian Wilson solo album with the rest of the band along for the ride. Brian also throws every instrument he could get his hands on into the mix and it all works.
8.Sheryl Crow-Tuesday Night Music Club Probably the strongest first album by any artist ever. All of the songs are smartly written and the arrangements are near flawless. The other musicians that worked with her on this album really contributed whole heartedly. I love everything that Sheryl has ever released but she has yet to top her first album.
9. Theloneous Monk-Straight, No Chaser Believe it or not I had a pet rabbit named Hope that used to love this album. Whenever I would play it she would fly into the room and run around kicking her feet up in the air for about the first five minutes and then settle in at my feet to listen to the rest. She also loved Pink Floyd's Meddle and had the same reaction. Most other music she ignored as noise.
10. Chuck Berry-The Great 28 Elvis may have been the King of Rock and Roll but Chucks was it's father. The amazing thing about this music is that unlike most 1950's Rock it sounds as fresh today as it did when it was first released. It is feel good music that forces you to tap you toe.
In no particular order here goes:
1. Dire Straits-Brothers in Arms Very atmospheric and melancholy. Meticulously arranged and recorded. It's ironic that this album has only one upbeat song and that is probably the most famous cut, "Walk of Life." It is also the least representative of the rest of the album.
2. The Who-Who's Next For my money the ultimate hard rock album, containing the ultimate hard rock song "Won't Get Fooled Again." Great songs and great performances. It's hard to believe that this album was really the cobbled together bits and pieces of a failed masterpiece.
3. The Beatles-Abby Road On this album they were hitting on all cylinders and couldn't make a mistake if they had tried. Great songs, cool vocal harmonies, and they take risks with song structure that no one else had nor has anyone else since. This may be the only time that a band did their best album as their last. Let it Be was released later but it was recorded first.
4. Robert Johnson-The Complete Recordings I discovered Robert Johnson because he was mentioned so many times by Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. He only recorded about three sessions over the course of two years in the late 1930's but the impact that this music has had can't be under estimated. Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton of Cream all admire this guy and have covered his songs.
5. Led Zeppelin-Physical graffiti Possibly their most diverse album. I love Led Zeppelin so much it was really hard to choose just one but this album will give you an idea of what they were all about. Also unlike most double albums there is no filler songs and no repeated musical ideas.
6. Pink Floyd-The Wall What can I say about this masterpiece that hasn't already been said? Many will tell you that Dark Side of the Moon is a better album and musically and sonically it probably is. Where this album really comes into it's own is the sheer scale of the story it tries to tell. It is a concept album with a plot and numerous subplots. Briefly it is about: the death of a parent, the oppression of the modern education system, an over protective mother, the fear of nuclear war, the isolation that fame causes, the excesses of stardom, and ultimately madness.
7. The Beach Boys-Pet Sounds An album about the kind of romantic first love that only comes once in a life time and it's inevitable end. No one every comes close to touching these guys when it come to their ability to harmonize with each other. This is almost more of a Brian Wilson solo album with the rest of the band along for the ride. Brian also throws every instrument he could get his hands on into the mix and it all works.
8.Sheryl Crow-Tuesday Night Music Club Probably the strongest first album by any artist ever. All of the songs are smartly written and the arrangements are near flawless. The other musicians that worked with her on this album really contributed whole heartedly. I love everything that Sheryl has ever released but she has yet to top her first album.
9. Theloneous Monk-Straight, No Chaser Believe it or not I had a pet rabbit named Hope that used to love this album. Whenever I would play it she would fly into the room and run around kicking her feet up in the air for about the first five minutes and then settle in at my feet to listen to the rest. She also loved Pink Floyd's Meddle and had the same reaction. Most other music she ignored as noise.
10. Chuck Berry-The Great 28 Elvis may have been the King of Rock and Roll but Chucks was it's father. The amazing thing about this music is that unlike most 1950's Rock it sounds as fresh today as it did when it was first released. It is feel good music that forces you to tap you toe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)