The Beatles albums remixed by Giles Martin

[Karl Henning]

Yes, the mono box is a beautiful thing.  I have to admit I prefer the White Album in stereo, since that's how I grew up listening to it, but for everything Pepper & before, I tend to prefer the original mono.  The Rolling Stones put out a mono box shortly after the Beatles did, and it's also the way to go IMO....

Interesting! My other favorite monaural remaster discoveries are the inaugural albums by Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd: This Was Jethro Tull and Piper at the Gates of Dawn.

[Leo K.]

I'm a fan of the new mixes but also glad for all my UK (original pressings) Beatles LPs on my shelf. I'm deaf in 1 ear, so don't hear the stereo remixes as they should be heard, but I like the clarity when I play back on a mono setting.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Nice and tasteful promo/animation video of Here, There and Everywhere. I wonder why George Martin and Paul didn't want to add strings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FusIKjztap8

[Brian]

This was just uploaded on Qobuz and I am streaming now. It sounds so "good," it almost feels like cheating in a way. The clarity and stereo sound picture on "Love You To" are astonishing, and "Eleanor Rigby" is darn near transcendent on headphones. When the "band begins to play" midway through "Yellow Submarine," it genuinely sounds like someone has just put on an LP of oompah music.

But if I say "it sounds like it was recorded yesterday", I mean that in two senses. Obviously, the fidelity is one. But the other is less positive. In recent years, pop music has trended to more heavily produced music, usually not the product of an actual band playing together in the moment in the studio, but more likely individual performances laid down separately and combined/manipulated after the fact. With this remastering, and the situating of the various voices on the left/right spectrum, you can sense the manipulation more strongly. I started wondering how many people were actually in the studio at a given time.

Pros and cons! As a document of whatever was happening in the recording session, it feels like this remix separates us from the live, unfiltered sound of the band. But as a sonic experience, good lord it's obscenely wonderful.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Gents, the remix of blue album has been released. Info and Youtube list are below. I guess Rubber Soul will be released next year.


https://superdeluxeedition.com/news/the-beatles-red-and-blue-albums-remixed-and-expanded/

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlrpE08Vg_Evmq41-WQNjnkt0YMoRl3cZ

[Karl Henning]

This chap is sorely disappointed, especially in "I Am the Walrus."

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

This chap is sorely disappointed, especially in "I Am the Walrus."

The guy doesn't explain why the original recordings sound better than the remix. Imo, the remixed albums sound significantly better with widened vocals and clarified instruments though Paul's bass is louder.

[DavidW]

This chap is sorely disappointed, especially in "I Am the Walrus."

Negativity does drive views though.  Unfortunately a negative review on YT is no guarantee of authenticity. 

[Karl Henning]

The guy doesn't explain why the original recordings sound better than the remix. Imo, the remixed albums sound significantly better with widened vocals and clarified instruments though Paul's bass is louder.

I've only just dipped a toe into an Old Brown Shoe, so I haven't formed an opinion. His complaint viz. "I Am the Walrus" has me curious, though. That track really drew me in when I first heard it on the blue compilation, back when.

Negativity does drive views though.  Unfortunately a negative review on YT is no guarantee of authenticity. 

Aptly observed, and since I upbraid Hurwitz for his blithe negativity, it would not become me to celebrate this brief rant overmuch.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

I've only just dipped a toe into an Old Brown Shoe, so I haven't formed an opinion. His complaint viz. "I Am the Walrus" has me curious, though. That track really drew me in when I first heard it on the blue compilation, back when.

Aptly observed, and since I upbraid Hurwitz for his blithe negativity, it would not become me to celebrate this brief rant overmuch.

As for Old Brown Shoe, the added guitar riff occasionally sounds rough but I like the vocal and guitar solo.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Nowhere Man, 2023 remix.

[Karl Henning]

This chap is sorely disappointed, especially in "I Am the Walrus."

I've listened at last to the remix of "I Am the Walrus."

IMO, he doth simply protest too much.

[Karl Henning]

Maybe I'm too old: I want my Beatles to sound like the Beatles I grew up with.

I'm no poulet du printemps, but I don't see this as an age-dependent matter. When Genesis refreshed their catalogue and made fresh stereo mixes as well as 5.1 versions, they made a point of not "re-making the songs," not wishing the listener to react with, "I don't know this dang song."

[Elgarian Redux]

I'm no poulet du printemps, but I don't see this as an age-dependent matter.

You're probably right that age isn't relevant. All I was really saying was that I like my Beatles to sound like the Beatles always sounded. 'Tis so still.

[Karl Henning]

You're probably right that age isn't relevant. All I was really saying was that I like my Beatles to sound like the Beatles always sounded. 'Tis so still.

Quite right!

[Spotted Horses]

I'm not a huge fan of the Beatles, but what I have read makes me think I'd be better off with the mono editions, at least of the earlier songs.

[Karl Henning]

I'm not a huge fan of the Beatles, but what I have read makes me think I'd be better off with the mono editions, at least of the earlier songs.

FWIW, I do love the monaural box.

[Kalevala]

I'm no poulet du printemps

    Oh, thank you for the good laugh! 

Signed,

Poulet entre quelque part le printemps and de l'automne

[San Antone]

I've just been listening to the remixes by Giles Martin. 

I was curious because usually remixes are done using 24+ individual tracks allowing for a huge number of variables for the engineer to tinker with. However, for most of the Beatles catalog the music was recorded on 4-track machines, or fewer, and during the original sessions tracks were bounced, in essence mixed down to one track and then other tracks added on top of that.  These were then mixed to a mono master.  Even if he went back to the original 4-track sessions, instruments were combined onto the same track leaving little wiggle room for separating them or changing their relative volumes.

However with modern studio software, there is much more than can done or at least to simulate more.  For those tracks with two or more instruments on one track - nowadays we have software which can pull these apart to separate tracks, although with some aural damage. Instruments can be artificially "doubled" or split over two tracks (something the Beatles did manually on vocals), and other studio trickery.

Which is what I hear has been done with these remixes, artificially creating separation, i..e panning creating the illusion of a stereo recording, adding effects and other manipulation to the new tracks they've created, as well as new signal processing on the overall mix. Some are worse than others, Revolution e.g. is significantly muddier and not nearly as punchy and good as the original.

I don't think they are exactly "bad" (i.e. hard to listen to) but I find them completely unnecessary and mostly not an improvement on the originals.  I am left with the suspicion that they were created in a cynical attempt to yet again monetize the Beatles back catalog.

Steven Wilson, Giles Martin is not.

[Spotted Horses]

I've just been listening to the remixes by Giles Martin. 

I was curious because usually remixes are done using 24+ individual tracks allowing for a huge number of variables for the engineer to tinker with. However, for most of the Beatles catalog the music was recorded on 4-track machines, or fewer, and during the original sessions tracks were bounced, in essence mixed down to one track and then other tracks added on top of that.  These were then mixed to a mono master.  Even if he went back to the original 4-track sessions, instruments were combined onto the same track leaving little wiggle room for separating them or changing their relative volumes.

However with modern studio software, there is much more than can done or at least to simulate more.  For those tracks with two or more instruments on one track - nowadays we have software which can pull these apart to separate tracks, although with some aural damage. Instruments can be artificially "doubled" or split over two tracks (something the Beatles did manually on vocals), and other studio trickery.

Which is what I hear has been done with these remixes, artificially creating separation, i..e panning creating the illusion of a stereo recording, adding effects and other manipulation to the new tracks they've created, as well as new signal processing on the overall mix. Some are worse than others, Revolution e.g. is significantly muddier and not nearly as punchy and good as the original.

I don't think they are exactly "bad" (i.e. hard to listen to) but I find them completely unnecessary and mostly not an improvement on the originals.  I am left with the suspicion that they were created in a cynical attempt to yet again monetize the Beatles back catalog.

Steven Wilson, Giles Martin is not.

I remember reading that "artificial intelligence," or "machine learning" (or some related buzzword) was used to isolate the instruments. Basically the algorithm could be trained on snippets of tape where an instrument is isolated, and it would learn to pick it out of an ensemble. I remember reading about amazement that the squeak on Ringo's kick drum pedal had been isolated. But I agree with your characterization of the new release as unnecessary. A lot of the magic of it was hearing what the Beatles, George Martin and the engineers were able to do within the limitations of the technology of the time.