Beatles reissues: is there a point, or...?
 

I'm just curious. I mean I guess they're "remastered" (oooh) or whatever. But none of this shiz was out of print or anything. I'm just curious why everyone is acting like this is some huge deal or something? I mean is it? Am I missing something?

Oh and sidenote to Pitchfork: Yeah, no kidding The White Album and SGT PEPPERS are 10/10's. We've all been aware of that for some time, so can you just review the new Jay-Z and Raekwon albums instead? Thanks.

I listened to the White album yesterday. It still continues to entirely baffle me what the fuss is about this band. Is it just that they're scallies singing in American accents? Or is it that the only half-decent songs are the wartime-pop pastiches? Wouldn't you all just be happier with Acker Bilk or something?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Glice again.

I hear ya. Out of their entire body of work, I actually enjoy 2, maybe 3 songs. Hell ... percentage-wise, even Third Eye Blind fares better than that.

There's a lot of Beatles I love. I'm just talking about the reissues. What's the point?

I didn't know about the packaging. I have yet to see these reissues.

It's a digital remaster. Which means, among other things, a CD version of
Sgt. Peppers with a sound worthy of the songs.

meh. I'll stick with the ones I already have. They sound okay to me.

I gots the original british Mono ones LP. yeah

Listen to the old ones and the new ones back to back. You'll see the difference. The other ones are from 1987, when CD was a relatively new format, and as a result they were terribly mastered.

Here's the three versions of "She's Leaving Home":

1987 CD
Stereo Remaster
Mono Remaster

I just bought the remastered Sgt Pepper's earlier today. I've listened to it once so far. Definitely an improvement on the original CD but nothing too dramatic. Just a 'bigger' more 'open' sound. I've not yet looked at the 'making of' documentary that comes with it.

The packaging is the now usual cardboard gatefold thingy that's bound to rip sooner rather than later and which I'm convinced isn't the safest way to store discs.

I never bought the remastered version of Ciccone's WHITEY ALBUM either. Which is something I'd be MORE prone to purchasing, as I love love love that album. But again, I couldn't help but wonder... what's the point? Is it worth it in anyway? In the case of Ciccone I don't think there was even any expanded art or anything.

That was a really interesting comparison. The difference between the stereo remaster and the orig CD mix really is quite subtle I think. Apart from the inevitable increase in volume on the remasters I'm not sure many people would notice a difference. There's more definition in the bass area and an overall sense of better instrument seperation but not something that'd be readily evident on a casual listen. The mono remaster is obviously far more dramatic - almost like an entirely different take - and appears to be about 7 seconds shorter than either stereo version!

Necrophiliac Equine Flagellation

And look who makes money out of these re-releases - The 2 shittest Beatles, The Jackson family, and Sony.

And for those reasons - I'm out.

There's a point to getting the new remasters if you're more than a casual fan and you want to hear these songs in the best quality possible.

With the remasters, you can now hear their first four albums in stereo for the first time, and there's now great quality mono versions on cd of everything up through the White Album, the way the band intended the songs to be heard. The differences are more dramatic on some songs and albums compared with others. The biggest differences for me come when comparing the mono mixes to the stereo ones, which as mentioned above, often almost sound like entirely different takes.

blah blah woof woof.

the beatles are like Bob Dylan to me.. they wrote some good tunes true, but they themselves could not perform them for SHIT! I enjoy more Beatles' covers than originals.. I think early beatles is nonsense and I detest the artificial 'psychedelic' era of their tunes as blatant commercialism, like all those crappy bands riding the grunge wave.. if anything it is a sell-out period for them, they went 'psychedelic' to sell albums, not because they were genuince or sincere psychedelic or jam band musicians..

not liking the beatles is one thing, talking utter nonsense about them is quite another.

yeah I like the Beatles a lot. Dylan too. Whatever it's not about that. I guess I've just never been into the whole audiophile hi-def remaster blah blah thing.

It's like someone who dislikes Sonic Youth claiming it's all noise, no song
structure, no talent, and they're all trust fund babies anyway.

Also, here's a review of Blueprint 3: Mediocre. You're in trouble when the best beat is done by Swizz Beatz. I like much of his stuff for other artists, but he should never be the best producer on any album.

Cuban Linx 2: Incredible. GZA destroys "We Will Rob You." Amazing beats throughout, save the Dre ones.

Yeah. Guitar music is so 90's.

there is always a reason. Making MONEY