I've listened to a number of songs from the remasters back to back with the older versions and the new versions sound much, much better. There's a lot more clarity to the sound. It's like taking an old dark, photo into Photoshop and playing with the levels and just taking away the grime and brightening it all up. Big difference, at least to my ears.
brians wig · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote:
[/b]
Totally disagree: The 2009 CD's are not worth the extra money, not only that, they are they not worth being called remasters.
If you have the old CD's - stick with them - there is not that much difference.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry John, but I've heard both the originals and these remasters, and i have to say that the new remasters are MUCH better than the originals are. I did a side by side comparison with some selected songs from different albums and the new ones are much clearer and richer in sound than the originals.
Tha "hard left/right" mastering of the originals has been fudged a little so there is some cross-over and it's not as "hard" anymore.
To be fair though, I would have preferred a new remix of the albums to remove this "hard left/right" mix.
It's quite possible that you are just losing some frequencies in your hearing range - something that affects everyone as they get older...
As for the cost, you're right. I'm absolutely appalled that the Stereo Remasters & The Mono Masters aren't packaged together. They really are talking the michael by expecting people to fork out up to £350 for both sets.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
John S Stuart · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]brians wig wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote:
[/b]
Totally disagree: The 2009 CD's are not worth the extra money, not only that, they are they not worth being called remasters.
If you have the old CD's - stick with them - there is not that much difference.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry John, but I've heard both the originals and these remasters, and i have to say that the new remasters are MUCH better than the originals are. I did a side by side comparison with some selected songs from different albums and the new ones are much clearer and richer in sound than the originals.
Tha "hard left/right" mastering of the originals has been fudged a little so there is some cross-over and it's not as "hard" anymore.
To be fair though, I would have preferred a new remix of the albums to remove this "hard left/right" mix.
It's quite possible that you are just losing some frequencies in your hearing range - something that affects everyone as they get older...
As for the cost, you're right. I'm absolutely appalled that the Stereo Remasters & The Mono Masters aren't packaged together. They really are talking the michael by expecting people to fork out up to £350 for both sets.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Mr Wig, you seem to be just offering me an 'either - or' situation - and that is [b]not[/b] the choice.
For a fairer comparison, the Beatles remastered material in 1995,1999, and in 2006.
Against [b]THOSE[/b] remixes - the new releases just do not stack.
I offer you a challenge. Chose any 3 tracks of your choice, and I will submit 3 of mine.
I am confident that my tracks would win all six comparisons.
My question is why - After - remixing what (IMO) could be described as definitive mixes - resort to the same tired old '60 style of mastering?
(PS: Check your PM!)
AlexRocks · Member since
Three years from now they will already put the Beatles catelog on Blu-Ray the way I said that the music industry should be adopting blu-ray...
mooghead · Member since
ffs, are you still banging on about blu ray? 18 months/2 years ago you were boring everyone to death by saying the Quen back catalogue will soon be on blu ray. It wont take off as a music format.
ok.computer · Member since
Well I dunno...I listened to an original Sgt Pepper on a Linn Sondek through one of their Majik systems....sounded pretty good to me as it was.
john bodega · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
Maybe The Beatles would have been forgettable if they formed circa 1973, and compared unfavorably with Queen. [/QUOTE]
It's an interesting thought but I don't see it. Aside from some of their early experiments with sampling and the fact that they were the first big act to use headphones in a studio, it wasn't the technology that made the Beatles interesting - it was the songs themselves. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Setting aside most of the awful covers that have been done since the originals were released, a number of the songs hold up in any decade. One can't accurately guess if they would've been as successful if they'd appeared 10 years later because if they hadn't existed, '10 years later' would've been a different scenario altogether. Whether a band makes it or not really has more to do with the personalities in it, and I think the Beatles would've been at least moderately successful, no matter when they'd come about. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Of course there's a healthy swag of Beatles material that isn't what one would consider high art ... but that goes for any band that has 100-200 songs. The first time I got my hands on every Queen song ever done, I had some pretty nasty shocks I can tell you.[/QUOTE]
4 x Vision · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Zeb, out of curiosity and nothing else, are you a bigger Beatles/Lennon fan than Queen... or do you see them on level par (In your opinion)?
john bodega · Member since
To be quite frank I would feel cheap, dirty and base if I gave a comparison a serious thought ... they are different acts. Even with ELO, who are way closer stylistically to the Beatles than Queen ever were, one still can't make a direct comparison. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I have a pretty open minded view about both of the bands. They pretty much fill out the list of my all-time favourite songs, and I can't speak highly enough of the talented individuals in each band. They've also both put out some terribly average material that I'd rather forget!!! Haha.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I probably find the personalities of the Beatles members more interesting than I do those in Queen... not to say I admire Lennon more than Mercury for instance, but because of his flaws I find him far more interesting to read about. Freddie (and Brian for that matter) are people I identify with more readily because when they're not doing 'the job', they're pretty average sounding fellas.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I dunno how to answer your question. I love both bands, for differing reasons. The quality in both cannot be disputed. One can say 'this music is not for me' with either Queen or the Beatles, but to poo-poo the quality (which is there in buckets) would be nutty to say the least.[/QUOTE]
4 x Vision · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[b]To be quite frank I would feel cheap, dirty and base if I gave a comparison a serious thought ... they are different acts. Even with ELO, who are way closer stylistically to the Beatles than Queen ever were, one still can't make a direct comparison.
[/b][/QUOTE]
[b]I have a pretty open minded view about both of the bands. They pretty much fill out the list of my all-time favourite songs, and I can't speak highly enough of the talented individuals in each band. They've also both put out some terribly average material that I'd rather forget!!! Haha.
I probably find the personalities of the Beatles members more interesting than I do those in Queen... not to say I admire Lennon more than Mercury for instance, but because of his flaws I find him far more interesting to read about. Freddie (and Brian for that matter) are people I identify with more readily because when they're not doing 'the job', they're pretty average sounding fellas.
I dunno how to answer your question. I love both bands, for differing reasons. The quality in both cannot be disputed. One can say 'this music is not for me' with either Queen or the Beatles, but to poo-poo the quality (which is there in buckets) would be nutty to say the least.[/b]
Yeah, i knew it'd be a difficult question to answer. Was just wondering if you may have been a more die hard Beatles fan, than that of Queen.
I'm the same these days. That is, I'm not so Queen-only minded. As the years go on i've got to be more open minded (as one does i think when they realise there is more than just Queen out there... maybe age does that).
Have you ever thought off what may be the best 4 man line-up if you had to choose from Q and Bs???
PS... glad to see you're a fan of ELO too, fantastic group, they don't get the recognition they deserve these days among the younger generation. I';ve been listening too 10cc and ELo all day, as both have came up in topics.
mooghead · Member since
" I admire Lennon more than Mercury "
Both brilliant members of a band but utterly shit solo 'artists'
Negative Creep · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote:
[/b]Freddie (and Brian for that matter) are people I identify with more readily because when they're not doing 'the job', they're pretty average sounding fellas.
[/QUOTE]
Really? I've never got the impression Freddie was average sounding - quite the opposite! How average is owning multimillion pound property, collecting extremely expensive koi carp, having personal assistants, going on massive drug benders and being extremely promiscuous etc etc etc?
[/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]mooghead wrote: [/b]
" I admire Lennon more than Mercury "
Both brilliant members of a band but utterly shit solo 'artists' [/QUOTE]
Ever heard Double Fantasy in its entirety? It's a great record, never mind the fact that it's his swan song. Even the Yoko tracks are good, and it flows well.
john bodega · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Negative Creep wrote:[/b]
Really? I've never got the impression Freddie was average sounding - quite the opposite! How average is owning multimillion pound property, collecting extremely expensive koi carp, having personal assistants, going on massive drug benders and being extremely promiscuous etc etc etc? [/QUOTE]
These are all things that an average guy can do - provided he writes a few hit songs. :P
[/QUOTE]
john bodega · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]mooghead wrote:[/b]
Both brilliant members of a band but utterly shit solo 'artists'
[/QUOTE]
I just don't see it myself; not in Lennon's case.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I'll readily admit that he wasn't consistent ... it was plainly obvious when he was hard up for material and writing 'to order'. His first solo album really ought to be forced on any musician who goes into their craft with contrivance in mind, though. I make no bones about saying that it should be required listening; if one can't appreciate the music itself then they should dig the philosophy of doing a bunch of blunt and honest tunes.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]He was far from being listenable 100% of the time but a shit artist?? No way... in a field where any clown can get away with calling themselves an artist, he WAS one... At least when he had something left in the tank. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I guess that's the shitty thing about music history. A lot of the best acts were nonetheless victims of their own success and the contracts they were under. The money must've been fantastic but I personally would be depressed if I had to squeeze turds out by a deadline and expect people to pay money for it. Better to sit and wait for a good song to come along. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]As for Mercury .... mmmmmm ..... I think his heart was in the right place. And maybe I just have a hard time seeing through the outdated sounds of the time, but I think he erred. The material on Barcelona was pretty outstanding at times but I can't see why they went with so many synths. When you can comfortably afford to buy Neptune, you should be able to get on the phone to a real orchestra.[/QUOTE]
