Beatles Box

uwe · September 09, 2009, 07:33:04 AM

Anybody got it already?

Lovingly done, cardboard foldout sleeves of all individual albums and comprehensive liner notes etc. I bought mine yesterday, have only listened to their 1st album so far this morning (which sounds mostly like the Everly Brothers still). Sound is surprisingly clear and undistorted with lots of space (and echo!

) and prominent drums and bass, Paul was melodic even back then, just not as continuously so as in his Sgt. Pepper halcyon days.

Mind you, I went for the "Stereo Box" (not the more expensive, yet missing the last albums "Mono Box") thus disqualifying myself forever as a true Beatlelite because "only the mono mixes were ever approved by Paul and John, the stereo mix a hasty afterthought by Abbey Road engineers believing that stereo was a novelty fad". And while I know that the mono mixes sound fuller, I never ever listened to them on the US Capitol Reissue Box Sets of the Beatles' early albums (before US and European releases synched as regards track choice which was only around Rubber Soul) which came out a few years back. Early Beatles is forever identified by me with those archaic, but charming left/right stereo mixes where you had the vocals on ones side, the music on the other. That is how I first consciously heard the Beatles and that is how my elder brother explained "stereo" to me - it took me years to comprehend that "stereo" does not automatically mean "vocals on one, music on the other side".

To this day I have the desire to mix things left and right in a studio which regularly causes modern engineers to roll their eyes ...

The Financial Times wrote today that the Box Sets are selling like hot cakes - who said the CD is dead?!!!

Highlander · September 09, 2009, 01:48:03 PM

Please sit down... place coffee cups on the table...

I am a Brit that owns no Beetles recordings of anykind whatsoever...

Sorry to have caused any upset...

Dave W · September 09, 2009, 02:15:21 PM

I'm not surprised these are selling well. That doesn't change the fact that CD sales are still in steep decline.

OldManC · September 09, 2009, 03:08:52 PM

I'm hoping to pick up the stereo set ASAP but need to work out finances. If I can swing both sets I will. (Maybe sell some gear down below?) I bought all the original issue CDs on their day of release and then replaced them with the roll top box set after a burglary separated me from my stereo and CD collection. I also have all sorts of bootlegs and a great three volume bootleg box set which did what the Anthology sets attempted to do but better and years earlier. (Yes, I'm that big a Beatles nerd!

)

Hornisse · September 09, 2009, 04:09:23 PM

I was going to pick up a Mono Box after work but they were sold out everywhere. Guess I will wait for the next shipment which is supposed to be next month. They are marking them up very nicely on Ebay. I think Best Buy had it for $229. Should have sent my wife there this morning!

eb2 · September 09, 2009, 06:46:34 PM

I right now only plan on picking up the mono box set. I prefer owning both versions, but I figure the stereo cds will be available for the forseeable future. Mono is being declared "limited" so I will go for that. I planned ahead and sold most of my Beatle CDs to the used place before everyone in town will try to dump them. I kept my White album CD because I bought it the first week it came out in the mid 80s and the very first CDs were numbered. I guess I am not surprised that they are selling fast, as the Beatles are one of the few people whose CDs I would prefer to actually own. They will go nicely with my EP CD box, and my Beatles cassettes, 8 tracks, reels, mono lps, stereo lps, etc, etc.

Chris P. · September 10, 2009, 02:16:15 AM

The Beatles. Isn't that the band of that Wings-guy?

I'm very curious. British pop magazine Uncut is very, very positive. The talk about the sound of a new band trying to sound old, instead of old recordings trying to sound new. A good friend of mine is a real Beatleshead and he's George in a very good Beatles coverband and he loves the remasters too. Dutch press isn't that positive yet, but I guess they're never.

uwe · September 10, 2009, 03:29:06 AM

Heard the second album and Magical Mystery tour today. All very clear and fresh sounding, no distortion like on so many sixties recordings and not as muffled as the old Beatles CD remasters used to sound. But they've left the integrity of the recordings intact for even the most ardent musical conservative.

"I am a Brit that owns no Beetles recordings of anykind whatsoever...

Sorry to have caused any upset..."

No issue, Ken, we'll deal with you sofort. Darn Cromwellian renegade you are.

Dave, can we have Ken extradited now?

Barklessdog · September 10, 2009, 04:48:24 AM

My question is - Is it remixed at the ultra loud levels that CD's are today?

uwe · September 10, 2009, 04:58:57 AM

Not at all. They've resisted any temptation to create more power, they went for more clarity and detail. I find listening to a lot of early sixties stuff painful over a good stereo on CD because you hear all the recording flaws of the time without mercy (some of the later stuff too: the remastered Deep Purple in Rock is an aural pain because the analog recording was so overdriven as all five of them pushed up the faders progressively louder on the mixing desk in 1969, Blackmore's noteworthy quip to Ian Gillan when he pushed the voc fader up; "Who do you think you are, f***ing Tom Jones?").

Either the Beatles were better recorded or technology enables a better clean-up today (probably both), even the early sixties stuff is pleasing to the ear, it's like having the Beatles play in your living room, clear cymbals and snare work and all.

The description quoted by Chris "They talk about the sound of a new band trying to sound old, instead of old recordings trying to sound new." hits the nail bang, bang, bang on the head with Maxwell's silver hammer.

Barklessdog · September 10, 2009, 06:19:08 AM

QuoteEither the Beatles were better recorded or technology enables a better clean-up today (probably both), even the early sixties stuff is pleasing to the ear, it's like having the Beatles play in your living room, clear cymbals and snare work and all.

I saw a special about it and its the technology. They said George Martin's son redid them and the guidlines were to leave every Beatle thing (talking, playing, ect) but eliminate technical problems only.

How does it compare to Love, sound wise, not the arrangements?

I found Love's quality very good

uwe · September 10, 2009, 06:57:29 AM

Love as a remix rather than a remaster is more lush in sound, this is more faithful to the trad. sound expectations, but not sterile. George Martin had a good ear.

Highlander · September 10, 2009, 03:54:10 PM

Extradited...?!?!?!?

I want to be tried in the Hague, under Scottish Law...

Dave W · September 10, 2009, 03:59:43 PM

Quote from: Kenny Five-O on September 10, 2009, 03:54:10 PM
Extradited...?!?!?!?

I want to be tried in the Hague, under Scottish Law...

Scottish Law?

It's The Hague, not The Haggis.

OldManC · September 10, 2009, 04:22:22 PM

Most of these CDs are the original masters, just remastered again with a better process than what was done in the 80's. There were at least two albums that were remixed then (Rubber Soul and Help) because the original masters were too degraded to use (going on 20 year old memories here so I could be wrong on the reason). From what I've read, these new remasters are using those '87 remixes.

Here's a good interview with Giles Martin for those who may be interested in background on the current project: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/07/beatles.rockband.gilesmartin.transcript/

Beatles Box

Hornisse