Sgt Pepper 50th anniversary remixes

[unitymusic]

Anyone heard these? If so, what do you think?

I've only bought a few songs on iTunes, but I'm not really sure why it was necessary. The differences I do notice don't really seem like improvements to me.

Personally I wish they would release the full multitrack transfers, I'd pay for that.

[check12]

The differences I do notice don't really seem like improvements to me.

Shows how much you can change without changing the original tracks, I guess. Besides compressing the snot out of it, which they kinda already did.

Personally I wish they would release the full multitrack transfers, I'd pay for that.

So YouTube will be flooded with a hundred equally unnecessary remixes?

...needs new smileys

[dr. casino]

I feel the same way. They're different, but not that different, and it doesn't really change the songs or their impact in any meaningful way.

If they released the multitracks, everyone would learn really quick that you can't screw up a good performance with a lame mix.

Besides, didn't they intentionally mask the sounds of certain instruments to achieve a certain vibe? Why would you want a "Hi Fi" version of Sgt. Pepper's?

[unitymusic]

So YouTube will be flooded with a hundred equally unnecessary remixes?

I guess that would inevitably happen, I would just personally like to be able to go through the tracks and take analyzing the Beatles recordings a step further.

Besides, didn't they intentionally mask the sounds of certain instruments to achieve a certain vibe? Why would you want a "Hi Fi" version of Sgt. Pepper's?

Yeah I think they were very aware of the balances they chose. There seems to be a trend these days with thinking that because we have the "best" recording technology of any time in history, that all our standards and preferred methods are automatically superior.

So naturally that leads to people thinking they can revise classic recordings and make them somehow better by applying our modern 'rules'. I think a lot of people learning recording in this day and age are being taught to be total control freaks, which IMO can lead to losing a bit of the art of it all.

At the same time, Sgt Pepper did a lot to usher in the era of the studio control freak mentality when it comes to record making, so maybe the Beatles were just lucky that technology had progressed to a point where a lot was possible, but there were still limiting restrictions. Or maybe they just had better taste than most people and knew when to let something go.

Overall, I do think they showed a good bit of respect and restraint considering what these new mixes could have sounded like, so I give them props for that.

[nobby]

Anyone heard these? If so, what do you think?

I've only bought a few songs on iTunes, but I'm not really sure why it was necessary. The differences I do notice don't really seem like improvements to me.

Personally I wish they would release the full multitrack transfers, I'd pay for that.

It wouldn't be remotely similar to having the original tracks that were erased during destructive editing. They were working with a 4 track and a 3 track machine. By the time you get to the final 4 tracks, 99% of the mix decisions have been made and are baked in.

I'm looking at page 130 of The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn.

Lucy In The Sky With Diamond (remix 20 from take 8)

Hello, Goodbye (tape reduction 21 into takes 22-25)

There were numerous "tape reductions" bouncing from four tracks to 2 tracks of the 3 track, add a track, mix to mono, bounce to 1 track of the 4 track, overdub onto the other 3 tracks of the 4 track...

[Bob Olhsson]

I was told when I visited in 1969 that it was two 4 track 1" machines and they had never used a 3 track other than for working with tapes from Capitol during the early '60s.

[nobby]

That may be so. The point I was making is that it was mixed as they went along.

[Gronk]

Any opportunity to hear more of Beatles recordings is pretty exciting, however the idea that the mixes might be 'cleaned up' is repugnant.

[nobby]

I don't think "cleaning it up" would be an improvement.

Sure, as they added generations of 'tape reductions' they added high end ( high shelfing, I think) to compensate for what was lost and there was tape noise, but not excessive like when I tried that at home with a 3340s. By the time you get to the final 4 track mix, that's all factored in.

The mono version is said to be better by some, but you'd lose the novelty of stereo. Like the end of "Good Morning" when the animals are chasing each other.

[Bob Olhsson]

The mono versions had hours put into each mix with the band present while the stereo literally had minutes to sort of match the mono. They added massive compression to minimize tape hiss that I was told the band hated although not as much as they hated hiss.

[Gronk]

The mono versions had hours put into each mix with the band present while the stereo literally had minutes to sort of match the mono. They added massive compression to minimize tape hiss that I was told the band hated although not as much as they hated hiss.

Is the mono version available? I don't think that I've ever heard it.

[unitymusic]

Is the mono version available? I don't think that I've ever heard it.

The 2009 remasters had mono versions available for all the albums that weren't originally mixed in stereo I believe, which includes Sgt Pepper. And of course there's the original vinyl.

[unitymusic]

It wouldn't be remotely similar to having the original tracks that were erased during destructive editing.

True to an extent, but I believe - as Bob said - that a lot of their bouncing was between two 4 tracks for Sgt. Pepper. Also EMI seemed to be pretty good about keeping everything archived, so I would think a lot of the individual tracks would still exist if you took the time to go through all the different tapes and line stuff up. I think I read somewhere that that's exactly what they did for this release.

[Bob Olhsson]

I bought the mono LP because I opted for a high quality mono hi fi over a lesser stereo. Capitol had castrated it like they had the stereo but it was clearly a better mix.

[tylodawg]

I hear that they are compressing the hell out of these tracks to squeeze a few more dollars out of this record.
I know, cynical - but I just am tired of remastering/remixing/etc old records. Why do it. Oh yeah, I think I said it above there.
(I do agree, if yer gonna squeeze the last drops from this stone, a stripped down mix/multi sounds way more interesting than one more "lets add tons of high end and compression and call it modern" mix). Unless they autotune everything, in which case, I'm in.

[nobby]

Unless they autotune everything, in which case, I'm in.

and quantize

[tylodawg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZaA2jiPkMM

[John Eppstein]

I don't think "cleaning it up" would be an improvement.

Sure, as they added generations of 'tape reductions' they added high end ( high shelfing, I think) to compensate for what was lost and there was tape noise, but not excessive like when I tried that at home with a 3340s. By the time you get to the final 4 track mix, that's all factored in.

The mono version is said to be better by some, but you'd lose the novelty of stereo. Like the end of "Good Morning" when the animals are chasing each other.

The technique that was in use about that time was pre-emphasizing the treble when tracking By a known amount at a known frequency and then eventually playing back with a complementary cut, thereby losing that much tape noise.

[Bob Olhsson]

What pisses me off is that tapes from that era still play while the crap they sold us as supposedly lasting longer needs to be baked.