The Beatles

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I wonder how much of the Royalties from this Beatle-mania will go to Heather Mills-McCartney.

I bet Yoko is pleased that another Beatle finally married a woman who'd make her look good in comparison.

[Rob McCow]

Yay! It's Beatles Day tomorrow!

It's doubtful that the stereo boxset will turn up here - it's been dispatched today!

Which Beatles Song would you listen to first to hear the new stereo mix?

[Dino]

Which Beatles Song would you listen to first to hear the new stereo mix?

Thanks to ASDA I can answer this! "Raa-ai-ai-aiaiai-ainnnnnnn/I don't minnnnd"!
Even though it was on the second disc it was the first thing I fell over myself and nearly cut my hand open trying to get the wrapping off.
So far my tally is Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's and Past Masters.

I could have got the box set, but where's the choice in that?

[Si Hunt]

So can you honestly tell the difference?

Si.

[Milky Tears]

Yay! It's Beatles Day tomorrow!

And an NME SPURTFEST!!

http://www.nme.com/photos/nme-specia...sue/151764/5/1

[Rob McCow]

So can you honestly tell the difference?

I'll find out in a few days, I'm sure. The stereo mixes on Yellow Submarine and Love were noticeably better, those are the only two that have had recent remastering done on them.

[Paul Monk]

Out of interest, what do you think the Beatles would be like today if they were all still alive and had kept on making records? Would they still be topping the charts or would people think of them as a load of old has beens?

[Rob McCow]

I think we'd have had a long, slow decline in the seventies, followed by embracing new technology in the eighties but ultimately producing very dull albums, then a renaissance in the ninties and a back-to-basics push, while finally becoming a touring monster making billions of pounds in the 21st Century.

Actually, you could do a whole book on the 'might have been' Beatles story!

[SiHart]

They'd be like The Rolling Stones- just there with no-one really taking much notice of them and nobody be able to afford to see them play live!

Si xx

[Dino]

Would they have done a "Who" and carried on touring (even though it's only two of them still alive these days?) I wonder?

[Si Hunt]

They'd be working with Rick Rubin and making earthy, grass-roots albums of vintage covers to massive acclaim.

Si.

[Milky Tears]

Both of my box sets arrived today!


Still haven't recovered from the coolness/awesomenssesssesss of 'A Day In The Life', 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds', 'Sgt. Pepper's Reprise', 'Happiness Is a Warm Gun', 'Piggies' and 'Helter Skelter' on the mono set.

Just going to unseal the stereo box...

Which Beatles Song would you listen to first to hear the new stereo mix?

and head straight to The End.

[Si Hunt]

I genuinely don't understand why and how the mono set sounds better? Forgive my lack of knowledge, but what exactly is the difference?

Si.

[SiHart]

Pinpointing exact differences is difficult. Often the Mono mixes were different to the stereo mixes- some tracks had more effects mixed into different masters, some were slower or faster depending on the mix and rarely can either be said to be the definitive version of a song. I haven't heard the mono mixes myself, so I can't really comment too much- I'm only going by what I've read- but the Beatles themselves were more often involved in the mono mixes than the stereo ones. The mono mixes have not been available for many years, so unless you've got the original vinyl this is most peoples first chance to hear them.

Abbey Road, Let It Be and Yellow Submarine were the only albums entirely released in stereo.

Si xx

[Carol Baynes]

Out of interest, what do you think the Beatles would be like today if they were all still alive and had kept on making records? Would they still be topping the charts or would people think of them as a load of old has beens?

Wow, that's almost impossible to answer! The thing is that The Beatles did what they did in the time they did it, and revolutionised studio recording in the process (no argument about it; mainly because they were in a lucky position to do so. Fame itself wasn't enough of course, their talent was what got them there and made sure they made huge creative progress in so short a time). Their influence on subsequent music is obvious, especially guitar bands, so even if they had carried on post 1970, their '60s canon would still probably carry the weight it still does. Look at Bob Dylan, for example!
I doubt even The Beatles could have consistently carried on having such huge hits for 40 years, but we'll never know of course. As a indicator of what may have been you only have to look at the huge 60s bands that did survive. 'Rivals' The Rolling Stones are an interesting case, although their image and material are probably different than the direction The Beatles may have gone in. I remember someone saying the Fabs could have become very much like ELO, which is a interesting (and perhaps scary) idea!

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Wierd to think about it. I'm sure John Lennon would have been at Band Aid for instance had he lived, and it would probably have been him who'd have said, "Oi you cheap bastards, give us your bloody money".

John was so outspoken, but a very flawed character. No doubt his love life would have been some embarassing place between Rod Stewart and Woody Allen. I think there would have been a few interesting soundbites regarding contemporary events.

[Carol Baynes]

Picking up on Si's comments (er...both of them! ), Si Hart is right about the Mono mixes. I have vinyl originals of some of the albums and "Sgt. pepper" does sound different in mono, although its diffucult to always tell what music is slightly different. The story goes that The Beatles had more input into their own mono mixes than the stereo ones, until "Sgt. Pepper" and "The Beatles" at least.
'Mistakes' that were absent from the mono mixes of singles and album tracks are present on the stereo mixes of some tracks, so the argument could go that the mono mixes of everything up to circa 1968 is the definitive Beatles recording. The thing was, mono was the standard up until the late 60s so it follows that more time and effort might have gone into those mixes. George Harrison apparantly didn't hear the stereo mix of "Sgt. Pepper" until the '70s and wasn't particularly impressed!
By "Abbey Road", of course, mono had been ditched altogether.

I think the problem with considering the worth of the mono recordings is that for certain generations, The Beatles are stereo. It's what most of us have grown up with. Even those who just listen to the singles on the red and blue albums (or whatever else) have grown up familiar with just the Beatles in stereo.

Also worth thinking about, is that there is a train of thought that says that the first three albums sound far better in mono.

[Captain Tancredi]

Wierd to think about it. I'm sure John Lennon would have been at Band Aid for instance had he lived, and it would probably have been him who'd have said, "Oi you cheap bastards, give us your bloody money".

John was so outspoken, but a very flawed character. No doubt his love life would have been some embarassing place between Rod Stewart and Woody Allen. I think there would have been a few interesting soundbites regarding contemporary events.

I think John would have found an intensely politicised decade like the 1980s very difficult and may well have found both America and Britain hard to identify with. The message of love and peace that he'd been trying to put across for some fifteen plus years by the time of his death became very unfashionable- and then at the end of the decade the Iron Curtain fell and people to whom the Beatles had symbolised so much suddenly became free. So perhaps he might have found somewhere like Prague or Berlin more congenial.

[Si Hunt]

Look at Bob Dylan, for example!

Not just butting in as a Dylan fan, but you've actually picked a really bad example here I think. Dylan is one example of a '60's relic whose (i) '60's catalogue is still as highly regarded as it was then (ii) Who is possibly now once again as highly regarded to a new generation

For a while (70-74, 80-88) it looked like, reputation wise, he would be better off having died in that bike crash. But he's been unusual in that he's hit the very nadir of quality several times but kept going and got good again so many times that you now can't say "he used to be good, now we don't care". It's more like "He used to be good, then he was awful, then he was BRILLIANT, then he was ok, then he was dreadful, now he's fantastic". So you wind up with a career you can't actually lazily soundbite without running out of breath.

It MAY be inevitable that the Beatles would have "got crap" (not many people from the '60's survived the eighties unscathed), but if around today, given the choice, the Beatles could do worse than have chosen Dylan's career path and still be having number 1 albums on both sides of the Atlantic.

Honestly not posting this as an "I'm a Dylan fan, how dare you say anything against him" type post, we all know when he's been shit, but it's an interesting point. A bigger fear would be that they'd become "The Rolling Stones" or "The Who" (or, natch, Paul McCartney!) and no-one would care two jots whenever a new album came out.

Si.

[Carol Baynes]

Not just butting in as a Dylan fan, but you've actually picked a really bad example here I think. Dylan is one example of a '60's relic whose (i) '60's catalogue is still as highly regarded as it was then (ii) Who is possibly now once again as highly regarded to a new generation

For a while (70-74, 80-88) it looked like, reputation wise, he would be better off having died in that bike crash. But he's been unusual in that he's hit the very nadir of quality several times but kept going and got good again so many times that you now can't say "he used to be good, now we don't care". It's more like "He used to be good, then he was awful, then he was BRILLIANT, then he was ok, then he was dreadful, now he's fantastic". So you wind up with a career you can't actually lazily soundbite without running out of breath.

It MAY be inevitable that the Beatles would have "got crap" (not many people from the '60's survived the eighties unscathed), but if around today, given the choice, the Beatles could do worse than have chosen Dylan's career path and still be having number 1 albums on both sides of the Atlantic.

Honestly not posting this as an "I'm a Dylan fan, how dare you say anything against him" type post, we all know when he's been shit, but it's an interesting point. A bigger fear would be that they'd become "The Rolling Stones" or "The Who" (or, natch, Paul McCartney!) and no-one would care two jots whenever a new album came out.

Si.

I think you've partially misunderstood me there, Si. I wasn't suggesting Dylan has been shite post-'60s; that would be a ludicrous and untrue assertion. I wasn't opening an argument about Dylan at all really. I was just using Dylan as an example of a star who carried on recording after the '60s, well into the 2000s, and yet his '60s canon is still revered. He hasn't taken anything away from it, no matter what he's done.
I'm sure it would have been the same with The Beatles 60s back catalogue, had they continued for further decades.

[Si Hunt]

Ah, ok!

Si.

[Captain Tancredi]

I think the whole area of the relationship between the Beatles' music and the technology available to record and play it is an interesting one- their creative career as a group covers the period when the average home was slowly moving from stand-alone record players to the idea of a music centre with separate speakers, as well as all the innovations and experimentation with what was available in the studio. One point that was made in connection with the remasters was that in one sense it's a wasted effort if people are just going to listen to the albums through computer speakers or MP3 headphones.

That said, today I've been listening to some interesting Beatles covers on the Liverpool Number Ones Album which came out last year.

[Andrew Curnow]

Other than some of their more well-known songs, I know very little about The Beatles (as I've said before, genuinely the first time I ever even heard of John Lennon was when he was killed) so I found last night's BBC Three documentary fascinating.

It probably was very 'superficial' for diehard fans, as it didn't go into much real in-depth detail, but it covered all the albums they released - what I'd never given any thought to before was how innovative they were, and, for example, I found it really interesting that they were in the studio putting songs together in such a way that they could not practically perform them live (and deliberately so).

[Carol Baynes]

Other than some of their more well-known songs, I know very little about The Beatles (as I've said before, genuinely the first time I ever even heard of John Lennon was when he was killed) so I found last night's BBC Three documentary fascinating.

It probably was very 'superficial' for diehard fans, as it didn't go into much real in-depth detail, but it covered all the albums they released - what I'd never given any thought to before was how innovative they were, and, for example, I found it really interesting that they were in the studio putting songs together in such a way that they could not practically perform them live (and deliberately so).

Welcome to Earth!

Seriously though, you have a wonderful musical journey ahead (shoud you choose to take it!)

[Si Hunt]

The placings of all the Beatles albums on the Album Chart this week is interesting - I always liked later Beatles best, and it seems most people agree with me. "Sergent Pepper" leads the way at #5 with, interestingly, "Abbey Road" at #6 (do you think the well-known and iconic cover helped?). "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul", two 'transition' albums round off the entries in the Top 10 at #9 and #10 respectively.

"The Beatles" (i.e "The White Album") might have been a touch too experimental for some (and is it more expensive, being a double? The original release always was) and is outsold by Beverly Knight's new album (for shame) at #21. The early albums are further down the Top 30, outsold even by the stereo box set, even though this must have been considerably more expensive.

But even "Please Please Me", the Beatles earliest album (#38) outsells poor old "Let It Be" which languishes at #49. Could it be that casuals who forked out for "Let It Be (Naked)" just a few years back are reluctant to purchase it again? I know it's not the Beatles most fondly regarded album, recorded amid squabbling and ultimately cobbled together by George Martin, but the gulf between it and its near-simulataneous fellow "Abbey Road" is interesting.

Yet "Let It Be" isn't the lowest charting Beatles album this week. Even #1's, not even re-issued and scrabbling a few extra sales off the back of the re-issues promotion, beats "Beatles For Sale" at #56 which only just pips the collectors-interest Mono set.

I've no idea if this rush of entries undoes any of the Michael Jackson records a few weeks back - it would have been interesting if Jackson's death had coincided with this bout of Beatle floggery; can you imagine a chart composed almost entirely of Jackson and the Beatles?

Si.