For this reason, we will always be "stuck" with remasterings, or re-issues on advanced formats, rather than any form of remix. A deal breaker could be just as simple as someone complaining that in a proposed remix someone else had been mixed louder than in the originals. It is quite another thing to start down the path of a remix of the core, legendary, catalog. It is one thing to start a new project, like Love, and do a remix. Sometimes we forget that in order for this enterprise, or most any Beatles enterprise, to get off the ground Paul, Ringo, Yoko and the Harrison estate have to come to an agreement. Universal Observations About the Sound of All of the Remastersīefore I address the primary subject of this article I want to address the first question many people ask when it comes to these remasters: Why remasters instead of remixes and remasters, as has been done with other catalogs from other musicians and groups from this era? When we think about the process of getting Beatles material into commerce, it seem pretty logical that remasters are probably the way it had to be in order to get these albums out. The conclusion I reach, after listening to both the mono and stereo remasters, is that, overall, the mono remasters are the better, truer, releases, not only in terms of content, but as also in terms of pleasure, and trueness, of the listening experience. Listening occurred on what would be considered an audiophile system with Quad 988's and a Rel sub-bass as the speaker system. The primary purpose of this essay is to discuss the remasters largely in terms of their sound. On September 9, 2009, EMI/Capitol released the entire Beatles catalog, both stereo and mono, in a remastered CD format. 2 Universal Observations About the Sound of All of the Remasters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |