You Have to Admit It’s Getting Better
Posted by BKisida | Music - Movies - Entertainment | September 15, 2009
Here at Mid-Riffs we don’t like to be all serious all the time. Occasionally (probably on Fridays, but obviously not without exception) we’ll lighten up on all the ranting and the riffing and the general expressions of outrage so that we can focus on unearthing the truth on more fun topics. This is one of those posts.
You probably heard a news story or two recently about the newly remastered versions of all the original Beatles albums. Fans of good music can now shell out lots of money for The Beatles Stereo Box Set (~$180) and The Beatles Mono Box Set (~$230); both of which are the result of a reported four year project to bring the Beatles into the 21st Century. The last major overhaul was in 1987–you know, forever ago.
Always a competent wordsmith, Philip Martin of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette had an excellent review on Sunday, and his opening paragraphs are worth reprinting here:
To begin to talk about the Beatles is to begin to talk about water, so pertinent, pervasive and invisible is their influence. You can ignore the Beatles, and it is a simple thing to forget about them, but to say that you don’t like them makes no sense. You don’t like water? You are water, amigo.
Or maybe not. There certainly are people who profess to not like the Beatles, although we shouldn’t pretend that those contrarian impulses are any more important than they are. The Beatles – John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr – are monumental, essential to anyone’s understanding of the second half of the 20th century. For better or worse they changed the meaning of pop music; they have transcended taste.
Got that? Water. Still, there’s always a few naysayers out there who just enjoy being called crazy. I actually have a friend who tries to argue that the Stones were better. Insane, right? Believe me, everyone feels sorry for him. Those of us in the know can still disagree over who was the best Beatle (John) or who was the best ex-Beatle (George of course), but if you can’t admit that they are the best rock and roll band ever, you’re living in a fantasy.
The release of the remastered albums also has smart people arguing over which versions are better, the stereo or the mono versions (when appropriate). Would-be purists claim that the recordings that were originally released in mono should remain that way, claiming that mono is the way they were meant to be heard. I disagree. The level of technology at the time required mono recordings. It wasn’t a purposeful choice, just a matter of circumstance.
I would argue that the goal should be to try, as best as possible, to make the recordings sound like the Beatles are in my living room, playing a show for me. What could be a more “true” way to hear the Beatles? And since my living room is three-dimensional, and the laws of physics would prevent the fab four from occupying the same space at the same time, I think the stereo versions must come closer to sounding like the Beatles are in my living room.
With that settled, the question still remains: How much better are the remastered versions? After giving them a semi-thorough listen, I can tell you–not that much. But if they were drastically different, that would be a bad thing, right? You don’t want to mess too much with some of the most widely known and successful songs in history. To attempt to put it in words, the remastered songs have a broader range and they sound a bit clearer. Paul’s bass sounds much tighter on some songs. The vocals sound generally smoother. The stereo mixes are balanced better.
That said, there is something to be said for the “older” sounding original versions. The overall familiarity of the original tracks—with all of the mud, hisses, and pops—have a warm and comforting nostalgic quality. They are the versions we’re all used to. They are a part of history. We’re used to hearing the Beatles sound like they were recorded forty years ago the same way we’re used to thinking about the pre-1930s world in black and white.
So last night I listened to the old versions and the remastered versions for quite a while and made a lot of comparisons, and honestly most of the time I could hardly tell a difference. Below I have selected a few tracks where I found the differences to be most obvious. If you can’t hear the differences on these, then you probably don’t need to update your collection anytime soon. I can tell you that if don’t play these loud, preferably with headphones, you won’t hear any difference at all.
All of these are just clips, which will frustrate you but keep me out of trouble.
Here’s “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away,” which sounds cleaner and smoother in the remastered version.
You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away – Before
You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away – After
*****************************************
The remastered version of “Girl” is an obvious improvement. The big winners here are the bass and vocals.
Girl – Before
Girl – After
******************************************
I’ve always really liked the Harrison track “Long Long Long” from the White Album. Don’t know it? I don’t think many people do, and part of the reason is that the mix on the original was so muted that it hardly asks to be noticed. The remastered version is much clearer and gets closer to the overall sound this song always deserved.
Long Long Long - Before
Long Long Long – After
******************************************
And, last but not least, listen to the bass and overall clarity on the remastered “Lovely Rita.” The remastered version really just jumps off the page. If you can’t hear the difference on this one, or if you don’t like the new version, then rushing out to buy the remasters does not need to be at the top of your to-do list:
Lovely Rita – Before
Lovely Rita - After
If you can’t hear much of a difference, maybe you should just grab The Beatles Rock Band for the kids. I can tell you from experience that it’s pretty awesome when your five year old runs around the house singing A Hard Day’s Night over and over.
I guess I fall into the “purist” category of which you speak. Yes, I like the hiss, and I like the pops. Think about the new push for smaller-ish, indie (according to ‘record-label,’ not style of music) bands now releasing albums on vinyl (and including coupon good for a free download of the record in MP3 format). Granted it is 180 gram vinyl which is supposedly a boon for sound quality, but there is still a crackle and pop, even on the first spin. There is something about that organic, analog sound that just sounds better to these ears…though YMMV (your mileage may vary).
I am also not sure that every set of human ears has the capacity to tell the difference (or perhaps the listener does not have the care). The magic in the original recordings, I think, is in how GOOD they sounded given the limited tools and technology George Martin had at his disposal during the sixties.
There is something to be said about imperfection. It almost adds a human quality to things. My fear is that the more “perfect” we try to make these Beatles recordings, the more they will lose that human, organic element.
In addition, our increases in technology, and the ever-present push to digitize every recorded bit of sound is also an issue. Digitizing analog recordings can be detrimental to the true sound. Sure, you rid the original recording of hiss and pops, but when you squash it with compression (which is what is done when a high-quality CD Audio file is ripped to an MP3 or Apple’s AAC format for use in our portable music players), you lose a good bit of quality. I feel sorry for those who listen to the Beatles remasters in this format on their MP3 devices.
Thinking back to advances in technology, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from my all-time favorite television show, The West Wing. The Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, while discussing the NASA budget with Communications Director Toby Zeigler had this exchange:
Leo McGarry: “We spent millions of dollars developing a pen for the astronauts that would work in zero gravity. Know what the Russians did?
Toby Zeigler: “They used a pencil?”
Leo McGarry: “They used a pencil.”
I will get the Beatles Remasters, but when it comes to enjoying the songcraft, and their near decade-long effort to spread the message of Love through these songs, whether I take notes with a zero-gravity pen (remasters) or a pencil (original recordings), I am still hearing the lecture.
These are nice, shiny new things.
I like Philip Martin’s analogy: “You don’t like water? You are water, amigo.” The Beatles are something we can only avoid by willfulness. And if we are honest with ourselves, and admit that we are equipped with ears and minds which from design prefer melody and rhythm and harmony concisely packaged, we cannot help but love their music and sing along with them once we know the music. I only captured snippets of their music before age 17, so it is remarkable that, once I discovered their whole corpus, I heard songs which, even if I had never in fact heard them before, I felt as if I’d known forever.
All that said, what draws me to them is their music, nothing more. Their purported “message of Love” referenced by Mr Rose was really incoherent. Their philosophy, at least as exampled by Lennon, was quickly discredited in practice, though attempts at its enactment are still made habitually by millions every day. The decade which they represent was, in my opinion, the undoing of all that is right and humane in the world.
So shoot me for being pro-square and wishing Ralph Emerson had never lived.
Nice post. The comparisons are quite apparent.
Also, John once said that you haven’t heard Sgt. Pepper unless you’ve heard it in mono. These stereo remasters are true to stereo technology as it existed in the late ’60s, which IMO, leaves these tracks kind of cold and sterile, with an odd separation of instruments. They were designed for (the now antiquated) Quad systems. The Dylan mid-60s remasters have similar issues.
So . . . I’m voting for the mono mixes.
Lastly, the Stones aren’t “better,” they just make better records. Seriously. Sticky Fingers, Exile — not much wasted space here, whereas every Beatles record has a fair amount of duds (I’m looking at you, Ringo). And I say this after years of intense meditation with the Maharaji himself.
Come on, aren’t the Beatles at least somewhat overrated? I recently listened to Abbey Road for the first time, and I had no interest in listening to it again . . . none of the tunes really struck me as memorable, and had I heard the exact same tracks on some MySpace page without knowing “this is the Beatles,”, I wouldn’t have even bothered to listen to more than a few seconds of each track.
In fact, I bet that, just like in the wine experiments where wine experts can’t tell the difference between a cheap and expensive wine when given a blind taste test, most people wouldn’t give such respect to (some) Beatles songs if they weren’t told “THIS IS THE BEATLES.”
Several points –
1) Paul was the best Beatle. Compare side 1 of Abbey Road (mostly John) to side 2 (mostly Paul). Which is better, Oh Darling or The Medley?
2) George may well have been the best Beatle were it not for being so uneven. Long, long, long is great, as is Here Comes the Sun, Taxman, and While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Too bad he also wrote Within You Without You. He is clearly the best ex-Beatle.
3) And Stuart is just being a fuddy duddy. I spent most of the weekend playing Beatle Rock Band with the kids and we all loved singing and “playing” the varied and excellent songs in the game.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Somehow I knew that B-Riff would be the one making the case for the Stones over the Beatles.
I think it is also important when discussing the Beatles’ legacy to look at all the things that didn’t exist before the Beatles. The incorporation of looping and scratching which is so common in rap music today has its foundations in the Beatles. Sgt. Pepper’s solidified the album as a work of art instead of just a collection of singles. Most importantly, the Beatles destroyed the “teen idols” that had been forced upon the American rock-n-roll scene in the early 60s. Compare Billboard’s top 15 in 1962 to 1965 and you can see the real legacy of the Beatles.
1962
1 I Can’t Stop Loving You Ray Charles
2 Big Girls Don’t Cry 4 Seasons
3 Sherry 4 Seasons
4 Roses Are Red Bobby Vinton
5 Peppermint Twist – Part 1 Joey Dee & Starliters
6 Telstar Tornadoes
7 Soldier Boy Shirelles
8 Hey! Baby Bruce Channel
9 Duke Of Earl Gene Chadler
10 The Twist Chubby Checker
11 Johnny Angel Shelley Fabares
12 Monster Mash Bobby Pickett
13 He’s A Rebel Crystals
14 Breaking Up Is Hard To Do Neil Sedaka
15 Good Luck Charm Elvis Presley
1965
1 Satisfaction Rolling Stones
2 Yesterday Beatles
3 Turn! Turn! Turn! Byrds
4 Mrs Brown You’ve Got A Lovely Daughter Herman’s Hermits
5 I Got You Babe Sonny & Cher
6 Help! Beatles
7 I Can’t Help Myself Four Tops
8 You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’ Righteous Brothers
9 Downtown Petula Clark
10 This Diamond Ring Gary Lewis & Playboys
11 Stop! In The Name Of Love Supremes
12 Help Me, Rhonda Beach Boys
13 Get Off Of My Cloud Rolling Stones
14 I Hear A Symphony Supremes
15 I’m Telling You Now Freddie & Dreamers
I bet Jay Greene’s kids would have had just as much fun with “Monster Mash” or “Big Girls Don’t Cry.”
As for Abbey Road not being anything special…
“The Medley” of “You Never Give Me Your Money” through “The End” is one of the great movements in modern music. I question whether a person has a soul if they can’t feel it (no offense to those sad, soul-free individuals who don’t feel it).
Couldn’t agree more Boyd.
Like Philip Martin said Stuart, the Beatles have transcended taste. There isn’t any sense arguing that they don’t deserve all of the credit and praise that is given to them. You might ask yourself why you are unable to tell the difference between the “Monster Mash” and Beatles songs. How can it be that nobody else comes to the same conclusion?
And to Beats from Hell, it sounds like you are admitting that for whatever faults you may find with Lennon, the message of love still reaches millions of people? Shouldn’t the message be judged for it’s own merits, irregardless of the flaws of the messenger?
*I* can tell the difference between the Beatles and Monster Mash; what I *said* was that if the criterion is what little kids like to dance to, then they’re all the same, along with Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers, etc.
There isn’t any sense arguing that they don’t deserve all of the credit and praise that is given to them.
So why does the word “overrated” exist, if it never makes sense to argue that people are praising something too much?
BK,
I am simply distinguishing moral excellence from musical excellence. Strangely, there is usually in popular music an inverse relationship between the two.
Sincerely,
Beat
Sure Stuart, some things are overrated. Not everything that is popular is good. People are very susceptible to getting caught up in momentary fads. But the Beatles have gone through enough tests at this point that I think we can safely say that the consensus is in. And, generally speaking, the more one looks to expert opinions on the Beatles the more the consensus becomes overwhelming. That’s got to be worth something.
Like another confused person I know–let’s call him Hammy–you seem to suffer from a lack of good data on the subject. What was it you said earlier..that you just recently heard Abbey Road for the first time? Tsk-tsk.
The second half of Abbey Road makes very little sense lyrically or thematically, but musically, it’s my favorite twenty minutes in all of popular music. Just throwing that out there.
Boyd –
The problem with your worshipful view of the Beatles is that when you listen to those songs, you’re not hearing (just) the vocals and music.
You’re hearing 1) the vocals and music, plus 2) the fact that IT’S THE BEATLES, plus 3) an evocation of all of the cultural influences that you’ve associated with that music over your whole life — it reminds you of all of the contexts in which you’ve heard that music before, all of the emotions that you were feeling at the same time due to the raging hormones of adolescence, all of the times that you’ve used LSD with friends while listening to the Beatles (just kidding), etc.
I firmly believe that the VAST majority of the emotion you experience when you hear the Beatles is due to 2 and 3 above, NOT to 1. But you’re attributing it all to 1. That’s false. To someone (such as me) who doesn’t share in any of 2 and 3, 1 may or may not be that impressive. “The End,” for example, strikes me as incoherent and somewhat annoying, and the only cultural association I make is that it reminds me of the hilarious Chris Farley skit interviewing Paul McCartney. Your reaction isn’t any more objectively true than mine.
Ahh, there it is. Stuart you just inadvertantly supplied both the motive and the evidence for your own position. It’s not that Beatles fans have been duped by the culture gods, it’s that you have an obvious aversion to raging hormones and LSD. It’s your cultural influences that are keeping you from seeing the truth.
Stuart, let me tell you, I was at Woodstock, and the Beatles were AWESOME. Backstage, after doing LSD together, George gave me a taste of the secret sauce they poured into each song, and it was very good. I took my story to Rolling Stone, along with a little secret sauce residue. They gladly swabbed for the residue, and affirmed to me yet again that I had, by virtue of hanging out with the greatest band of all time, an experience roughly equivalent to the Transfiguration. Ever since then, I haven’t been able to shake the good vibes I get every time I hear the Beatles.
Seriously, though:
I like music my parents like, generally. My parents don’t like the Beatles. Not many of my friends like the Beatles. Their music doesn’t carry many special adolescent memories for me, other than sitting in my bedroom all by myself and thumping my desk to “The End”. And, with all of that in mind, I still perk up every time I hear one of their songs. I think that, for me, their brand has been almost entirely earned and not given. Other universally-acclaimed bands from that time don’t give me the same pleasure, for example, the Stones. But the Beatles do.
“You’re hearing 1) the vocals and music, plus 2) the fact that IT’S THE BEATLES, plus 3) an evocation of all of the cultural influences that you’ve associated with that music over your whole life.”
Well, if you say so, but actually I first heard the Beatles when I had no knowledge of the larger cultural context. I was 12-13 years old and I though Huey Lewis was just as valid as John & Paul.
It was a virtual vacuum and yeah, that Abbey Road medley still rules the roost to this day.
Well, the cultural and personal evocations that come to your mind are obviously whatever you say they are (I was just speculating!). The point remains, though, that the feelings you experience today when listening to the Beatles are deeply and inevitably affected by all of the past memories and contexts that you associate with that music. Someone who doesn’t share your life history may not hear the same “music” that you perceive yourself as hearing. And that’s just fine.
There may be someone deep in Africa who gets the same feeling — perhaps much more intensely — when he is listening to music that you or I would hear as monotonously repetitive drumming. That’s not a wrong reaction for him to have; and neither are you wrong for lacking such a reaction to repetitive drumming (if indeed that is the case), given that you may not share the same set of previous experiences and memories and contexts that would be evoked by such music.
Well put. I generally agree with you that that is the case for many listeners. And yeah, to listen to the Beatles in 2009 you have to sift through loads of cultural baggage.
Can’t we all just agree that Yoko ruined everything?
I never knew Stuart was such a post-modernist!
I think it’s important to divide the concepts of “most influential” and “best” from one another, as it is possible to be one and not the other. One of my friends recently bought the mono collection (so he obviously disagrees with some of your points), but instead of challenging my tastes when I said I wasn’t that into the Beatles, he said “you can’t deny that they are the most influential band of the 20th century” and he was right. I can, however, deny that having said trait means I should have to enjoy listening to the songs. The Model T was one of the most influential cars of the 20th century, and I don’t have to consider it the best or prefer driving it to anything newer, do I?
That said, the Stones at 1? Ridiculous. Clearly it’s Led Zeppelin.
Zeppelin? The greatest rip-off artists of the last century? More information here:
http://www.listropolis.com/2008/06/led-zeppelin-innovators-or-plagiarists-audio-of-8-songs-proving-they-might-be-the-best-cover-band-of-all-time/
Aye, Mr Rose, but plagiarism never sounded so good. I’m sure that Blind Gourd Leadbelly or someone like that is plotting revenge in the afterlife, but as long as we’re here, hear, hear.
Point taken from Stuart: nature and nurture both primed me for my age-17 Beatles epiphany.
Where is that ‘before’ sample of “Lovely Rita” from? It sounds fantastic! Nothing like the 1988 CD. This is not a joke, I really want to know.
Hi – Don’t you have the Girl tracks swapped? The “Before” one has plenty of bass, the “After” doesn’t. By the way, what method do you use to put these tracks up on your web page, and what format are they in? Thanks. – Mark
Good ear Mark. I assure I don’t have them swapped. While it sounds like the “before” has “more” bass, if you crank it up you’ll hear that the “more” is a lot of mud, fuzz, and clipping. You can turn up the “after” a lot more–nearly to 11–and it will still sound pretty good. If you turn up the “before” too much it starts to sound bad.
Still, I think it is a matter of taste.
I like this song: http://www.imeem.com/people/aa91eF-/music/6VWAC0GX/pfr-phil-keaggy-we-can-work-it-out/
And this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtEFbtwH-7I
Jay P. Greene –
Curious logic trying to prove that McCartney is better than Lennon by putting “Oh! Darling” up against the medley section of Abbey Road. “Oh! Darling” was Paul’s song, not John’s, as should be obvious to anyone with even a cursory familiarity with their respective songwriting styles. Sorry for the snark, but c’mon, who doesn’t like John Lennon?
So… Are you going to tell me where you got the ‘before’ sample of “Lovely Rita” from?
Sorry JP, I thought I had responded to you via email. It is from the 1988 CD. Lovely song.
I just read your email, sorry. Will reply there.
This is pretty catchy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ7anZA6ACI&feature=related
The newer version is better.
Say, here’s yet another example where the original artist got George Michael to sing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1rqQz52acc&feature=related