Forums >Off the Beaten Path>Anyone else riding the new wave of Beatlemania?
I've got a fever...
I'm not a gamer, but I desperately want to buy a console just so I can get Beatles Rockband. And of course, I bought both the stereo and mono box sets last week.
I haven't had a chance to really delve in, but I'm amazed at how much heavier the mono mixes are. Listening to the mono mix of the White Album is like repeatedly getting smashed in the head with a 2x4, but in a good way.
Any other Beatlemaniacs out there in heaven right now?
On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.
I just picked up the Beatles Anthology Vols. 1-3, which puts me about 10 years behind the curve.
About buying a console, have you tried playing the game somewhere first?
"If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus
I just picked up the Beatles Anthology Vols. 1-3, which puts me about 10 years behind the curve. About buying a console, have you tried playing the game somewhere first?
Well, I would definitely play before I buy. But if we get a console, I see myself getting a Wii because a) I'm not a hard-core gamer and b) we had a blast with it at my parents' house this summer. And it's frustrating to have mom and dad have something tech-related before I do.
Who are the Beatles?
The process is the goal.
Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call Destiny.
An argument in favor of the PS3 is that you get a Blu-ray player as part of the deal.
But speaking as the head of a (certifiable) hard-core gaming (all three consoles plus PC) family you might as well get the Wii as the graphics in RockBand won't be better in HD.
#artbydmcbride
I lusted after the lunchbox on sale at Borders Books.
Runners run
My ears are burned out from playing in bands in my yoot (this is a true story).
I can't tell the difference between the remastered stereo CDs and the last go-round because I'm old and deaf. I know that's just me, but it's how it is and I won't let marketing get to me and make me buy them. HOWEVER, can someone tell me what the deal is with the little documentary track I see listed at the end of some of the CDs... are these any good?
PS, I can buy these remastered CDs at f-in 7-11! GAH!!!!
As for the mono version. It's mono! No thanks.
All that said, I would like a copy of a couple of the US albums. Specifically "Something New" because my sister had this one and Meet the Beatles. Great childhood memory.
I have a Wii. I haven't really liked Guitar Hero or Rock Band when I've tried them, but the Beatles version might make me buy RB. Then again, GH5 has a Van Halen add-on. I realize in the big scheme that VH ain't no Beatles, nowhere close. But for a Guitar Hero game? Van Halen seems pretty fun!
HOWEVER, can someone tell me what the deal is with the little documentary track I see listed at the end of some of the CDs... are these any good? As for the mono version. It's mono! No thanks. All that said, I would like a copy of a couple of the US albums. Specifically "Something New" because my sister had this one and Meet the Beatles. Great childhood memory.
HOWEVER, can someone tell me what the deal is with the little documentary track I see listed at the end of some of the CDs... are these any good?
Ok, so why mono? Well, the mono mixes of the Beatles are not simply two-channel stereo mixed-down into one-channel for mono. Quite the opposite. In the 60's, especially in England, mono was the dominant format, and stereo was a novelty. The Beatles and producer George Martin spent a great deal of time and care on mixing specifically for mono since that's how the vast majority of their listeners would hear them -- through one speaker on a turntable. So there are separate mono and stereo mixes for every album up through and including the White Album. The tide had turned by 1969, and Abbey Road and Let it Be were released in stereo
The stereo mixes would often be done days, weeks, or months later, without the participation of the band, and sometimes without Martin. Because of the time lag, there would often be differences between the mixes: a few different takes used, slightly different sound effects. Sgt. Pepper sounds much different in mono -- George Martin said that you haven't heard Pepper until you've heard the mono mix, and I agree. It's revelatory -- a completely new experience.
So most of the above are small details for geeks like me to nitpick over. But there is the issue of sound. In a lot of cases, the mono just sounds better. Why? Well for one thing, there just seems to be more bottom and presence to the bass and drums.
A lot of this has to do with the way the stereo is mixed. In the early days, they recorded on two track, so stereo usually meant instruments on one side and vocals on the other. Although you have a sense of space, and can hear a lot of nuance, this is an unnatural listening experience -- go see a live band, and you don't hear the instruments and voices in separate ears.
Even as they moved up to 4-tracks in 1964-1968, they still often had the vocals panned hard to one side. I have found I don't mind instruments on the side (although it is strange to hear the bass in one ear and the drums in the other), but I want the vocals dead center unless it's for effect. Listening mono corrects all of this panning. You're getting the vocals dead center, and you're getting the full feel of the instruments coming right at you. The effect is that the bottom (drums and bass) have far more impact and are far more muscular. Messrs. McCartney and Starr (or McCartney & McCartney if we're talking about "Back in the USSR" and "Dear Prudence") are a much heavier rhythm section than those of use who grew up on the '87 CD's realize. Like I said, the White Album seems much heaver. So does "Rubber Soul" -- it's a blockbuster in mono.
Not everything sounds better -- Help! has a crappy mono mix -- but I personally am leaning towards mono in most cases. They are just livelier, punchier mixes. They rock. Who know that the somewhat slight "Paperback Writer" was so gritty? "Lady Madonna" boogies hard. "We can work it out" sounds so much better with the vocals front and center, instead of the dreaded voices panned hard left. "Cry Baby Cry" -- same thing. I hated the way they moved John's voice around in stereo. "A Day in the Life" on the other had, is so much more surreal with the moving voice in stereo. And in the end, it does come down to preference.
I haven't delved into the early albums (first 4) as much, since the original CD releases were in mono (Martin decided he hated the instr/voice separation, too, when he mastered them back in '87). But what I have heard is that the stereo is very lively, but often seems a little thin compared to the mono ("I wanna hold your hand", I'm talking to you.
Barefoot and happy
Some old band that's so obscure they're not even on iTunes.
I read an Onion review. It was mixed. On the one hand they said the band was tight and more than any other group deserved the label of being Beatlesque. But they said many of the albums had way too many cover songs.
Some of that is based on unrealistic expectations. It's unfair to expect them to perform at the level of WIngs.
Thanks, Jeff.
I know about the capitol boxed set, which I don't want because it's too much. As for making a playlist, sure, but that's not the same as holding Something New with the goofy "playing on stage" cover shot.
Mebe I will borrow someone's mono version of the albums and take a listen. What you say makes sense. Of course, when I was a kid my sister had the mono versions. But listening to them on my dad's "hi fi" isn't the same as how I might experience them today.
But I'll have to turn them up to 11 because I am old.