Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What are you listening to? Part III
- Thread starter S.B.G
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great choice, and one that must bring back memories.
This evening, on the train coming home, I realised that I wanted to go a bit retro, - but stylishly retro - and, therefore, I listened to The Bryan Ferry Orchestra with The Jazz Age, a lovely, elegant, accomplished album.
Last edited:
Several tracks from a wonderful group by the name of Allah-Las; I heard them for the first time yesterday (in a 17th century pub).
Today I picked up the 6 Disc (4 CD + Blu-ray/DVD) version of this:
Since record stores are an endangered species I had about a forty minute drive each way. Perfect for listening to the 2009 stereo remaster on the way up and the 2017 on the way back. Since listening in a car is compromised by road noise and a "factory stereo" I can't really say how good (or bad) the new mix is but I am able to make some decent observations:
Stealing Henry Rollins' recent review, this mix has been good enough that I've almost forgotten about Trump. I am curious whether this'll be my go-to version. Sometimes remasters -- and especially remixes -- have a "shiny new toy" effect. At some point they drift into the background. I suspect not (except maybe "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" since I prefer the more childlike, non-flange effect vocals) of the original stereo as opposed to the mono/new stereo version... so far.
Since record stores are an endangered species I had about a forty minute drive each way. Perfect for listening to the 2009 stereo remaster on the way up and the 2017 on the way back. Since listening in a car is compromised by road noise and a "factory stereo" I can't really say how good (or bad) the new mix is but I am able to make some decent observations:
- Vocals and instruments are now more centered (not mono) -- by this I mean that sound sort of spreads from the middle outward. As such it sounds more bandlike and less like stretched cotton candy. I don't know the original mono that well and grew up on the 1987 CD (same mix as 2009) so I know that mix pretty well. Much as I've liked it, it could be unnecessarily disorienting to hear vocals come from one speaker in one song then another in the next; ditto drums, etc. Here, drums are centered like a foundation, with backing vocals spread nicely across the left and right and lead vocals balanced in the center, balanced on top. Rhythm and lead instruments can vary but that spinal cord is pretty much intact throughout (except maybe in moments for specific effect).
- This mix is much more robust than the old stereo and less claustrophobic than the original mono. At the very least a decent compromise.
- All the elements -- voice, instruments, effects -- are so much clearer than before since Giles Martin (son of original producer George Martin) and his engineer went back to the original tapes before they were "bounced" (combined) because of technological limitations at the time; in essence, all previous releases had elements that were basically copies of copies of copies of copies and this gets several generations back to the source. The best way I can express the effect is hyperbolic but: it's like having seen and studied an excellent print Van Gogh for years then finally seeing it in a museum where you can finally appreciate the characteristics of his brushstrokes. The sounds are richer and some flourishes (especially Ringo's in my one listen so far) that have felt flat (or barely detectable) are suddenly vibrant. And without cluttering things.
Stealing Henry Rollins' recent review, this mix has been good enough that I've almost forgotten about Trump. I am curious whether this'll be my go-to version. Sometimes remasters -- and especially remixes -- have a "shiny new toy" effect. At some point they drift into the background. I suspect not (except maybe "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" since I prefer the more childlike, non-flange effect vocals) of the original stereo as opposed to the mono/new stereo version... so far.
Last edited:
Still listening to Allah-Las.
But will graduate to Sgt Pepper's later tonight.
But will graduate to Sgt Pepper's later tonight.
I didn't know about this, but now I'm quite curious. Thanks for the heads up.
The biggest package is BEAUTIFULLY assembled and worth every penny if a) you're a Beatle fanatic, b) you love outtakes, c) you're a fan of surround music and/or mono mixes, D) you've "scrimped and saved" or are willing to pull cash from your "cottage at the Isle of Wight" retirement fund.
If not quite any two of the above, the double disc version is currently $15.99 at Amazon/Target, I believe, and I'd HIGHLY recommend it. It contains the stereo remix, about half of the alternate takes, and an abridged version of the book's written content. Perfect for the casual fan or the curious. For a serious fan, it's worthy a stopgap until the box drops in price or hits the secondary market. I've already seen one used for $85 shipped (on my favorite audiophile forum where a member put all of it on his computer, including the encrypted Blu-ray content - I wish I could figure out how to do that even though I'd keep my set, too).
I'll keep an eye out. I must have listened to The Beatles' catalogue on the order of hundreds of times over the years, although its been some years since I listened to something other than Revolver or Rubber Soul (I randomly played these quite recently). I think it is worth a revisit to my current library and probably this new remaster.
The first CD releass came out when I was about sixteen. The perfect age. I memorized most of their 65-70 content. Like you, I can't say I listen to them much anymore. Just my musical DNA. The exceptions include the Anthology's gentle, simple rough take of "Across the Universe," several of George's compositions and a few hits that have never worn out their welcome. Still, I couldn't resist this. It was my first of their albums and also the first "pop" music I heard that left behind the trite love songs that littered the radio.
I could have waited but the music forum where I go when I'm not here, kvelling about Trumo, has managed to generate 1,0000 pages of posts. Quite a bit of junk there but also lots of knowledge and enthusiasm. By waiting I'd miss out on that opportunity to kibbitz since none of my real world friends give a whit about music. Or books. Or non-mainstream film. "Woe. Is. Me." —Ringo in Yellow Submarine.
The greatest Beatles album
I will also accept Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road. If you say "White Album", you need to know your Beatles better.
I will also accept Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road. If you say "White Album", you need to know your Beatles better.
The greatest Beatles album
I will also accept Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road. If you say "White Album", you need to know your Beatles better.
Rubber Soul ?
The greatest Beatles album
I will also accept Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road. If you say "White Album", you need to know your Beatles better.
Ah, I love Revolver, and Abbey Road, and Sgt Pepper's.
And, yes, the "White Album" is how I, too, refer to it, chiefly because that is what it is best known as and that is how most people describe it (and yes, I do know my Beatles, but I won't get involved in a bar-room brawl, or, an online dispute on how others should name an album I love.)
Great album, and the one where the Beatles really found their musical voice and direction.
Last edited:
agreed.
"The White Album" is how it is commonly known @AustinIllini but, of course the actual name is The Beatles.
agreed.
"The White Album" is how it is commonly known @AustinIllini but, of course the actual name is The Beatles.
Actually, in my own old copy of "the White Album" - that old wonderful double LP - the actual title of the album - "The Beatles" is stencilled - in white - on a completely white album cover. Candidly, it is almost easier to read as a form of Braille than print.
It's also not really a Beatles album. Every song is Paul and a backing band or John and a backing band. i appreciate that people like it and I do, too, but it's not on the same level as Revolver, Abbey Road, Sgt. Pepperagreed.
"The White Album" is how it is commonly known @AustinIllini but, of course the actual name is The Beatles.
Agreed, to a certain extent. It is a Beatles album, it is just that they are not playing on it as a group, but as individuals who acted as one another's session men.
And not every song justifies its place on the album.
George - who later described himself and Ringo as "economy class Beatles" - certainly deserved to have a few more of his tracks make an appearance on the album - some of what he had written by then was pretty good, (While My Guitar Gently Weeps is an outstanding track, one of my all time Beatles favourites) and was undoubtedly far better than some of the dross and utter tosh (Revolution No 9, anyone?) written by the Legendary Pair in their more self indulgent moments.
Listening to Jimi Hendrix Experience's 'Are You Experienced'.
A great choice! Didn't listen to much music today.
A bit of Imagine Dragons and Bastille as I recall.