Beatles Red & Blue Albums Remastered Oct. 19 (Part Two)

John, Paul & George look pretty much the same in all 3 pictures, Ringo really gives it away that they are different covers. I also noticed (I'm sure everybody did) Ringo doesn't have the Beatle haircut in the photos.

 

I never saw them side by side.

 

They're the Martin 1987 Remixes,in fact,ALL of it excepting the the Mono tracks,were remixed by Martin.

 

Having read them, I haven't looked the bloke up, but he seem to have been paid by the adjective. They are puff pieces, plain and simple - no depth to them, and no critical eye at all. That said, there are very few re-release essays that are anything but adulatory. The Doors' remix essays slag Morrison throughout but leave the living untouched.

Some of The Who reissues are less than complementary about their subjects' diversions and excesses.

 

Didn't see them at Costco yesterday. They have very little in the way of new audio these days.

 

What sort of subjects do the new essays cover? Are they just outlines of The Beatles career?

 

Apart from A Day In The Life, is there any other song with some differences respecting to the remastered albums?

 

Nope..it's the 1993 Cd's,Remastered and repacked with new Liner Notes and restored "Color Apple" Labeling.

 

No.

 

Actually, you'd have a hard time figuring what their career was from them. The first part of each essay is identical in each version. At least with the old elpees you knew where the songs came from and when they were released.

 

Thank you!

 

My Costco has very little of any audio these days. Mostly DVD & BluRay.

 

Are these meant to be jokes?

 

Of course the bass was boosted/put in/improved on the 2009 remasters, whatever term you like, no doubt about it:
The EQ lead engineer of the remastering team, Steve Rooke, did say quite clearly in that interview that boosting the bass was one of the project objectives and that the remastering team would do it whenever they could. What more evidences do you need to concede that the bass was boosted?

Steve Rooke: "Guy and Paul came up to my room, we had a listen through to what was now the cleaned-up master version, and decided how we were going to tackle each track... If we could put a bit more bass line or kick drum in and give it a bit more punch, we would do."
​

 

No. The mastering is entirely different.

And the only remixed tracks are those from Help and Rubber Soul, contrary to your earlier comment.

 

Thanks, lukpac.

 

I though I'd written that! It probably got lost in its content send! Oh,well..I've gonna have to spotcheck my comments and see if it ALL gets through,not just bits & pieces!

 

The word of the day is: Decaf! Learn it. Love it.

Evan

 

They didn't do that to every track. Some tracks have less bass than on the older CDs. For Abbey Road, I listened to the old and to the new, and I know what I hear. No bass boost there.

 

I'm pretty sure that isn't what Steve was referring to, nor have I ever heard a "same across the board EQ" mastering referred to as a "flat transfer".

 

Nobody is claiming they did anything to every track. However, you claimed (repeatedly) that any additional bass was *not* due to a bass boost, which does not seem to be the case.

 

Thank you! They are not the same as the 1993 releases. They are the same as the 2009 remasters - for the most part i.e. ADITL).

 

I stumbled across this, which is amusing:

http://wogew.blogspot.com/2009/09/1987-cd-mixes.html

 

I wonder why they didn't use the original mixes for the final product rather than the eighties mixes, in that case!