George Martin quotes re: stereo vs. mono

Or wondering if that is the only album the guy owns.

 

We have discussed this before. We know why they sound muddy, but I also suggested that the muddiness goes away when you play it loud.

 

From the November 2009 issue of SOUND & VISION. By Ken Richardson:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fe...talog-51-mix-of-the-entire-catalog-page2.html

 

That's ridiculous on many levels...first of all, they wouldn't have to word the question that way; they could have just innocently asked whether he wanted the remaster to include the '65 or '87 mix. Martin would have likely told them to do whatever they wanted...

Secondly, if they REALLY intended to respect Martin's wishes, they wouldn't have put the stereo mixes of the first two albums out as the standard standalone releases.

 

I still don't really understand why the 60s stereo mixes of RS and R were added to the mono discs, rather than added to the stereo discs.

 

$$$

 

Honestly, do we live in a bubble on this forum? The people who are interested in stereo mixes that have been out of print for over 20 years are people who frequent music forums like this. Ie the target audience for the mono box. I know casual music fans who can't tell the difference between the mono and stereo mixes, never mind the 65 and 87 mixes of Help and Rubber Soul. The overwhelming majority of people buying these remasters don't care or are even aware of the minutia we discuss here.

 

No, I am not in the target audience for the mono box. I have no interest whatsoever in the mono. Nevertheless I would have preferred the original 1965 stereo mixes both on the original 1987 CDs and on these reissues. Thankfully both stereo LPs sound pretty good.

 

No, it's because the remastering team felt that it was important to have those '65 stereo mixes available, so they fought hard for it. To get them included in the mono box was a compromise they, and we won, even thought they are more expensive for the masses to obtain..

 

Which supports my claim: the inclusion of the original stereo mixes in the mono set was to make it even more appealing to collectors and thus produce more $$$...

 

It supports your claim, but $$$ was not the motivation. Think about it: if money were the motivation, they wouldn't have had to fight so hard to get them released.

 

If $$$ was the motivation, then it would've made more sense to include the original mixes with the stereo CDs... that way the collectors and Beatle nuts wouldn't be satisfied with just the mono box, they'd also need a further 2 stereo CDs of RS and H to get the original mixes...

 

I'm still not buying the excuse that the '87 stereo remixes were included out of respect for GM on the stereo box and CDs. A more logical excuse is that it's what the public is now used to.

 

SO?

 

Beatle nuts aren't satisfied with just the mono box. I questioned including the original stereo mixes in the mono box, but since the original stereo mixes are "rare", putting them in the box aimed at collector's makes a kind of sense in that screwed up marketer's world. Just look at the bazillion Beach Boys comps out there -- the recent 'themed' comps like 'Sounds Of Summer' or whatever it is. Slipped in each 20+ track comp rehash are two or three rarities, two or three new stereo remixes, or something similar. I would love to hear those. But until I find cheap used copies, I won't spend the money -- it's an unfair ploy. Just make a rarities disc, don't make us buy the same tracks again for the umpteenth time

Dale

 

The remixes have now been in print longer than the original stereo mixes, although I would be surprised if most people buying the remasters are even aware Rubber Soul is a remix, or would been able to tell the difference if the original mixes were used. Apple is all about protecting the legacy of the people involved, so I found Allan Rouses reason very plausable.

 

I didn't notice in 1987 that Help! and RS had been remixed. I thought they sounded way better on CD than on my French 1978 stereo Odeon vinyl (I had no UK discs at the time).
Anyway, we are lucky enough to have the mono and both stereo mixes on the new boxes, there is hardly any reason to complain. I burned CD-Rs with the stereo and the mono mix on the same disc and that's the CDs I listen to. The original H! and RS stereo mixes are on a separate disc.

 

You mean EMI.

 

My misunderstanding.... Was it not Apples decision to retain the 87 mixes and the Abbey Road engineers making the case for the 65 mixes to be included on the mono box?

 

Not according to Allan Rouse. He said publically that EMI used the '87 remixes because they assumed that George Martin would want them to remain in print. They then decided to release the original '65 mixes to be "historically accurate" and satiate the fans. Of course said fans would have to buy both sets to get Martin's remixes and the historically accurate originals. Apple of course approved the decision. Ron

 

Why were they used for the stereo box set and not the original 60's versions? This was not the mastering team's decision; we're not that important (sarcasm). This was made higher up than us, however the team along with Mike Heatley can at least take credit for proposing that the originals should be released as well, which Jeff Jones readily agreed with

I took his comments to mean Apple but of course he could well have meant someone higher up in EMI.

 

Amen, brother!

 

However, I read something not too long ago where GM says he never got to finish all of those remixes, or had time to remix them properly. So, if that's the case, those remixes weren't what he wanted. But, no one asked for his .02 cents for these remasters.

 

It was EMI. It's a weird association. Apple is in charge of all things Apple. EMI distributes Apple product. Apple when, but EMI says what and where.

 

What're you two talklin; about? They sound more clear than the remasters.