Beatles Downloads

[Maggie Szydlowski]

Dont worry - it's quick and painless! Just click below, and once you're logged in we'll bring you right back here and post your question. We'll remember what you've already typed in so you won't have to do it again.

If I try to play any Beatles song, from any album, there is no response from the player. When I click the play button nothing happens. This only happens with The Beatles. All other artists/songs play fine. This behavior exists on my phone and desktop. My other family members can play the Beatles with no problems. I'm looking for solutions to this.

It's possible that it's an artifact from a while back when I inadvertently "liked" them and ended up with 500 Beatles songs in my "Liked Songs" playlist. I don't remember how I dealt with it at the time. It's possible that I blocked them when that option was available until I got around to curating the list but now the block/unblock options aren't available.

As @emacarla3 mentions it's possible to have blocked an artist - on mobile, you can go their artist profile and click on the 3 dots to check if you see the option Allow to play this.

I am late to this thread however I have been running into the same issue. The proposed solution does not work. When i try to play beatles songs the icon moves showing that the app at least registers my action but it does not play the song.I will attach a screen recording as suggested.

I was excited for this...but then my musician son sent me a "manifesto" on how remixing The Beatles is an "Art Crime". Even worse, he asserted that contrary to his Dad's gushing over Giles Martin, the remixes hollowed out the midrange, and sounded significantly less good than even the flawed stereo versions of 50 years ago.

That said, Revolver is a bit different. They don't have all the individual tracks to remix as they did with the later albums. So it remains to be seen what they were able to do with it and if it will be an improvement.

FD--you sound like me before I did my comparison. ? That's not to say your comparison is wrong. And we agree that you can hear each part more clearly on the new mixes. But let's go to the zero-sum game issue, which I raised as a question (not an assertion)...

If the mixer adds emphasis in some places, by definition he is reducing the emphasis on other parts. GM has clearly increased the bass and the vocals--doesn't that by definition mean he has reduced the midrange?

Also, when we increase or decrease the level of separation we also impact other aspects of the sound. If we increased separation on a Wall of Sound recording, just for an obvious example, it would not be Wall of Sound.

The problem is you must be comparing the Blu-ray versions and not the new CD's or hi-res downloads. The versions from the Blu-ray sound so much better than anything else as they lack the volume compression of the other versions. The Blu-ray version of the White Album is a true revelation.

Just streamed the single "Taxman" which has been released from the album. Interestingly, it's 24/96. So they are going to release hi-res downloads but not put them on disc in the deluxe box? Sort of strange.

Anyway, compared to versions before the 2009 remaster (stereo), it's definitely louder and the bass guitar is more prominent. On the other hand, they fixed the stereo mix, which in the original versions up till now had almost all the instruments in the left channel. The new stereo placement is definitely better.

Another thought: if you read up on the Beatles' recording sessions, they were constantly looking to make the recordings louder. They used analog limiting devices on just about everything to increase volume and power. Then mixed the master tape.

If it hadn't been for the need to produce vinyl suitable for very cheap turntables, the original pressings would have been produced with much more bass. They had to reduce the bass present in the master tape when cutting in order not to make those cheapo needles and arms jump out of the groove on the resulting LP or single.

This album also was their first real effort by the group in the studio where time, diligence, huge efforts and ingenuity was used and displayed beyond all their other efforts and in many ways all that followed. Even coming up with the name and cover showed the new directions they were headed.

From my perch, The Beatles music is amazing 95% of the time and really good the other 5%. Few groups had so many albums that had so many hits per album and so many hit albums as them. I never tire of listening to them. Looking forward to this to see how they choose to redo what at the time of recording was innovative in terms of stereo but later in my high end years became a little annoying and gimmicky manipulation of the medium for such a masterpiece.

I agree with many comments here. The music is balanced, stereo mix of the instruments are so much better and clearer. Giles got the original mix on a stereo track at Abbey Road studios and then compared the new one, going back and forth and making sure the good things about the original mix was in the new mix. With Paul Mc giving his approval then is the final thumbs on the check list. For some if you like drums on one side and vocals on the other side, you can always play the original.

The White Album always had a raw sound that was not clear and open. Abbey Road sound wise is miles ahead. So when Giles remixed the White Album and did such a great job adding sparkle and life in the recordings, he made me very happy.

I don't think the "aesthetic" has changed. GM has updated the songs without changing their essence, IMO. A lot of the original stereo mixes were crap. Even in 1987 for CD release, George Martin dumped the Rubber Soul and Help stereo mixes and put out new stereo mixes, as he found the originals embarrassingly bad. Those have remained in the catalog as the standard stereo mix of those albums, as in the 2009 stereo remasters.

I think giving the songs a modern sensibility is a good thing - it will keep the songs relevant to a younger audience that listens on headphones and listens via playlists. The old stereo mixes don't fit there.

I've listened to Revolver a few times now. Several of the songs are seriously improved, and I'm liking it more after a few listens. There are a few things I don't like, but on balance it's very good.

But sticking to the mono--you can't really have it both ways--you can't say the modern sensibility is better, the old ones don't fit, etc; and then assert they haven't changed the aesthetic (unless you're focused on semantics). The new versions are more forward and detailed; the old are a more laid back sound. It's cool to debate which is better, and i understand how a person can say the new versions are light years improved. (I used to think this myself) But let's not pretend that nothing is lost with the change.

As I hope you'd agree--these albums are priceless. It is well worth it for any serious listener to buy both the mono and the GM versions of at least on GM album, and compare for themselves. Even throwing one away, a person is getting great value

To me: it's the same playing, the same recording, the same singing, the same arrangements. It's not like the album was re-recorded. It sounds different, but nothing essential about the finished songs has been changed.

Say you found someone who hadn't heard either version: If listening to the new mix first, he would think the same thing about the album as if he heard the old mix first. Because noting essential has changed. It's just looking at the same music from a different angle. Does the album change if you hear it on an AM radio as opposed to a nice stereo? It sounds really different in those two media, but I don't think the album somehow changes.

3a8082e126