What was wrong with 1987 CDs?
Richard Fangnail
be specific about certain songs that didn't sound right to you?
PS - Kraftwerk is also releasing a box set called Katalog, in
October. Fitting - a massively influential group although they remain
obscure in America.
AllaBest
wrote:
Kraftwerk are not obscure in America although they may be more popular
in Europe.
When I was teaching computers, I played their music all the time when
my students were keyboarding because it was mandated by the school
district.
Computer World", "It's More Fun To Compute" and "Home Computer" were
just a few of the songs that I used and my students LOVED the song of
Kraftwerk!
Also, when I first started teaching in 1976, I taught in the inner
city of Houston and the Black students were way into Kraftwerk
(especially the song "Numbers" off Computer World, and their love of
Kraftwerk is what turned me on to the group!
P.S. The 1987 albums by The Beatles ALL didn't sound right, and that
the first 4 were in mono only had me and my friends outraged!
n...@epix.net
wrote:
It wasn't the songs but the quality. In 1987 there was no reason not
to remaster the tapes. In the early 80's CDs were brand new and
basically the record labels just transfered the "analog"(the vinyl
mix) over to the "digital" disk. If ya had a good record plyer, the
vinyl would sound better than the the disks. The disks would lose so
much low end and sound "tinny" By 86 the labels began digitally
mastering all recordings. Even the vinyl which now used two records
for one album to capture the quality of digital sound . By 87 there
was no excuse to release only the UK versions without digital
remasters. The first 3 albums weren't even remixed for stereo. So the
fact that it has taken this long to 'redux" the tapes is appaling.
I've been a Beatles fan since 81' and I am now 40. I can't imagine the
baby boomers frustrations on the wait. Other bands like KISS ,LED
ZEPPELIN, METALLICA and THE STONES have long ago remastered their work
so the fan bases could get a chance to hear them.
Rango
wrote:
At the time, there was nothing wrong with the 1987 discs. As far as I
was concerned, they were an excellent upgrade from my vinyl (I hated
caring for records, and found the slightest bit of surface noise
distracting). But by comparison, both the 'Songtrack' and the 'Love'
albums (each actual remixes) have more presence in the soundscape,
something I'm hoping will be noticeable in these new reissues.
Interestingly, it may have been my imagination, but when EMI issued
the 30th anniversary edition of the "White Album" in 1998, I remember
listening to it and thinking it must have been remixed. There was
seemingly more detail than on my '87 disc. Of course, the 1998 reissue
hadn't been remixed, or even remastered, but I remember wondering at
the time if the technology for transfering digital information (i.e.
the music) to disc (the "pressing process", so to speak) had some how
improved in the last eleven years.
Marcus
>On Sep 4, 12:52�pm, Richard Fangnail <richardfangn...@excite.com>
>wrote:
>> What specifically was so wrong with the original Beatles CDs - can you
>> be specific about certain songs that didn't sound right to you?
>>
>> PS - Kraftwerk is also releasing a box set called Katalog, in
>> October. �Fitting - a massively influential group although they remain
>> obscure in America.
>
>It wasn't the songs but the quality. In 1987 there was no reason not
>to remaster the tapes. In the early 80's CDs were brand new and
>basically the record labels just transfered the "analog"(the vinyl
>mix) over to the "digital" disk. If ya had a good record plyer, the
>vinyl would sound better than the the disks. The disks would lose so
>much low end and sound "tinny" By 86 the labels began digitally
>mastering all recordings. Even the vinyl which now used two records
>for one album to capture the quality of digital sound . By 87 there
>was no excuse to release only the UK versions without digital
>remasters. The first 3 albums weren't even remixed for stereo. So the
>fact that it has taken this long to 'redux" the tapes is appaling.
>I've been a Beatles fan since 81' and I am now 40. I can't imagine the
>baby boomers frustrations on the wait.
Awwwwwwww....poor baby is now FORTY years-old. At least you still
have your freakin' hearing!!!
There are many first generation fans in their late '50's whose hearing
is such that even the remasters will never sound quite as good as they
will to you. For some of those folks, EMI waited way too long.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:32:57 -0700 (PDT), n...@epix.net wrote:
> >On Sep 4, 12:52�pm, Richard Fangnail <richardfangn...@excite.com>
> >wrote:
> >> What specifically was so wrong with the original Beatles CDs - can you
> >> be specific about certain songs that didn't sound right to you?
>
> >> PS - Kraftwerk is also releasing a box set called Katalog, in
> >> October. �Fitting - a massively influential group although they remain
> >> obscure in America.
>
> >It wasn't the songs but the quality. In 1987 there was no reason not
> >to remaster the tapes. In the early 80's CDs were brand new and
> >basically the record labels just transfered the "analog"(the vinyl
> >mix) over to the "digital" disk. �If ya had a good record plyer, the
> >vinyl would sound better than the �the disks. The disks would lose so
> >much low end and sound "tinny" By 86 the labels began digitally
> >mastering all recordings. �Even the vinyl which now used two records
> >for one album to capture the quality of digital sound . By 87 there
> >was no excuse to release only the UK versions without digital
> >remasters. The first 3 albums weren't even remixed for stereo. So the
> >fact that it has taken this long to 'redux" the tapes is appaling.
> >I've been a Beatles fan since 81' and I am now 40. I can't imagine the
> >baby boomers frustrations on the wait.
>
> have your freakin' hearing!!! �
>
> There are many first generation fans in their late '50's whose hearing
> is such that even the remasters will never sound quite as good as they
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got my earhorn on.
Pollwan
<n...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:3c4ed118-8088-403e...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
========================================================
Led Zeppelin did remaster their catalogue in the early 90s but that was not
really an upgrade. The sound on these is far from what they could be and
I'm betting that they are already working on a release along the lines of
the Beatles. The only real treatment that some of the LZ songs got was on
the recently released Mothership 2cd set where I believe that some of the
stuff was tweaked from the original master tapes. I'm not totally sure but
I think that the early 90s remasters weren't even from the original masters.
Dennis Mitchell
in levels alone is such a relief, but then there's all the detail your
ears may have missed, particularly with regard to Ringo's parts. Get
the mono set if you can, because for a fan, there is no experience
like the "new" "Sgt. Pepper" in mono. I blogged about that on my
Facebook and Myspace pages. It's a big improvement, even over the
legally-issued import CDs we've enjoyed all these years.
Dennis Mitchell
"Dennis Mitchell's Breakfast With The Beatles"
www.beatlesradioshow.com
www.facebook.com/breakfastwiththebeatles
www.myspace.com/beatlesradioshow
www.twitter.com/BWTB
Jeff
wrote:
> What specifically was so wrong with the original Beatles CDs - can you
> be specific about certain songs that didn't sound right to you?
Abbey Road was the first Beatles album on CD, and the sound quality
was horrible.
At that time, It was thought that you could just slap an LP format
onto CD, and
it would sound just fine, and they "weren't" remasters in 1987-88, or
whatever
year it was.
Jeff
thekma...@gmail.com
Folks, I've read this thread from stem to stern and there is not one - repeat - ONE sonic example of how ALLEGEDLY inferior the first generation Beatle CDs were.
No "Ringo's drums lacked impact", or "the lead vocal on this or that track is muddy", or, "a lot of background hiss on this or that album", and other gripes to that effect.
I own all 12 original 1980s album releases, plus the original Past Masters pairing, and get completely lost in them whenever I put one on. As do any company we have over when I am playing them.
So as far as I'm concerned all this bashing of the 1987 Beatles CD catalog is largely a load of HOOEY. This is not to say they are the definitive way to hear this band, nor does it imply that I think the 2009 remasters are a waste of money, but that I really don't have the inclination to do A/B comparisons between them and any later CD reissues, or between them and any vinyl I own of the Beatles from either side of the pond.
zippl...@gmail.com
> What specifically was so wrong with the original Beatles CDs - can you
> be specific about certain songs that didn't sound right to you?
to be released in America? I think so.
thekma...@gmail.com
zippl...@gmail.com
IBen Getiner
IBen Getiner