EMI and Beatles Remastered

[metaphours]

I know my threads in the Arts & Entertainment section are seen as slightly obnoxious/dogmatic, but trust me, I'm trying to change my opinionated ways when it comes to this subject, so don't click away from this thread immediately. And plus, this isn't one of those kind of themed threads, anyway.

Anywho, the other day I was taking a look at the ol' google news and I couldn't help but notice that the entire Beatles catalog had been remastered and released by EMI. I don't know about you, but to me this translates as sort of a money-making move on EMI's part. I mean, they've done this with countless other artists and it's just getting slightly annoying I think. They'll release a 10+ year old album(s) by an artist that they were formerly contracted with (I find it interesting that almost every major artist who has ever signed with EMI has had some sort of falling out with them), seemingly for pure moneys sake.

I understand that you can argue that EMI is simply trying to remaster and repackage the music for listeners who may not own the album/younger listeners who are interested in the Beatles catalog (which EMI of course wants them to buy legally), but to me it's sounds kind of... well... fishy.

Any thoughts?

 

[Sarcasticus]

The cynic in me says you are correct, however this is the first time that the Beatles' CDs have been remastered since they were originally released in 1987. That was back when CDs first came out and the digital transfer techniques were still in their infancy.

Those original releases sound tinny and lacking in warmth/bass to me. Supposedly-- and I haven't shelled out $300 for the boxed set of all the albums so this is secondhand info-- the new remasters have amazing clarity and presence, and more bass response.
They're still dealing with 40-year old analog recordings, so there is only so much you can do with those old tapes to make them sound better.

 

[metaphours]

The cynic in me says you are correct, however this is the first time that the Beatles' CDs have been remastered since they were originally released in 1987. That was back when CDs first came out and the digital transfer techniques were still in their infancy.

Those original releases sound tinny and lacking in warmth/bass to me. Supposedly-- and I haven't shelled out $300 for the boxed set of all the albums so this is secondhand info-- the new remasters have amazing clarity and presence, and more bass response.
They're still dealing with 40-year old analog recordings, so there is only so much you can do with those old tapes to make them sound better.

That's a really good point, I hadn't thought of that. Also, I didn't know that the last time The Beatles recordings had been remastered were in the 80's.

But then again, it's not like Beatles songs haven't been remastered at all since then. Just look at the Beatles' 1 Anthology that was released in 2000 (although that wasn't released by EMI).

 

[Sarcasticus]

But then again, it's not like Beatles songs haven't been remastered at all since then. Just look at the Beatles' 1 Anthology that was released in 2000 (although that wasn't released by EMI).

True. I was referring to the entire catalog. There have been a few remasters here and there.

 

[metaphours]

True. I was referring to the entire catalog. There have been a few remasters here and there.

I know

I was just pointing out that people who want to blow big bucks on an entire remaster of the Beatles catalog because they think its the first time since 1988 that any Beatles song has been remastered, need to think again.

 

[Just another ISTJ]

It should be noted that this remaster also fixes various technical errors that occurred during recording(but not the band's errors). As already mentioned, they're working with far more mature analog to digital hardware than what was available back in 87 while CDs were in their infancy. Finally, these digital remasters are also going to be used as sources for a vinyl remaster release in mid 2010, which will have greater overall audio fidelity than the CD remasters.

Technical reasons aside, you should really check out some of the remasters like Abbey Road and compare it with the 87 release. The difference is dramatic(to me anyway).

 

[Sarcasticus]

Fun Beatles fact: when asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, John replied, "he's not even the best drummer in The Beatles."

 

[metaphours]

Fun Beatles fact: when asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, John replied, "he's not even the best drummer in The Beatles."

Hahaha, John was such a joker.

 

[Tallulah]

Fun Beatles fact: when asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, John replied, "he's not even the best drummer in The Beatles."

LOL! Awesome. Poor Ringo, can't get no respect.

I bought the remastered Abbey Road yesterday, but haven't had a chance to listen yet. Will report back when I do.