There have been some stupid questions asked on these forums over the years, and several of those stupid questions have come from me. Perhaps here's another one for the ages...
I'm 38 and have never really listened to the Beatles catalog. I own "Peppers", "Rubber Soul" and "Abby Road" on vinyl, plus "Love", but wouldn't say I'm as familiar with their body of work as I am with, say, R.E.M (they were "my" band during my high-school and college years).
However, I've pre-ordered both the stereo and mono Beatles re-releases. What's the best way to re-introduce myself to the genius of the "fab four"?
Should I sit down and work my way through their collection chronologically? Is there a good companion book to read through while I listen? Should I listen to an album over-and-over until I really "get it" before moving on to the next? Both mono and stereo?
There are albums that I pick up and think "Wow...It would have been awesome to listen to this the first day it was released." Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors". CCR's "Willy...". Rush's "Moving Pictures". Etc. The excitement of the release. The cultural and musical context. The significance. I'll never be able to experience that with the Beatles, and I'd like to put myself in a place (mentally) to really listen to the Beatles for the first time (again).
Does this make sense? Blast away. I figure I couple of people will understand what I'm asking and have some thoughtful suggestions.
We should remember, who inspired the Beatles. Who inspired the Stones , Zeppelin , The Who... who's music did they all play in those basement clubs back then.
An interesting older read of someones perspective who was there and part of the music scene then. Who also inarguably seemed to have a pulse on what was happening musicaly proven by his numerous successful goes reinventing himself. Let alone the impact he had aswell. Not for any other purpose than to read his insight and context.
Oh, and by the the way, the original masters in mono are the way to go. I would start with Revolver and Rubber Soul. I mean just the title Rubber Soul. Come on, man.
I’ll take the troll bait. It’s boring under my bridge. Gee, I guess we could might want to talk musicianship when talking about a band be it a pop group or symphony orchestra. And there is in my opinion no denying the Beatles musicianship. They were an iconic group. And they were a product of their time. I just wish we could experience their like today but I think that ship has sailed.
it seems the u fn audio guys have been twiddlin your knobs too long. just listen to the discs , can u really complain. 90% of u cant do your job 10% as good as the remasters were done. i spent thousands on uk mono press lps and for $200 i got 99%. my ex herd the diff. in the car and shes half deaf in one eye. i u like the beatles you WILL like this stuff mono or stereo. i had 5 people listen to the stereo set with the mono switch on and not one said a word. HI FI is just to play the music back not to make your dik bigger
I put 7 cd's in my cart at Amazon, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. I was born in 1950 and liked music at a very early age, mostly my mom and older sister's records (my mom had one of those suit case record players).
I remember the first time I heard the Beatles...I thought it was radical cutting edge stuff!.....nothing like what I was listening to up to that point. They really opened up the flood gates so to speak.
I can't believe anyone would even argue the greatness of the Beatles? You can say you don't like them, but you put your ignorance on display if you don't acknowledge their absolute greatness, beyond compare.
You cannot compare the Beatles to any other rock band. You can compare them to Wolfgang Amedeus Mozart, Ludwig Van Beethoven, George Gershwin, but don't throw out the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin or Elvis, their not in the same league.
400 yrs from now people will still love the Beatles and all the words to their songs as we, even though it is subconscience, know all the works of Mozart. They are that important to Western (and far eastern Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Phillipines) culture.
I will say that the Beatles are NOT my favorite band. But I will agree they are the most important band EVER. There is not any question of that. There would be no Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin(my Favorite), Elton John, Artic Monkey, Oasis (especially Oasis), Fleetwood Mac, heck even Metallica without the Beatles.
Jim, There is no comparison! The new remastered version overshadows the 87 pressing in every imaginable way. The remastered version has greater body overall. The bass is more enhanced and unmuddied. The vocals are more transparent, you just hear all of the music. Ringo's drums are more prevalent than before. The pace of the music even sounds more rhythmic. I can't explain it better than to say that it sounds more like vinyl than anything that I have heard before. What I found amazing is that one doesn't have to make an effort to notice the changes. By the time I listened to Think for yourself, I stopped analyzing and started listening to the music. You have to hear it for yourself!!
I feel the Stereo versions have minimal differences between these new recordings and the older ones. The one area improved is that the bass is better defined.
Cyc: What I'm talking about are the differences between the old and new STEREO versions of Rubber Soul. It is these that are said that there are minimal differences. Is that your experience too?
Jim, I can hear little nuances between the stereo version and the mono. If you are a real Beatles fan as I am, you will notice it. For one thing the voices have a different timbre to them. There is virtually no equalization on the mono versions.
Cam, I actiually had to check it out, but Rubber Soul is as it was, with the voice on one channel and music on the other but it doesn't sound like it's separate as the 87 CD did. There is just a lot more music to hear than was available before on the original CD's. I think when you hear it, you will be happy with the results. My guess is that they didn't want to stray away from the original stereo mixes.
Cyclonicman - does the stereo version of Rubber Soul still have the voice coming out of one channel and the instruments out of the 2nd channel? Hope not!
Thanks. The NY Times reviewer said there was little difference between the stereo versions of Rubber Soul, so I was wondering whether your experience was different.
I've ordered the original and new re-masters of the stereo versions of Abbey Road and the White Album to make the comparison. Some reviewers have said the difference the stereo remasters make is most pronounced on these recordings.
I'd like to believe the new versions are better, and if so I will buy them. But I confess I'm a bit skeptical: I've done comparisons between the Rolling Stones original and re-mastered versions, and the original ones are far superior.
Jim, Originally, the stereo version, but my mono box set arrived later today and I listened to Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers, and A Hard Days Night in MONO. The mono versions are excellent and the difference between the mono and stereo mixes are very pronounced in Sgt Peppers. The new mono remaster of A Hard Days Night overshadows the 1987 mono version by far. The remasters have more body, clarity, pacing and resolution. When I listen to the 1987 versions, it's as if I was listening through a door and the new remasters has put the music right in front of you. I am both happy and impressed with the remasters!!
It's perfectly alright to have the opinion to not like the Beatles or say their overated, however, history/the world has spoken so that opinion is irrelavant.
i enjoyed the pre fusion jazz of that era...kirk, charles lloyd, et al....everything on 'atlantic' at the time was heavily influenced by rock, and they were seeking a younger audience.
What other releases would you recommend that were obviously directly influenced by a Beatles' album? I'm not talking about how Nirvana was influenced by the Beatles, but how a particular artist's sound changed from, say, 1967 to 1969 because of the Beatle's influence from a particular album? I think that would be an interesting context.
"Just talk to any pop or rock artist that came along post Beatles and you will find very few who do not mention the Beatles as their main influence." Rcrerar, Thats a profound statement. Of course I can,t do that not being in their circle as you must be to of made the statement as though you have and are. I think the people themselves have had more an impact on music driven by the history of what was going on at the time and the tragedies and conflicts that drove people to not ownly seek change but to tell a story and reflect their veiws and feelings within that time. Art imitates life, not the other way around....... "Even the artists who released music very different from the Beatles and who claimed to hate the Beatles, like the early punk bands, were still in fact influenced by the Beatles music." So you think that because a band be it PUNK or Metal chose not to sound like the beatles because they hated them is the beatles influencing them? Thats ridiculous ! Its a given the Beatles did and have had a large impact on music but to say we owe it all to them what we have now is ridiculous and it obliterates the conceptions and talents and the driving force behind what the artists who followed them have done . Just having a tough time picturing a 40 year old JZ standing on a corner in Compton who by your standards was influenced by the Beatles singing "Yesterday all my Troubles were so far away"....... Cheers
Well, they were definitely better than "Freddie and the Dreamers"! 8^) Getting too serious here lads; besides, I've got to go get my Beatle bangs trimmed.
Chasmal, compared to what? The Beatles are unsurpassed in the field of pop music, much less productivity in the field in a 6 year period, and may always be.
"there were those who hated the beatles (even then).."
Beatles haters I've run into over the years seem to really like Elvis and they put him into the mom/apple pie/red, white, & blue category. They always remember Lennon's "more popular than Jesus" comment, and in general equate the Beatles with drugs and loose morals (but seem kinda abscent-minded in remembering that "The King" was also "The King of prescription dope."
I recently played all the Beatles albums, and I did so chronologically. You can better appreciate their development as musicians/writers that way.
But don't worry about how to do it. Just do it.
And if you want to REALLY appreciate them, do this: Each time you play one of their albums (say, "Beatles For Sale" from 1964), follow it up with ANY other record by ANY other artist from the same year.
Finally, I think it's poignant to remember that, when the Beatles broke up in 1970, none of the members of the band were even 30 yet.
if you didn't live through 'beatlemania' it is impossible to believe just how important they were to anyone with access to a radio....even historically, just putting all those songs into the context of a career that lasted less than a decade, and consider that every jazz, classical, country, folk, pop,and whatever 'icon', old and new, defered to them ...well, you might be able to get an inkling of what was going on. just the comotion on threads here are meager distant ripples.....there were those who hated the beatles (even then), but of course, some people 'hating something' is natural too.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
