The Beatles remixed

[Redlight]

So, they've been out for a couple of weeks now. What do people think of the remixed and expanded Beatles' red and blue albums?

I'll confess to having been somewhat sceptical of the whole Peter Jackson AI blah blah hype when it was first aired around the time of the Get Back film but was then impressed with what he had been able to do and, aside from one or two excessively busy tracks, enjoyed the remix of Revolver using his technology. I thought with the 'new' song that the excitement about how they had managed to make a crappy tape of Lennon singing in his kitchen sound decent rather oversold an otherwise fairly mediocre track, but it's certainly preferable to the two previous 'reunion' abominations.

As for the original material, while the Red album is, at time, a revelation, most of the Blue seems superfluous, especially if you already have the remixed Pepper, White Album and (especially, the over-represented) Abbey Road. On the Red, Ringo's drums seem to have been brought to the fore and you can hear how frigging great he was. Similarly, George's contributions are more prominent and, again, you can see what a contribution he made. As with the 1973 release, Rubber Soul is over-represented but, given that the original album is virtually unlistenable in stereo, a remix of the full album has to be on the cards and would be very welcome. On the earlier material, the most significant remixes have to be This Boy, where the atrocious edit after the middle eight has been 'fixed' and, of course, She Loves You, which is just superb.

It's easy to gripe about the track selection - only one song from Beatles For Sale, no 'She's A Woman' or 'Rain' and what the Hell is 'Glass Onion' doing there when 'Yer Blues' was left off - but as a taster for what might still be to come, the Red is one hell of a tease.

[Peter]

I don't like re-mixing.  Most of the new mixes could have been achieved at the recording stage but they didn't do it.  Re-mixes are for money-making, completists or just because it can be done.  But maybe I'm just old and want to hear it the way I did when I was young - and couldn't afford to buy it!

[Robh]

I've seen it said that the real reason behind these Beatles remixes is to reset the copyright clock, as the old mixes are becoming public domain. Apparently they're all - Pink Floyd, etc - at it.

[Mr Larrington]

There’s a compilation of early Dylan songs that’s actually called something like “The Copyright Collection”.

[Redlight]

I've seen it said that the real reason behind these Beatles remixes is to reset the copyright clock, as the old mixes are becoming public domain. Apparently they're all - Pink Floyd, etc - at it.

I've heard about that, although ISTR a few years ago Apple quietly issued several days' worth of unreleased Beatles material and deleted it all the following day, for that very purpose. Does the copyright lapse after 60 years, then? If so, I guess we can expect remixes of the first four albums coming rapidly down the tracks.

[Redlight]

I don't like re-mixing.  Most of the new mixes could have been achieved at the recording stage but they didn't do it.  Re-mixes are for money-making, completists or just because it can be done.  But maybe I'm just old and want to hear it the way I did when I was young - and couldn't afford to buy it!

I agree up to a point. There's definitely a machine at work effectively repackaging the Beatles for the next generation, who probably listen to everything on in-ear headphones, and solidifying the legacy, and a lot of the remixing that goes on (across the board, not just with the fabs) seems to be remixing for its own sake. Where I think it does have a benefit is that, even when they were the biggest band in the world, there was a lot of sloppiness in the original mixing, the stereo mixes especially.  If the remixes can fix the many blemishes without affecting the overall feel of the tracks, then I'm happy to have them.

[Peter]

The copyright angle never occurred to me.  Even as a member of PRS it hurts my head to think about it!  For me it's about the alteration of the original sounds.  The number of "imperfections" on the original Beatles releases is incredibly small, if you don't count allowing Ringo his obligatory tracks.  Where they occur they just remind us that these were real people being creative at a level most mortals can only dream of.  Anyway, as I've already intimated, I have a mono head!

[Pickled Onion]

I don't like re-mixing.  Most of the new mixes could have been achieved at the recording stage but they didn't do it.  Re-mixes are for money-making, completists or just because it can be done.  But maybe I'm just old and want to hear it the way I did when I was young - and couldn't afford to buy it!

I agree up to a point. There's definitely a machine at work effectively repackaging the Beatles for the next generation, who probably listen to everything on in-ear headphones, and solidifying the legacy, and a lot of the remixing that goes on (across the board, not just with the fabs) seems to be remixing for its own sake. Where I think it does have a benefit is that, even when they were the biggest band in the world, there was a lot of sloppiness in the original mixing, the stereo mixes especially.  If the remixes can fix the many blemishes without affecting the overall feel of the tracks, then I'm happy to have them.

I've just had a listen to the Blue album and although I'm not at home with good speakers I think it's pretty good. The rawness and tinniness is retained where it needs to be, and clarity where you expect clarity. It seems very sympathetic and I'm no expert but I get the feeling that this is how the band would have liked it to sound. The bass is a bit heavy in places, but that might just be my poor equipment.

I'm no expert, but I do think a lot of old rock/pop recordings were deliberately mixed with the knowledge that 90% of the audience would be playing it on very cheap record players.

Some of the early "stereo" mixes were excruciating.

[Peter]

I'm no expert, but I do think a lot of old rock/pop recordings were mixed with the knowledge that 90% of the audience would be playing it on very cheap record players.

Some of the early "stereo" mixes were excruciating.

This.  I was involved with recording a fair amount in the 70s, admittedly in a small studio, but the usual practice was to play the final mix back through a small speaker, for the reason you state.

[vorsprung]

i asked an LLM

The remixed and expanded Beatles' Red and Blue albums have been met with generally positive reviews from critics and fans alike. Many reviewers have praised the new mixes, which are said to bring a fresh and vibrant sound to the classic Beatles' recordings. Others have welcomed the additional tracks, which include demos, outtakes, and rare B-sides.

Here are some specific examples of what people have said about the albums:

Rolling Stone: "The new mixes are uniformly excellent, bringing out the clarity and detail of the original recordings while also adding a welcome sense of warmth and depth."
Pitchfork: "The additional tracks are a treasure trove for Beatles fans, offering a fascinating glimpse into the band's creative process."
The Guardian: "These are essential releases for any Beatles fan."
Of course, there have been some criticisms of the albums as well. Some reviewers have found the new mixes to be too polished and lacking in the gritiness of the original recordings. Others have argued that the additional tracks are not essential listening.

Overall, however, the remixed and expanded Beatles' Red and Blue albums have been well-received. They are a valuable addition to the Beatles' discography and will surely be enjoyed by fans for years to come.

[Mr Larrington]

I'm no expert, but I do think a lot of old rock/pop recordings were deliberately mixed with the knowledge that 90% of the audience would be playing it on very cheap record players.

I'm no expert either but IIRC the target playback device of the time was a cheap radio, optionally in a car an automobile.

[Peter]

@ Vorsprung

I would guess that almost exactly none of the reviewers cited was even thought of when the originals were released!

[Pickled Onion]

I'm no expert, but I do think a lot of old rock/pop recordings were deliberately mixed with the knowledge that 90% of the audience would be playing it on very cheap record players.

I'm no expert either but IIRC the target playback device of the time was a cheap radio, optionally in a car an automobile.

Yeah that too. But it got me thinking... people bought an awful lot of records, and I remember the going price for an album at Our Price was £4.99, almost a full day's wages (£5). Would anyone nowadays spend £50+ (min wage for a day at 16) on ten tracks? And then stack the fragile discs on top of each other on an auto-change gramophone with a needle like a snow plough.