09.10.2009, 01:27 PM | #21 |
the end of the ugly
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,122
|
Nah, White Album's in both.
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 02:15 PM | #22 | |
the destroyed room
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 582
|
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Let it Be is mono. But i remember a re-release of that at some point and people saying it's the way the Beatles wanted it bc it was mono. So maybe the original wasn't.
__________________
|
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 03:04 PM | #23 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 18,510
|
Let it Be was never officially released in a mono version. There's a version of rough mono mixes but I think that's a bootleg. The White Album was only released in stereo format in the US but there was a mono version available in the UK for a while, before being replaced by the stereo one. Like Let it Be, there's never been an official mono version of Abbey Road released anywhere - as far as I know, anyway.
The Let it Be re-release (Let it Be ... Naked) is still in stereo. It's just had all of Phil Spector's post-production removed. Although its not really a return to the original tapes; many of the tracks on Naked were heavily remixed and in some instances re-edited from various different rehearsal takes. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 05:16 PM | #24 |
the destroyed room
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 582
|
The Let it Be re-release (Let it Be ... Naked) is still in stereo. It's just had all of Phil Spector's post-production removed. Although its not really a return to the original tapes; many of the tracks on Naked were heavily remixed and in some instances re-edited from various different rehearsal takes.[/quote]
That must be what I'm thinking of then. The Beatles wanted it stripped from Spectors post production and Naked did that.
__________________
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 05:33 PM | #25 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oxford, England
Posts: 15,225
|
Fuck the whole Beatles remaster/revival bullshit, by the way.
This is way past fucking ridiculous.
__________________
Ever notice how this place just basically, well, sucks. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 05:35 PM | #26 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,095
|
Who's shelling out 200 clams for the new Beatles Rock Band game?
I'm not. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 05:38 PM | #27 | |
expwy. to yr skull
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: oh, why Texas actually
Posts: 1,680
|
Quote:
Whenever I see these box sets I just think to myself: wow, people have a lot of money that they need to just spend on something. Me, I'd rather spend my money on some new album, some new band, rather than buying the same fucking album over again. But apparently I'm in the minority.
__________________
kiss me kiss me in the shadow of a doubt |
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 05:43 PM | #28 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oxford, England
Posts: 15,225
|
I just hate how "they" have turned the Beatles into a perennial source of revenue. My opinion, you buy the Beatles once in whatever format you prefer and that's all you need.
Ever since the 1980s, apparently, all you need is marketing, marketing is all you need.
__________________
Ever notice how this place just basically, well, sucks. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 05:46 PM | #29 |
expwy. to yr skull
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: oh, why Texas actually
Posts: 1,680
|
Just a side note to that, perhaps: Michael Jackson bought the whole Beatles catalogue. I wonder if that means his estate still holds the rights to it or what?
Who is making the moolah off of this re-release? Curious.
__________________
kiss me kiss me in the shadow of a doubt |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
09.10.2009, 05:50 PM | #30 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oxford, England
Posts: 15,225
|
Yeah. Good question. Either Jackson or McCartney, is my guess. Or both.
__________________
Ever notice how this place just basically, well, sucks. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |