Stubblecat wrote:If your budget only allows two Beatles' discs, it might as well be those two.
Stubblecat wrote:Up here in the frozen North they're at an average of $12.99 each for the singles, and $22.99 for the two doubles.
Still though: That's pretty dear for a guy with a thousand-dollar-a-month child support habit.
Dunnyman wrote:On a tight budget, but Rubber Soul and Revolver are sounding soooooo good.
BenSaylor wrote:I traded in a stack of old DVDs/CDs, which cut the stereo box price in half. Haven't listened to everything yet (not in a particular hurry to hear Yellow Submarine), but what I've listened to sounds great for the most part. After going through Sgt. Pepper a few times, I'm now stuck on Please Please Me and With the Beatles. My biggest complaint about the whole thing is that the CDs are in cardboard sleeves. I hate sliding discs out of cardboard packaging; I'm always afraid of damaging them. They admittedly look nicer than plastic cases, but I like being able to pop a disc (be it CD or DVD) out clean.
HGervais wrote:Picked up "Abbey Road", "Rubber Soul", "Sgt. Pepper" and "The Beatles".....I really should have held out and gotten the box set. Comparing these discs to my old CDs there is no comparison.
Dunnyman wrote:Favorite moment so far: "In My Life", which has always been a favorite, and now it sounds like I'm Room 2 at Abbey Road with the lads. Sends chills up and down my spine...I'm soooo glad Sir George Martin took this project on, because frankly, I don't think anyone else could have done it justice.
HGervais wrote: So was "Abbey Road" the only Beatles album actually mixed for stereo?
HGervais wrote:I basically went for my favorite 4 albums but now hearing how good these discs sound, all of a sudden I want the rest of them.
tucco wrote:In my mind there is a case for A Hard Days Night or Help! for pure excellence and growth during that under-heralded period between With The Beatles and Rubber Soul.
tucco wrote:I just wish the damn mono versions were available as single disks intstead of just a box set....
Stubblecat wrote:tucco wrote:I just wish the damn mono versions were available as single disks intstead of just a box set....
Or at least they could have put both versions on one disc. The only way a regular listener can truly appreciate the mono mixes is to compare them immediately to the stereo versions.
To just listen to the mono box would be sort of pointless for most people, and this is coming from a hardcore Beatles fan who has owned all the U.K. mono editions for years. The new stereo mixes are simply brilliant. The mono mixes, while amazing, are now a bit more of a curiosity. Most of the differences are subtle. It isn't *really* until Revolver through The Beatles where you can notice really obvious differences. Sgt. Pepper has some big changes, and the mono mix of The Beatles is like a whole different album at times.
But again: They could have easily put both versions of every mono album on one disc apiece, with The Beatles and Masters being the exceptions. That way, you could listen to 'Sgt. Pepper Reprise' and then check out the mono mix with an extra drum pattern, or the hear the freaky laughter on 'Within You Without You' after hearing the stereo cut.
Stubblecat wrote:Let It Be doesn't count, as it was just cobbled together by Phil Spector.
Dunnyman wrote:Broke down last night and snagged Sgt. Pepper's, HELP! and Abbey Road, and as it's been said, it's like a whole new album to listen to. You can hear so much more than ever before....
Dunnyman wrote:Stubblecat wrote:Let It Be doesn't count, as it was just cobbled together by Phil Spector.
Speaking of which, is it the polished Let It Be or the "naked" version on these remasters? If it's the naked, no rush to buy that album, if it's the polished, can't wait to hear what George Martin did to it!
Broke down last night and snagged Sgt. Pepper's, HELP! and Abbey Road, and as it's been said, it's like a whole new album to listen to. You can hear so much more than ever before....
erich wrote:Dunnyman wrote:Broke down last night and snagged Sgt. Pepper's, HELP! and Abbey Road, and as it's been said, it's like a whole new album to listen to. You can hear so much more than ever before....
How much improved is Abbey Road? From some of the reviews, it sounded like it was the least improved of the albums since it was so good to start with. How's Help!, by the way? Love that album.
Dunnyman wrote:Abbey Road doesn't show as much improvement as the others because that was their high point with George at the helm, damn near perfectly mixed and recorded, one can only dream about what the next album would have been like had there been one. It mainly shows improved clarity in tones, MacCartney's bass always sounded a tad muted to me before, now it's really clear, and The End's solos come through in more detail (just in case anyone forgot, George leads off, Paul's up second with John coming in last, repeat as needed.) and damn anyone who disses the Beatles as guitarists, the thing freaking rocks.
Dan Mancini wrote:Listening to the Beatles a lot again for the first time in a long while has brought to mind what really made them great: There's never a sense in any of their music that they were looking for some repeatable formula for pop music success. They never said, "Okay, 'Help' was a big hit. Let's try doing more stuff like that." They just went where inspiration led them -- and, I gotta say, the number and quality of songs they cranked out between 1962 and 1969 is un-fargin-believable.
tucco wrote:That reminds me of the good ole days when bands' work rate, song/album output was in high gear.
Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, the Stones and all the big groups put out albums (practically) each and every year.
All classic too, not crap. Hell, Kiss put out a record every six months.
It was just standard operating procedure. The bands today on the whole can't even start to compete.
What newer bands have a 5 to 6 year output that compares with Aerosmith's first five albums' quality, let alone the Beatles?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests