Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    Well finally we can find out for sure. Are they Stereo or Mono?
     
                                         Please let us know
                                               Rich

    According to the Boston Globe, they are mono.  The Globe article
    said that the first true stereo Beatles album was Rubber Soul, but
    also suggested that the last two of the current set might get
    re-released in stereo sometime later.
    					Steve

    Yes, they are MONO.
    
    An interview with George Martin this past week listed some of the
    reasons for this.  George did not do the mastering for the discs,
    but had a say in it.  They used the mono master tapes instead of
    what George called the "inferior" stereo masters.  As was stated
    in .2, the Rubber Soul album was the first "stereo" recording.
    George said that the CD pressings sound as though you were in the
    studio.  He gave the impression that there probably would not be
    a stereo release.  I have heard all the CDs, listened to them at
    Atlanta CD Wednesday night.  They sound GREAT.  Mine are hear on
    my desk, waiting to be put in the player at home.  (Where's a decent
    portable when you need one!)
    
    There was also an "explanation" for the delay in releasing the discs.
    The Beatles' lawyer said that the story about the Beatles asking
    for an increased royalty for the CDs was a rumor put in place by
    EMI to foster ill feelings between the public and the Beatles. 
    The lawyer said that the real reason for the delay was that the
    Beatles did not want to release the discs until there were sufficient
    manufacturing facilities to keep up with demand.  Whether or not
    you believe that is up to you.
    
    Dale_who_is_happy_to_have_his_discs!
    

    The CDs are indeed mono, and they do sound excellent!  (At least,
    as much of them as I've had time to listen to does.)
    
    The story I heard about why the disks were delayed is that there
    was pending litigation on behalf of the Beatles' against EMI (or
    Capitol or whoever), and that the company decided to delay release
    of Beatles' albums in the hopes that the loss of royalties would
    pressure them to settle.

    
    	I don't know about Mr. Martins feelings, but the "inferior"
    stero master tapes are FAR from inferior.
    
    	They sound great, not inferior.  I believe it's just another
    marketing or public deception campain.
    
    	I have the Mobile Fidelity Half Speed Mastered collection (The
    Beatles, The Collection), and the sound quality of the these 4
    supposedly "inferior-not-true-stereo" master tapes is simply fantastic.
    
    	The ORIGINAL parlophone releases of these four albums WAS NOT
    in MONO.
    
    	This is one Beatles fan who will NOT by these trash discs! 
    Not until they release the Original format.  Simulated or bounced
    or whatever type of stereo, they were originally.
    

    
    So far I have listened to all of "Beatles for Sale" and about 1/4
    of "A Hard Day's Night" (that's all I had time for between where
    I picked them up and the office).
    
    They are MONO, they sound GOOD. Not GREAT!
    
    The vocal blending is INCREDIBLE! In every song so far with strong
    vocals, the voices come out like never before. George Martin has
    said in interviews that he, the Beatles, and Yoyo Ohno all felt
    that the mono mixes sounded better. Having heard some of these songs
    in stereo on VideoDisc, I'll have to partially agree. The harmony
    takes on a whole new feel in mono, it surrounds you.
    
    Now, the problems. Songs with heavy instrumentation, especially electric
    guitar tend to be very, very tinny. In one case on "Beatles for
    Sale" you can hear some very high feedback.
    
    All in all, what I have heard is exciting. I do wish they were in
    stereo like the MFL set, but the four discs were a birthday gift
    from my parents, so I can't complain.
    
    It's funny though, most of this music is older then I am...
    
    						Happy Listening
    						--- Neal
                      

	 The fab 4 CD are in store today,  and for those who
	 wants the other ones,
	 Here is a release schedule: (as taken from the paper)
	 
	 Today:	  Please, Please Me
	 	  With The Beatles
	  	  A Hard Day's Night
	 	  Beatles for Sale

	 April:	  Help
	 	  Rubber Soul
	 	  Revolver

	 June:    Sgt. Peper... (Just out on it's 20th anniversary)

	 August:  The Beatles (White Album)
	 	  Yellow Submarine
	 	  
	 October: Abbey Road
	 	  Let It Be

	   Note: Taken from a local paper:
	 	 "Magical Mystery Tour was never released as an LP in England
	 	 but it will be released on CD later, probably with all the
	         Beatles singles you won't find on the British CDs."

	   Note: All those, exept February release will be in Stereo...


	 Happy Beatlein'

	 \Vince

re .7

I thought `Magical Mystery Tour' *was* released in England in 1976.
Can anyone confirm this?

By the way, I got all 4 today, too!  I haven't listened to 'em yet,
but I'm just happy lookin' at these babies!

John

    RE/ .5:
    
    I thought the Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs collection were digitally
    remastered, and not merely half-speed mastered.  I'm not sure I
    know what all these processes are, but I gathered that MFSL did
    a non-trivial amount of processing of the audio signal.
    
    I agree with others that there may someday be CDs of the stereo
    versions of these albums.  There may even be CDs of the MFSL versions.
    For that matter, there may be a higher sampling rate/bandwidth optical
    disc format in the future.  Or even complete albums on a chip.
    Regardless of what may be the "ultimate" medium/version of the Beatles'
    stuff, I bought 'em today.

I picked up my set of four CDs today at PC Music in Nasua - $13.99 ea.
What kind of prices have people been paying for these?  I expected to
pay more, given the hype for them over the past few months.

I spent tonight listening to them, comparing them to the Mobile Fidelity
versions.

I'm slightly disappointed that the CD's are mono, but am VERY impressed
with the quality of the recordings.  I agree with Neal's note regarding
the vocals - they're the best I've ever heard of any Beatle's material
in my vinyl collection - including some original Parlophone LPs, Japanese
pressings, Mobile Fidelity LPs, as well as many beat-to-hell original
Capitol LPs (my "Meet the Beatles" jacket is held together with 22-year
old scotch tape).

I also found a big difference in imaging, most notably in the drums -
they seemed to move "forward" compared to the LP versions.  It's the
best imaging I've heard on any mono recording.  The guitars are a bit
shrill at times, but not overbearing.  There's energy here that doesn't
come across as well in the corresponding LP's (instruments on the left,
vocals on the right).

An interesting note:  the cut of "Please Please me" on the CDs is slightly
different than the Mobile Fidelity one.  If you listen closely to the
third verse (the one after the middle rift) on the Mobile Fidelity version
- the one that starts, "Last night I said these words to my girl," - John
briefly "screws up" the wording in his harmony on the second line, followed
by what sounds like a muffled laugh on the "Come on, Come on" chorus intro.
None of that is present on the CD version.  I suppose they could have
cleaned that up on a re-mix, but I came away with the feeling that it was
a different recording.  Is it still the claim, as mentioned in an earlier
note, that the original stuff was recorded twice?  That seems unlikely;
if you record in stereo, you can easily re-mix in mono.  Bob Edry is
right in that the stereo cuts of these four albums sound good - certainly
not that "electronically simulated stereo" junk.

The CD liner notes are not only nostalgic, but informative.  I learned for
example that it was George Martin himself plunking the piano on "Not a
Second Time" and several other cuts as well.

All in all, I'm more than delighted.  Maybe these four CDs will come out
in the future in stereo (I doubt it).  If they do, then I'll buy them too.
If you enjoy Beatles music, don't quibble of mono vs stereo.  Go enjoy
the CDs.

As I mentioned in an earlier note, if the only Beatles CDs coming are
based on the Parlophone LPs, then I hope they release a CD version of
the Parlophone album called "A Collection of Beatles Oldies."  If not,
our CD collections are going to be missing some pretty important songs:
Bad Boy, Day Tripper, From Me to You, I Want to Hold Your Hand, Paperback
Writer, She Loves You, and We Can Work It Out.

I'd be interested to hear from others comparing the CD cuts to the Mobile
Fidelity or Capitol cuts to know if there are other differences people
discovered.

Yeah, Yeah, yeah!

Paul

    The TV news in France yesterday had an item about the Beatles because
    it was exactly 25 years ago that "Love me do", their first single,
    was released. Maybe this is the reason the release of the CDs was
    held up until the 26th?
    

    It seems that the price on the discs is gonna be $13.99 for a while.
    Probably will be some group discounts.  The Harvard COOP is selling
    them for $13.99 each or $50 for all four....
    
    srk

    We found them for $12.97 at our friendly neighborhood Fred Meyer
    here in Bellevue.  Of course, when you throw in the @#$%@#$ sales
    tax, they are $14.00.  I was only going to buy two...last night
    I listened to my 4 new Beatles' CDs.
    
    Ah, wonderful memories!
    
    -- Benn

    Pure Pop in Burlington, Vermont is selling each disc for $13.99
    plus tax.  I haven't listened to some of these songs in years,
    brought back some good memories!
    
    Don

    I was just out at lunchtime, thought I'd check out supply and prices.
    
    Rockit Records (Daniel Webster Highway) and Lechmere (Pheasant Lane
    Mall) in South Nashua have plenty, and selling for $13.99 each.
    No package deals.
    
    BUT (and this is *RIDICULOUS*) both Tape World and Record Town (aren't
    they the same company, why do they have two stores in one Mall?)
    have them marked at $16.99. YES, SIXTEEN.99!!!
    
    I bet they don't sell very many!

    
    
    I bought mine at BCD for $13.99. This seems to be the popular price.
    I wonder if they are discounting them because they are mono and
    want to discourage everyone not to wait to see if the stereo releases
    will come out later. This way they can get double sales. I have
    the Japanese stereo pressings and I think they sound excellent.
    Even if they aren't true stereo. 
    
    I found a great song to compare true from so called fake stereo.
    Penny Lane from the U.S. release of Magical Mystery Tour(fake),
    and the true stereo U.S. release version on rarities. 
    
    It will be interesting to see how they release the remainder of
    the songs not put out on these British releases. I checked all the
    U.S. releases and found the remainder of the Pre Sargeant Pepper
    songs were on two albums. 1)Beatles Golden oldies which has 16 songs
    half are repeat tracks and half are ones never released on a brittish
    album. 2)The brittish Rarities (different than the American release)
    which has the remaining tracks that were never before on a brittish
    album. Also the rare cuts that were on the U.S. release. These two
    albums should cover the older songs but let's not forget the Hey
    Jude album, The Magical Mystery Tour album and the Live at the
    Hollywood Bowl albums. I hope to see them put every track on compact
    disc eventually. I haven't been so excited about waiting for new
    discs in years. 
    
                                                Rich
    

    I was going to wait, but I was at the Harvard Coop and decided that
    it would be a long time before I could better their 4 for $50 deal,
    so I went ahead and bought them.  Though the Coop had a sign saying
    "extremely limited quantities", you couldn't prove it by me - every
    store I went into (and I must have hit 8 CD stores yesterday) had
    at least 25 copies of each disc on display, and the racks were always
    being refilled.
    
    I don't pretend to be a "true fan" of the Beatles - I like them,
    to be sure, but didn't own any of the older albums before this.
    But I can say that the discs sound great, mono and all, and the
    music is timeless.  I look forward to completing the set in the
    future.
    				Steve

                
    Ok, Ok, I'll admit it.  I did the same thing Steve did.  The Coop
    had the best deal of the bunch, and even though I never intended
    to get all four, I finally admitted to myself "Self, sooner or later
    you are going to buy all of them anyway.  Look at all the money
    you'll save yourself, self."
    
    The sound of the music has been Beaten to death, so I won't comment
    on that yet again.
    
    A nit, though.  I don't understand why the spine labels couldn't have
    been more consistent.  Each title is indented a different amount from
    the top, same thing with the catalogue numbers.  And why is the font of
    the catalogue number different on "with the Beatles?" 
    
    And a question.  It seems my copy of "A Hard Day's Night" was pressed
    in a different plant from the other three.  It's one of the flat discs
    (just says "GEMA"), while the other three have the ribs (and says
    "BIEM/GEMA").
    
    Now, rather than getting 45 replies saying "yeh, mine are the same
    as yours" anyone have all of the discs the same, or a different
    disc different?
    
		    						-mr. bill

    My "A Hard Day's Night" is even more different.  It was "Made in
    U.S.A.", as was my "with the beatles".  It looks like Capitol
    was using as many pressing plants as they could get their hands
    to make enough discs.
    

    
    Thanks.  That's what I figured.
    
    Now of course all of the golden-ears will have something to argue
    about. 
    
    
    "You have the Zutgart pressing of "with the beatles"?  That was an
    inferior run.  The November 86 Canadian pressing had much more of a
    sound stage, and McCartney's bass line on "All My Loving" had a
    wonderfully alive presence." 
    
			    					-mr. bill 

    
    Price of the Beatles CD's in Atlanta (as if you damn-yankees care!)
    is $11.98 with 4% sales tax at "Turtles Records & Tapes".
    
    ...and they sound Excellant!
    jf

    Well, I was going to pick up a set in the Harvard Coop, but I guess
    they don't stay open very late on Friday evenings. So I got a set
    at Strawberries at the Nashua Mall on Sat. Glad I did! They are
    priced at $13.99 each, but they sell a set of four at $12.99 each.
    So if you allow for sales tax, I think that beats the Coop offer.
    
    My "A Hard Day's Night" disc is the German one, with BIEM/GEMA on
    it, but I don't know about the others. I know this one, because
    it's in front of me on my desk. It has to go back for a swap because
    there's a flaw in the surface. Causes some interesting sound effects
    in tracks 6 and 7 (Tell Me Why and Can't Buy Me Love). Washing didn't
    fix it, and it failed right out of the box, so I ain't gonna mess
    with it.
    
    I lost custody of my Beatles recordings when I came to the US from
    UK, and never did replace them. For me, the CD's are a great
    opportunity to do it. They do sound GOOOOD!!
    
    - Roger

    Question:
    
    Bought the "Please, Please Me" CD and the "Please, Please Me"
    track (track 7) has a sort of thump sound in about the middle of
    the song.  Has anyone else noticed this?  If not, I guess I'll have
    to do an exchange.
     

    Re: .23
    
    I just listened to my copy and heard nothing.  Can you be more specific
    as to what time into the track you hear it?
    				Steve

    
    
    The discs were $12.99 per, for a total of $55.60 plus tax here in
    Sunny Northern Calif. Depending on which store you bought them,
    the $12.99 price is standard. The Wherehouse gave you that price
    for all 4, and $14.99 for each seperately...they're only in it for
    the money.
    
    As for the quality....I don't have the MFSL discs, but, know that
    the original masters for the first two were done on two track tape
    - which doesn't necessarily mean stereo. The next two were upgraded
    to 4 track, but not sure if they'd sound that good in true stereo.
    The Capitol lp's seperated the instruments from the voices, and
    it was a very shoddy job. I've a few of the Parlaphone lp's and
    my opinion, is that they don't sound much better, even though the
    harmonies are richer. The transfer to disc was well done, and for
    those of you hearing hiss...well, my old ears must be losing it,
    cause I can't discern any, either through my speakers or phones.
    The harmonies sound better, less compressed. The rolling guitar
    work of Harrison is much more defined. And proof that Ringo was
    a pretty good drummer is apparent. For my money, it was worth the
    wait.
    
    My main gripe is the time per disc. I think 33:24 was the longest.
    I can't believe they couldn't have put two on a single disc. Once
    again, Capitol and it's parent company have taken advantage of us,
    just 'cause they knew the discs would be terrific sellers. If we
    crazy Beatle fans had gotten together and refused to buy......but
    that's only wishful thinking. I'm glad they're out, and I'll plunk
    down the cash for the whole set like many of you, making EMI/CAPITOL/
    PARLAPHONE even richer for doing something they should've done 5
    years ago.
    
    				The Cruiser
    
    
    
    

Posted by: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!husc6!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!brown
Organization: Mr. Video's Hangout
 
 
The following is quoted from an article by Allan Kozinn, the "New York Times",
Sunday, March 8, 1987 (pages 25 & 36).  After the quote I will say my piece.
 
[Author has discussed the releases on EMI and Capitol]
 
For instance, the fact that these first four CD's have been issued in mono is
bound to bother some collectors.  In the case of "Please Please Me" and "With
The Beatles", that's certainly a defensible approach, for when they were
recorded, in 1963, George Martin had only two-track equipment at his disposal.
At the sessions, he recorded the instruments on one channel and the vocals on
the other - an arrangement he found convienient in producing a mono mix,
but awkward for stereo.
 
Without question, the mono mixes pack a greater punch.  What the stereo
versions (instruments on the left, vocals on the right) have going for them,
though, is that they allow one to peer freely into the details of the
arrangements - a fascininating pursuit if one's interest in the Beatles is
musical rather than nostalgic.
 
But "A Hard Day's Night" and "Beatles For Sale" were recorded on four-track
equipment, and their stereo mixes are bright, spacious and really quite
lovely.  Why mono CD's then?  Bhaskar Menon, chairman of EMI Music Worldwide,
recently explained that "in very close discussion with George Martin, we
determined that there was no question we must preserve the original mixes -
that the releases really must be in mono because stereo was not the intent
of the performers."
 
But George Martin tells it this way: "Expediency, in a word," he said.
"EMI did not consult me until December, by which time they were ready to have
the disks pressed.  When I heard the stereo CD's, I thought they sounded
awful.  I told them that the first two should go out in mono, and that if
they had to issue the others in stereo, the mixes should be cleaned up
and re-equalized for CD.  Unfortunately, there was a deadline to be met,
so they said, 'Look, we'll release all four in mono, and if you like,
perhaps you can prepare stereo mixes for "A Hard Day's Night" and "Beatles
For Sale" later on.'"
 
END QUOTE
 
The above is only a short piece of the article.  I suggest that you get a
copy of your own to read, or find it in your local library.  The author
goes on to blast EMI for how the CDs were released in general.
 
 
MY FLAME:
 
But, the article does prove what I have said all along, ie, that the
albums have been released in TRUE stereo, not FAKE stereo.  The first
two as described and the next two with real stereo mixes.  What is beginning
to get my goat is that the stereo re-mixes may be released later, after
the consumers have already purchased them, thinking that mono was all that
they were going to get, especially after believing the EMI crap.  I feel,
at this time, that EMI-Capitol should be charged with consumer fraud.
They have lied to us, covering up their own mistakes.  The last two
CDs should have been delayed, telling us the truth as to why they were.
 
A class-action suite might be in order, charging EMI-Capitol with fraud
and that all the CDs should be recalled and replaced with stereo CDs.
(The last two CDs that is).  Or maybe EMI-Capitol should do what the
author of the article suggested (and somebody on the net) that the CDs
should be released with both mono and stereo versions, on the same CD.
In that case, all CDs should be recalled and replaced with mono/stereo
versions.  Maybe a call to the Justice Department might tell me my
options, if any.  A thought from a lawyer would be appreciated.
 
FLAME OFF
 
I have said my piece.  I have been saying it for a little while now,
even though I have been called, in so many words, a lier about the
original tapes.
 
Back to you Chet.
-- 
	 harvard-\     ihnp4--\
Mr. Video   seismo!uwvax.......!nicmad!brown	(How I hate 4 line .sigs!)
	 rutgers-/    decvax--/
		    terminus-/

    	I warned you all.  I'm boycotting the Mono, and will only purchase
    thier stereo releases, if/when they become available.

	re .-

	I'd say you must have some kinda will power! :-)

        
        An interesting thing to note from the article quoted in .26:
        
        "...that the releases really must be in mono because stereo was
        not the intent of the performers."
        
        I have seen interviews with John Lennon where he states that
        he never really "believed" in stereo until he worked with
        Jack Douglas in '80.  He never sat in on the stereo re-mixes
        for the Beatles material.  I personally wish they'd release
        ALL the Beatles in BOTH, but if I had to choose, I'd pick the
        mono mixes.  Sgt. Pepper has several subtlties lost in the
        stereo mix (at least on the US release); if you can find a
        mono copy, check out the differences between the SPLHCB reprises.
        
        But specifically, I'd like to have both, it's great to see
        the differences between the mixes (albeit mostly minor). I
        love having different mixes of my favorite artists' material.
        
        Rob
        

    In a perfect world, I too would like to have both mono and
    stereo mixes. It's a shame that these CD's are in mono, but
    SO WHAT? The music is great, whether it's mono or stereo,
    and it's the music that counts! OK, so a year from now EMI
    releases stereo versions of the CD's, and I'll probably buy
    them then. But until then, I have the pleasure of listening
    to my current mono copies.
    
    Sheesh.
    
    Speaking of Beatles CD's, I almost had a coronary when I went
    into Rock'n'Mania yesterday. Right there on the shelf next
    to the first four Beatles CD's was REVOLVER! After clutching
    my heart for a few seconds, and noticing the sticker on it
    that said "not for sale", I (correctly, as I found out when
    I asked) figured it must be a dummy for display/advertising
    purposes.
    
    --- jerry

    I agree with Jerry in .30 . 
    
    Mike, I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion too, but I'm not after
    the same result. If you buy music and you don't like the sound of
    it, then return it. Most shops let you listen before you buy or
    at a minimum will let you exchange it for something else if you
    don't like it when you get home. I'd be real discouraged, but not
    suprised, if you could collect on a class action suit. This is a
    bit simplistic but the "grounds" for the suit seem to be .....
    
    " Your honor, we are seeking remedy for a great injustice, we bought
    these disks and thought they sounded great until we heard that "better"
    ones could have been produced, and may in fact be forthcomming at
    a later date." 
    
    The same could be said of any disk tape or record (or computer). 
    
    If you like it buy it, if you don't, join the boycott. If you have no 
    taste be like me and buy everything that comes out just in case you might
    like it.
           
    tom
    
    tom

    Is there any difference between the four cds released in the USA
    and the ones released in Europe [Germany]????????   Can anyone
    out there help!!!!!  Thanks Ron
    

    
    	I just today got a look at these "marvelous" Beatles CD's, and
    I looked ALL over the outside of the disk and packaging, and NOWHERE
    does it say that these are MONO cd's.
    
    	Maybe they fiugured that everone would know this, maybe they
    figured that noone would care, maybe they figure they could sell
    more by not saying...

    I also searched the packaging for anything stating whether they
    were mono or stereo.  I ended up asking the clerk and he had to
    open one of the boxes up before finding out what they were.  I
    have to wonder whether EMI/Capitol planned it this way or not.

       I believe that Lechmere had an ad in last sunday's newspaper
     advertising a 15% sale on all cds. In this ad they had pictured
     one of the Beatles cds with the word stereo in the upper right
     corner. Has anyone else seen this?

    
    RE: .-1
    
    	I bet they just used an old ad picture ... ?
    
    						-rjk

    re:.33
    
    The first three Rolling Stones are monaural as well, and nowhere
    on the outer package does it say so (n.b. I have the import versions
    that didn't come in the long box; I don't know whether the domestic
    versions say anything on the box). In fact, the CD of the first
    album says "Stereo" on the disc, even though it's mono.
    
    The only other mono CD I have, Procol Harum's A WHITER SHADE OF
    PALE, *does* say on the back and side of the jewel box that it's
    mono.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Well, you knew it had to happen.
    
    Crazy Eddie is "giving away" the 4 Beatles CDs when you buy a Sony
    CDP710 for $379.00.
    
		    						-mr. bill

    I just picked up all four of the Beatles' CDs at Lechmere for $11.89
    each (15% off; no sales tax).  The vocals and drums are quite clear and
    realistic!  I can't stop listening!  You people who are holding out for
    stereo haven't heard how wonderful the mono versions sound! 
    
    I only wish that EMI/Capitol could have packaged the first two on one
    CD and the second two on another CD; I would have paid almost twice as
    much (let's say $24 each) for a hour or so of Beatles on a single CD.
    I wonder if the White Album come out on one CD (is it short enough)? 

    As to the question of marking the discs MONO...
    
    If you have any of the discs manufactured in Germany, you will see
    the word MONO printed on the disc itself.  If you have the ones
    manufactured in the states.... Well, the sleaze of Capitol shines
    through.  My copy of Hard Day's Night has MONO on the disc, but
    no mention on the liner notes or spine.
    
    Dale
    

        
        re .39:
        
        "The Beatles" (the white album) is too long for a single CD.
        The mono version is darn near exactly 90 minutes long.  The
        stereo version is a little longer.
        
        I don't mind having the single albums on a single disk, I just
        wish they would've added the singles that were recorded and
        released close to the original LP releases.

        Rob

    re:.41
    
    I agree. The only sore point for me regarding the way the
    Beatles discs were arranged and packaged is that they could
    have added the time-correspondant singles hits to the discs.
    It really seems strange to have the first four Beatles albums
    without hearing "I Want to Hold Your Hand" or "She Loves You".
    
    --- jerry

    re: 41 & 42
    
    I see your point,  but if Capitol/EMI/Parlophone had added tracks
    to the original LP formats, Beatle purists would come out of the
    woodwork complaining loudly that they have created yet another
    set of releases in addition to the two (US, UK, more?) we already
    have.  I really don't think they can make everyone happy.
    
    Having said that, I'll add that I *like* the CDs because they are
    like the originals.  Of course, I don't plan to buy them
    all, so my wallet will suffer less.....

    Brian

    Getting back to the stere/mono issue. Listening to my four LPs of
    the released CDs (Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Hard Days
    Night and Beatles for Sale) undoubtedly the stereo on the first
    two is just badly enhanced and would be  better in Mono. However,
    the quality of stereo on the other two is excellent. I shall be
    reluctant to buy mono versions of these I'm afraid.
    
    Richard Briggs
    UK SWAS
    

    re .41/.42 (singles): Do you suppose that there will be a CD with all
    of the early singles releases?  Of course it would be 2 CD set, each
    one 22 minutes long and there would be a mono version first and a
    stereo version later. :-)
    
    All four of my Beatles CDs claim they are made in W. Germany and they
    all have "MONO" on the label.  They weren't pressed at Polygram
    though since they have the Japanese-style clear center.
    
    GAS

    
    	Where is this "MONO" printed.  IS IT VISIBLE WITHOUT OPENING
    THE PACKAGE?????????  (if not then you bought it before finding
    out - unless you read this notes file 8^) )
    
    	Now I may be a little behind the times, but when I buy a compact
    disc, I usually expect that it should be stereo since this format
    has been out for almost a year now (stereo that is), Right 8^).
    
    	It's simple to me, the record company philisophy is something
    like "what they don't know will help us!".
    
     - Bob
    

    If I buy a CD of a record that was introduced some 23 years ago,
    I would not necessarily expect it to have been magically infused
    with 1987 recording technology.  I'd say that the Beatles CDs sound
    darned good to me, and I don't give a damn if they're mono or
    fake stereo.  Besides, we all learned to love these songs from
    AM radio, in mono, right?
    					Steve

    If my memory serves me well...
    the CD called With the Beatles was the album released as Meet the
    Beatles in about 1966.  If so, why the name change?
    
    Mike

    
    	
    Most likely the difference is due to the fact that the US/UK
    released the album under different names.  The CD's are being released
    in the Brittish versions.
    
    

Anybody notice something that sounds like a tape splice at about
1:21 into track 2 (All I've Got to do) on "with the Beatles"?  
After that the rest of the track sounds a bit different.  Also noticed a 
bit of noise at about :13 into track 7(Hey,Mr Postman).  I don't have the 
LP to compare it with so I'm curious as to whether they were there on 
the originals or not.

Other than that the disks sound great!!

Peder


(PS: I exchanged the disk and it's still there.)

        
        re: .45
        
        One way I can see EMI coming close to trying to pick up all
        the loose tracks not on the UK releases is if they also issue
        the UK compilations ( the '66 release "Oldies" and the '70's
        release "Rarities").  This would seem to be what they'll do
        as they are currently following the UK releases; but then
        predictability was never a quality I'd attribute to this market.
        
        re: .48, .49
        
        It's not so easy as the albums were released under different
        names.  Many US releases witheld songs from the corresponding
        UK releases and added tracks only released on singles in the UK.
        To try and make a long story short, between '62 and '66 (inclusive)
        there were 7 Parlaphone LP's, many singles with non-album
        tracks, and one compilation album with many of those singles.
        In the same period Capitol released 10 albums.  The American
        releases only leave off one non-LP track ("I'm Down"), except
        for the fact that songs used in the film "Hard Day's Night"
        were owned by United Artists in the US and not released on
        a Capitol LP.
        
        I personally think the the decision to release the UK versions
        was a good one, though as I said in a previous note, I would
        have liked some additions (therby saving the necessity of
        compilations).

        Rob

    This week's Rolling Stone (if you belive in such things) has a short
    write-up on the Beatles CD's and it indicates that there is a plan
    to release compilation disk(s) later on.
    
    tom

    On all four CD I bought in Germany it is printed MONO on the front
    cover top right corner, they also did a mistake printing ADD on
    the back and had to put a small stikker on all covers with AAD on.
    Anyway mono or stereo the music is great.
    
    Svein
    

        
    	MONO printed on the outside of the disk...
    
    	Maybe in Germany, but not in the US.

Well, after slogging through this entire topic from the Antipodes, you
all have made me crazy for these disks!  I was going to be patient and
wait until I could get Home where I could buy them for $11.89/$12.50/
$13.99/$14.99/$15.99!!!  But now I'll probably go into Chatswood and
do the deed at A$28.00 a pop (US$19.60 and rising daily).  That is,
unless some Sydney Noter can point me at a discounter locally.

Chris

(Well, the weather here is nicer than in Nashua, that's for sure)

    Try asking in QUOKKA::OZ.

    BCD says that RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER are due on April 30.
    
    --- jerry

	There were supposed to be *three* more in April...  right?

    re:.58
    
    Yes, you're probably right. I just asked, "When are the next
    Beatles CD's on sale?". At this point, I don't recall what's
    supposed to come out when.
    
    --- jerry

    Re: The MONO controversy.
    
    If I were one of the weasels down at Capital records and you asked
    me why the Beatles CDs aren't marked MONO. I might point out that
    the CDs are indeed STEREO as they are all encoded with two tracks,
    that just happen to be identical.
    
    (Sorry, I know this is late and trivial. But I just can't help
    myself today :-)

    Paul.

    
    a)  Bicker, bicker, bicker ... !!!  No one would mind the on-line
    	bantering, if we all could spell correctly ... (?)
    
    b)  The "STEREO" purists obviously have a self-denial mechanism
    	active. "2-track MONO" or "4-track STEREO", what's the diff ???
    	You're not getting the "pure", "real", or "intended" versions
    	for a while, why not enjoy "the REALITY" ?
    
    c)  I worked at MFSL for a summer in Chatsworth, CA and unless you
    	have the elaborate "click and po" "noise-reduction" units, you
    	cannot come close to reproducing the sound quality of these
    	new Beatle CD's ......And I believe the MFSL LP Set was "re-mixed"
    	and "re-mastered", so much for purity .....(even tho' they do
    	sound wonderful...for LP's !)
    
    d)  In the midst of this Beatle Brou-ha-ha, nobody has mentioned
    	the unauthorized Japanese release of Abbey Road on CD. I have
    	this import (EMI/Odeon label-Digital Mastering) and it sounds
    	terrific !! It was issued and available for purchase back in
    	Spring of 1985 ....There was some kind of injunction against
    	the continued release of this disc, so it is now unavailable.
    
    e)  April 24-30, the release of the next 3 Beatle discs :
    
    	LET'S HAVE MORE DEBATE !!!
    
    f)  Anyone have any ideas as to what will be the equivalent to the
    	Capitol USA release of "Yesterday and Today" ????
    
    ///Andy Parraco

        
        re .61 f)
        
        First of all, if you didn't already notice, the CD's are being
        released as the oringinal English LP versions.  That is, they
        (so far) are NOT releasing any Capitol/USA packagings.  The
        release of the original sets makes the release of any of the
        US packages redundant.  (Then again, redundancy hasn't necessarily
        been avoided in the past by record companies, as a matter of
        fact, they almost thrive on it.)
        
        ANYWAY, the greater proportion of the tracks on "Yesterday
        & Today" will be found on the upcoming three releases; most
        assuredly better mixed than Capitol had ever done with the
        tapes they had.  You will also find songs you may expect on
        "Rubber Soul" were actually released on "Help!".
        
        R

    I went into a couple of different CD stores yesterday and they said
    that the next set of 3 Beatles' CDs were delayed!  Has anyone else
    heard this?  They were not given a date of release.
    
    Don

    A store here in Bellevue,Wash. says April 30....Local FM station
    KZOK got them yesterday morning and play all 3.
    
    tom

    sorry about the  < ex > in .64 ,  that's what happens when you do
    a 
    Control Z ,EX,  Return, without watching the screen.
    

    I just plucked down $37.50 for my copy of the next 3, I can pick
    them up Wed. at Midnight!
    							--- Neal
    

    
    I read an article a while back that said to look for Sgt. Pepper
    on May 1. "It was 20 years ago tonight" (that the album came out)
    Could this be the 3rd?
    
                                        HOOT
    

    Hoot,
    
    The "three" that will be available tomorrow are Help, Rubber Soul,
    and Revolver.
    
    Pepper is supposed to be out Jun 1 from everything that I've read.
    
    tom

    
    It's close to one in the morning, don't tell my manager... :-)
    
    	"Help!"		CDP 7 46439 2	ADD (You read that right!)
    	"Rubber Sole"	CDP 7 46440 2	ADD
    	"Revolver"	CDP 7 46441 2 	AAD
    
    WOW!	WOW!	WOW!	WOW!	WOW!, get the picture?
    
    I left the store and put Rubber Sole in my car player, Boom! instant
    crystal clean sound. After listening to a few cuts, with tears in
    my eyes, my first thought was "John must be alive." The sound is
    remarkable, I know of many CDs recorded this year that don't sound
    half as good.
    
    My picks for the first three to listen to:
    
    "Norwegian Wood (This bird has flown)" from "Rubber Sole"
    "Eleanor Rigby" from "Revolver"
    "Yesterday" from "Help!"
    
    Now, some finer details. Most every cut on "Rubber Sole" sounds
    incredible (on cut 10, "I'm Looking Thru You" right now). I have
    previewed the other two discs. All of the cuts on "Help!" that are
    from the movie sound mushy, the none movie cuts sound great.
    Most of "Revolver" sounds almost as good as "Rubber Sole".
    
    Well, time for this one to go to sleep. Dreaming St. Pepper dreams,
    I await June 1!
    
    						--- Neal
    

    I have rubber soles on my shoes. I think I'd prefer to put "Rubber
    Soul" in my CD player.		:^)
    

    Lechmere has the 4 original releases at $11.95 each, and the 3 new
    ones at $13.95.  All in stock (Cambridge) yesterday.  So if you
    haven't yet taken the plunge, grab a C-note, kiss it goodby, and
    get on with it!  Spend your $5.87 change your way.

    I find the vocal right/instruments left "stereo" to be annoying.
    Is this really how they mixed stereo recordings in the mid '60s?
    
    M

    
    Re: -1 
    
    	That's the way they are mixed on the albums.  I think it's
    	great, if you just listen to one side, a vocal side you can
    	really appreciate how good these guys were, not to mention
    	how much easier it is to learn the words, the chords etc.
    
    	I think these CD's bring out the quality of the music.
    	I have listened to these songs at least a million times
    	and now I can here things I never noticed before. 
    	I never noticed the marracas in the middle part of 
    	THE NIGHT BEFORE.  It's ammmmmmazing.... I love 'em.
        
    	I'm so used to the skips and pops from my albums that
    	it almost doesn't sound right without them.
    
    	Ya right.
    
    	This is what my CD player has been waiting for.
    
    	Mike
    

    at BCD in harvard square the deal is:
    
    buy any one of the new beatle discs at 13.99, and you can buy any
    of the previous 4 for $10 each.

	re .73

	While listening to these CD's, I noticed quite a few sounds I'd
	never heard before.  For example, in "I'm Only Sleeping" you can
	hear someone (John?) yawn.  I can't remember hearing that before...

	I'd agree that `Rubber Soul' sounds great.  `Revolver,' however,
	marks a drastic change in their "studio sound", if you will.

	The only flaws I found with these discs are:

		(1) some hiss on the quieter tracks
		    ("Michelle" and "Yesterday")

		(2) some harshness on `Revolver' (due to a
		    new device called "guitar distortion"?)

	But, I can distort "She Said She Said" to high heaven and still
	love it!  8^)

    re; -1
    
    where did ya here the yawn, how far into the song, does your player
    have time mode ?
    
    I like hearing things I never heard before.
    
    Mr Curious

    For all of us in Atlanta...
    
    American Compact Disc on Peachtree Street is selling all 7 of the
    Beatles disc for $11.99.  Makes the purchase much easier to sell
    to my wife !!  :-)
    
    Dale

	Mr. Curious,

	I found something new, to me, on Revolver, 1 min 25 sec into
	"Good Day Sunshine", after Paul sings "she feels good," there
	is something there but I can barely make it out.  Only three
	or four words.  I would feel dumb if it's just someone repeating
	"she feels good," but I can't tell.

		O'C

I just bought Revolver yesterday. I was quite surprised that the songs 
weren't completely the same as on my old Capitol album. EX "Drive My 
Car" wasn't on the original. Or are the CDs from the European releases? 
Is that the difference?

I like it anyway, except that one song is missing (first song, first 
side, US Capitol version - can't recall the name).

Chuck

   RE: .79

   The CDs mirror the British releases so the contents are different than
   the US releases until Sgt. Pepper. Also I'm pretty sure that Taxman has
   always opened up Revolver.

   I'm quite happy with the sound on the 3 newest discs although I get the
   impression that the releases are rushed. I noticed that the cover picture
   on Rubber Soul still has the Capitol logo in the upper right corner while
   the other two have the Parlophone logo. Also, Help! and Rubber Soul are ADD
   while Revolver is AAD. I hear the most hiss on Revolver and this bugs me
   since it's my favorite. I suppose I'm being picky but they did such
   a poor job with the old LPs you'd think they would make an extra effort
   to do it perfectly this time.

    
    If "Drive My Car" is on your copy of "Revolver", you got "Rubber
    Soul" instead.  Maybe wrong disc in jewell box?  Maybe wrong label
    on disc?  That would keep me confused for a bit as well.
    
    
    On the analog mix of "Revolver".  Now really, did you expect it
    to be re-mixed?  How?  By "Revolver", George Martin was the fifth
    Beatle.  His original mixes are part of the music.
    
    I'm not holding my breath for a digital remix on "Sgt. Pepper's
    Lonely Hearts Club Band" either.  Or does anyone really expect Martin
    to go back to the original carnival music and digitally remix
    them for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!"?
    
    								-mr. bill

  re: Revolver mix

  I don't really expect any of them to be remixed. It appears however that
  Help! and Rubber Soul were remixed and I'm curious why. If the reason is
  "To make them sound as good as possible" then I can't understand why
  Revolver didn't get the same treatment. This is where the rushing them out
  theory comes in. Maybe they want to sell us the "New and Improved" version
  later on. I'm sure I read where the Doors catalogue is being reissued in
  better sounding versions later this year so it wouldn't be the first time.

    I keep trying to tell you guys, but you don't seem to listen.  Capitol
    is trying it's best to MILK to Beatles for all their worth.  So
    it won't supprise me to see re-releases.  Look how long they spent
    fighting over the money!  If only that energy was spend on the disc....
    
    
    						-Paul
     

    re: .78
    
    Sorry, but that's exactly it.  John, I believe, says in a low
    grumbly voice, "she feels good."
    
    re: all of the notes regarding remixing, rushing, Capitol eats
    	dog do-do, etc.
    
    In an interview with George Martin he speaks about the process
    or stratagy or approach or whatever, HE is using to turn the Beatles
    catalog into CD.  In the interview he talks about the mono versions,
    he talks about the remix of Rubber Soul,  he talks about why HE
    chose not to remix Revolver.  In other words the artistic decisions
    are being made by one who is very close to the music at it's creation;
    NOT, as is being assumed, by some omnipotent corporate money grubber.
    Well, they probably do have some input but my understanding from
    the mouth of George Martin is that he is the one making the decisions
    about the music.

    =ken

        Couldn't George at least have cleaned up the ELinor Rigby
        opening? I mean "El" on both channels andthen "inor Rigby" on
        just the right? On the other hand, the rest of the mix is pretty
        good. I've just gotta get used to the songs being on the "wrong"
        albums in the "wrong" order.
        
        JimB. 

    
    Gee, it was always "ELEAN or rigby" for me.
    
    Besides, how'd you get Paul back into the left channel later for
    for "all the lonely people" later....
    
    Are you suggesting that George Martin should have remixed Eleanor
    Rigby in *gasp* Mono?  Why, then everyone would be waiting for the
    "new and improved" version of the CD by those "money grubbers" at
    Capitol who know that we were really waiting all along for the
    *original* "unbasterdised" version of Revolver in *true stereo*.
    
    And we haven't even touched the "great cough debate" that would
    result if "Taxman" was remixed.
    
    Heads or tails, Capitol loses either way.
    
                           
    I'm glad they left it the way it was.
    
    Now, what manufacturer will be the first to release a CD player that
    can play "Abbey Road" backwards?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re: Blasting Capitol/EMI
    
    	A few weeks ago I was going to put into the notes the interview
    with George Martin where he explains why the rush on the first 4
    cd's and his involvement with the "money grubbers".  He also talked
    quite extensively about the original stereo vs mono debate, why
    HE chose not to remix REVOLVER and the future Beatles cds.  I didn't
    because it was a four page interview but I think tonight (or in
    the near future) I'll put in some excerpts to set some of these
    stories straight (if anyone really wants to know).  Do inquiring
    minds want to know?
    
    _stew-

    
    
    Remix, shmeemix
    Money grubbers, honey bubbers...... 
    
    You know what the best part of having the BEATLES on CD.
                                                           
    
    
    
    
    
    You don't have to turn the album over every 15 minutes.
    
    Mr Lazy

    RE:.87
    
    Let's here what George has to say!
    
    /walter

	re: .87

        Yes, I too would like to read what Mr. Martin has to say about
        what everyone is making a fuss over.
        
        It seems to me that it would be near to impossible to re-mix
        either of "Revolver" or "Sgt. Pepper's ..." to the current
        standards, particularly in stereo.  These albums were recorded
        on four track machines.  As most of the songs have more than
        four parts, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the individual
        tracks on the master tape have different instruments on one
        track.  This would make remixing quite difficult as the greater
        part of the mixing is pre-defined by comparative levels of
        the existing voices on the track.  Does this make sense or
        do I have a total misconception of the process of mixing?
        
        R

    I've already read/heard why Martin decided to go with the mono
    masters for the first four albums, and I think he made the
    right choice. Re-channelled pseudo-stereo is as much an abomin-
    ation as colorizing black-and-white movies. As it is, I'm a bit
    distressed with RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER, on which an annoying
    number of songs have the vocal tracks unbalanced towards the
    right channel.
    
    I was surprised at the comments about "Eleanor Rigby" in .85/.86
    until I heard it for myself. I never noticed this before, but I
    haven't played my vinyl in quite a while. Is this shifting from
    both channels to just the right channel in the middle of "Eleanor"
    peculiar to the CD? I'd check my vinyl, except that I'd already
    given my albums and singles to one of my nephews (he's a Beatles
    collector and I had mostly first pressings).
    
    Anyways, I'd be interested to hear why Martin didn't re-mix REVOLVER,
    since it is the most disappointing of the three, sound-wise.
    
    The curious thing I found about the three is that two of the CD's
    had the metallic center and the third, like my copies of the first
    four, have the plastic center. The jewel boxes are also not consis-
    tent about whether the right side of the "door" has the "bars" or
    the "bumps". I also noticed that HELP! has "Parlaphone" printed
    on the spine, while none of the others do.
    
    --- jerry

    Has anyone done a A-B comparison of the new CD's vs. a resently
    pressed LP vs. a 1960 vintage LP?
    
    
    						-Paul
    

    Speaking of which, just out of curiosity...
    
    Capitol was supposedly phasing out the American versions of
    the Beatles LP's in favor of releasing the British versions
    here. I haven't been looking, since I'm getting the CD's,
    but have they started doing that yet?
    
    --- jerry

    Re:  .90 (four-track tapes)
    
    Right.  You have a lot of flexibility when you are remixin from
    a 24-track tape where each instrument/voice in independent.
    
    Working with four-track (or even worse, two-track) required a
    "layering"  approch, which was supported by "Sound-on-Sound"
    features in the recorders.  With this, you could listen to what
    is already recorded on one track, ADD another source, and record
    BOTH on a second track (picture Les Paul sitting in his basement,
    recording, re-recording, and re-re-recording Mary Ford to build
    up those vocals).  
    
    With this approach, you lose a lot of flexibility in re-mixing,
    as you have pointed out.  You also get cumulative hiss buildup,
    which can be very noticible -- this was one of the reasons 
    Dolby A was so popular with recording technicians.
    
    dq

    re .93
    
    Tower still has the "US of A" versions here in Seattle. It's probably
    taking longer than they expected to sell the existing inventories.
    
    tom

    
    The false start to "I'm Looking Through You" is missing!!!
    
    It wasn't on the English (stereo) LP anyway, so I don't know why
    I ever expected it.  It was probably never meant to be there and
    when Capitol took its liberties with the master they got a little
    careless.
    
    As for the availability of US vinyl pressings, I saw the greater
    part of the catalogue in the cut-out bins last year.  It wasn't
    long before they started to sell so well that the prices were
    jacked up on the grounds that the LP's were now "out of print".
    
    Money sure makes some people's heads spin, don't it?
    
    R

    Looking forward to 'THE BEATLES' double disc.  But since it is the
    U.K. version, I'm going to miss that quote. :-)
    
    Dale
    

        
        re .97
        
        Isn't it only the British MONO version which is missing that line?
        If so, the CD should have it as all further releases will be
        the stereo versions.
        
        R

	Here's the first 3/4th of the George Martin interview. It's
taken me longer then I thought to get this all in.  I'll try to
finish up this weekend.

	The following is taken from BEATLEFAN magazine, vol. 9 no.2
and used without permission.  The interviewer, Allan Kozzin of THE
TIMES submitted this interview to BEATLEFAN as a contributing writer.
Two main questions are on his mind when he spoke to George Martin, 
1) why, after being told that the first four lps were originally 
released in mono not stereo could he find 1963 advertisements for 
the new albums in both stereo and mono, and why sn't the stereo 
masters used, 2) why didn't EMI release both stereo and mono versions 
on cd since the playing time was so short anyway.  Here are some 
of the questions and answers that were given (the typos are mine ;-) ).

_stew-

AK	I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING ABOUT THE MONO MIXES OF THE FIRST 
	TWO ALBUMS - THOSE ARE CLEARLY MORE SOLID AND PACK A GREATER 
	PUNCH IN MONO. BUT I'M NOT SURE WHY "HARD DAY'S NIGHT" AND 
	"BEATLES FOR SALE" WERE ISSUED IN MONO.

GEORGE  Expedience, I think, in a word. Because I wasn't brought into 
	this until December by which time EMI had made up their minds 
	what they were going to do. They really consulted me, I suppose, 
	out of old-fashioned courtesy - saying, you know, don'tyou think 
	we've done rather a good job? And when I heard what they'd done, 
	I thought they were dreadful. They had presented me with the 
	stereo versions. I told them that if they had to issue any stereo 
	versions, they should be specially looked at, particularly in 
	these early cases - and that I don't think the first two should 
	be put out in stereo at all. And I think that because they had 
	so little time, they said, "Well, we'll put them all out in mono, 
	and if you like, you can have another look at them, and maybe number 
	three and four can be transcribed for stereo later on." Now this 
	was because they had a date to adhere to. They had to press up a 
	great many records, and I guess they had to make up some kind of 
	decision, which they made. And at the time they also asked me to 
	look at the next batch of records - "Help", "Rubber Soul", and 
	"Revolver," which are due to come out in April. And I looked at 
	those and found that the stereos of that weren't very good - they 
	were very woolly, and not at all what I thought should be a good 	
	issue. I went back to the four tracks of those and actually did 
	re-mix them.Not changing anything, but hardening up the sound a 
	little bit, and cutting down a little backround noise. By going 
	back to the four tracks, we get a cleaner sound even than you get 
	with contemporary recording, because four-track one-inch is much 
	better medium than 24-track two-inch.

AK      HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO PRECISELY RECREAATE A MIX THATYOU HAD DONE 
	20 YEARS AGO FROM FOUR-TRACK?

George  It's impossible. In a word, it's impossible. Everything is diff-
	erent. The mixing desks in those days were tube operated, they 
	weren't transistorized. All the outboard gear that we have today 
	didn't exist. The EQ charateristics were quite different, much 
	cruder. The echo facilities at Abbey Road consisted of a long 
	cellar-like room with old drain pipes standing around; they had 
	nothing like electronic echo at all. So yes, it's impossible to 
	get exactly the same, no matter how much you try.
		But in fact, I think it would be wrong in any case to get 
	the same mix. The mixes that I did in 1964 were for vinyl, issued 
	in 1964. When you hear them on CD, they're not fine. Now the reason 
	for this is that you hear a wider frequency range on CD, and you're 
	hearing things that I never intended for you to listen to in the 
	first place. I was making a record that was designed to cut through 
	the fog of the players of those days. What I'm saying is the mixes 
	that I did then - when they were heard on the discs they were done 
	for - were fine; but if you're hearing them as CD's, they should be 
	different, in order to be the same.

AK      OKAY, BUT BY NOW PEOPLE HAVE HEARD THOSE MIXES ON THE MOBILE FIDELITY
	HALFSPEED MASTERED PRESSINGS, WHICH ARE PROBABLE AS CLEAN AN LP 
	AS YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR, AND YOU CAN HEAR QUITE A LOT OF WHAT'S ON 
	THOSE MASTERS.

George  I don't think those master pressings are right. I don't approve of 
        those master pressings.

AK      REALLY?

George  Really. What they were trying to do there - and again, those were 
	done without either The Beatles or myself being involved - was to 
	get the same kind of thing you have on CD, but without the CD itself. 
	And I think they forgot that in translating those to the master 
	pressings, the EQ's that were being used were appropriate not for 
	that medium, but for the earlier medium. In other words, what you 
	tend to hear in that way, and in fact, what you're hearing even on 
	the CD you're getting now, is a rather harsher sound than what was 
	intended.

AK      YOU SAID THAT THEY PUT OUT THE LAST TWO IN MONO BECAUSE OF 
	EXPEDIENCE, AND BECAUSE THEY HAD A DATE TO MEET. BUT DIDN'T THEY 
	KNOW, IN THE FOUR YEARS CD HAS BEEN OUT, THAT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY 
	HAVE TO PUT THESE THINGS OUT ON CD? DIDN'T THEY MAKE ANY KIND OF 
	PROVISION FOR HAVING THEM READY? WOULDN'T THAT HAVE MADE SENSE?

George  Well, Mr. Kozinn, I haven't worked for EMI since 1965; it's no good
	asking me that, I'm asking the same question!

AK	I JUST WONDERED IF I WAS BEING FAIR TO EMI IN FEELING THAT THEY 
	JUMPED INTO THIS UNPREPARED, WHICH IS THE WAY IT LOOKS. THE DISCS 
	DO, HOWEVER, SOUND QUITE GOOD.

George  I think the CDs sound great, I'm just being a little nit-picky.

AK	STILL, AS A COLLECTOR, I LIKE HAVING THE STEREO AND MONO MIXES 
	OF EVERYTHING, BECAUSE THERE ARE CASES WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENT 
	VOCAL TAKES, DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTAL BALANCES, AND THAT KIND OF 
	THING.

George  The first two albums, though, you must admit are an absolute 
	horror.

AK	WELL, IT DEPENDS. AS A GOOD SOLID ROCK RECORD, SURE, THEY'RE A 
	LOT MORE SOLID IN MONO. BUT I KIND OF LIKE BEING ABLE TO LOOK 
	INTO THE INSTRUMENTAL AND VOCAL ARRANGEMENT IN THE KIND OF DETAIL 
	YOU GET ON THOSE OLD STEREO MIXES.

George  Ah, well, in that case, you'd like to go back to the multitracks, 
	or even the individual mike placings when we actually recorded it.

AK	SURE, ANY TIME...

George  Yes, well, it's been fascinating to me, actually, on these 
	later albums, the experience of going back to the original four-
	tracks, and remembering what we used to do. It all came flooding 	
	back. Because even four-track was pretty limited, as you can imagine, 
	and I tended to put bass and drums on one track, guitars on another, 
	and then vocals, with backing vocals, on the third track, and keep 
	the fourth track up my sleeve for possible double tracking or solo 
	work. And that still puts an awful lot of responsiblity in running 
	the mix right on any one individual track. So that when we come back 
	to recreate it years later, there are not tremendous amounts we can 
	do. Which is just as well, perhaps. But it is fascinating listening 
	to all those - you listen to the outtakes, you listen to the endless 
	tucks and tails; and a lot of times I wes in the studio performing 
	with them, and I hear John's voice talking to me, and me talking 
	back, and it's been absolutely fascinating. I've been going back 
	to my youth.

AK	ARE YOU REDOING THE STEREO MIXES FOR THE REST OF THE SERIES?

George  Not necessarily. I have done those particular ones because I 
	thought they were worthy of it. I think they were not the best. 
	See, I was learning too. When I started in 1962 with The Beatles, 
	we only made mono records. By the time 1967 came along, with 
	"Pepper" and so on, I'd got five years experience and I was able 
	to make a fairly good stereo record. But in the interval, I was 
	learning how to do it. I was experimenting. I was putting voices 
	on one side or the other; I was trying all sorts of different 
	things. And some of those experiments didn't work out well. And 
	in fact, "Help!" in particular was a very rushed album, because 
	of the pressures of the film. I think it sounded a bit rushed, 
	and I just want it to be a bit better than it was. It's pride, 
	I guess, that makes me say that.

AK	I'VE HEARD THAT PART OF "RUBBER SOUL" WAS NOT THOROUGHLY MIXED 
	BECAUSE EMI DEMANDED THE TAPES QUICKLY, IN ORDER TO HAVE THE 
	ALBUM OUT IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS. WHEN YOU HEAR IT, YOU SEE THAT 
	SOME OF THE TRACKS ARE MIXED BEAUTIFULLY, ALONG THE LINES OF THE 
	MIXES ON "BEATLES FOR SALE," WHILE OTHERS ARE MORE LIKE THOSE ON 
	THE FIRST TWO ALBUMS, WITH ALL THE INSTRUMENTS ON ONE SIDE, AND 
	ALL THE VOCALS ON THE OTHER.

George  That's right, well this is the thing I'm telling you about. When 
	I listened to them again, I thought, "Did I really do that?"

AK	BUT WHAT I'VE HEARD, IN OTHER WORDS, IS THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY 
	A MATTER OF BEING EXPERIMENTAL, BUT THAT EMI DEMANDED IT SO QUICKLY
	THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO FINISH.

George  No, that's not true, Putting a voice on the right-hand side doesn't
	make a record quicker to produce. In fact, there is a reason for 
	it which becomes apparent after awhile. One of the things we were 
	struggling with in the days of "Rubber Soul" was the eventual issue 
	of stereo records and how it was going to vary between mono and 
	stereo. When we started out in '62 and '63, mono was the only thing. 
	Gradually, stereo came in. Very few people had it, rather like CD in 
	England today; and the first albums, if you sold five percent of your 
	total in stereo form, you were lucky. Gradually, that balance changed.
	There came a point when, instead of doing seperate mono and stereo 
	mixes, which I always did, we were looking to produce a stereo-only mix.

    Heard the first two tracks of Sgt. Pepper's on wbcn in Boston this
    a.m. Not bad.
    
    Due for release on the 20th anniversary of the ``20 years ago today''
    on June 1.

    
    KLOS here in sunny LA has been playing cuts all week. The separation
    (even for FM) is great. There is, however, ALOT of hiss.
    
    Sgt. Pepper's was recorded on 4-track equipment and "Bounced" back
    and forth to another 4-track deck to layer all the sounds. Because
    of that, there was no way to digitaly re-mix the album like they
    did "Rubber Soul" and "Help!".
    
    Oh, well... We'll all just have to turn on that noise filter in
    our heads.
    
    A little more then a week to go!
    
    						--- Neal

    Interview with George Martin in June Audio about the CD's.
    He makes it EXPLICITLY clear that the early "voices in one
    channel, music in the other" two-tracks were intended ONLY as
    an intermediate step toward a final mono mix, and NOT to be
    listened to that way.  
                     
    dq

    
    Once again, got mine at midnight last night.
    
    Sgt. Pepper's sounds really great on CD, however there is not a
    night and day difference as there was with "Rubber Soul".
    
    The 15 khz tone and the gibberish found on the British LP are there
    in tack. The voices are nice and warm, but the highs could be a
    bit too high.
    
    All in all, a great addition to my collection, nothing earth
    shattering.
    						--- Neal

    I bought my copy of Sgt. Pepper at Strawberries this morning and
    was disappointed that it was full price ($15.99 + tax).  All other
    Beatles cd's were discounted $2 for the first few days they were
    released.  Still I'm excited about it and can't wait to hear it.
    Sure sounded great on the radio over the weekend.

	John Lennon's "Shaved Fish" is also available now!

	Just wanted to let you know about the other CD you are going
	to buy this week.  :-)

    re:.104
    
    That's really strange. Which Strawberries? The one in Harvard
    Square was selling them for $13.99 (as was BCD, where I bought
    it).
    
    --- jerry

    re:.106  the Strawberries in Chelmsford
             
    If anyone else bought Sgt. Pepper yesterday at a Strawberries and
    got it for $13.99, please let me know.  I'd like to hit them up
    for a $2 rebate!  Thanks.

    re. Strawberries in Chelmsford.
    
    Just over the line in Nashua they have ALL Beatles CD's (including
    SPLHCB) for $11.98 sans 5% sales tax.  Picked up the new releases
    at 11:00 yesterday.
    
    Mark.

	Any idea why SPLHCB disk booklet has the names of the producer
	and enginneers involved with each track (and also the date) but
	no information on the studio musicians? Also, why did EMI object 
	to Gandhi on the cover? Actually the booklet says Lennon wanted
	Jesus and Hitler on the cover too. Will anybody post the list of
	people on Frank Zappa's "We're only in it for the money" album
	cover?

	Enjoy,
	Sudhir (who would have liked to be on the cover, but wasn't asked)

    
    Speaking of the packaging, I'm sure glad that they abandoned the
    BORING, spartan packaging of the previous releases.  Those black
    on white block letter titles were depressing and not worthy of 
    the Beatles. 
    
    Wouldn't you agree?
    

    
    FYI - ALL BEATLES CD'S ARE 11.98 AT LECHEMERE THIS WEEK.  INCLUDING
    SGT. PEPPER.

    
    RE: .-1
    
    	Please, please, please, *PLEASE*, do not use all upper-case!
    
    							-rjk

    
    Wowie Zowie - both a public AND (ooops) a private reprimand.
    
    This guy's serious.  I stand corrected.  :^)

    Not having a copy of the album handy, can someone verify whether
    the extra "stuff" following _A Day in the Life_ on the CD (many
    seconds past the end of the tune, is present on the vinyl as well,
    or is this a new treat for CD only (or is it just the CDs that my
    favorite CD store here in Bellevue has...)?
    
    -- Benn

Rumour has it that different versions of the vinyl have different "stuff."

If you read the little booklet with the CD, you'll find that the 15kHz tone
was put there at the request of John Lennon.  The "nonsense Beatle chatter"
at the very end is in the playout groove of the vinyl.  I figured that on
the CD they should have just filled out the rest of the 70 minutes with it,
but they didn't.

/john

    I'm listening to "Sgt. Pepper's" right now, and it's wonderful!
    I like the detail in the booklet too.  I've never heard the Beatles
    sound so good!
    				Steve

    re:.114, .115
    The original British releases had both the 15 kHz signal and the
    playout groove, but none of the american copies ever did.  The British
    LP's that are currently in print do not have it either.  The only
    one I've heard it on is a German Picture Disc (printed relatively
    recently).
    
    -Steve

    It seems to me that the vocals in the reprise of "Sergeant Pepper's
    Lonely Hearts Club Band"  ("... We hope you have enjoyed the show
    ... We're sorry but it's time to go ..." etc.) are very muted. 
    I find it hard to hear the vocals.  This does not seem to be true
    of any of the other tracks, and I don't remember it being this way
    from the album.
    
    Has anyone else noticed this?
    
    Other than that, I really like this disc.  As one who anxiously
    awaited each new Beatle album when they first came out, and who
    generally wore them out within a few weeks, I'm really glad to have
    this stuff renewed and preserved on CD.
    
    -pd

    
    I very much enjoy the disc.  BUT, I wish the 15KHz tone and chatter
    at the end were given a track number so they could be programmed
    out if you felt like it.  (Are they given a different index number?)
    
    And a nit....
    
    While everyone else seems to like the red spine with the odd fonts,
    I don't care for it much.
    
    								-mr. bill

No, the stuff at the end doesn't have a separate index number.

    Is SPLHCB AAD or ADD? I couldn't find the notation anywhere on the
    disc (I have a Made in U.S.A. pressing, if that matters...)
    
    	- Rick
    

    re: .121
    
    I don't remember where I heard this...
    
	.....
    I believe that it is AAD.  SPLHCB was overdubbed *several* times 
    onto 4 track tape.  Remixing would be almost impossible.
        .....
    
    I haven't been able to 'study' the sound as my headphones are
    nonexistent at the moment.  The disc is still an improvement to
    my vinyl.
    
    Dale
             

For those of you with headphones, listen to George Harrison counting the
beats before his vocal entrance in the last verse of Within You and Without
You right after the instrumental middle.  He must have had a hard time with 
those strange Indian rhythms.

Kind of like singing Stravinsky.

AAA

	RE: SPLHCB, in the booklet thing they have a bunch of pictures
	of the Rutles (sorry, Beatles), as background for the lyrics.
	The one that is on the back of the original album is the first
	picture (lyrics for "Sgt. Pepper ..." and "A Little Help ...."

	I just noticed that this picture is backwards from all the other
	pictures.  Reversed is probably a better term.


	RE: -1
	How many seconds into the song does George do this?
	I think I heards something at 3 min 47 sec, but wasn't sure.

	Mike O'C

    re ,124
    
    that's probably a clue that now they're all anti-matter

    re: .124
      You can hear him counting just a couple seconds before he resumes
    singing after the middle instrumental... (We were talking about....)
    Actually, you can hear this on a good record also, like a Japanese
    pressing or something.  But you can also hear talking in "A Day
    In The Life", if you listen with headphones.  I was listening the
    other night and I thought it was someone in the room... very faint.
    I went back a few seconds and heard it again, so it's definitely
    on the disc.  (Its around the middle part where Paul does his section,
    and then again during that long piano chord at the end.)
    -Steve
    

    
    A fairly reliable source tells me the inner groove can be found
    on US mono albums, perhaps only initial releases.  I have a UK
    mono pressing, and it is on there.

    At the end of "A Day In The Life" (before the 15 kHz tone), as the final
    piano chord fades out, I can hear the creaking of a chair (like the sound
    of a metal spring in an old, wooden office chair) in the right channel.

    Can anyone else pick this out?

    Re: .128
    
    Yes, I heard this - sounded like someone shuffling in a chair.
    
    				Steve

    re: -1
    I've heard it also - I assumed it was someone getting off the piano
    stool.  My piano stool sounds just like it.  Hey maybe my piano
    stool is the same stool they used, maybe its worth millions....
    Maybe not.
    
    Did anyone hear a drop-out in the volume and change in tone on
    'You really got a hold on me' on WITH THE BEATLES (I think, can't
    get these British versions programmed in my head) it's about
    15-20 seconds into the song... and lasts about 10 seconds.
    
    I wonder if it due to the CD or the origional master ?
    
    Mike

    
    It can also be heard on the US Stereo album release.
    
    In other words, it's on the master.
    
    							--- Neal
    

    Re: extra track at the end of Sgt. P.
    
    What I want to know is, can someone tell me how to set up my player
    to run this cut backwards. With the enhanced range of the CD format
    we should be able to tell once and for all if Paul is really dead!
    
    Paul. (No relation to the departed)
    
    I assume at least some of you remember what I'm refering to? Or
    am I just getting old? Come to think of it, at 32 I'm half way there!
    

    Re: .132
    
    That's not the track you're supposed to play backwards, anyway -
    it was "Revolution #9" on the "White Album".  There were supposedly
    other clues on Sgt. Pepper's, but I think in the album art more
    than the record itself.
    
    I do recall hearing a joke about coming out with CD players that
    play backwards so that we can hear all this "backwards masking"
    that reveals satanic messages (or "turn me on dead man" in the case
    of the Beatles.) 
    				Steve

    
    This is a bit off the subject, but the Mothers of Invention's "We're
    Only In It For The Money," album had a verse which, they claimed, had
    been censored from the song "We Are The Other People," but was recorded
    backwards elsewhere on the album.  I remember playing that backwards,
    and understanding why it had been censored. 
    
    On the CD version of that album, the verse has been re-inserted
    into the song.
    

    
    re .133
    
>    That's not the track you're supposed to play backwards, anyway -

    *supposed* to?
    
    I've had the UK mono vinyl of `Pepper' for several years.
    The rumor is that the inner groove played backwards says
    "We f*ck you like supermen."  I've tried it, and it sounds as much
    like what it's rumored to be as "number 9" sounds like "turn me
    on dead man."

    R

The Audio Interview:  George Martin, by Susan Borey 
From the June, 1987 Audio

George Martin prefers not to look back.  As a rule, he'd rather dwell on
what's taking place today and what he might make happen next week. About
six months ago, however, The Beatles' first producer was thrust into the
past when EMI Music Ltd. solicited him to give a quick stamp of approval
to the first four Beatles records to be released on Compact Disc (see our
review elsewhere in this issue).  Finding the test tapes of _Please
Please Me_, _With The Beatles_, _A Hard Day's Night_, and _Beatles for
Sale_ to be, in his words, "dreadful," Martin agreed to go back into the
Abbey Road Studios in an effort to do the music justice.

In the process, Martin has had to sail a narrow course between the twin
perils of doing too little and doing too much, showing the recordings in
the best possible light while sticking to the truth of the originals.
Achieving the latter has meant living with the shortcomings of the
recording technology of the early '60s:  Martin's first major decision
was to convince EMI to release the four discs in mono, as they were
originally recorded.  This choice has caused a stir, but Martin remains
adamant that it was the right thing to do.

Today, Martin remains involved with the CD release project, which will
see eight more discs brought out by the end of this year.  He is also
working on a 24-part television series based on his book, _Making
Music_.  In the middle of a workday that had started at 7 a.m., he
recalled his early studio experiences with The Beatles and reflected on
the problems that technology has solved for the music industry---and
those it has created.						S.B.

SB  Did any of the Beatles have a hand in putting their music out on CD?

GM  No, not at all

SB  Do you know how any of them feel about it?

GM  Well, I haven't seen George because he is in Los Angeles.  I had
    dinner with Paul last Friday;  he has just gotten back from holiday.
    I asked him what he thought about the CDs.  He hadn't heard them, but
    he said he's delighted they're putting them out this way.

SB  How satisfied are you with the results so far?

GM  I'm delighted.  I'm very pleased with what I've heard so far  I think
    I shall be more delighted as we go through.  Those early ones are
    very interesting, and historical, but I think that the real value of
    CD is going to be when you hear _Revolver_, _Pepper_, and beyond.

SB  How did you become involved with putting The Beatles on CD?

GM  In December [1986], the managing director of EMI rang me up and said
    they were going to put The Beatles out on CD, and would I like to
    hear them?  I said yes, and they came along and played me the tapes
    that they intended to put out.  I thought they were dreadful, and I
    told them so.  I said, "Okay, you have come to me and asked for my
    opinion, and I've given it to you, but I can't be quiet about it.  If
    you say you're going to go ahead with this, I'm going to tell people
    I think they're terrible."  So I put the managing director on the
    spot, and he said, "Well, what do you suggest we do?"  I said, "Well,
    get some jolly good new ones," because he was planning to put out
    these first albums, _Please Please Me_ and _With The Beatles_, which
    were turned out on twin-track, in that ghastly fake stereo which was
    perpetrated without my authority years ago.  You had all the voices
    on one side and all the backing on the other, and all the dirt in
    between them.  They were never intended to be issued like that.  They
    were mono records done on a twin-track machine, and I told them so.
    I said, "If you want to do The Beatles a favor, issue them as they
    were made to be, in mono."  The said, "You can't have CD in mono,"
    and I said, "That's the way to go."  I spoke to Bhaskar Menon, who's
    the head of Capitol, and he agreed with me completely.  And that's
    how they were put out.

    Having done that, EMI then asked me if I would take a look at the
    quality of the albums from then on.  I've been listening to them and
    actually remixing---not to change them, but just to clean up the
    sound.

SB  How can you clean up the sound, by re-equalization . . . ?

GM  Yes, and by actually turning down the tracks when there is dirt on
    them.  In those early days, when we just put out mono, we didn't pay
    a tremendous amount of attention to stereo.  I was learning how to
    handle stereo in those days too.  Some of those early stereo mixes I
    did were rubbish, but I didn't think anybody was listening.  In 1963,
    the percentage of stereo players in this country was about 4%.
    Everybody listened to popular music on mono back in those days.

SB  Has there been a big difference between what you've had to do with,
    say, _With The Beatles_ and with _Rubber Soul_?

GM  Well, I didn't do anything with the first four.  I did do something
    with _Rubber Soul_ and with _Help_, which was in rather awful stereo.
    I had to do something to tidy up the low end of the bass and the
    leaking of sound from one track to another.  In the early days we
    didn't use headphones for dubbing.  We used a loudspeaker, so the
    separation went right out the window.  For example, when we listened
    to "Yesterday" again---as you know, that was done with just Paul
    playing guitar and singing at the same time.  The performance was of
    him playing and singing two times, and then I went away and wrote the
    string quartet.  So the 4-track consists of Paul's voice, Paul's
    guitar on another track, strings on another track.  On the fourth
    track, I attempted to gild the lily, if you like, to get Paul to sing
    a better performance than he did when he sang with the guitar.  In
    fact, I did use a little bit of that fourth track but only in one
    tiny sequence, the last four notes of the first chorus.  It was a
    sequence that I thought I had deliberately double-tracked.  But it
    wasn't double-tracked!  When I went back and listened to the tapes, I
    said, "No, you didn't double-track.  What you did was use a little
    bit of the alternative voice track."  And on the alternative voice
    track, I found that the leakage from the speaker playing the original
    track at the same time he is singing the new one gives the effect of
    double-tracking.  I took out the main vocal and brought in the
    alternative, but the main vocal is still in the background.

SB  Do you think that the new Beatles CDs are valuable in part because
    they bring the listener closer to the recording process, to hear how
    the recordings were produced?

GM  I think the interesting thing is that you are hearing them now as I
    heard them in the studio years and years ago, without anything
    getting in the way, without the fog of bad reproduction which we've
    always had.  Now you hear the full range, you hear everything, all
    the mistakes included.

SB  I have heard you say that making a record is like painting a picture.
    Can you draw CDs into this analogy?

GM  Yes, I can.  Because of the nature of the earlier recordings, I think
    they were like a black and white picture.  I think mono gives you
    that effect.  As we got better, as I got better at producing The
    Beatles, the albums took on more live.  I think that _Pepper_ became
    much more colorful.  We used the stereo picture with _Pepper_.  If
    you shut your eyes, you can see things, or at least _I_ can.  On CD,
    the effect is even more dramatic.  You don't get a flat picture, you
    get depth as well, almost a 3-D effect.

SB  Does the clarity of the CD present any dangers for the producer?  Is
    the producer more exposed?

GM  Probably, but I don't think that's a danger.  I think that as far as
    you're doing the work, you ought to be out there.  You shouldn't be
    frightened.

SB  Do you feel pressured to keep up with technology by making use of
    everything that's available to you as a producer?

GM  The pressure's always been there to keep up.  It hasn't worried me,
    particularly, for I haven't found it very difficult to keep up.  But
    I think that, in fact, technology has overtaken my desires.  In my
    studio in Montserrat, I've got two Mitsubishi 32-track digital
    recorders which are linked together, giving a total of 64 tracks.
    I've got a board that can cope with that, and all the toys that can
    go along with it for laying down guide tracks, drumbeats, syncing
    back in again, SMPTE codes, all the paraphernalia of modern
    technology.  Which makes it easier to make records than it's ever
    been before, but it doesn't make better music.  Better music's got to
    come from the heart, it's got to come from creativity.  I don't think
    it's necessary to have the extremes of technology.  It's like sitting
    in a comfortable chair, you know, instead of sitting in a hard-back.
    It doesn't make you any fitter, probably less.

SB  Obviously, the process of making records has drastically changed
    since the time of the earliest Beatles recordings.  Do you ever miss
    those times?

GM  Do I yearn for those 4-track days?  The only thing I year for is
    recordings that are more spontaneous.  Today everything is so
    clinically controlled, and everything is so meticulously accurate.
    Rhythms are impeccable, ensembles are absolutely precise, intonation
    is perfect, not because you hear it so, but because you see it on a
    meter.  This worries me because I think the heart is going, and I'd
    like to get back to humanity and mistakes.

SB  Is there something bad about the modern process of recording, whereby
    members of a band don't have to be in the studio at the same time to
    make an album?

GM  I think there's too much of what I call layer-caking, you know,
    people not playing together, and technology enables us to do this.
    It encourages us to do this which I think is a shame.  I use
    technology.  I have a computer here which I use a lot.  I send
    messages, type letters, keep files, and so on.  And I've got a
    computer at home which I think is invaluable to keep myself tidy, but
    _I_ use _it_, it doesn't use me.  I think that a lot of technology
    tends to tell people what to do.  One of the things that I've gotten
    to know about is performance---people playing together, making music.
    The interplay of people is _so_ important.  We're forgetting to do
    that, and I think it's a shame.

SB  What do you think about Compact Discs in general?

GM  I think their dynamic range is wonderful.  The loud bits you can hear
    without hurting and the quiet bits you can hear without background
    noise.  Recording is merely a mirror of what's going on.  The CD
    enables us to see it more clearly.  We're looking through a
    completely transparent pane of glass now.  Before, it was pretty
    cloudy.

    A very interesting thing:  I have a friend who's got a son of 12 who
    is very hard of hearing.  He had meningitis when he was younger.
    He's always had a great deal of trouble listening to music,
    particularly rock or pop.  He could never listen to a Walkman
    satisfactorily.  But through a CD player---and he's got a portable
    now---he can listen to it on headphones.  He gets a great deal of
    enjoyment out of it and he hears much more on CD than was possible
    with analog tape.  It's something that surprises me because I
    wouldn't have thought that the frequency range was that much
    different, particularly for his limited hearing.  But it seems to
    work better.  It isn't just a question of range.  It's a question of
    the kind of transients that a thing is given.  The sound reproduction
    is much more natural.  I think it's delightful.

SB  If you were recording The Beatles today, would you record them
    digitally?

GM  Oh, sure.  I would certainly record them digitally.  I'd use all the
    technology that's here.  But I don't think that one can look back at
    things and say how different they'd be.  It's rather like asking,
    "What would Beethoven have done if he had had an 8-track machine?"
    Everybody uses the tools of their time.  Bach used a very good organ,
    which was a synthesizer, you know.  They only used an organ because
    an orchestra wasn't there.

SB  Do you think there's some kind of coldness that can be attributed to
    digital recording?

GM  A lot of people have said this, and certainly the earlier digital
    recordings were.  I'm not sufficiently technical to describe it.  You
    know, digital recording has an actual ceiling, whereas analog
    recording doesn't.  Analog recording has a frequency range which just
    tapers off as it gets higher, and it goes up to 100 kHz, way beyond
    human hearing.  With digital, there is absolutely nothing beyond 22
    kHz, no frequencies at all.  There are a lot of people who claim they
    can hear that.  I think they're mistaken.  Some say they can't
    actually _hear_ 22 kHz, but believe they can hear what it does to the
    lower frequencies.  In other words, they are listening to the
    frequencies at, say, 15 or 16 kHz, the top end, which are colored by
    the absence of what would come afterwards.

SB  What is it that makes a recording warm rather than cold?

GM  I don't know.  To say it's a particular frequency would be wrong.
    There's no way to put it in words.  It's a  bit like John saying that
    he wanted a song to sound as though it's colored orange.  It's up to
    you to define those things.

SB  Do you foresee anything like the Beatles phenomenon happening again?

GM  I do hope so.  I really do hope so.  I don't see it at the moment.
    There has been no evidence to say that, you know, Wham, or George
    Michael, is the new Beatles.  It just doesn't add up.  It's
    lightweight stuff.

    It's awfully sad that the majority of people who are accepted as
    being musical giants are old men.  By "old" I mean we're talking
    about Eric Clapton, Elton John ... even Mark Knopfler is getting up
    there.  But they're still giants, and they're great.  Amongst the
    kids, the 18- to 20-year-olds, there _must_ be some great talent.  I
    wish we could find it and encourage it.  There's no evidence of it
    happening, however.  The majority of stuff coming from young people
    hasn't yet benefited from the background that they have.  I wonder if
    any of them have listened to a Cole Porter song?

    Re: Last
    
    	Good interview...thanks Gary.   So what's next for Beatle releases?
    Magical Mystery Tour? The White Album? Yellow Submarine?  Anyone
    know what's next and when??
    
    _stew-

    
    "The Beatles" and "Yellow Submarine" are due for release in August.
    
    Tragical History Tour is currently not scheduled to be released
    on CD. There are however, two rumors:
    
    1)	It will release next year.
    
    2)	A two CD set containing all the singles and other stuff not
    	released this year will be released Q1 '88.
    
    							--- Neal

    
    Re: -.138
    
    Due to EMI's infinite wisdom, because Magical Misery Tour was not
    on LP in the UK, it won't be on CD here, there or anywhere until
    they come up with a compilation CD of all the flotsam and jetsam.
    
    I read all of the George Martin interviews and I sympathize with
    the man but I want *stereo* anyway.  After all these years, mono
    just doesn't sound right.
    
    

    re:.139
    
    Then go to Rockit Records in Nashua. They have a set of seven
    Japanese Beatles CD's corresponding to the seven American
    releases, but all are in stereo, and some supposedly contain
    tracks not on the American disks (I assume these are some of
    the hit single tracks). Their asking price wasn't visible, and
    I didn't ask. If they charge less than an arm and a leg, I'd
    be very surprised.
    
    --- jerry

    re:140
    
    Yes, I saw these at Rockit.  Actually, they are not the American
    releases, but the British releases (in original split 2-track mono
    [pseudo-stereo] on the first two) with about two added songs on
    each disc.  The extra songs are singles from around the same time,
    like Paperback Writer/Rain is probably on Revolver.  They cost about
    $28!  I don't think I'll be rushing out to get those too soon.
    
    I believe there are four more CDs for release this year (by EMI),
    Yellow Sub. and The Beatles (white album), as mentioned, and then
    Abbey Road and Let It Be in the fall.  No Hey Jude either, since
    this is an American compilation of a number of singles of 1968-9
    and a couple leftovers.  Too bad, because Hey Jude, Get Back, Ballad
    of John and Yoko and the rest are pretty good recordings.  I have
    the Japanese pressings and they sound very clear (Except Revolution,
    which had intentionally-distorted guitar).  Perhaps they will use
    the original Let It Be album, not the Phil Spector-ized, over-produced
    one that we are used to, on the CD.
    
    	Steve
    

MMT was a butcher album.  I'm kind of tired of repeating the story in every
notes file, every three months or so.  I'm responding only because of what
someone said about "Let It Be".

My feeling is that, since George Martin is in charge of this thing, "Let It Be"
will be "fixed" on CD.  Since he was the original producer, I doubt he would be 
inclined to retain Spector's tamperings.  ESPECIALLY "The Long and Winding 
Road", which the "Wings Over America" live album verifies to be a beautiful 
up-beat tune.  It's hard to substantiate rumours as well as statements made
by those who were there, but word is that Spector deliberately ruined "The
Long and Winding Road" to get back at McCartney for making public statements 
about what Spector did to Lennon's "Across the Universe" (the original wasn't 
perfect either, but take a listen to the Bowie/Lennon remake on "Young
Americans"!).

What I'd really like to see is the entire film score released.  I have never
had an opportunity to see the movie, but have heard so much about it.  There 
used to be a high-classed bootleg called "Sweet Apple Tracks", which apparantly
corresponded to the soundtrack, but I haven't seen it in years and am deadset
against bootlegs anyway (on moral grounds).



				Mark

    re:142
    
    	I have seen the Let It Be movie.  Most of it is not very
    interesting, but at the end there is a bit at the end where 
    they are on the roof of the Apple building, which is definitely
    worth seeing.  What are other people's opinions?  A have Sweet Apple
    Trax vol. 1, which has original versions of Let It Be songs.  The
    sound quality is not very good, but I do hope that some of those
    versions are used on the CD.  (The poor quality is due to the
    pressing.)
    
    	BTW, has anyone heard Lennon's "Shaved Fish" CD yet?  Any news
    of when the rest of his and McCartney's stuff will be released?
    
    	Steve
    

    Re: 142
    	
    	I thought that, although George Martin was involved initially
    with the recording, because of all the B.S. going on he refused
    to have anything to do with the production/mixing duties that I
    would normally consider a producers job and for a year or so the
    tapes sat on a shelf until Spector ran through the miles of tape
    and did his "production" job.  Did George or Phil really do the
    producing on LET IT BE?
    
    _stew-

    re:.141
    
    I think you misinterpreted me. By "American", I meant the
    CD's that were released in America. Unless I'm misinterpreting
    you, you seem to think that I said they are the CD's of the
    original American Beatles catalog.
    
    --- jerry

    re:.145
    
    Oh, OK.  Sorry.  The reason I misinterpreted was that I wouldn't
    have been too surprised if they were the American LP releases, since
    Japan does release all the US LPs on their LPs (which sound about
    100 times better than the US releases, I might add).

RE: .144

Both.  George produced the 45, and Phil "produced" the LP track.  Similarly 
with "Get Back".  He even had the gall to remove Billy Preston's organ solo!

Although I love "Two of Us", you can even tell from the "Let It Be" album that 
this song was rather unprofessionally performed, by The Beatles' standards.  I 
would rather hear it raw, so that it doesn't sound like it's ATTEMPTING to 
sound slick.  Give me the Original "Let It Be" soundtrack anyday over 
Spector's production!

John Lennon's "Rock 'n' Roll" album is another example.  Lennon had to 
rerecord many of the tracks thanks to what Spector did, but didn't have time 
to do more than a handful of them as the album was already late.  
Coincidentally, these are the only tracks I find listenable on that album.

As for McCartney, I was wondering why I didn't see anything under his name at 
Lechmere during the EMI CD sale.  I guess that's because he recently switched 
back to EMI, and they probably haven't finished renegotiating the back issue 
catalogue with Columbia.

				Mark

    re.147
    McCartney:  He has only a few out on Capitol right now:
    Press To Play, Band On The Run, Wings' Greatest.
    Lechmere had a few, but sold out.  Last fall Lechmere had about
    three times as many CDs and albums as they do now.  I guess it was
    for the Christmas rush...
    
    	Steve
    

    I think the Schwann catalog lists "McCartney" and "RAM" as being
    available on CD, but I have yet to find them.

    Yesterday I read in the "green catalog" or whatever that in addition
    to McCartney and Ram, Lennon's Imagine and Shaved Fish will be out,
    as will Ringo's Blast From Your Past.  I've seen Shaved Fish, but
    none of the others-has anyone else seen them?
    
    		Steve

    re 149 & 150
    
    I've seen Lennon's Shaved Fish here in Burlington, Vermont.  I have
    already purchased Lennon's Imagine and McCartney's RAM. Both are
    certainly worth having on CD!
    
    Don

Has anyone heard the remastered "Imagine"?  I was extremely happy with it the 
way it was, so I'm curious about the differences in the digital remix.

I compared my "permanent loan" UK pressing of "Revolver" to the CD this 
weekend, and was surprised.  On my Rega turntable, it sounds a lot different, 
so I was merely used to an inferior reproduction.  The CD actually IS superior 
in this case, as their is MUCH more clarity to the bass and percussion.  Well, 
with some exceptions, as the remix engineer decided to bury the tambourine in 
the mix on "Taxman".  It's just going to take some getting used to.  This is 
analog remix, by the way.

I need to borrow some of my other "permanent loan" LP's back from my sister to 
compare.  I suspect the mono CD's will still come up short of the UK vinyl, 
but am curious about how the digitally remixed material will compare.  It will 
be interesting to see whether I can tell a digital remix from an analog remix.


				Mark

    RE: .152
    
    	I have not heard a "remastered" version of Imagine.  So an import
    of Imagine the other day, went back to get and it and it was gone.
    :^(
    
    	I do have a copy of Shaved Fish.  This CD is not remastered
    and this is easily noted when listening.  Imagine on this CD sounds
    exactly like my album.  The original recording was not great quality.
    
    One thing about this CD that bothers me is the different recording
    balances between songs. (I know that these were different sessions,
    but it still bothers me.)  Some are too bright while others are muddy. 
    
    Waiting for another chance at Imagine...
    
    Dale

 re:
>656.152
>REGENT::SCHMIEDER
>
>Has anyone heard the remastered "Imagine"?  I was extremely happy with it the 
>way it was, so I'm curious about the differences in the digital remix.

Mark,
	I have the Lennon "Imagine" CD.  It's AAD.  Don't see anywhere on it
that it's been digitally remixed.  It's been a while since I've listened to
the LP of Imagine, but I didn't notice any difference in the CD except that
the dynamics are much better and there were not any pops and hisses.

Don

Don't know whether I said digitally remixed or not, but the album now says 
across the top, "digitally remastered".  Not the same thing, or is it?  When 
we're talking about vinyl, does digitally remastered mean digitally remixed?

				Mark

    Well, all the newly-released Beatles' albums on Capitol say 'Digitally
    remastered' from the original masters, but of course the first four
    albums were not digitally remixed.  I don't know if there is any
    difference in the sound from the old imports, however.
    
    	Steve

    re:.155
    
    No, "digitally remastered" and "digitally remixed" are not the
    same. This is a point upon which many people get confused.
    
    --- jerry

I put on my thinking cap and realised what mastering is.  I was confused 
enough yesterday to think it was the copy from master to store disc, rather 
than the creation of the master itself.  That is, digital remastering means a 
new master tape/disc has been created, from which future store discs will be 
copied.  The mastering stage is usually where levels and EQ are set, and other 
signal processing, from what I understand.  If I'm right, then the mixing 
stage is mostly where the choices are made for panning on the original tracks 
to the stereo mixdown.

I'm probably all wrong.  But could someone please explain what the effect is 
on a VINYL record that has been digitally remastered?  What I meant was that I 
presume they must also be remixed, but not necessarily digitally.  Are discs 
and vinyl LP's that are AAD remixed using analogue, or are they simply not 
remixed at all?


				Mark

    As far as I understand it:
    
    You don't have AAD records - records are always **A.  A digitally-
    remastered recording on vinyl would by ADA, on CD ADD.  Digitally-
    recorded and mastered LP's would be DDA.
    
    Sometimes when they do digital remastering they remix, other times
    they don't - there's no way to tell just from the three-letter code.

    This gets brought up every once in a while.
    
    Read the literature that comes with (some) CD's. It says that
    the first letter indicates the type (Digital or Analog) of deck
    used to record the sessions. The second letter indicates the
    type of deck used to mix the separate track recordings. The third
    letter indicates the type of deck used to make the master tape.
    
    There is *no* letter code to indicate the medium of the final
    product!
    
    --- jerry

    Re/ .160:
>    
>    There is *no* letter code to indicate the medium of the final
>    product!
>    
    
    But as I understand it, cds are ALWAYS made from digital masters,
    and vinyl records are ALWAYS made from analog masters, so the third
    letter of the SPARS code does effectively indicate the distribution
    medium, as well as the format of the master.

    RE: .161
    
    I think that the idea is that although an LP master is always analog
    (by definition) the tape deck used at the final stage (input for
    mastering) can be analog or digital. Otherwise, as you've already
    pointed out, the last letter would be entirely redundant.
    
    If this isn't so, I think we're going to need a blow-by-blow account!
    
    wrh
    

Well, we have a lot of interesting information here, but most of it is 
contradictory.  My original question had to do with what a digitally 
remastered vinyl record really is.  We know that many early CD's weren't 
digitally remastered, but later got rereleased as such (CBS Jazz MasterWorks a 
case in point).  But, by definition, isn't ANYTHING on CD digitally 
remastered?  I guess I thought CD's were made from master CD's, which are 
scanned to make direct copies for public sale?  Or are they manufactured 
directly from master TAPES, which can be either analog or digital?

When I suggested that digitally remastered recordings on vinyl might 
inherently be remixed (whether digitally or otherwise), this idea was refuted. 
 But one or more of the recent replies suggests that this is exactly what is 
meant.

In the case of The Beatles discs, the AAD and ADD discs are presumably ALL 
remixed, though the ADD discs are remixed digitally.  ALL say they are 
digitally remastered, of course.

Some discs don't say what they are, or if they are remastered.  At least, not 
on the packaging visible in the stores.

I'm afraid I'm hopelessly confused at this point, but I'll see what my 
Magnavox manual says about the issue.


				Mark

    
    I don't know about CDs, but this is the process for records.
                                            
    You start with a multitrack master (these days, anyway).
    
    This is mixed down to a master *tape*.  Either of these tapes may
    be analog or digital.
    
    If the second is digital, it is a digital *mix*.
    
    The tape is then used to cut a master *disk* from which stampers
    will be made.  This is the *mastering* process for which some engineer
    is credited on LPs.  Usually, though this is the *original mastering*,
    as the stampers wear out, new stampers must be made.  Eventually
    the master disk is worn, and a new one is cut.  For old albums which
    have sold millions of copies, the record may have been mastered
    a number of times (which is why some old LPs sound better than recent
    copies, due to a lack of care taken with the new master).
    
    Now how does this relate to CDs, i.e. what is the equivalent of
    a master disk for a CD?
    
    If the master *tape* was analog, I would expect AAD.  If the master
    is digital , then ADD.  If the multitrack master is digital then
    DDD.

Brian, in just two short paragraphs, you have made the entire process 
completely clear to me, as well as clearing up some questions I hadn't even 
gotten around to asking yet!  What you said brought back some memories of 
things I had learned years ago, so I'm certain you have the entire thing 
straight.

I seem to remember reading that the mastering stage for CD's need only be done 
once, either due to the destination medium or whatever, and that this should 
eliminate the "collectors" market for "original pressings".


				Mark