He said "turntabalists" were equal to Beatles and Motzart
Apr 22, 2018 17:54:55 GMT
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Apr 22, 2018 17:54:55 GMT
Messing with music masterpieces
I'd bet you that the public outcry would be stupendous. Everybody and their uncle would vehemently protest the audacity of Apple Corps. taking such liberties with the iconic and seminal work of art, one of the most prominent masterpieces of the 20th century music.
And yet... and yet! When Giles Martin took the liberty to mess with the recorded masterpiece, to re-imagine it and reassemble it to his liking (under the excuse of 'modernizing' it), no one protested, no one said a word.
Why is it that we tolerate such revisionist blasphemy, while still being super touchy about the visual side of the package? To my mind, it is much bigger blasphemy to modify the Beatles original product (the originally mixed and mastered released songs), than it is to modify the visual packaging.
Imagine if someone went and started rearranging the notes Bach or Mozart of Beethoven had originally written. If a budding young composer goes in and decides to 'modernize' Beethoven's Ninth Symphony by removing some 'dated' parts and adding some more modern sounding parts, people would form a lynch mob and go after that person's head. And yet, when it comes to the Beatles and their masterpieces, the crowd seems okay with this atrocious process of 'modernization'.
People will say "but, but, but, you know full well that Sir Paul McCartney himself praised the new reimagined Sgt. Pepper's, so who are you to complain?" Well, my question is, why would McCartney say 'no!' to millions of dollars pouring into his coffers? Of course he and Ringo and Yoko and Olivia are going to be behind these re-imagining projects, because they all stand to profit from such gimmicks handsomely.
But because the Beatles are not merely a commercial product, but are also one of the most important parts of our cultural heritage, we cannot let it all boil down to sales and marketing tactics.
Off my soap box now, just wanted to voice my concerns regarding the possibly upcoming 50th anniversary release of the brand new and 'modernized' White Album'. I hope the travesty won't continue. Just give as the all analog stereo master of the White Album, the way you gave us the mono master in 2014. The 2012 remastered-from-stereo-digital-remaster pressing is atrocious!
The Beatles were the first major artists who treated recording studio as an integral instrument. So they spent inordinate amount of time in the studio, polishing Sgt. Pepper's until it sounded the way they all agreed is perfect. And THAT is their product. Going back to individual tracks and remixing and doctoring the mix is a cynical money grab.
To my ears, the original Sgt. Pepper's sounds absolutely perfect, nothing is missing there. Giles' version is an anomaly. McCartney's argument that the original version is lame because the instruments are panned widely is odd, to say the least. But McCartney had always been a revisionist (he seems eager to rewrite the Beatles history in order to maximize his grandiose ego). I'm pretty sure he's the sole reason why we still didn't get "Let It Be" movie available on the market -- he probably thinks that movie shows him in less than stellar light. Which may be true, so no luck seeing that movie released while Paul is still alive.
But you see, they didn't want Pepper to sound that way. They wanted it to sound the way it sounds on the original LP. And they did it for a reason -- they were spending months in the studio working on it, it's a definitive version.
Screw up the bass and make it boomy.
Compress the drama completely out of the mix.
Have these people no shame?
I avoid anything that isn't the original mix because I was there and it all sounded magnificent and still does and you don't paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa and call it "art."
A youngster at work claimed DJs that scratch were "artists."
He said they were "turntabalists" and equal to the Beatles and Motzart.
What a crock.
That type of revisionism is indeed the malaise that McCartney suffers from. Remember "Let It Be Naked"? Paul loves to go back and whitewash the history. He wants to portray himself as being the main artistic and innovative force in the Beatles. He'd like to reengineer the Lennon-McCartney copyright into McCartney-Lennon.
While I'm on the subject, I now think Paul was the main reason why the Beatles broke up. I think Lennon started disliking McCartney during the latter part of the sixties, and the two started drifting apart. George was also not too enamoured with Paul's overbearing approach to running the Beatles.
That did it for me. I said "potato this, you can't overrule George's choices, just because you want this 'oh so squeaky clean' feat of audio engineering!"
So it isn't just a remix, it was a house cleaning project. And I resent those unilateral choices.
Removing a second or two of the originally recorded music is called butchering, not a remix.
Kavorka said:
Imagine for a moment if, when last year Apple Corps. released the 50th anniversary Sgt. Pepper's reissue, they decided to 'modernize' its iconic LP cover. They hired visual artists and designers to add pertinent and prominent cardboard cutouts of some contemporary celebrities behind the four Beatles, and maybe even removed some 'obsolete' elements from the image on the record sleeve.I'd bet you that the public outcry would be stupendous. Everybody and their uncle would vehemently protest the audacity of Apple Corps. taking such liberties with the iconic and seminal work of art, one of the most prominent masterpieces of the 20th century music.
And yet... and yet! When Giles Martin took the liberty to mess with the recorded masterpiece, to re-imagine it and reassemble it to his liking (under the excuse of 'modernizing' it), no one protested, no one said a word.
Why is it that we tolerate such revisionist blasphemy, while still being super touchy about the visual side of the package? To my mind, it is much bigger blasphemy to modify the Beatles original product (the originally mixed and mastered released songs), than it is to modify the visual packaging.
Imagine if someone went and started rearranging the notes Bach or Mozart of Beethoven had originally written. If a budding young composer goes in and decides to 'modernize' Beethoven's Ninth Symphony by removing some 'dated' parts and adding some more modern sounding parts, people would form a lynch mob and go after that person's head. And yet, when it comes to the Beatles and their masterpieces, the crowd seems okay with this atrocious process of 'modernization'.
People will say "but, but, but, you know full well that Sir Paul McCartney himself praised the new reimagined Sgt. Pepper's, so who are you to complain?" Well, my question is, why would McCartney say 'no!' to millions of dollars pouring into his coffers? Of course he and Ringo and Yoko and Olivia are going to be behind these re-imagining projects, because they all stand to profit from such gimmicks handsomely.
But because the Beatles are not merely a commercial product, but are also one of the most important parts of our cultural heritage, we cannot let it all boil down to sales and marketing tactics.
Off my soap box now, just wanted to voice my concerns regarding the possibly upcoming 50th anniversary release of the brand new and 'modernized' White Album'. I hope the travesty won't continue. Just give as the all analog stereo master of the White Album, the way you gave us the mono master in 2014. The 2012 remastered-from-stereo-digital-remaster pressing is atrocious!
Kavorka said:
Yes, but the problem is that there are a number of people who only heard Sgt. Pepper's in Giles butchered version. They probably think that's how the Beatles really intended their masterpiece to sound, which is not true.The Beatles were the first major artists who treated recording studio as an integral instrument. So they spent inordinate amount of time in the studio, polishing Sgt. Pepper's until it sounded the way they all agreed is perfect. And THAT is their product. Going back to individual tracks and remixing and doctoring the mix is a cynical money grab.
To my ears, the original Sgt. Pepper's sounds absolutely perfect, nothing is missing there. Giles' version is an anomaly. McCartney's argument that the original version is lame because the instruments are panned widely is odd, to say the least. But McCartney had always been a revisionist (he seems eager to rewrite the Beatles history in order to maximize his grandiose ego). I'm pretty sure he's the sole reason why we still didn't get "Let It Be" movie available on the market -- he probably thinks that movie shows him in less than stellar light. Which may be true, so no luck seeing that movie released while Paul is still alive.
Kavorka said:
True. But Giles is NOT an artist! He is just drunk with power.Kavorka said:
I think the fallacy here is that today we have much more superior audio technology than what they had 50 years ago. That's just not true. If the Beatles and the crew wanted Sgt. Pepper's to sound exactly the way Giles made it sound last year, they had all the means to do so.But you see, they didn't want Pepper to sound that way. They wanted it to sound the way it sounds on the original LP. And they did it for a reason -- they were spending months in the studio working on it, it's a definitive version.
Doctor Fine said:
Words can not express my loathing for the abortion of horrible remixes that move singers around in the soundfield.Screw up the bass and make it boomy.
Compress the drama completely out of the mix.
Have these people no shame?
I avoid anything that isn't the original mix because I was there and it all sounded magnificent and still does and you don't paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa and call it "art."
A youngster at work claimed DJs that scratch were "artists."
He said they were "turntabalists" and equal to the Beatles and Motzart.
What a crock.
Kavorka said:
It's perfectly okay to remix old classics to one's heart content. But what is not legit is when those fresh faced remixes are being sold as official editions. Apple Corps is now selling the Giles's version of Sgt. Pepper's as the official version, the version that showcases how Sgt. Pepper's truly sounds in stereo. McCartney is also pimping that story, saying how lame the original Pepper sounds when he couldn't impress his friends because his bass was all the way on the other speaker across the room. What a lame ass story that is...That type of revisionism is indeed the malaise that McCartney suffers from. Remember "Let It Be Naked"? Paul loves to go back and whitewash the history. He wants to portray himself as being the main artistic and innovative force in the Beatles. He'd like to reengineer the Lennon-McCartney copyright into McCartney-Lennon.
While I'm on the subject, I now think Paul was the main reason why the Beatles broke up. I think Lennon started disliking McCartney during the latter part of the sixties, and the two started drifting apart. George was also not too enamoured with Paul's overbearing approach to running the Beatles.
Kavorka said:
So you went out of your way to explain how you are not interested in this thread. You seem to have a lot of the time on your hands.Kavorka said:
I'll tell you a bit more why I'm a bit pissed at Giles's work. I was fully enthused about the 50th anniversary Pepper, and wanted to give it all accolades. And then, when I sat down to listen to what he's done, I suddenly heard how he EDITED OUT the 'fingers on the strings' effect that George Harrison did on purpose at the end of the descending lick on "Fixing A Hole"! (you know the part when Paul finishes singing "where it will gooooo!") Those scratchy sounds is what always gives me goosebumps when listening to "Fixing A Hole". And now they're gone, bleached out, whitewashed!That did it for me. I said "potato this, you can't overrule George's choices, just because you want this 'oh so squeaky clean' feat of audio engineering!"
So it isn't just a remix, it was a house cleaning project. And I resent those unilateral choices.
Kavorka said:
It wasn't only a remix, they edited out some sounds that are plainly audible on the original mix.G00dVibrations said:
That's part of the definition of a remix, no? Adding, removing or changing things to make a new version.Kavorka said:
No. Remix is keeping everything exactly as is, but modifying the EQ, or adding reverb, or changing the panning.Removing a second or two of the originally recorded music is called butchering, not a remix.
