'The Beatles' (White Album) [50th Anniversary Box Set with 5.1 Blu-ray Disc!]

[Clint Eastwood]

[QUOTE="markshan, post: 372743, member: 3984"]That explains why the Pepper surround is so bland, doesn't it? What gig would you ever go to where they had carousels and herds of animals running across the stage? He talks about that mix being an homage to the mono. The mono mix, and really nothing at all about Pepper, was even intended to replicate a band at a gig (with the possible exceptions of the title tracks).[/QUOTE]

What you call "bland" is what others call "true to the original material"...whatever your feelings about the surround mix(either for or against)shouldn't be placed at the feet of Giles Martin...it should be apparent to people who are familiar with the Beatles catalog is that Martin wasn't given the freedom to mix it the way he wanted...he is an employee that has to deal with the hierarchy of Apple....that is the way it has been in the past...and I see no change of direction at this point in time...

If the White Album does contain a surround mix it won't be aggressive...it won't be LOVE....it will be along the lines of Pepper...

 

[markshan]

it should be apparent to people who are familiar with the Beatles catalog is that Martin wasn't given the freedom to mix it the way he wanted

He is the one who said "true to the mono". Why should it be apparent that his hands were tied? I don't see it.

I also don't see how he could be given the freedom to do something as potentially sacrilegious as snipping up and spreading out the arpeggio on Lucy for the stereo mix but be told to use restraint on the surround. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

He is the one who said "true to the mono". Why should it be apparent that his hands were tied? I don't see it.

Like you...I consult with my Beatle "peeps"...the one's that know the Beatles and their operating methods...that's the word I received and it makes sense to me...an example would be the Love disc...although the surround community "loved" the mix...it didn't get rave reviews from the Apple brass...many felt(and I can see their point)that it was too much of a departure from the original songs...the Beatle Empire is unique...where the group survivors and their spouses DO have input...I feel confident that nobody would be given total freedom to mix the songs without oversight...or you could just insert the word "micromanage" instead of "oversight"....

 

[LennonCobain]

If the White Album does contain a surround mix it won't be aggressive...it won't be LOVE....it will be along the lines of Pepper...

Maybe (and hopefully) not. I remember reading a quote from Giles Martin where he said that if given a chance to remix The White Album in surround that he would not be conservative in his approach.

Anyone else remember this quote from the last year or 2?

 

[LennonCobain]

Found the quote from around the time of 1+
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34766693

 

[edisonbaggins]

We can also look at Giles' work on the recent INXS album. It's not exactly getting rave reviews from those listening in 5.1. And those aren't Beatles hits he dealt with there.

 

[LennonCobain]

The Kick surround mix isn’t as good as what I would expect from Elliott Scheiner, but it certainly is above average in fairness to Giles.

 

[markshan]

Like you...I consult with my Beatle "peeps"

I don't really have any "peeps", at least not where this stuff is concerned. I am simply making my own observations and I hold them out as nothing more than that.

Besides, this is the internet. Few of us really know who few others are. You could be Giles Martin. I could be Giles Martin. I've had some great fun on the WWW figuring out that some schmuck was actually some real person. I take it all with a grain of salt, especially when someone gives a quote without a verifiable source, or even worse "off the record".

 

[markshan]

The Kick surround mix isn’t as good as what I would expect from Elliott Scheiner, but it certainly is above average in fairness to Giles.

I only heard it once, on a non-Atmos system, but I recall liking what I heard.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Ok, well you all are welcome to your perception of things, but if you check the Kick poll thread, it's rocking less than an 8 rating and you'll quickly notice words like "restrained," "underwhelmed" and "disappointed."
Given my several listens in 5.1 and Atmos, I don't disagree.

 

[ar surround]

If the White Album does contain a surround mix it won't be aggressive...it won't be LOVE....it will be along the lines of Pepper...

I listened to the whole White Album the other day in faux 7.1. The stereo mix is very variable and much of it is in need of significant TLC. Whether the new 5.1 is aggressive or subtle, it will be an improvement over what we currently have. I hardly listen to the White Album because, despite the material, the current sonics just aren't worth my time. Some may complain about the Pepper 5.1, but I've listened to it more in the last several months than in the last 40 years combined. (Oh, and can we please get Harrison's All Things Must Pass?)

 

[skherbeck]

Go back and listen to the boots. You can hear how lousy the VI was tracking.

Wow... very interesting. Still, I like LIB naked (actually, I like lots of things naked )

 

[markshan]

I hardly listen to the White Album because, despite the material, the current sonics just aren't worth my time.

I guess this is where I'm different than a lot of folks here. Of course I prefer better sonics, but the music is so much more important to me than the fidelity. In the case of The Beatles (both the album and the band) the material is so essential as to be listened to in spite of areas where the sonics do leave something to be desired.

 

[markshan]

Wow... very interesting. Still, I like LIB naked (actually, I like lots of things naked )

I actually don't mind the music, but all of the disingenuous hype around it, especially from Paul (and I'm a Paul guy, BTW) made it very difficult for me to enjoy the release. My BS meter overwhelmed my love of the music.

 

[milt]

I'm totally with Clint on this one and have said the same thing repeatedly.
I don't have inside info but have followed the Beatles catalog re-releases and the people behind them and what they say.

On one hand you had the people screaming when the 2009 remasters came out when Alan Rouse was very open and forthcoming about the process they went through.
The DR Demons came out in force & others were furious that the tapes even touched in any way.

With Beatles 1 & especially Pepper folks were incensed about most everything.
"It sounds different" "It's loud" "Lame surround" "No Carnival of Light" and on and on.
Personally I thought Pepper was a massive technical achievement unwinding all of the dubbed tapes and creating a cohesive whole.

Although people cite endlessly cite Love as the epitome of Beatles 5.1, it was the one that most frustrated me as the mashups were like cruel tidbit teasers.
It was made for a live show and done to maximize the visual with the audio and not just a Beatles surround sampler.

The White Album has the potential to really sound phenomenal.
Much better studio gear and not nearly as dense as Pepper.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Personally, I'm a fan of the Sgt. Pepper 5.1 mix. It's one of my most-played discs. I love the music and the mix provides tons of clarity.
It just isn't a very interesting surround mix. If The White Album is done more or less the same, I'd be happy with that, because I just want to enjoy the music with as much clarity as possible.
I don't need it reinvented.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I'm totally with Clint on this one and have said the same thing repeatedly.
I don't have inside info but have followed the Beatles catalog re-releases and the people behind them and what they say.

On one hand you had the people screaming when the 2009 remasters came out when Alan Rouse was very open and forthcoming about the process they went through.
The DR Demons came out in force & others were furious that the tapes even touched in any way.

With Beatles 1 & especially Pepper folks were incensed about most everything.
"It sounds different" "It's loud" "Lame surround" "No Carnival of Light" and on and on.
Personally I thought Pepper was a massive technical achievement unwinding all of the dubbed tapes and creating a cohesive whole.

Although people cite endlessly cite Love as the epitome of Beatles 5.1, it was the one that most frustrated me as the mashups were like cruel tidbit teasers.
It was made for a live show and done to maximize the visual with the audio and not just a Beatles surround sampler.

The White Album has the potential to really sound phenomenal.
Much better studio gear and not nearly as dense as Pepper.

I used to be in the camp that wanted "aggressive" surround mixes....but gradually I began to understand the dilemma that bands and record companies faced...if you "stray" too far from the original sound....are you paying homage to the material or trying to reinvent it...and when the Beatles catalog is concerned...it's a treasure of sorts...and it's only natural that people want to protect it's authenticity...

I would be extremely pleased if the White Album was "cleaned up"...better fidelity and some separation would please me...I'm extremely happy with Peppers...for the reasons you cited and it's true to it's origins...whereas Love was entertaining but it wasn't an album...just a mish mash of exotic sounds...I do like it...but it reminds me of the Stones Sympathy for The Devil remix disc

 

[skherbeck]

I don't really have any "peeps", at least not where this stuff is concerned. I am simply making my own observations and I hold them out as nothing more than that.

Besides, this is the internet. Few of us really know who few others are. You could be Giles Martin. I could be Giles Martin. I've had some great fun on the WWW figuring out that some schmuck was actually some real person. I take it all with a grain of salt, especially when someone gives a quote without a verifiable source, or even worse "off the record".

FYI, I'm Giles Martin.

 

[humprof]

FYI, I'm Giles Martin.

And the Walrus was Paul.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

And the Walrus was Paul.

No...the Walrus is Snood