Apple Announces Digital Remastering of Entire Beatle Catalog
This press release from Apple was in my mailbox on Friday:
Quote:
|
this can either be really good or really bad......
|
Will make Apple millions and be forgotten.
|
Hmm, I always thought Michael Jackson was a PC.
|
heard about this, excellent news.
I don't care how much richer I make some already-astronomically-rich people, all my Beatles albums are the same masters that were released in the 80's, they've always sounded crap and and i'm going to SPENDSPENDSPENDSPEND So what's the deal with this mono/stereo thing? Because I love 60's classics in mono. If there aren't going to be two-disc versions (one mono, one stereo) available, thus forcing the consumer to choose or buy both, I will be none too pleased. |
mono/stereo is a completely different ballpark than analog/digital, and it has to do with how many channels the music is recorded onto. i believe every Beatles record was recorded in stereo (but i'm sure there are lingering monaural versions out there).
|
from NY Times:
''Apple Corps and EMI said that two new Beatles boxed CD collections of the material would also be released, one comprising all 14 CDs plus a DVD documentary collection, the other consisting of 10 albums’ original mono mixes plus two additional CDs of mono masters.'' Individually they are only being released in stereo, apparently. I was only interested in the prospect of mono for their records because most people only had one speaker back then anyway, and Pet Sounds for example was recorded in mono and originally intended by Wilson that it would sound the same anywhere you sat in the room... From what i've read the B's accounted for stereo in the mixdown but I would still love to hear it in mono, I like a good condensed sixties album. I don't want to be surrounded by the Beatles ffs, I want them to sound good from the kitchen while i'm having tea and toast |
So, I assume the whole Carnival of Light thing still isn't settled yet? Bleh.
|
Anybody here read Bob Lefsetz?
From his blog (lefsetz.com): Quote:
|
Quote:
Bob Lefsetz has his head his ass when he tells us about what a great "revenue generating event" it would have been for Sony to gain licensing rights to the Beatle's catalog for SCAD. Bob, please... The Beatles and their heirs aren't the least bit interested in the pathetic attempts of Sony Inc. to stage "revenue generating events" on their behalf. The Beatles are capable of staging revenue generating events, without Sony or iTunes. The Beatles started Apple Corp. to protect the artistic integrity of their creative legacy from "revenue generating events." Bobby Boy also says "The Beatles should be the act selling subscriptions at the iTunes Store." It's as if Bob thinks selling iTunes subscriptions is in the same humanitarian category as the Concert for Bangeladesh or Farm Aid. Sheesh... Let remind Bob that the Beatles's musical legacy will eclipse any creative endeavors of Steve Jobs, iTunes and Apple Computer. The Beatles waged legal warfare on Apple Computer for 25 years to stop Steve Jobs from using both the Apple Corp. name and logo on their computer products. The primary talent of Steve Jobs has been convincing a lot of stupid people that he's a genius. The Beatle's genius speaks for itself. So tell me Bob... Why should Apple Corp even be the least bit interested with doing business with the egomanical jerk who stole their creative name brand to sell a bunch of overpriced computers? Musicians are under no moral or ethical obligation to bow to the demands of the marketplace. What frustrates free market musical entrepreneurs, like Bob, is the Beatles refuse to place a price tag on the value of their artistic product. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:31 AM. |
© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.