I've just been revisiting these after a couple of years, and i've gotta say i'm a little dissapointed i think. I feel a little bit numb while listening to them. Tried comparing them to the old CD versions from 1987, and there's no doubt the new remasters from 2009 sound a little louder and cleaner, but i found i got more joy and feel from the 1987 versions, think i actually prefer the roughness of them, they sound more "alive" somehow. Anyway, interested to hear what other people's thoughts are on this?

Toofunkyinhere said:

I've just been revisiting these after a couple of years, and i've gotta say i'm a little dissapointed i think. I feel a little bit numb while listening to them. Tried comparing them to the old CD versions from 1987, and there's no doubt the new remasters from 2009 sound a little louder and cleaner, but i found i got more joy and feel from the 1987 versions, think i actually prefer the roughness of them, they sound more "alive" somehow. Anyway, interested to hear what other people's thoughts are on this?

Well i bought a few of the 2009 ones, , mainly for the packaging, sound wise i appreciate the improvement BUT for me with re-masters i want something more to the album, since its really the person who owns the album already that you are selling it all over again. So im kinda in the middle on this one.

i have some of the beatles 2009 stereo remasters and they sound great to me but if you want the real beatles sound from the 60s...the mono remasters are the dogs bollocks...

The remasters have absolutely no improvements on them from the 1987 ones, the only difference is that its a little more compressed and that a little more dynamic range was lost. Its not as bad as the Van Halen remasters but there still is no benefit from those cds.

Personally, I enjoy the stereo remasters...... I have the whole box set.

I spent 20 years with the 1987 releases and even have some of those records on vinyl from before the CD's were released.

Once I popped the remasters into my system, kicked back and took a listen, I haven't felt compelled to revisit my older collection. But, that's me...

Mmmm, yeah it might be more to do with the fact that i'm still used to hearing the old 1987 cd versions, that the new remasters sound a little "strange", perhaps the sound of the 2009 remasters actually is technically better, it really is hard to say. Think maybe a person who has heard neither, in other words a fresh pair of ears, would have a more clear opinion...

I actually really like the new packaging aswell, looks a lot nicer and more authentic, and the cd's don't seem to be getting scratched in any great hurry, despite having to slide them out.

Do mutherfuckers today realize how much is owed to the Beatles?

If you are making an album today and are trying to assert a co-

hesive artistic statement, you owe the Beatles.

Imagine now that you are making a cohesive artistic musical

statement that is culturally relevant, with innovative studio

wizardry, and a songcraft that influences all popular music

that comes afterwards. You'll end up with The Beatles. They

are so influential that their influence is quotidian. My wife doesn't

understand why I wax orgasmically about them: she says

"What's the big deal?" I answer her:

"Ho, the big deal is that the music you listen to today is so

influenced by the Beatles that when you hear the Beatles you

don't think you're hearing anything special. But you don't

realize that before the Beatles, pop music didn't sound that

way." It's like, no one appreciates a sunny day today because

everyday today is a sunny day. Well, before the Beatles, there was

no sunny day. Here comes the sun. If they don't make Sgt.

Peppers, there is no such thing as a recording artist. They were

recording artists...

Know the Beatles, Know pop music. No Beatles, No pop music.

Okay...my boner has receded.

duccichucka said:

Do mutherfuckers today realize how much is owed to the Beatles?

If you are making an album today and are trying to assert a co-

hesive artistic statement, you owe the Beatles.

I've alway thought this was nonsense...........and I still do.

I bought the ones that truly interested me for two reasons

-booklet (pics of the era, info, etc.)

-certain 1987 cds that needed remastering to my ears...

that means I basically bought the debut, A Hard Day's Night, Revolver, Pepper's and Let It Be

the interactive-cd extras were lame/cheap/short though...

[Edited 9/17/12 9:30am]

duccichucka said:

Do mutherfuckers today realize how much is owed to the Beatles?

If you are making an album today and are trying to assert a co-

hesive artistic statement, you owe the Beatles.

Imagine now that you are making a cohesive artistic musical

statement that is culturally relevant, with innovative studio

wizardry, and a songcraft that influences all popular music

that comes afterwards. You'll end up with The Beatles. They

are so influential that their influence is quotidian. My wife doesn't

understand why I wax orgasmically about them: she says

"What's the big deal?" I answer her:

"Ho, the big deal is that the music you listen to today is so

influenced by the Beatles that when you hear the Beatles you

don't think you're hearing anything special. But you don't

realize that before the Beatles, pop music didn't sound that

way." It's like, no one appreciates a sunny day today because

everyday today is a sunny day. Well, before the Beatles, there was

no sunny day. Here comes the sun. If they don't make Sgt.

Peppers, there is no such thing as a recording artist. They were

recording artists...

Know the Beatles, Know pop music. No Beatles, No pop music.

Okay...my boner has receded.

Ha ha! I can dig it!

duccichucka said:

Do mutherfuckers today realize how much is owed to the Beatles?

If you are making an album today and are trying to assert a co-

hesive artistic statement, you owe the Beatles.

Imagine now that you are making a cohesive artistic musical

statement that is culturally relevant, with innovative studio

wizardry, and a songcraft that influences all popular music

that comes afterwards. You'll end up with The Beatles. They

are so influential that their influence is quotidian. My wife doesn't

understand why I wax orgasmically about them: she says

"What's the big deal?" I answer her:

"Ho, the big deal is that the music you listen to today is so

influenced by the Beatles that when you hear the Beatles you

don't think you're hearing anything special. But you don't

realize that before the Beatles, pop music didn't sound that

way." It's like, no one appreciates a sunny day today because

everyday today is a sunny day. Well, before the Beatles, there was

no sunny day. Here comes the sun. If they don't make Sgt.

Peppers, there is no such thing as a recording artist. They were

recording artists...

Know the Beatles, Know pop music. No Beatles, No pop music.

Okay...my boner has receded.

Its a chain reaction, though. The Beatles owe George Martin, who owe Brain Wilson & The Beach Boys, who owe the Beatles for "Rubber Soul", who owe Motown, Little Richard and Phill Spector.

Basicaly, I understand your enthusiaism but disagree with partly with your statement.

I would have to say that anybody who ever wrote an opera or a symphony had some intent of creating a "cohesive artistic statement" a long time before the Beatles did. They are among the first pop acts but it's not like an idea that no one ever had before.

But re the question, when I got the mono remasters from 09, they were a revelation. Those early records expecially absolutely kick ass on those pressings.

I'm not AS impressed with the stereo box but I do like it.

To the OP, I know what you mean by losing a certain quality of "alive-ness" when you hear a different master for the first time. If it's different from the one you grew up on, it'll sound wrong to you. If the 87 masters were a little too high in treble then a proper remaster will sound murky and dark by comparison.