The Beatles and the Stones have been friendly rivals for nearly 50 years, and the latest competition is for the wallets of people who want to hear their music in remastered sound quality. The Beatles' remasters got a lot more attention than the Stones', partly because this was the first time the Beatles have been remastered, whereas for the Stones this was the second go 'round.

Anyhow, I think both sound fabulous ... but equally fabulous. With all the hoopla surrounding the Beatles remasters, I don't think they sound a whit better than the Stones Universal remasters. (Granted, the Beatles discs are a bigger improvement over what they are replacing, since the Virgin remasters were superior to the original Apple issues in terms of sound quality).

What are your thoughts?

Drew

I think the beatless hype machine is in overdrive. I was watching a show on Discovery last night & they ran an ad for these new CD's. Plus the MSM always praises the beatless, even that horrid Sgt. Pepper. Yes, the Stones stuff has been remastered but I'm appalled at how little publicity they got this time around. That said, I am tempted to buy the beatless "Past Masters" CD since it has that song they did with Brian Jones - You Know My Name.

Quote
glencar
I think the beatless hype machine is in overdrive. I was watching a show on Discovery last night & they ran an ad for these new CD's. Plus the MSM always praises the beatless, even that horrid Sgt. Pepper. Yes, the Stones stuff has been remastered but I'm appalled at how little publicity they got this time around. That said, I am tempted to buy the beatless "Past Masters" CD since it has that song they did with Brian Jones - You Know My Name.

Hang on, I thought you said (in another thread) that you actually "liked the Beatles", and even bought the Let It Be Naked as well as the Anthology Series!

Yet here we go again, slagging them off with daft names such as "beatless", and bemoaning the fact that they're being (OMIGOD) advertised!

Make your mind up, for chrissakes!

if the stones never got back together in 1989 and their remasters of their cds issued for the 1st time ever, there would be a lot more interest, though probably not as big as the beatles. vegas era has really trashed their legacy.

Well, it's difficult to compare the Beatles remasters from the sixties (first time remastered) to the Stones output post 1971 (second time remastered). A lot of the Stones discs that have been polished are not that good any way (Dirty Work for example) or haven't been around long enough to justify a remaster anyway (anything post 1994).

Moreover, the Beatles remasters are the complete recorded works, whereas the Stones remasters are only a portion of the catalog and, with the exception of Sticky Fingers and Exile, the weaker portion of the catalog.

As a big Stones fan, I would say the 2002 SACD/DSD re-masters represent the biggest improvement over what was previously available. The new Beatles re-masters are fantastic, but the ’87 editions were not all that bad, whilst the ’86 Abcko CD’s were pretty shocking, in places.

Quote
glencar

Quote
LOGIE

Quote
glencar
I think the beatless hype machine is in overdrive. I was watching a show on Discovery last night & they ran an ad for these new CD's. Plus the MSM always praises the beatless, even that horrid Sgt. Pepper. Yes, the Stones stuff has been remastered but I'm appalled at how little publicity they got this time around. That said, I am tempted to buy the beatless "Past Masters" CD since it has that song they did with Brian Jones - You Know My Name.

Hang on, I thought you said (in another thread) that you actually "liked the Beatles", and even bought the Let It Be Naked as well as the Anthology Series!

Yet here we go again, slagging them off with daft names such as "beatless", and bemoaning the fact that they're being (OMIGOD) advertised!

Make your mind up, for chrissakes!

Creep, I don't see any discrepancy in my posts. I like the beatless but they're not as good as the Stones. It strikes me that I might know you from another, more annoying board & you're just toying with me. Or maybe you are just some dried up old crone? Whatever, it's FUN!

Unlike yourself, who, I understand, couldn't stand the heat on other forums, I've been a member of this board for many years, sharing the experience with thousands of others; many of whom have become very good friends.

I've also been a Stones fanatic since 1964, and seen them on every tour since 1973. This is why I'm very quick to spot the antics of thick, attention-seeking, braindead tosspots such as yourself who use this excellent forum as an extension of your school playground.

Music is a force that brings people together, irrespective of race, gender, class, geography, or indeed, in terms of which artists they happen to prefer.

I thus become highly suspicious of those who seek to exploit this most joyous of all the senses (the ability to hear music) as a means of doing otherwise.

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier thread, glencar, thay you are a complete and utter gobshite.

The care taken to remaster The Beatles was a four year ordeal. The 71-89 remastering of The Rolling Stones didn't take as long.

Any info on the ABKCO Remasters time line? It seems it took a couple years.

The original Beatles CDs sound like crap. The original Stones CDs sound like crap, which is the entire CBS issues. That means both were bad. There is no competition between the two.

I recently got the Beggars Banquet remaster. It sounds incredible. Bob Ludwig did a fantastic job. I'm still not convinced about the newest remasters. And implying The Beatles remasters are not very well, that's just silly immature jealousy.

Well as a die hard stones fan this is difficult for me! I just got the Beatles mono box and they sound really fantastic but as many have said; you can´t compare them to for exmample the Stones recent re-masters. I have also listened to spme of the Stereo re-masters like Abbey Road and shit this sounds great (I really hated that album when it was released). One last thing; the mono re masters are really a work of art with fantastic packaging. We always get let down by the Stones and their shoddy packaging. They could really learn someting here I think!

They won't learn anything. Because the differences between The Beatles camp and The Rolling Stones camps is this - The Beatles camp is concerned about the integrity of The Beatles, which means the quality of the reissues is going to be as high as it can be.

The Stones? They don't even know what songs are on what albums. If they cared about actually doing a good remastering and reissuing, which is what seems the Virgin reissues was for the most part (Dirty Work and Steel Wheels were the only reissues that were actually less than the original issues to my knowledge). UME has taken such care that Angie is credited to be an ABKCO song. UME has taken such care that they hired someone to brickwall the remasters to sound current.

The Stones albums were never as well produced as the Beatles stuff in the first place. There was so much care put into everything The Beatles did. The same can't be said for "Have you seen your mother baby"

How many Stones' albums made the UK charts back in 2002 (ABKCO) and now (Universal)?
NONE, ZERO, NADA

And here are the Beatles albums in the brand new UK chart:

5. (RE) SGT PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND
6. (RE) ABBEY ROAD
9. (RE) REVOLVER
10. (RE) RUBBER SOUL
21. (RE) THE BEATLES
24. (NEW) THE BEATLES IN STEREO
29. (RE) HELP
31. (NEW) PAST MASTERS
33. (RE) MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR
37. (RE) A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
38. (RE) PLEASE PLEASE ME
49. (RE) LET IT BE
51. (RE) WITH THE BEATLES
54. (RE) 1
56. (RE) BEATLES FOR SALE
57. (NEW) THE BEATLES IN MONO
89. (RE) YELLOW SUBMARINE

4 Top 10 albums, 11 in the Top 40, 17 in the Top 100

Beat that.

There has been much talk of course regarding the Beatles remasters since it is the first upgrade to their catalog since they were released on CD 22 years ago. So, what of the recent Stones Universal remasters? This represents the second go around for them. So, amongst the Universal remasters, which stands out?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-13 21:33 by ChrisM.

Pretty incredible chart positions, considering they only went on sale Wednesday, instead of the normal release day of Monday.

Nos 24 & 57 are boxed sets. An amazing chart position for a release thats respectively about 15 and 20 times more expensive than a regular album.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-13 20:45 by Gazza.

Once Streets Of Love catches on, this won't even be an issue.

Quote
cirrhosis
Once Streets Of Love catches on, this won't even be an issue.

Poke fun at SOL all you want but it's better than most of the songs on Let It Be. The music of The Beatles just sounds old and tired to me. Just my opinion and this is from someone who liked The Beatles immensely when I was younger.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
Slick
if the stones never got back together in 1989 and their remasters of their cds issued for the 1st time ever, there would be a lot more interest, though probably not as big as the beatles. vegas era has really trashed their legacy.

Their legacy is intact whether or not you believe it. Funny how they are "vegas" and not the ex Beatle who sits at a piano doing medleys. Utter cluelessness.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
skipstone
They won't learn anything. Because the differences between The Beatles camp and The Rolling Stones camps is this - The Beatles camp is concerned about the integrity of The Beatles, which means the quality of the reissues is going to be as high as it can be.

The Stones? They don't even know what songs are on what albums. If they cared about actually doing a good remastering and reissuing, which is what seems the Virgin reissues was for the most part (Dirty Work and Steel Wheels were the only reissues that were actually less than the original issues to my knowledge). UME has taken such care that Angie is credited to be an ABKCO song. UME has taken such care that they hired someone to brickwall the remasters to sound current.

I agree skipstone!
I just received The Beatles Mono box set. And when I think of what The Stones have been releasing and re-releasing I feel Apple has done an incredible job. First, they take the time and utilize an incredible team to put out two COMPLETE sets of re-mastered sets of their catalog. Mono and stereo. Secondly, while not adding bonus cuts Apple has gone to the source and released the discs with significantly better sound quality, both in Stereo and Mono. Additionally, not only has the sound be dramatically improved by the Apple team they have upgraded the packaging for all their albums with documentaries, great quality digi packs, and additional liner notes, and a disc of non album tracks so you have every thing they released. There is no comparison between the two camps. Sadly, The Beatles win hands down. You may not like them, but their dedication to providing quality product to their fans is far superior to the Stones camp. Just the fact that Goats Head Soup has the edited version Starfvucker is a travesty. The Exile package will hopefully go a long way towards providing more quality, in a desirable package. Let's hope.

FrankM is officially insane. c

Claiming that SOL is better than most of Let It Be. How can great music sound "old and tired" to you? Just like most of the Stones early albums do? To say the Beatles sound old and tired is essentially the same as saying the Stones albums from that era sound old and tired. You get down to the nitty gritty, their first real good album was Beggars Banquet. So you can't count 68 and 69.

There comes a time when the truth is hard to deal with for some people. SOL is not better than ANY Beatles song. It's utterly horrible and is in a class of its own - the Let's Work class.

So your opinion is the only one that counts skippy boy? To say their first really good album was Beggar's Banquet is about the dopiest thing I have heard but it doesn't surprise me coming from you skippy.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Ahhh FRANK! Glad you took the bait! I love it when you get riled up!

I do like the Vegas/piano medley comparison. Look at McCartney - selling out shows etc because people know he's gonna play what?

Ah but he's just a solo artist, he's not The Beatles.

Quote
FrankM

Quote
cirrhosis
Once Streets Of Love catches on, this won't even be an issue.

Poke fun at SOL all you want but it's better than most of the songs on Let It Be. The music of The Beatles just sounds old and tired to me. Just my opinion and this is from someone who liked The Beatles immensely when I was younger.

****falls off chair laughing****

Now I quite like Streets of LOve and it's not bad compared to most stuff on abb, it also worked alright live in my opinion. But suggesting it's better than most stuff on Let it Be is a bit of a leap....

Let it be was a crap album I'm sorry but it was. Comparing it to other Beatles albums is like comparing Steel Wheels to Sticky or Exile. What on Let It Be is worthwhile except the title song and The long And Winding Road?

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
FrankM

Quote
cirrhosis
Once Streets Of Love catches on, this won't even be an issue.

Poke fun at SOL all you want but it's better than most of the songs on Let It Be. The music of The Beatles just sounds old and tired to me. Just my opinion and this is from someone who liked The Beatles immensely when I was younger.

Again when dealing with opinions it is hard to make definitive statements. But I for one would much prefer, I Dig A Poney, Across the Universe, Get Back, I've Got a Feeling, I Me Mine, For You Blue, and The Two of Us over Streets of Love and most everything from A Bigger Bang. Actually, you should have compared Streets of Love with George Martin's orchestra side of Yellow Submarine, that would have been more of a contest.

You are right Whitem8 it is all a matter of opinion but to me Let It Be is totally uninteresting compared to Abbey Road and the other Beatles Albums. Long And Winding Road is one of my favorite Beatles songs but the other songs just don't do it for me.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Yeah, that's a better comparison.

Compare Let It Be to Let It Be...Naked and there's no contest - Naked is the way the album should have been. And it IS a good album. It's nothing close to being the Steel Wheels to Sticky Fingers league.

The album got mixed reviews and some quite bad when it was released (as did SW). Not saying that's why I think it was a supbar Beatles album just pointing out I'm not alone in my assessment. Why can't Beatle fans be honest? The Beatles made enough great albums. They are incapable of having one subpar album? Did they walk on water or something?

Its not that Frank. Listen I am a huge Stones and Beatles fan. But Let it Be, while being subpar compared to their other albums, is still a fantastically and curious release. Some incredible stuff on it as well. For me the worst parts are the orchestration of THe Long And WInding Road. The Choral group sining on TLAWR as well. And the slashing of Dig It!
But I still stand by my claim that there is some classic stuff on it. Get Back, I Dig A Pony, I Me Mine, For You BLue, Let it Be!!, The Two Of Us, and the raw rock of I've Got a Feeling. And oh yeah, One After Nine O Nine! Whew! A great disc!

My 3 favourite Beatles albums is their last 3 ones; in fact it was Let It Be and the rooftop-gig that got me into them in the first place - I dig the whole album; opinions differ, indeed.