Tell Me :
Talk
I will only buy one set. Don't need two.
Totally agree with that. Some of those Beatles CDs are really short. Only 28 minutes or something like that. No reason not to have mono and stereo mixes on the same CD, except, of course, they wouldn't make as much money that way.
George Martin vs. Andrew Loog Oldham? Not much of a contest. Martin's productions were state of the art for their time. EVERY Beatles record sounds superior to other records that were produced in the same year. Andrew's idea of record production, basically, was to turn up the volume on the "good parts".
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
Sir Craven of Cottage
()
Date: April 10, 2009 17:50
I think the Beatles are gonna win! 
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
ghostryder13
()
Date: April 10, 2009 18:05
beatles remasters are going to very expensive if you want it all. they should of put both stereo and mono mixes on the same cd but i'm still glad they'll be releasing both. looks like ol Dr. Ebbetts and Mirror Spock will be out of work
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
Sir Craven of Cottage
()
Date: April 10, 2009 19:17
Quote
ghostryder13
beatles remasters are going to very expensive if you want it all. they should of put both stereo and mono mixes on the same cd but i'm still glad they'll be releasing both. looks like ol Dr. Ebbetts and Mirror Spock will be out of work
I will only buy one set. Don't need two.
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
georgelicks
()
Date: April 10, 2009 19:52
The best bet is:
100 Beatles remasters sold
1 Stones remaster sold
100 Beatles remasters sold
1 Stones remaster sold
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: April 11, 2009 04:55
Quote
ghostryder13
they should of put both stereo and mono mixes on the same cd
Totally agree with that. Some of those Beatles CDs are really short. Only 28 minutes or something like that. No reason not to have mono and stereo mixes on the same CD, except, of course, they wouldn't make as much money that way.
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
buffalo7478
()
Date: April 11, 2009 18:39
Is it just me or do all of he Beatles' early recordings sounds 20000 Light Years better than the Stones. Not song writing or performance..just the engineering and production.
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
skipstone
()
Date: April 11, 2009 18:43
It might be you but some of those early Stones albums do sound awful.
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
Sir Craven of Cottage
()
Date: April 11, 2009 19:52
I love the production of both the early Beatles and Stones recordings. Thpolish of the Beatles and the roughness of the Stones. It's possible to love both!
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
scottkeef
()
Date: April 11, 2009 20:14
Is it just me or do the (early) Stones recordings done in the US sound light years ahead of the UK ones? Later I dont think it stood out but it seems the US
studios had a better feel for what they were trying to do.
studios had a better feel for what they were trying to do.
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: April 12, 2009 00:43
yeah, the Stones felt the same way, and so they tried to record in the US whenever possible in '64-66.
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: April 12, 2009 16:05
Quote
buffalo7478
Is it just me or do all of he Beatles' early recordings sounds 20000 Light Years better than the Stones. Not song writing or performance..just the engineering and production.
George Martin vs. Andrew Loog Oldham? Not much of a contest. Martin's productions were state of the art for their time. EVERY Beatles record sounds superior to other records that were produced in the same year. Andrew's idea of record production, basically, was to turn up the volume on the "good parts".
Re: Beatles Remasters v Rolling Stones Remasters
Posted by:
ghostryder13
()
Date: April 13, 2009 00:57
the world is in need of more producers like george martin.even at his age you could give the man a four or 8 track studio and he could make a better album than anything else released in the market today
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adrianmfa2 , armin944 , austrianstones , Bashlets , highgatehillbilly , hj3009 , imthemastah , josepi , keefmick , Kurt , MartinB , mickv , millerman60 , MisterDDDD , O2 , OnlyKeef , powerage78 , rastakeith , SecondSet , stonesmuziekfan , THE DON , The Sicilian , z
Guests:
1615
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10