It's only taken 22 years...

[konut]

Personally I think GM did the best job he could at the time (87) but the technology available was quite limited compared to what we have now. There can be NO EXCUSES for not getting these remasters right now. I think that the EMI "engineers" have the know-how and technology to get it right and they have GM's work as a benchmark to work from. Let's face it, by many people's reckoning these are the most important single artist body of work in the popular canon. The master tapes have been lovingly cared for (unusually for the era in question).
I remain confident...

Do you know, for a fact, that GM had any hand in the '87 releases? Not to be argumentative, but I'd be willing to wager, a small amount, that those very same "EMI engineers" took the 2nd or 3rd generation 2 track masters to generate the CDs for the '87 releases. Does anyone know if GM is involved in any way with the current project?

Apparently ralphpnj isn't "many people's".

[ralphpnj]

Do you know, for a fact, that GM had any hand in the '87 releases? Not to be argumentative, but I'd be willing to wager, a small amount, that those very same "EMI engineers" took the 2nd or 3rd generation 2 track masters to generate the CDs for the '87 releases. Does anyone know if GM is involved in any way with the current project?

Apparently ralphpnj isn't "many people's".

I'm pretty sure (but not 100% sure) that George Martin was involved in the production of 1987 CD releases and I'm also fairly sure that first generation masters were used.

What I'm not sure of is what you meant by the last sentence of your post. It's not that I don't consider the Beatles' catalog to be one of the most important single artist body of work in the popular canon but if they are so damn important then why not make this oh so valuable body of work available in high resolution? One word answer: GREED since now they can re-re-re-re-release the same 15 recordings yet again but this time in high resolution. And let's not forget, in separate mono and stereo relea$e$. Ever hear the expression "cash cow", well they got one and they are going to keep on milking it as long as the public keeps on buying. Well I've had enough and I'm not buying into their scheme.

[konut]

I could not agree with you more! I had read that Apple, the surviving widows, McCartney, and Starr had signed off on this years ago, and that only EMI had held this up for a bigger piece of the pie. While I can empathize for your yearning for a high-rez version, the market for this was probably deemed to small to devote any time to. It is puzzling, though, why they deemed a mono version was justified, rather than high-rez. I suppose the demand for mono content is going though the roof!! Those inscrutable English! Concerning the '87 version, I had thought I had read, albeit long ago(and I could be wrong), that the different international EMI divisions were responsible for the CD releases, and thus the derivative 2 channel masters. That is why I had sought out, and still prize, my Japanese EMI version of Abbey Road.

[Phil Leigh]

Do you know, for a fact, that GM had any hand in the '87 releases? Not to be argumentative, but I'd be willing to wager, a small amount, that those very same "EMI engineers" took the 2nd or 3rd generation 2 track masters to generate the CDs for the '87 releases. Does anyone know if GM is involved in any way with the current project?

Apparently ralphpnj isn't "many people's".

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/kozinn.htm

[konut]

Fascinating! Thanks for that. I guess that clears it up then. Still, not encouraging vis a vis the quality of the "Love" CD vs the upcoming remasters. Only time will tell if the EMI engineers get it right.

[Phil Leigh]

http://www.beatles.com/core/news/
There may be a faint glimmer of hope for downloads... ?

[TiredLegs]

Well, you can hope, but the last lines of the article say:
...On the bright side, Howlett ['Beatles expert who wrote the new liner notes'] remarked, "they sound louder than previous CD reissues."

As Nigel Tufnel said, "These go to eleven."

[probedb]

Well, you can hope, but the last lines of the article say:
...On the bright side, Howlett ['Beatles expert who wrote the new liner notes'] remarked, "they sound louder than previous CD reissues." Well worth the wait.

Oh dear....

[iPhone]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009...tered-reissued

I'm a bit worried by the last sentence... but only a bit.
I'm also a bit worried about my credit card - I need the stereo & mono versions! (pity they couldn't have gone down the Hollies route and put both on one disc - there's plenty of room).

Not including then Mono's but making them an additional set for those that just "have" to have them, let's us all know it's more about the money then it is about the Music!

[chill]

Well, you can hope, but the last lines of the article say:
...On the bright side, Howlett ['Beatles expert who wrote the new liner notes'] remarked, "they sound louder than previous CD reissues." Well worth the wait.

I haven't followed Peter's link in his earlier post, but I recall reading some time ago (a year or so) that the bass is going to be louder in the remasters - more as it was intended - since it was artificially restrained in the original releases for fear of exceeding the capabilities of the vinyl (or at least the capabilities of many players of the day). This approach may account for a 'louder' sound. If that's the case then I look forward to the remasters - mixes that aim to recreate the original sounds without the constraints of the older technology would be a good thing IMO.

Just clutching at straws really.