The Beatles Remastered: The Last Hurrah For CDs?
For the first time in years, record stores and sellers of compact discs have something to look forward to besides declining sales and possible extinction. The Beatles and their record label, EMI, have announced the long-awaited, oft-delayed remastering and reissuing of the Fab Four's recorded legacy, due out on September 9. All the Beatles' studio albums plus two CDs of singles and non-album tracks will be given spiffier packaging, new liner notes, added video documentary material, and -- most importantly -- a sonic upgrade, the first in more than 20 years for much of this material.
The big question is, how many music buyers still care?
I'm not talking about the Beatles. They're still a huge force in the music business four decades after they broke up; they've placed six albums on the charts in the last ten years, including one of the biggest selling records of the decade, their hits compilation 1. But how much of the remaining CD buying audience is going to pony up the cash for music they likely already own?
While EMI and the band, or their estates, bickered and dallied, the music industry has changed. Remastering and reissuing product by a popular artist is no longer necessarily the cash cow it once was. CDs are still a force to be reckoned with -- 400 million of them were sold in 2008. But that's down 45 percent from 2000, and the format's ultimate demise is already being predicted.
The Beatles and EMI know this. They may be slow to get anything done, but they're no dummies. That's why, on the same day their newly remastered CDs will be released, they're making The Beatles: Rock Band available for Playstation, Xbox and Wii. They know the way to teens' hearts, eardrums and wallets is through their game consoles, not their stereos. After all, how many young'uns even own proper hi-fis anymore?
The sad fact is that no matter how much better these new CDs sound and look than the ones that have been on the market since the late '80s, the potential market for this stuff is significantly smaller than it would have been even five years ago. As more and more music buyers get their music digitally and listen to it on their iPods, they're sending a message to the industry -- we care more about affordability and convenience than great sound or fancy packaging.
At the same time, however, downloaded music brings with it an air of disposability. Like a song you heard on the radio? Buy it for a buck and take it off your iPod when you get sick of it. The Beatles' music, on the other hand, is anything but disposable. Albums like Sgt. Pepper or Revolver are the kind of records that belong on a shelf, not just on a hard drive. If any act of the rock era deserves the super-deluxe treatment, it's these guys. I mean, would you rather crack open a leather-bound copy of Shakespeare's plays or read them on your Kindle?
When you combine the graying lifelong Beatlemaniacs, the declining but still sizeable market for physical media, and the crowd that's going to buy these things as Christmas presents for their nieces and nephews, we'll probably see a blip of positive news for the music biz in the 4th quarter of this year. But after the Beatles, then what?
There's no other comparable act from the classic rock era that hasn't already been remastered, remixed, reissued, sliced, diced and julienned to death. And the market for newer, younger bands is buying more downloads and fewer CDs with every passing month. I don't think CDs are going the way of the dinosaurs; there are too many consumers out there who still think of music as a physical thing and not merely a file to be downloaded. As long as that market exists in great enough numbers, it will continue to be served, whether it's by Wal-Mart, the indie music retailers who have managed to survive this decade, or online retailers like Amazon.
But September 9th probably will mark the last hurrah for the CD as a mass-marketed item the way we've come to know it. And I, for one, will be first in line (or first online, depending on how many record stores close between now and September) to buy it. Both the stereo and mono mixes, please. What can I say? It may be totally 20th century to buy physical media, but hey, the Beatles are 20th century, too.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've posted this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating. One of the things that made The Beatles The Beatles back in the day was their ability to get out in front of what ever was going down at the moment. Sgt. Peppers was the best example of this.
With that in mind, I think they should release their basic tracks on line and let us (us should be itialicized) mix and mash them to our hearts content. That would be in keeping with their, um, track record, and would make folks like Ivan Vaughn proud.
One question: with Neil Aspinal gone, whose minding the legacy?
Paul McCartney is worth over a billion dollars. Enough! The Beatles music should be in the public domain. Enough money has been milked from these recording. They should belong to the wold now. Power to the people.
Isn't remastering the term they use nowadays to mean compress and limit the hell out of it until dynamic range is minimized and listener fatigue is maximized?
Remastered Beatles CD's!?! I can't wait to pirate them!
Regarding vinyl, one of the things that was talked about for the new remaster is strengthening the bass. The CD format allows for a lot more bass, as vinyl was prone to throwing the needle from the groove if the bass was too intense, especially the inner grooves. I'm not expecting to be thrown to the floor by the bass, just a good bit of wallop. Vinyl may be remembered as better sounding, but it had some limitations too.
Maybe not so true. While there are cutting/playback limits for bass in LPs, that really isn't the issue with the Beatles recordings. Most of the time the bottom limit is 80hz---the fundamental tone of Paul's electric bass. There's orchestral material in the later records that go further down into the bass, but nothing in their catalog has the depth and amplitude of bass found in modern hip-hop productions. In the early issues of the Beatles, the bass was deliberately cut back because of the weird engineering policies in place at Abbey Road studios. In any case, my audio rig bass has more visceral wallop coming off the turntable than the CD player. Of course, the turntable is worth about $1500 and the CD player is worth $200, so that may be part of what's going on.
No two ways about it---the first run of Beatles CDs were a botch job and the remasters will be welcome. The description of the process of the transfer of the old tapes sounds like a massive up-tic over the first run of CDs. But everything about the Beatles is tied to the decade in which they flourished. There is no way that kind of past will ever be recaptured. I'm not about to be 14 again, I will never hear the White Album for the first time again, I already know what the next note will be.
Maybe true. Low E on a bass is around 40Hz. But yes, the remasters are welcome.
Additionally, regarding the comments on the Beatles being careful with their catalog while other artists were reissued endlessly, I'm wondering if you think that's a good thing. Considering we live in an age when the world's crappiest movie can be reissued on DVD six months later in a collectors edition, and the average CD seems to get released two or three times in a year to add bonus tracks and videos, I for one applaud reissues that improve upon what was already out there. Granted, that's different than repackaging the same 48 Elvis songs 20 different ways, but how many people would have scarfed up a Beatles CD reissue in the years between now and 1987 and still bought this reissue. If anything, Apple has been asleep at the switch the past 22 years.
I agree that these should be put on vinyl, not because vinyl sounds better, because for the average listener, it doesn't, but because they could restore the album covers to their original glory. Of course, I have a feeling that the purists would complain about the remastered vinyl worse than the CDs.
That said, as a proud owner of just about every legal Beatles CD issued, I'm ready for these new releases. While Love was a mashup, it made me rehear those Beatles songs with a fresh ear and showed that with careful remastering we might appreciate things that we never heard in those original pressings decades ago or the first CDs.
The problem is that purists want the CDs to sound like the vinyl they played on their old record players in the 60s and those of us who came of age in the CD era want the expansive gorgeous sound that a good CD can provide.
Frankly, I think the Beatles should have released a double CD (if necessary) of each album that included multiple mixes of each. That way you'd have satisfied the obsessives and the people interested in hearing fresh takes as well. Now we'll probably be spending upward of $300 if we want the entire output on CD.
Personally I'm going to get the stereo mixes and wait to see reviews of the mono mixes before plunking down another chunk of change to buy the same songs.
The Beatles on SACD (surround or not) plus the Let it Be movie on Bluray would be the ultimate crowning achievement for their legacy. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like either is going to happen. Ain't that a shame.
It's more of a final gasp than a last hurrah for CDs. I don't think tons of nieces and nephews will get a $300 boxed set. The $18 Beatles #1 album? Heck , I gave that to quite a few people. But this is for hardcore people and will probably be just old fogeys like you and me. But the guys suggesting the Beatles have churned out tons of crap are crazy: they've been very smart and restrained, to a fault. These CDs should have been remastered a decade ago. But they will definitely be worth it. I wish the albums that should be in mono were in mono on the big boxed set instead of stereo. But oh well. As for 5.1 SACD and all that -- isn't that like wishing Citizen kane were in 3-D? Maybe it sounds spiffy but the albums weren't created for 5.1 sound and you can't retroactively mix them that way. Or am I missing something? Between this and the Neil Young BluRays, I'm gonna be broke!
See Tony Sachs's Profile
Michael, good point about the surround sound mixes. But hey, maybe Citizen Kane would look pretty good in 3-D, too!
And yes, there will be a mono box, so you can buy TWO big box sets. Which I'll gladly do.
I'd read that shortly before he died Neil Aspinall was negotiating to have the catalog re-mastered in 5.1 sound. Which would be cool, even if it doesn't happen I'll still pick up the re-issues. And for those of you that haven't seen the Love show, go. The sound is like you're sitting in the control booth at Abbey Road. Simply amazing. Long live the Fabs.
I'll be behind you in line (or online) to buy all of these albums all over again.
I would be more interested in this if these albums were remastered in to a DVD Audio format with 5.1 surround sound. The Love DVD Audio was impressive sound wise but suffered from the editing and mashing of the songs to fit the show in Vegas. If The White Album was released in a DVD Audio, I would pay for it again for the fourth or fifth time in my life.
See Tony Sachs's Profile
Oh man oh man, would I pay for that too! Sadly, DVD-As and SACDs bombed in the marketplace when they were introduced a few years back, and now most record companies don't want to shell out the bucks to remix for surround sound. But I agree, hearing the Beatles in 5.1 would be worth a hefty price tag. Don't forget the Yellow Submarine DVD had songs in 5.1 as well as the Love DVD-A.
[Doug rolls his eyes]
Two things:
1) Nice that they're putting this stuff out, but you didn't address the real question that's been on the minds of a number of folks: when the heck are EMI and/or Paul and Ringo going to make the Beatles catalog available on iTunes or in electronic format? I'm not running on down to the local Tower Records--oh wait; they don't exist any more--to my local record store and shelling out for more hard media for these guys, but maybe I'll do it online, like I did with, say, Led Zeppelin. What's the holdup?
2) The dichotomy you use regarding the Kindle is false. If I want to read Shakespeare during my 1700 mile bi-weekly commute, then I want it in electronic format; if I want to read it at home in my easy chair, *maybe* I'll want it in in hard-copy, and maybe not. It's use driven. Move into the 21st Century on your books like you have on your records, eh?
See Tony Sachs's Profile
I don't know what the holdup is with iTunes either. But I do know that there's not much point in buying remastered music if it's just going to be heard on cruddy sounding MP3 files, which you'll probably listen to on your computer or iPod. You might as well just rip your old Beatles CDs to iTunes rather than buy them again as downloads.
When you shell out the bucks for hard media, you're getting the best of both worlds - the ability to burn it to your iTunes library AND the superior sound and nice packaging of a CD. And since you apparently don't want to leave the house to find a store that sells CDs, you can order them on Amazon or through some other online retailer.
The hold up is money. Macca wants more coin for digital which was not part of the original deals. I hear he is the only hold out.
People who want to archive the music do not want CD's, they want vinyl for that purpose. And for good reason. So, for instance, Portishead released their last one on vinyl with a link to free MP3's included. Smaller record stores that embrace vinyl have seen an upsurge in sales...while big chain CD centered stores go under.
I find it to be a fascinating dynamic, but it makes sense. Vinyl is, actually, a better archiving medium than a CD, while an MP3 is a more flexible way to listen.
See Tony Sachs's Profile
I agree with you, the remasters should also be made available on vinyl. And I do think that ALL albums should be released on vinyl with MP3 download included, as well as on CD. Let consumers buy their music in any format they choose.
Music as a physical thing, indeed. I miss the days of lying on my bed, headphones on, listening to a new album while propping the sizable album cover on my chest and studying it until it was memorized.
Well I do miss the full size album art work for a few albums (Their Satanic Majesties Request was always a favorite, I had an original album with the weird holographic or whatever picture on the cover). But I find the benefits of being able to make my own playlists, skip around and here exactly what I want when I want it without worrying about picking up and dropping down a needle more than makes up for it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
