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.
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?
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.
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.
And yes, there will be a mono box, so you can buy TWO big box sets. Which I'll gladly do.
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?
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.
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.