Working my way through...

THE BEATLES' REMASTERED CD's...

-

I've begun the arduous task of listening to the Beatles Remastered CD's that I bought last week. Do they sound all that different from the original CD's which were first issued in 1987? To my ear, not really. Maybe certain guitar chords come through more clearly, or there is more of a "rasp" to some of the vocals making things sound more 'real', but I can't honestly say these CD's are really worth springing for if you already have the Original Beatles' CD's, which were released in 1987. Remember how, on their old LP's, as well as on the original CD's, you'd hear all the instruments coming thru one speaker and the vocals thru the other? That situation isn't corrected on the updated Remasters, or if it is, it's not done all that well. There's still the agonizing feeling of hearing nothing in one ear while the guitarist takes a solo. I guess, regarding masters' tapes, "they are what they are", and can only be fixed 'so much'. However, I haven't listened to all the remasters yet, just their first three Remastered CD's. Maybe I'll notice more differences when I get to the "studio years", when the Beatles were, in effect, producing their own records. (This isn't a slight against George Martin, the Beatles' producer; it's just that as time went on, the group assumed more creative control, and Martin did his level best to accommodate them.) "Sgt. Pepper" and "Magical Mystery Tour" ought to be really fascinating in remastered form. And, I'm sure "Let It Be" will be really interesting too...an interesting insight to "Let It Be"; it was already remastered back in 2003 when Phil Spector's post-production touches were wiped off , creating what was clumsily retitled, "Let It Be, Naked".

-

I don't like the packaging of the Beatles' Remastered CD's very well; the triple-gatefold jacket is good, as far as it goes, but the CD's have to be slid in and out of the sleeve, which in my view, risks putting needless faint scratches on the CD surface. I'd much prefer if those CD's instead came with one of those plastic platforms that the disc 'pops' onto. That type of packaging is designed not to let the playing surface come in contact with anything during storage. Remember when the new Eagles CD came out last year (available only at Wal-Mart)? That 2-CD set also came packaged in cardboard, so I got a couple of those plastic-lined paper CD envelopes and cut them down to fit so they would serve as a sort of 'innersleeve' between the CD and the sleeve.

-

Still another drawback to the remastered CD's is more computer-inherent; you've gotta be really careful when putting your CD into your laptop "C" drive, or you'll scratch the surface on the center spindle. That's the only way you can see the little mini-videos which accompany each Beatles' Remastered CD. Laptop computers are great, but there's so little space to work with that if you don't put the CD in at an Exact Precise angle, the playing surface will get scratched by the top of the spindle in your CD drive. I scratched my 'Hard Days' Night' Beatles remastered CD that way (not severely); it's for moments like that I have a little bottle of "CD Scratch Remover"; it actually does work (pictured at slightly-above left). I even fixed a DVD with that weird-looking goopy stuff. It costs $7.99 for a small bottle, but a little goes a long way, or to quote an old Brylcreem Men's Hair commercial, "a little dab'll do ya."

-

So anyway, are the Beatles' Remasters a good purchase? For someone looking for a way to get into the Beatles' music for the first time (you're either really, really young or didn't like them 'back in the day' but you're wondering what the fuss is all about), and yeah, the Remasters would provide a really, really good launching point. For me in particular, not really, because I've heard everything forwards, backwards and sideways over the years. Yes, they sound good, really really good. Do they sound so much better that you have to get them if you already have their CD's in the original versions? I honestly don't know. Perhaps a side-by-side hearing of the 'old' "If I Fell" right after the Remastered "If I Fell" would provide me with a more definite opinion. Face it, the Beatles' Remasters probably do sound better (after all, that's what a re-master should do, right?), but I'm not sure the Remasters are worth acquiring if you already have the originals.

-

Then again, the Re-masters probably won't sound all that different on the little portable Sony player I have in the bedroom. Maybe I need to go out and buy an expensive audiophile-oriented high-tech sound system to notice much of a difference. My living room sound system is a rag-tag set of components I've assembled over the years, so I probably wouldn't notice much improvement there, either. The little videos at the end of the 3 discs I've auditioned are informative in a very, very general manner. Not to brag, but the 'generalized' information contained on the video portions of those discs is stuff I knew long, long ago, and I don't know that much more or less than any other foaming-at-the-mouth Beatles fan, and there's a lot of us out there. There's no way (that I know of) to, save those videos onto videotape or load them into Realplayer, so if I want to see 'em again, yep, I'll have to slide the CD's back into the laptop. Scraaaatch. Not to worry...I've got CD fixer-upper goop!

-

Two other cultural items of note: Remember back in the '90s, when the Rolling Stones (who were old then, let alone now), issued a pretty good album titled "Steel Wheels"? A friend told me he heard a radio announcer say that there's a rumor that the Stones' upcoming tour will be called "The Steel Wheel-chairs Tour". Ha Ha HA HAAAAAAAA! Finally, in the little burg of Coos Bay, who played a live concert tonite? None other than the Average White Band! One of my favorite bands. 'Twas nice to see a couple of Original Members still a part of that group: Onnie McIntyre and Alan Gorrie, guitarists, are still sounding really, really good. Pick Up The Pieces!!!