Red & Blue Albums

[Tex]

OK, so they mixed down to provide space for chorus and orchestra on a new tape and then mixed those down to add back onto the basic track take 17.

"Recording the Beatles" is on my list of fun things to buy but it's very expensive.

"For an encore, they managed to find an actual clean recording of the BBC broadcast of King Lear and flew it into the mix, recreating the radio static and tuning noise as well."

I read that as NEWLY created, ie creating it themselves. That's the whole issue I have with the new mixes. There's no reason to have added anything (again) you can spectrally pull enough out of the mono mix itself and there would be no complaining other than it's too loud or not loud enough.

[Mrbeatleg]

My pages in the Recording The Beatles Book (2006) are slightly different than what you are showing.

pg466.png (761.17 KiB) Viewed 1518 times

pg467.png (642.56 KiB) Viewed 1518 times

[csnyfan]

"For an encore, they managed to find an actual clean recording of the BBC broadcast of King Lear and flew it into the mix, recreating the radio static and tuning noise as well."

I read that as NEWLY created, ie creating it themselves. That's the whole issue I have with the new mixes. There's no reason to have added anything (again) you can spectrally pull enough out of the mono mix itself.

Yes, that's how I read that as well and how it's apparently intended to be read. It's just evidently wrong as I have already explained, but I haven't seen anybody else ever deny that story.

[harrylime]

"Recording the Beatles" is on my list of fun things to buy but it's very expensive.

It's worth every penny though! But feel free to drop me a line if you need other parts of it scanned as well.

My pages in the Recording The Beatles Book (2006) are slightly different than what you are showing.

Interesting, mine is the 2009 edition (gathering by a second copyright notice, it's not made clear otherwise). I can only assume they found some reason to discount Lewisohn's theory?

[Mrbeatleg]

mine is the 2006

page 4.jpg (414.21 KiB) Viewed 1498 times

[zaval80]

They seem to have intention for a new edition, as per their (Curvebender) Web page.

[Track06]

Don't hear any traces of the bits mentioned in the mono mix personally.

The only one I hear in the mono mix is "sur les armoiries", and the reason I can hear it is because I know when to listen - it's extremely faint, but definitely there. I wouldn't be able to tell what is said if there wasn't the new stereo remix to reveal it. But that's the definite proof that it was already there since the beginning and not added later.

snippet of what MDX23 considers vocals - from the mono mix via CD EP Collection
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NEpK8BgA

[Lord Reith]

All I hear is like three different radio feeds at once: the Lear broadcast, some orchestral music over the top of that, and a French broadcast over the top of that. If there's an ADT tape and they used that then it sounds like he's just thrown the original template out the window and mashed up all sorts of stuff from the ADT tape including some that is not in the original mono mix.

I'm not saying it's bad, but it's nothing like the original record. This should be an alternate bonus mix on an SDE, not one intended to substitute the original version on a much loved album.

[Refugee]

I'm stepping out of sync here a bit and going slightly off topic because this is about "She Loves You", but not about the new mix. If this is too far away from the general decorum of the forum, just let me know.

I was curious as to why the EP version sounds so much better than any other official release, so I decided to load up the version from Mono Masters, the previous mono release on the 2010 1962-1966 CD, and the EP version. The first two were in sync with each other after adjusting the starting position, and a speed/pitch correction of -0.29% brought the EP version close enough into sync that they could be compared "microscopically", with a window size around 0.5s. What I found confounded me to the point that I wound up looking at them for hours, as at times it appeared they were out of phase, but zooming out to a longer time period where the bass frequencies become visible revealed that they weren't. However, they are very different. I then decided to bring in the mono version from The Capitol Albums. After a pitch/speed correction of +0.365%, I was surprised to see that the waveform was very close to that of the UK EP version, and also very much unlike that of both MM and 2010's 1962-1966.

I'm not sure what conclusions if any can be drawn from this, except that the first two appear to be from the same source (which may already be known), while the second two appear to be taken from the same source; perhaps a different generation with different mastering, but they are visually quite similar. I thought that some of you who who like to get into the forensic nitty-gritty (especially of this song) might find this interesting and want to do some investigation also. The only adjustments made to each version were speed matching as noted, and volume normalization.

[dannysonar]

Don't hear any traces of the bits mentioned in the mono mix personally.

The only one I hear in the mono mix is "sur les armoiries", and the reason I can hear it is because I know when to listen - it's extremely faint, but definitely there. I wouldn't be able to tell what is said if there wasn't the new stereo remix to reveal it. But that's the definite proof that it was already there since the beginning and not added later.

snippet of what MDX23 considers vocals - from the mono mix via CD EP Collection
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NEpK8BgA

Well, it's there, at 0:06 exactly. "Sur les armoiries" is quite hearable, "de la nouvelle république" not so much.