The Beatles Blue Box
24 comments | posted Sep 19
The Beatles have never sounded better (on an iPod).
I've been listening to the Fab Four quite a bit in the past few months, and while I was loading up my new computer's iTunes library I decided that my current versions of their albums wouldn't suffice. None of the official compact disc releases have earned any acclaim for the quality of the transfer or remastering, and it doesn't look like that problem will be addressed any time soon. My hard drive included my old rips of CDs released in the 90s mastered from the original US stereo mix (which often had reverb applied to the whole signal during mastering to 'enhance' the sound and give it 'smooth' feel), mediocre vinyl rips of UK stereo releases, and others cobbled together by myself during the Napster era. Essentially, IT WASN'T ENOUGH. My digital collection was unfit for a fan, and as I don't have the luxury of doing most of my listening at home on a turntable, I needed something digital that weren't embarrassing representations of such classic albums. I found these bootlegs of their albums by Dr. Ebbetts that sound impressively good. Poor fidelity have never kept me from enjoying great music before, but it really is something else to hear these familiar records with a bit more clarity than before. Basically, this guy took 'virgin' vinyl albums of the UK Stereo Blue Box releases (I hadn't heard of them, but they're largely considered the definitive versions of the stereo releases) and transferred them with very high-end players, preamps, and converters, then mastered them carefully. The result is noticeably improved from the EMI CDs that have been released, and it's a real pleasure to listen to.
I'd listened to other unofficial transfers and remasters in the past, and they were all attempts to enhance or modernize the original recordings by boosting high and low frequencies and limiting/compressing the signal extensively. In stark contrast to those sort of destructive interpretations, these Dr. Ebbetts masters really do seem to have been done with the right approach. If you see me around with my iBook and you're a fan of the group, make sure you ask me to copy them to your iPod or computer, as it really is worth having. If you're not a fan, then you don't need this collection to appreciate the music--just grab whatever you can find and see what happens if you dedicate yourself to the band for a week. I believe they deserve all the respect they get. I'd love for EMI to do the job themselves soon (maybe in time for Apple to announce a 'The Beatles iPod'?), but this is as good as it's going to get for now.
24 comments
You must be logged in to post comments.
Carolyn says:
1. I really want to see "Across the Universe," but it might just make me angry.
2. Do those recordings sound as good on a cd, or does it have to be an iPod?
3. My friend Kelsey hates the Beatles, and I'm convinced that she only says that for attention and that she secretly listens to them when no one is around. Wait, doesn't Josh Nordyke "hate" the Beatles also? I can't talk about this anymore. I'm getting choked up...
posted Sep 19
Comment replies (3)
Arielle says:
1. I think I might punch the screen if I saw 'Across the Universe' I heard the soundtrack a couple of weeks ago and my ears started bleeding. Fo real.
I don't know what to say about 2 and 3
posted Sep 19
Toaster says:
i hate to say it, but, although i don't exactly "hate" the beatles, i do think they are a bit overrated. sorry.
feel the same about Bob Dylan as well.
posted Sep 19
Matthew Ellis says:
i demand so much out of anyone that declares the beatles overrated. now, if you want to call the doors overrated, that's fine, i just feel like there is so much clear cultural impact alone that you'd gotta really come out swinging if you're going to make a case for the beatles being an earlier incarnation nickelback (ie. a group that profoundly obtains momentum despite a lack of relative talent).
posted Sep 20
Bear Suit says:
I have a Zune. Can you hook me up anyway?
posted Sep 19
Comment replies (5)
Matthew Ellis says:
I had a sneaking feeling you'd have something similarly constructive to contribute... I'll have to think about it ;)
posted Sep 19
Matthew Ellis says:
alright, i'm a softy--i'll hook you up sometime.
ps. the only reason to buy a zune is to antagonize ipod owners. there are much better non-apple portable music players available, is all. once you venture outside of the default choice (the ipod), it's a free for all, and i think the asian companies have some really compelling features.
posted Sep 20
Bear Suit says:
I got it because it supports nearly every audio and video format. despite what their website says.
posted Sep 20
Matthew Ellis says:
ultimately that's what it's all about, technology doing what's asked of it out of the box. i'd like to spend more time with a zune... the ipod has always worked for me, and i've grown to appreciate the itunes software integration that i have every intention to stick with it, but i'm intrigued by whatever is marketed as an ipod killer. i shouldn't assume that all consumers who went with a zune were buying into that philosophy, but i really expected microsoft to have some deeper, more useful innovations in their first iteration. although the improved format compatibility is good choice, it's really a simple software decision where they decided to cater to the geek rather than the novice (as apple does with their format limitations), and they didn't go too far to redefine the market with the technology. their strength has always been in networking with the content providers and beating the usually superior competition with sheer brute force (think initial releases of xbox, internet explorer, etc.), but i hoped that they would distance themselves from that strategy as they went up against the ipod. the wi-fi song sharing is a great concept, but poorly implemented for understandable reasons. there's always zune 2.0!
it's funny... none of this matters by the time i'm in my car jamming to the music.
posted Sep 20
goenfukyrself says:
ok, i have some confessions. you will probably not be surprised.
confessions (now in list format!):
1- i used to hate the beatles and talk shit about them whenever anyone said they liked them. (i was such an idiot and i now regret this.)
2- the movie "i am sam" is what changed my heart. i went out and bought the soundtrack to that movie and fell in love w/ the lyrics/music. i guess i just needed to hear it from someone else first to appreciate the songs.
3- i have so many songs on my ipod that are like half the song, or skip in the song, or sound shitty...i don't care tho. i'm not really a music fan like you are i guess. i mean, i like music but i like it like i like hot dogs. it doesn't have to be perfect for me. i accept it for who it is!
4- how awesome is "across the universe" gonna be? AMIRITE?
posted Sep 19
Comment replies (9)
Matthew Ellis says:
1. Your honesty is staggering
2. That soundtrack is well done, for the most part, and worked so well in the film
3. We'll fix that
4. I'm NOT looking forward to that movie, even though I'll make myself see it. The soundtrack is disgusting on first listen... I banned my brother from playing it when I'm in the house... I text him when I'm on my way home to let him know he'd better stop that shit. All the arrangements are so bombastic and overdone... gross. Even the subtle things are just so cheesy and make me squirm.
posted Sep 19
Eric Ellis says:
4. I disagree. I think some of the songs are pretty cool. Even if they aren't as good as the originals, I don't think they're "destroying" them and it's just kind of cool to hear how other people go about covering them (as long as they're at least decent which I think most of them are).
posted Sep 19
Matthew Ellis says:
you should be allowed to listen to one cover song for every twenty listens of the original.
edit: you should be allowed to listen to one cover song one time for every twenty listens of the original ;)
posted Sep 20
Eric Ellis says:
In that case, I'm probably long overdue for half the songs on that cd. Hah.
Ps. You see mah new Beatles poster?
posted Sep 20
Matthew Ellis says:
yes, that poster is BA. i asked mom if she'd bought it because it'd look so great in the family room.
i want to elaborate on why i'm not looking forward to that movie. more realistically, i'm just conflicted about it. i wish it wouldn't have been made so that i didn't have to think about it. there can only be so many movies that leverage the weight of such revered music to their advantage, and it's kinda frustrating as a listener/filmgoer when another one squeezes out of the hollywood machine. imagine if people started making film interpretations 'catcher in the rye' (if you can get beyond the ironic absurdity of such a proposition), and how it would /obviously/ be horrible in comparison to the source material, but you'd have to see it to find out how passable they managed made it. did 'across the universe' not have a strong enough script without the inclusion of the beatles tunes? further, would there have been a movie without the beatles tunes? surely there would not be 1/2 (or even 1/2 of 1/2) the interest in the film without that sterling association. the final product might end up being decent or interesting at times, but i just wish there wasn't a demand for it. these songs are classic and i don't like the idea of new interpretations being initiated by the need for marketing materials (which the songs ultimately serve as).
posted Sep 20
Arielle says:
I am just really turned off to the whole movie. I'll see it with you if you want, but I just have a really good feeling that everything bad about it is going to reign true. I don't even know where to start to try and explain why I wouldn't like it. I guess I agree with what you're saying. I keep going to back to the idea: would this movie have even caught my attention if there weren't all of these terrible beatles remakes? I probably would've laughed and said "Based on the trailer that movie makes zero sense." Maybe I'm not appreciating what it has to offer, but every time I think about that movie the word 'busy' comes to mind. Not in the sense that I have no time, but in the sense that there is way too much happening there.
posted Sep 20
josh is uuah says:
The script was strong enough without the Beatles. I think The Beatles were used, instead of original music less for marketing sake and more for the cultural universiality of the music, itself. They were a pop band. Not a rock band, not a soul band and not a folk band. They embodied the culture of the era, were enjoyed by listeners of all genres and they have a lasting legacy. I don't even enjoy their recordings, but I can own up to the fact that they're probably the biggest unifying factor in 1960's pop culture.
People from all walks listened to The Beatles. When John Lennon was killed, it wasn't just hippies, mods or burnt-out swingers who wept. The nation reacted, like Kennedy was shot, again.
The movie is about people from all walks of life, with different agendas, persuasions, ideas, causes and beliefs crossing paths, living together and caring about eachother.
It's a really classic love story with a good sense of humour about all the cliche's.
And, given the fact of The Beatles' legacy, it would probably be difficult to make original music without unintentionally ripping them off. They were a big deal and probably the first thing that springs to anybody's mind, when they think of the music and pop culture of the '60's.
So, if anything, the filmmakers were probably just being honest with themselves and their audience.
posted Sep 20
jvh says:
why don't we try to make our own sometime
posted Sep 19
Comment replies (2)
Matthew Ellis says:
i have no virgins, have you any virgins?
posted Sep 20
jvh says:
i don't wanna talk about it
posted Sep 24