A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: The remasters: rip-off or not?  (Read 6394 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Joost

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5058
The remasters: rip-off or not?
« on: September 15, 2009, 11:14:23 AM »

I already posted my thoughts and opinions in another thread, but this probably should be a discussion on its own.

I'm not suggesting that it's a rip-off when it comes to quality or relevance of the remasters (no complaints there). But 20 euros per CD, 260 for the stereo box set and 300 for the mono box set (those are the prices on the biggest Dutch internet store), that's an awful lot of money if you consider that the majority's not actually paying it for the music (cause they already have it), but for the remaster job and packaging only.

Some more things that kind of bother me:
- The mono discs aren't available seperately. Or will they be, after the most dedicated fans have already spend their money on the expensive box set?
- The mono box sets were originally going to be limited to 10.000 copies, and then "limited" to an unknown number because there were too many pre-orders. So the people that pre-ordered a limited collector's item for a whole lot of money eventually got an item that doesn't really seem to be all that limited.

Quote
I think it's rediculous that they're charging full price for these albums again. Haven't they made enough on these albums already in the past 47-39 years? I bet that 90% of all the people that buy these remasters have already bought all these albums at least once, it would've been a nice gesture to the loyal fans if they would've made these things midprice.
Quote
Several classic albums from the 60s ("Odessey & Oracle", "Pet Sounds" and the self-titled Love album come to mind) have been re-issued with the stereo and mono mixes on one single disc. That's what they should have done.
Quote
On the other hand, PR-wise it certainly has been a great move that people always had to pay full price for the Beatles' music. It kept their music classy and somewhat "exclusive". Being first and foremost a Beach Boys fan I've always been a bit "jealous" of the way the Beatles catalogue has been treated. The Beach Boys' music has been given away for free with newspapers. It's been released on too many crappy budget comps to count. Albums have been out of print for years or even decades. Most of their albums have never even been released on seperate CDs, only on mid-price 2-albums-on-1-CD-releases! I think the Beach Boys discography has devaluated a lot by the way that Capitol and the band has been treating it the last few decades. It's a complete mess. It's a good thing that The Beatles never allowed that to happen to their music.

Your thoughts?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 11:55:45 AM by Joost »
Logged

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13490
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2009, 11:32:39 AM »

I will wait for the Special Deluxe Limited Collectors Edition before any further comments.

Of course it could have been done cheaper. But, like you already stated in your thoughts on the Beach Boys catalogue, it is in style to keep stereo/mono seperated. I think the mono was originally intended for diehard fans, but to announce that there's gonna be 10,000 boxes is absolutely ridiculous and already causes ditto prices. I have read that someone is willing to pay 500 euro for a monobox. I already started a thread wondering if we all have gone completely insane by buying all the stuff again, in some cases fans are buying the music for the third or fourth time. Still, I like it the way it is done and yes, the cd's are quite expensive. Mrs Bobber thinks that I paid 260 euro for BOTH boxes and she still thinks it's a rip off. I didn't bother to explain. ;D
Logged

Gary910

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 595
  • Beatles Collector
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2009, 03:33:31 PM »

I will wait for the Special Deluxe Limited Collectors Edition before any further comments.

Of course it could have been done cheaper. But, like you already stated in your thoughts on the Beach Boys catalogue, it is in style to keep stereo/mono seperated. I think the mono was originally intended for diehard fans, but to announce that there's gonna be 10,000 boxes is absolutely ridiculous and already causes ditto prices. I have read that someone is willing to pay 500 euro for a monobox. I already started a thread wondering if we all have gone completely insane by buying all the stuff again, in some cases fans are buying the music for the third or fourth time. Still, I like it the way it is done and yes, the cd's are quite expensive. Mrs Bobber thinks that I paid 260 euro for BOTH boxes and she still thinks it's a rip off. I didn't bother to explain. ;D

Dear Mrs Bobber,

Guess what your husband did... ;D
Logged
And now you've changed your mind, I see no reason to change mine --Lennon/McCartney

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2009, 04:27:36 PM »

Dear Mrs Bobber,

Guess what your husband did... ;D

Dammit, I was just cutting the letters out of this pile of newspapers!
Logged

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13490
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2009, 05:40:40 PM »

Logged

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2009, 06:07:07 PM »

I guess you thought that was funny?
Logged

DaveRam

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2894
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2009, 06:15:23 PM »

I think the mono CD's will be sold separate in the next few years , it's all about marketing and money and a somewhat captive audience .
They should just release the mono CD's now their going to do it anyway ?
Logged

Penny Lane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 4106
  • Paulinate me
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2009, 09:48:05 PM »

Ah...... I have mixed feelings here. I really wish the stereo and mono recordings could have been combined in one set at a fair price (as I said in another thread), so it feels somewhat like a rip-off that they'd charge so much for separate sets. But I also like how the re-release of the Beatles' catalogue has been treated as a "big" deal--because it is. And if this is going to be a big deal, the product won't come cheap.

Also, I like how fans have the option of buying box sets as opposed to buying the CD's separately. Buying the stereo set off Amazon was cheaper than buying the CD's one by one. Plus, they look very classy, and I'm happy to have a nice home for my albums.
Logged

ShesCominDownFastYesSheIs

  • Bootleg Members
  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 142
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2009, 12:32:21 AM »

When I bought first bought The White Album on CD, it cost me $34 American. I bought the remaster for $15. So I can't complain.

It would have been out of this world awesome if every album came with both the stereo and mono. Heck, with every album up to Magical Mystery Tour, you can fit the stereo and mono onto one disc.
Logged
It's great...it sold...it's the bloody Beatles' White Album, shut up

Penny Lane

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 4106
  • Paulinate me
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2009, 04:27:58 AM »

When I bought first bought The White Album on CD, it cost me $34 American. I bought the remaster for $15. So I can't complain.

Hah. I remember the White Album costing $30+ USD as well, way back then.
Logged

Kagome

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 71
  • Recording Engineer Toshiba EMI & Capitol EMI
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2009, 04:15:10 AM »

EMI`s hands are tired what Beatles CD's or Versions that are released. In the Beatles contract they have say what EMI puts out. EMI can`t put just put Beatles Product out like they done before. EMI has to clear it with The Beatles. I checked with EMI House and noting more is due out anytime soon! The Remastered CD are priced the same as the regular ones Abbey Road CD in the USA is part of EMI budget line you can this album for $9.99 I buy my CD`s from Japan they are cheaper than the USA
« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 05:27:28 AM by Kagome »
Logged

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10843
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2009, 03:45:48 AM »

Once you listen to the mono versions, it will all make sense to you.
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

JimmyMcCullochFan

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3371
  • Wino Junko
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #12 on: October 10, 2009, 11:31:05 AM »

...

Thanx, Hello Goodbye...

But, chances are, I'll never get to listen to the mono versions...
but my system does have a mono switch...  and yeah, I find that feature absolutely useless.

Anybody wanna explain why the mono disc are available... I still don't get it.

Because that's how The Beatles intended you to listen to their albums, was in mono.
Logged

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #13 on: October 10, 2009, 03:01:20 PM »

...

Thanx, Hello Goodbye...

But, chances are, I'll never get to listen to the mono versions...
but my system does have a mono switch...  and yeah, I find that feature absolutely useless.

Anybody wanna explain why the mono disc are available... I still don't get it.

One of the reasons people might think the mono versions sound better than the stereo versions (for the earlier albums at least) is that the recording techniques were optimized for mono. It would be like making your grandmother's recipe for apple pie, developed over decades for cooking in a stove of course ... then deciding that you would cook it in the microwave. (stove = mono, microwave = stereo). It's the same ingredients (flour/sugar/butter; guitars/drums/voices), but they were meant to be cooked in a stove (mono) not a microwave (stereo).

Just my 2c.

The good news is you don't need a mono switch - just play the discs in the usual way, and it will come out mono
 (from the middle of your head if you're wearing earphones), it just means that each speaker is putting out the same information, you could listen to 1 speaker and it wouldn't sound different.
Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10843
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2009, 01:17:35 AM »

...

Since my first post in this thread, I poked around the net a little... and it seems, except for the die-hard Beatles fans, most people consider this as nothing but a blatant rip-off.

That would be a fair result of your perusal of the internet.  Beatles fans bought the remasters and like the collection.  "Most people" are not Beatles fans, did not buy or listen to the CDs and would render such an uninformed opinion.




I agree, its shameless extortion.

Without even listening to the CDs?  Well, that's your opinion.




btw...  that's the lovely Devon in my avatar... unquestionably, the loveliest lady on the planet !!!

That's your opinion too.
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

alexis

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1860
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2009, 04:58:30 AM »

Not only my opinion, I'm going by the dozens of online posters who have bought them... most bought them to complete their collections (much the same reason that I bought Shakira's Spanish stuff).

There's also a thread in this forum which links to a digital test, which indicated that there's precious little difference between the remasters & the originals. Certainly not such an astonishingly impressive difference that it's worth buying the whole Beatles catalog all over again.



I know a bit about sound processing and digital tests, and I'd have to say that there is very little that one can tell in terms of "difference" between two sound files. It' easy enough to tell if they are identical (reverse the phase of one and see if they "cancel" out to silence when played together), or to compare numerical characteristics of the two files (which is louder by how much, for example). But as far as comparing how they sound, I don't think one can do that except by actually listening. Just my 2c!
Logged
I love John,
I love Paul,
And George and Ringo,
I love them all!

Alexis

BlueMeanie

  • Guest
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2009, 08:46:31 AM »

^ I'm probably the only person here to have not heard them yet. I'm getting the mono box for Xmas and have decided to wait for all the fuss to die down first so I can make up my own mind, without outside influence. The mono's should indeed be a treat. Being the owner of a large number of bootlegs - Dr. Ebbetts, Purple Chick etc. - if you've never heard the mono Pepper I believe you've never heard it as it was meant to sound. And if the person responsible for Dr. Ebbetts quit on hearing the remasters for the first time, that's good enough for me. I'll probably start with 'With The Beatles' as I consider that to be the worst sounding of the '87 releases.

But what I'm not hearing is:

An almighty deafening roar of stampeding Beatles fans
uncontrollably charging to their local music store, wildly screeching:

"Outta my way, let me at those vastly superior remasters !!!"  ;)

With respect, most people couldn't tell the difference if it jumped up and grabed them by the throat. So I wouldn't expect them to go mad. I don't remember any great rejoicing when the Stones '60's albums were re-issued in SACD, and they are far, far superior in sound quality. I'm just hoping that my old ears are still equiped with the neccessaries!
Logged

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10843
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2009, 02:38:07 PM »

But what I'm not hearing is:

An almighty deafening roar of stampeding Beatles fans
uncontrollably charging to their local music store, wildly screeching:

"Outta my way, let me at those vastly superior remasters !!!"  ;)


No, they're just wildly screeching "Outta my way!"

People were lined up outside of stores waiting for them to open on the morning of September 9th.  Amazon stopped taking orders that day.  Many people were disappointed to hear that their preorders would be delayed.  Some preorders were cancelled and reserved inventory sold to store customers.  There was a booming secondary market on eBay for these box sets.

"Vastly superior?"  No, not really.  Just superior.  Certainly remastering technology has improved over the past 22 years and this is evident in the current remastered catalog.

Justin, no one here is encouraging you to buy the remasters.  And your arguments will not dissuade those who are intent on buying them.  And certainly not in this Forum of Beatles fans
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10843
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2009, 02:41:19 PM »

^ I'm probably the only person here to have not heard them yet. I'm getting the mono box for Xmas and have decided to wait for all the fuss to die down first so I can make up my own mind, without outside influence. The mono's should indeed be a treat.

You're indeed in for a treat Christmas morning, Paul.

Barry
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

nyfan(41)

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2009, 03:26:55 PM »

so..........basically the mono remasters are a luxury item  ha2ha ?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
 

Page created in 1.606 seconds with 28 queries.