Revolver 2022

[Robin L]

I don't know how many here have noticed, but the Beatles 1966 masterpiece Revolver got the Giles Martin treatment, only this time, the techniques used in Peter Jackson's Get Back have been applied to Revolver, where monaural tracks of a sub mix can be separated---drums, bass and guitar blended together on one track can be split into three separate tracks without bleed through or apparent distortion. This is the first use of this technique for music, though it's clear that we can expect more of the same from Giles Martin. Rubber Soul and Help! are two of the more problematic mixes among the Beatles albums.

Here is one track from the remixed album, Paul's "Got to Get You Into My Life":

Here's another, one where the original inspiration for the string arrangement---Bernard Herrmann's arrangement for "Psycho" is a template for the sound---comes to the fore:

And check out this insane take of "Rain", where the instrumental track is being played extra fast only to be slowed down later. This track is not sped up, it's the final version that was slowed down. This just might be Ringo's finest hour:

Of course, all involved can be accused of meddling with the past. On the other hand, the thought of such an audio toolkit being applied to classic mono recordings makes me a tad more cheerful today. And there's no doubt that layers of murk have been removed from this album on this remix.

So, what are your reactions to this remix?

 

[levimax]

I have been listening to this re-mix today both carefully and in the background while working. I usually am skeptical of re-masters and re-mixes but from what I have heard so far this was a successful project. In order to really appreciate the work they did on these you need to do level matched ABX with older versions (like all modern mixes these are LOUD compared to the originals). After hearing these it makes the original versions sound pretty bad, like they were mixed for AM radio in cars which they were. Both the mono and stereo versions sound very nice. Definitely worth a listen to hear modern digital technology put to good use. It is amazing that these are available day one on all the streaming services.

 

[NiagaraPete]

I’m the wrong person to reply because I’d rather light my hair on fire and put it out with a hammer than listen to anything Beatles.

 

[Doodski]

I’m the wrong person to reply because I’d rather light my hair on fire and put it out with a hammer than listen to anything Beatles.

The Beatles have 2 minute and 40 second song wonders. Many of their songs are just that long. It gets tiring listening to the stuff.

 

[levimax]

Tough crowd here.... The Beatles are the most successful and iconic "recorded music" artists of all time so they have something going for them apparently. This album came out in 1966 and really was ground breaking for popular music in many ways. I would argue it is much harder to come up with multiple 2:40 songs, most of which became hits, than fewer longer songs. Anyway this re-mix is interesting just from a technological point of view I think and it was a fun listen for me.

 

[NiagaraPete]

Tough crowd here.... The Beatles are the most successful and iconic "recorded music" artists of all time so they have something going for them apparently. This album came out in 1966 and really was ground breaking for popular music in many ways. I would argue it is much harder to come up with multiple 2:40 songs, most of which became hits, than fewer longer songs. Anyway this re-mix is interesting just from a technological point of view I think and it was a fun listen for me.

The Beatles became what they were because of TV. The media of the time. The Rolling Stones did as well to a smaller extent, and they’re still around.

For the time the music was revolutionary but not really well played or that good.

 

[levimax]

For the time the music was revolutionary but not really well played or that good.

I can't and won't argue subjective preferences but The Beatles have sold more recorded music than anyone else by a wide margin which is objective and points to some type of wide spread preference. Listening to Revolver I think it holds up well over 50 years later as popular music (my subjective opinion). Since it is available for free to most people I think some may find it interesting and a good listen.

 

[Fahzz]

I’m the wrong person to reply because I’d rather light my hair on fire and put it out with a hammer than listen to anything Beatles.

If you ever decided that lighting up is not a good idea, and you might want to listen to the Beatles, Revolver is what you want to listen to. I'm not a big Beatles fan but Revolver and Rubber Soul are masterpieces. All their other stuff I can take or leave.

 

[mhardy6647]

I have mixed feelings about retrospectively re-imagining the productions of the past -- particularly (in my case) when it comes to the Fab Four.
I found the most recent Abbey Road kind of jarring. It was different enough to be -- to me -- just not right.
I gave it a listen for the first time in quite a while recently and it bothered me less, though (in fairness, and in full disclosure).

As far as I am concerned, past their yeah-yeah-yeah stage, the differentness of the Beatles oeuvre compared to the (pop music) status quo simply cannot be underestimated. And Revolver was, in a second derivative kind of way, I would posit, the different-est of all-est in terms of what had come before in pop/rock music. Some of Revolver must've landed on the ears of 1966 the way Stravinski's (EDIT: ahem, Stravinsky's... I always do that!) Le Sacre du printemps landed on those of the unsuspecting audience who experienced its premiere.
I realized only fairly late in life that, by this criterion, Revolver was the four lads from Liverpool's Meisterstück.

I was quite surprised to read snippets of an interview with Giles Martin saying that the basic tracks were recorded essentially live, even the remarkable Tomorrow Never Knows. Obviously, there were overdubs, and presumably bounces, too, since all they had available to them were four track decks, but apparently much of what we hear (on the original mix, at any rate) was what they laid down in real time.
Thus, I suppose, my ambivalence towards re-imagining the mixes.

Also, and I know all y'all know it, but it's pretty unfair to judge the "original" stereo mixes at all -- since the Beatles & George Martin's product(s) in those days were the mono mixes, and the stereo mixes in the mid- 60s were almost literally afterthoughts. The productions we had were meant to be mono. The stereo versions were essentially gimmicks.

 

[Robin L]

I have mixed feelings about retrospectively re-imagining the productions of the past -- particularly (in my case) when it comes to the Fab Four.
I found the most recent Abbey Road kind of jarring. It was different enough to be -- to me -- just not right.
I gave it a listen for the first time in quite a while recently and it bothered me less, though (in fairness, and in full disclosure).

As far as I am concerned, past their yeah-yeah-yeah stage, the differentness of the Beatles oeuvre compared to the (pop music) status quo simply cannot be underestimated. And Revolver was, in a second derivative kind of way, I would posit, the different-est of all-est in terms of what had come before in pop/rock music. Some of Revolver must've landed on the ears of 1966 the way Stravinski's Le Sacre du printemps landed on those of the unsuspecting audience who experienced its premiere.
I realized only fairly late in life that, by this criterion, Revolver was the four lads from Liverpool's Meisterstück.

I was quite surprised to read snippets of an interview with Giles Martin saying that the basic tracks were recorded essentially live, even the remarkable Tomorrow Never Knows. Obviously, there were overdubs, and presumably bounces, too, since all they had available to them were four track decks, but apparently much of what we hear (on the original mix, at any rate) was what they laid down in real time.
Thus, I suppose, my ambivalence towards re-imagining the mixes.

Also, and I know all y'all know it, but it's pretty unfair to judge the "original" stereo mixes at all -- since the Beatles & George Martin's product(s) in those days were the mono mixes, and the stereo mixes in the mid- 60s were almost literally afterthoughts. The productions we had were meant to be mono. The stereo versions were essentially gimmicks.

I watched a long (30 minute) interview with Giles Martin in which he emphasized Paul and Ringo's approval of the process. If there would be a mono reissue working from the newly separated elements, that would result in a mix with greater clarity. Of the five Giles Martin remixes of the albums of the Beatles, this project seems to have the least second-guessing of the batch. I find the "White Album" the most different from previous remixes, what with Paul's wonky drumming in the opening "Back in the USSR" being straightened out the most revisionist of all.

My mind goes out to all those mono recordings of classical music that could use this sort of treatment but never will because there's no money in it.

 

[mhardy6647]

I watched a long (30 minute) interview with Giles Martin in which he emphasized Paul and Ringo's approval of the process. If there would be a mono reissue working from the newly separated elements, that would result in a mix with greater clarity. Of the five Giles Martin remixes of the albums of the Beatles, this project seems to have the least second-guessing of the batch. I find the "White Album" the most different from previous remixes, what with Paul's wonky drumming in the opening "Back in the USSR" being straightened out the most revisionist of all.

My mind goes out to all those mono recordings of classical music that could use this sort of treatment but never will because there's no money in it.

Hmm.
Haven't heard the rebooted White Album... or at least I don't think I have...?

 

[Robin L]

The Beatles became what they were because of TV. The media of the time. The Rolling Stones did as well to a smaller extent, and they’re still around.

For the time the music was revolutionary but not really well played or that good.

I think you're confusing the Beatles with the Monkees. In terms of sales of music recordings in the 1960s, top 40 was where it was at. The Monkees formula was to try to be as much like the Beatles when the Beatles were "cute". When Bob Dylan first heard "Tomorrow Never Knows" he is reported to have said "So you don't want to be cute anymore". The Monkees took even less time turning into 24/7 freeks:

 

[Robin L]

Hmm.
Haven't heard the rebooted White Album... or at least I don't think I have...?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Like what I heard here for the most part. They do seem a bit trebly. Not bright, just a little too much treble and maybe thin on the low end. The latter is likely accurate, my memories are from hearing them on turntables and slightly boomy speakers back in the day. I've had the same opinion of Martin's other remix work on the Beatles.

Eleanor Rigby is one of my favorites.

 

[Blumlein 88]

In an article about this process, for those who don't like the idea, you probably agree with this:

One band that are unlikely to be get the remix treatment, however, are The Wombles, with creator Mike Batt recently revealing: “I’ve destroyed many of the original multitrack tapes for The Wombles and my solo albums so people can’t fuck around with them after I’m gone

“I mixed them as I wanted them, not how some corporation or great-grandchild might like to remix them when I’m not around.”

 

[levimax]

Like what I heard here for the most part. They do seem a bit trebly. Not bright, just a little too much treble and maybe thin on the low end. The latter is likely accurate, my memories are from hearing them on turntables and slightly boomy speakers back in the day. I've had the same opinion of Martin's other remix work on the Beatles.

Eleanor Rigby is one of my favorites.

Rather than go from memory I compared my CD version of Eleanor Rigby to the remix in Foobar2000 ABX which really helps you appreciate how much they cleaned things up and how different they are. I also thought "trebly" but the bass is definitely boosted compared to the original (in a good way) so it is something else in the mix. My only issue is that the vocals are "changed" from the original... better in a way as the harmonies are much clearer but different as I think the original mixes really focused on the vocals and that is what I grew up listening to.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

I’m the wrong person to reply because I’d rather light my hair on fire and put it out with a hammer than listen to anything Beatles.

Please light your hair on fire and put it out with a hammer. Hahaha.

 

[Mtbf]

Please light your hair on fire and put it out with a hammer. Hahaha.

Yes, and please do send us the video afterwards.

 

[MCH]

In an article about this process, for those who don't like the idea, you probably agree with this:

One band that are unlikely to be get the remix treatment, however, are The Wombles, with creator Mike Batt recently revealing: “I’ve destroyed many of the original multitrack tapes for The Wombles and my solo albums so people can’t fuck around with them after I’m gone

“I mixed them as I wanted them, not how some corporation or great-grandchild might like to remix them when I’m not around.”

something similar thought Miles Davis about those box sets full of outtakes and studio chatter. He supposedly said "If I wanted those MF to listen to that ****, I would have released it myself" hahaha

 

[Tom C]

The Beatles are my all time favorite since childhood. The very first record I ever bought was Yellow Submarine 45 RPM. I was about six years old. It’s difficult to realize now just how fresh, exciting and different their music sounded when first released. It was completely unlike anything being done at the time. Very original and creative. I suppose it doesn’t stand out as much to the ears of today’s listeners, because it has been copied so much, at the time, and ever since. When I was a bit older, trying to learn to play guitar and how to be a musician, I was constantly wondering, how did they do that? How did they make it sound like that? At the time, I think everyone else was wondering the same thing. More than one studio technique was invented for them, if you can believe what you read.