I don't know about the rest of the world, but yesterday (9/9/09) seemed to be a "Beatles Day" here in the states. There's been an awful lot of hoopla surrounding the new remasters of the entire Beatles catalogue, as well as the new "Beatles: Rock Band" video game.
The Beatles are probably my second or third favorite band, but I don't have a particularly strong desire to run out and spend $200 to re-buy their cd's. At best, I might buy one or two (probably "Sgt. Pepper" and "Abbey Road"), see if there actually is a significant difference, and then decide if I should get any others.
The sheer greed of the Beatles company, Apple, makes me really not want to put any of my hard earned dollars into their pockets. Apple is releasing two sets of Beatles CD's. One is in stereo, the other is in mono, and there's quite a debate going on about which set is better, with many preferring the mono versions. What upsets me is that the stereo and mono versions were not included on the same CD. Most of the Beatles albums run around 30 to 35 minutes, so there is more than enough room to include both versions on the same disc. Why didn't they do it? GREED. They know there are Beatles fanatics out there who will pay for both. Not me.
I never really got into the Beatles until I was in high school. Pink Floyd was always my favorite band. It was David (in Taiwan) who got me into their music, in his odd way. I asked him to make me a compilation tape of their best songs. He gave me one, but it was his own special mix. He took their songs and cut them up, either shortening or extending them. I remember he took the song "Getting Better", from "Sgt. Pepper", and made it into a 7 minute, meandering piece that kept repeating the chorus over and over. I'm not sure why he did it, other than the hopes that maybe it would want to get me to buy the actual copy. It worked, because eventually I did end up buying their whole catalogue.
When I was younger, I would fall into the trap of re-buying stuff I already had just because the latest version was "new and improved." I don't do that anymore, primarily because I have kids and don't have as much disposable income anymore. Also, I've just grown a bit tired of playing the "double dipping" or "triple dipping" game. I've bought "The Godfather" 4 different times. On VHS, then laserdisc, then DVD, and finally blu-ray. I'm done. If they release another version on a better format, I won't be buying it.
The Beatles are probably my second or third favorite band, but I don't have a particularly strong desire to run out and spend $200 to re-buy their cd's. At best, I might buy one or two (probably "Sgt. Pepper" and "Abbey Road"), see if there actually is a significant difference, and then decide if I should get any others.
The sheer greed of the Beatles company, Apple, makes me really not want to put any of my hard earned dollars into their pockets. Apple is releasing two sets of Beatles CD's. One is in stereo, the other is in mono, and there's quite a debate going on about which set is better, with many preferring the mono versions. What upsets me is that the stereo and mono versions were not included on the same CD. Most of the Beatles albums run around 30 to 35 minutes, so there is more than enough room to include both versions on the same disc. Why didn't they do it? GREED. They know there are Beatles fanatics out there who will pay for both. Not me.
I never really got into the Beatles until I was in high school. Pink Floyd was always my favorite band. It was David (in Taiwan) who got me into their music, in his odd way. I asked him to make me a compilation tape of their best songs. He gave me one, but it was his own special mix. He took their songs and cut them up, either shortening or extending them. I remember he took the song "Getting Better", from "Sgt. Pepper", and made it into a 7 minute, meandering piece that kept repeating the chorus over and over. I'm not sure why he did it, other than the hopes that maybe it would want to get me to buy the actual copy. It worked, because eventually I did end up buying their whole catalogue.
When I was younger, I would fall into the trap of re-buying stuff I already had just because the latest version was "new and improved." I don't do that anymore, primarily because I have kids and don't have as much disposable income anymore. Also, I've just grown a bit tired of playing the "double dipping" or "triple dipping" game. I've bought "The Godfather" 4 different times. On VHS, then laserdisc, then DVD, and finally blu-ray. I'm done. If they release another version on a better format, I won't be buying it.
If it makes you feel any better, the Beatles have been my favorite band for as long as I can remember and I have no intention of buying all those CDs. The thought of buying both mono and stereo is absurd to me. I will get one of the later albums (if they are available here) and compare it to the old version. If it is a spectacular improvement I might get others. I doubt the early albums will sound much better since they were recorded on very primitive equipment. "Please Please Me" was recorded on two track tapes. There is not much that can be done.
ReplyDeleteIf you are still listening to your music through your little computer speaker, with an mp3 bit rate of 52kbps, you won't notice anything. It's the audiophiles with the expensive stereo systems that are raving about the sound.
ReplyDeleteThat is the nature of the world, companies try to squeeze as much s possible from the consumer.
ReplyDeleteWhether it is releasing albums in different sound formats, or adding 2 new songs and re selling it as the 'ultimate edition'.
Why do many people pay? I believe it is guilt.
The companies make people feel as if 'real' fans should want the new version or the ultimate version, and of course everybody wants to be a 'real fan'.