|
iluvpr0n posted:I was excited to see this news that more Pink Floyd reissues are coming soon, but then saddened to see they're using the inferior stereo mix of Piper at the Gates of Dawn instead of the superior mono mix. It was released on CD as both mono/stereo in 2007 and in 1997 a deluxe mono reissue came out, but that's currently $90+ on discogs. Original mono releases are much more unreasonably priced. Waah~ I just want The Wall on Blu-Ray, dammit!
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Snowy posted:Vinyl collectors pay some crazy prices but somehow paying high prices for rare CDs seems so laughably retarded to me. I feel the same way when I see people paying higher than CD prices for digital downloads. On a semi related note I sold a copy of Whipped Cream & Other Delights for $10 over the weekend. On 8 track.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:A lot of albums of that era that were recorded and originally mixed in mono sound pretty bad in stereo. The best example of this is the Beatles catalog. I don't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea, in Taxman for example, to pan George's vocals and a tambourine all the way to the right and everything else to the left. When I finally grabbed the Beatles catalog in mono after listening to the stereo mixes for years it was like night and day, Sgt. Peppers especially
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
I was at a Salvation Army thrift store a couple weeks ago that only had one speaker hooked up to their receiver and they were playing Beatles stereo mixes through it. It was pretty surreal.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Boinks posted:I was at a Salvation Army thrift store a couple weeks ago that only had one speaker hooked up to their receiver and they were playing Beatles stereo mixes through it. It was pretty surreal. Listening to Abbey Road helped tip me off that one of my computer speakers was out. Surreal is a pretty good description of it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
The Beatles' stuff in stereo is pretty brutal, but I've always found the most annoying stereo separation is on early Who records.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:I don't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea, in Taxman for example, to pan George's vocals and a tambourine all the way to the right and everything else to the left. I remember when I was a kid my family was going on a long car trip somewhere and we had a walkman with us. My brother had these kind of headphones where you could pop the ear pieces off of the headband so we did this so we could both use it at the same time and when we tried it with Sgt. Pepper it became instantly apparent that each of us could on hear half the song. One ear piece was pretty much only vocals and the other was only the instrumentals. It's baffling to me that it took until 2009 to make the mono versions of their music readily available again. Don't even get me started on how bad the pre-09 CDs sounded in general. You'd think that the biggest musical legacy of the century would have been treated more carefully.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:the biggest musical legacy of the century The Beatles are only even vaguely this if you think rock is the only music in existence.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
A human heart posted:The Beatles are only even vaguely this if you think rock is the only music in existence. What's the right answer?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
A human heart posted:The Beatles are only even vaguely this if you think rock is the only music in existence. Please name any other music group of any genre from the 20th century that has had the amount of staying power, recognition, and media presence of the Beatles.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Please name any other music group of any genre from the 20th century that has had the amount of staying power, recognition, and media presence of the Beatles. Seems fairly reasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Please name any other music group of any genre from the 20th century that has had the amount of staying power, recognition, and media presence of the Beatles. Well the answer could be Gershwin or Ellington or Stravinsky or Sinatra or James Brown, but if you're just going by dollars moved it might be the Beatles. Or it might not.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
mycophobia posted:I don't understand why anyone thought it was a good idea, in Taxman for example, to pan George's vocals and a tambourine all the way to the right and everything else to the left. Well, it wasn't so much that they thought it was a good idea, it was that they worked with what they had. So, most of the Beatles catalog was recorded onto 4-track tapes. So, you have one track for drums and bass, one track for the lead instruments, one track for the lead vocals, and then one track for double-tracking vocals and any overdubs. That doesn't really leave you much space to make a good stereo mix. And stereo was an afterthought. They weren't trying to make good stereo, they were just trying to make stereo product. And overtime, people learned how to make better stereo mixes. Granted, Revolver through Magical Mystery Tour gets even tougher, because they started bouncing stuff down. Which meant they filled up one tape, mixed that down to one or two tracks onto a second tape, and then used the remaining tracks for more overdubs. I think they went up to 3 tapes a few times. Penny Lane is an example, which is why the stereo mix is mostly mono except for a few of the instruments. What's sad is that these mono mixes get buried. Frankly, most people wouldn't know or give a drat if it was stereo or mono, because they just want the music. So these mixes that were throwaways become the mainstream, and then you have to hope someone chooses to issue the mono mix. Now, for Pink Floyd, Piper is a treat in mono. I don't know about Saucerful though. Saucerful was released late enough that stereo might have been their main focus and the mono might have been an afterthought (yes, that started to happen around 68 or so).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Well the answer could be Gershwin or Ellington or Stravinsky or Sinatra or James Brown, but if you're just going by dollars moved it might be the Beatles. Or it might not. I mean more or less that's what I am going by. They're pop culture icons and one of those rare things just about everybody regardless of age will instantly recognize. This is what I'm referring to. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of any other contributor to music in the 20th century, I'm just saying that you're not going to find a great deal of 12 year olds wearing a Duke Ellington t-shirt.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I mean more or less that's what I am going by. They're pop culture icons and one of those rare things just about everybody regardless of age will instantly recognize. This is what I'm referring to. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of any other contributor to music in the 20th century, I'm just saying that you're not going to find a great deal of 12 year olds wearing a Duke Ellington t-shirt. Doesn't make them musically important though. Just commercially. I'm curious what the right answer is.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:Doesn't make them musically important though. Just commercially. I'm curious what the right answer is. I feel like you're just being pedantic. But that said, it isn't like the mark they left on music is insignificant. There's an undeniable reason they have that commercial viability. The point I was trying to make is that when you have control of such a successful legacy you'd think it would be handled with more care than it was in the past few decades.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I feel like you're just being pedantic. But that said, it isn't like the mark they left on music is insignificant. There's an undeniable reason they have that commercial viability. The point I was trying to make is that when you have control of such a successful legacy you'd think it would be handled with more care than it was in the past few decades. That's because Michael Jackson owned the publishing though. And if everything you're saying is right, then they were still number 1 without doing any of that stuff so why bother being careful?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:That's because Michael Jackson owned the publishing though. And if everything you're saying is right, then they were still number 1 without doing any of that stuff so why bother being careful? To be fair I forgot that Michael Jackson controlled the catalog for some years, but if I recall correctly he ended up selling it to Sony at some point.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:That's because Michael Jackson owned the publishing though. And if everything you're saying is right, then they were still number 1 without doing any of that stuff so why bother being careful? Yeah I guess ultimately only a small set of people who listen to the Beatles care about or are even aware of the existence of mono mixes of their albums. And the mono mixes were eventually reissued anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:To be fair I forgot that Michael Jackson controlled the catalog for some years, but if I recall correctly he ended up selling it to Sony at some point. Ok.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
caligulamprey posted:Somewhere or other I heard someone say the most important band to rival The Beatles in terms of lasting impact and influence was Kraftwerk. I don't know if I'd love or hate it if Target sold "vintage" printed Man Machine shirts.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
are the original beatles uk mono pressings still valuable? ive had some since before the reissues came out and have thought about selling them since
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Given that there's a bunch of them in my parents record collection, and their collection is generally worthless, I'd say it's unlikely. There's just so many copies of them in circulation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
strap on revenge posted:are the original beatles uk mono pressings still valuable? ive had some since before the reissues came out and have thought about selling them since All depends on condition, right?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
It's a rough guide, but Discogs have wildly varying prices for that stuff. With Beatles For Sale there's good condition original mono releases that are below retail price (About $10), and then others that want like 10 times that.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Yeah the only "issue" with discogs is that there's zero overhead or prerequisites for listing items, so you can just take any record you own and find the correct pressing and just list it at any price. And it can just sit there forever and ever and you're not charged for it, so sellers either forget they had it listed or just don't care that people aren't buying their way overpriced records. And I think some of it is just the fact that people list records when the value is at X price, but then the market value drops and they don't bother to readjust the price.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:Yeah the only "issue" with discogs is that there's zero overhead or prerequisites for listing items, so you can just take any record you own and find the correct pressing and just list it at any price. And it can just sit there forever and ever and you're not charged for it, so sellers either forget they had it listed or just don't care that people aren't buying their way overpriced records. And I think some of it is just the fact that people list records when the value is at X price, but then the market value drops and they don't bother to readjust the price. With things like Beatles records you can see what they've actually sold for though.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
If you want to know the history of Beatles records, check out Bruce Spizer's series of books. They are filled to the brim with information. That being said, they aren't cheap. Our of print copies can be pricey. They were all about $50 when new. e: looks like some of them are available as e-books. http://www.beatle.net/ Mister Kingdom fucked around with this message at 22:44 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
On a related note, found a mono copy of my favorite Beatles album in vg+ for under $20 a few weekends ago. The cover is split but I don't think I've seen any in the last couple years of searching that wasn't.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I mean more or less that's what I am going by. They're pop culture icons and one of those rare things just about everybody regardless of age will instantly recognize. This is what I'm referring to. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of any other contributor to music in the 20th century, I'm just saying that you're not going to find a great deal of 12 year olds wearing a Duke Ellington t-shirt. I don't think you'll find many 12 year olds don't wearing Beatles shirts in 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Nope it's all about Minecraft. Where's the Mondo release of that soundtrack?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Schremp Howard posted:Nope it's all about Minecraft. Where's the Mondo release of that soundtrack? http://www.theghostlystore.com/products/c418-minecraft-volume-alpha
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
[2105 AD: BUS PULLS INTO A STATION, COMMUTERS POURING OUT] ME: [roughly exiting bus, panic] PLEASE EVERYONE MOVE ASIDE POLICE: [concerned] SIR ARE YOU OKAY ME: [breathing heavily] PLEASE OFFICER HELP ME, I HAVE TO TELL EVERYONE... ME: [losing strength] THE BEATLES WERE SO.....[coughs] IMPORTANT ME: [fading] THEIR SALES ALONE... [deep breath] DEMONSTRATE THIS... POLICE: [flatly] SIR THE BEATLES WERE NOT THAT IMPORTANT I AM SORRY ME: [passes away] [FADE OUT]
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
This thread sometimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk3mF6fiOe8
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
A human heart posted:I don't think you'll find many 12 year olds don't wearing Beatles shirts in 2016. I tutor at a middle school and this is pretty much just not true.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Snowy posted:Vinyl collectors pay some crazy prices but somehow paying high prices for rare CDs seems so laughably retarded to me. If you let format rather than content dictate something's value, you're kind of an idiot. What's worse, paying $75 for the original (rare) CD, or $125 for the limited edition, remastered reissue, on vinyl, man?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Toe Rag posted:If you let format rather than content dictate something's value, you're kind of an idiot. What's worse, paying $75 for the original (rare) CD, or $125 for the limited edition, remastered reissue, on vinyl, man? But it's direct metal mastered!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Hi it's me the moron who buys video game soundtracks I got this with the lenticular cover on green and BOY is it sexy. Got the dustforce release from iam8bit too and the whole package for that just looks so grimy you half expect it to feel that way too. Since I have 0 self control I will also probably end up with the entire line of the Drift Stage OST cars once they finish releasing them
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
i sold a porcupine tree CD for $260 once and it's hard to gauge on discogs what my beatles ones would be worth. they play all the way through and the sleeves are nice with all the inserts and stuff but with surface noise and poo poo. i guess i won't know unless i decide to list them on ebay SeXReX posted:Hi it's me the moron who buys video game soundtracks i preordered the lenticular green minecraft record because i dig the music and lenticular covers are cool but they ended up cancelling my order because of manufacturing issues or supply issues something and then i was rally mad when i found out they got released anyway 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
strap on revenge posted:i sold a porcupine tree CD for $260 once
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 11:10
|
|