The BEATLES Re-Mixes - Altering the Past? 

EVERY single word in this video resonates true - Not only with regard to the Beatles, but for ALL art as you so brilliantly stated. I was a little kid when my older brother introduced me to the Beatles. I became an obsessed fan even at age 8. I grew up with the US albums, ALL of which I have in both mono and Stereo. The "hard voice"- "instrument" separation is kind of cool. In my case, it's what I grew up with and what I got used to. However, when I bought the Mono box set, I was blown away - and you don't have that annoying lyric flub by John and Paul on "Please Please Me" that still remains on the stereo versions. I Listened to the 2023 remixes in ATMOS streaming - still assessing them, but they do sound great. I still prefer the originals - it's the Beatles! Great topic - Tom

Hi Dan: I'm Mick in San Diego. Regarding your take on The Beatles remixes, I have to say two words to you up front: THANK YOU!! You nailed it Dan! The Beatles created the greatest music in the history of the world, as you know, and these recordings are sacred. What the band did in words, music/arrangements and their amazing layered backing tracks is legendary. Attempting to change or alter these recordings in any way in an effort to appease new generations of listeners for purely commercial reasons demonstrates a complete disrespect for the orgiginal work. It's just plain wrong. I, like yourself Dan grew up in a household filled with music and film, therefore respecting the awesome work by "the fab four" is number one. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean that you have to do it. For me personally, when it comes to sonically remastering this legendary body of work for the very highest fidelity in today's world, while still respecting The Beatles original mixes, the 2009 remasters, which combined, as you obviously know, analogue and digital technology to preserve the integrity of those original analogue recordings is, in my opinion, the very best sounding Beatles reissues of recent years, before Giles Martin came onto the scene. I agree with you that The Beatles music reissued in these new deluxe box sets sounds great yet, not always. The recent Giles Martin remixes for the Red & Blue '62-66 and 67-70 double albums have numerous problems. What Giles Martin did to I Am The Walrus borders on criminal. It's like, because he's George Martin's son he can "mess around" with these legendary recordings and literally screw up the music, to his own liking. Listen to She Said She Said from the Revolver Deluxe box set issued in 2022. Giles Martin removed those high end cymbals and literally, changed the dynamics of the song. I can't believe that Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the estates of John Lennon and George Harrison can allow this to happen. Honestly, I feel that, despite some good moments, especially in The Beatles early music, that Giles Martin is butchering these recordings. It's a travesty that he's allowed to even touch these legendary recordings, let alone have the authority and means at Abbey Road to rework them. As you so brilliantly and astutely noted, this is all being done to capitalize on the youth market of today that streams music and purchases physical product. Like you, I'm concerned about whether or not the original recordings will be available 50 to 100 years from now. When those brilliant 2009 remasters were released, I had no worries about the future of original Beatles recordings. Now, after the Giles Martin reworking of Sgt Pepper, The White Album, Abbey Road and Let It Be, along with the more recent Revolver box set, I have serious doubts about those original recordings being available some 100 years from now. Let's hope that Apple and the recording industry in general won't allow The Beatles original recordings to go the way of George Lucas, as you referenced in your video. That was classic by the way. It really cracked me up! Personally, like you, I prefer The Beatles music in mono. As you noted in your video, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr recorded this music in mono, as their passion and drive belongs to that format, yet I have no problem with their music in stereo, specifically the way they originally released Abbey Road in stereo, in 1969. And again, if you listen to the 2009 remastering of their entire catalogue, the stereo placement on these recordings is superb. Additionally, one has to keep in mind that it took 4 years for engineers at Abbey Road Studios to remix the music with that kind of care and love, and Apple released it in complete respect to The Beatles original artistic vision. In a perfect world, the original music would be available alongside these new reissues . As we all know, we don't live in a perfect world. I have my doubts, if the original recordings will be available some years down the road. At times, even Amazon doesn't have certain titles from the 2009 catalog available on the website. They seem to come and go, and that is scary, and outright dangerous. As for Apple, they seem to have sold out to only commercialism and major profit.. the dollar sign. As for that so called MAL Technology and these newer reissues like Revolver, yeah they sound really good at times yet again, Giles Martin has the audacity to completely rework the dynamics of this incredible body of music to "resell" it to those in that particular age demographics as noted above. Regarding the so called MAL Technology in regards to breaking down the songs sonically and studying what the Beatles did in the studio is great yet, it shouldn't supercede and replace the original recordings. Per your take on The Beatles album releases, I prefer the Parlophone EMI releases way over the Capital ("Crapital" as John Lennon called them) way over the Capital U.S. album releases. The Parlophone releases in The Beatles catalog for me, are the only way to listen to this incredible music recorded 1962-1970. I'm just a few years older than you and I guess you could say I'm in between a first and second generation Beatles fan. My older brother listened religiously to the original recordings in the 60's while I began to collect the albums in the mid 70's, when McCartney was touring with Wings. That so cool Band On The Run/Venus And Mars/Mind Games/Living In The Material World period. By the way, I loved your video on Love Mr Do and the fact that it was about the publishing, (and profit/Ardmore & Beechwood Ltd) that prompted EMI to release Lennon/McCartney original compositions on both sides of the single. You nailed it Dan on that one too! Way to go! And yet, as you noted, all sides were the winner on that one. I just last night caught you doing Dylan's "It Aint Me Babe" on a video from a while back. Outstanding! Until I watched your Beatles remixes video tonight, I honestly didn't know about your musical past. Now, I'm in complete respect and admiration of it. Those artists you opened for on tour are awesome, especially Burton Cummings and the Guess Who. In the early 70's Burton Cummings was noted as having probably the best voice in Rock 'n Roll (No Time/,American Woman) Yes, he's awesome. I'm sure you're honored and proud to have worked with him Dan. Nice work. Your take on films like The Time Machine, The Day The Earth Stood Still (my two all-time favorite sci-fi films) The Omega Man, Logan's Run, The War Of The Worlds (1953) and others are outright brilliant. You've done your homework, your enthusiasm and passion for these great films of yesterday is inspiring. Your onscreen presentation is perfect and your graphics are superb. Thanks for sharing the facts and that love you have for these gems from yesterday. It is.. truly inspiring as noted above. Again, many thanks! By the way, I grew up in Chicago watching gangster films, monster movies, westerns, fright films- basically every genre on WGN Television Channel 9 Chicago. Have you considered doing retrospectives on the classic horror/monster movies of the 1930's and 1940's? Films like The Bride Of Frankenstein or The Body Snatcher for example are masterpieces of that genre and just plain fun. The production values of those monster movies produced at Universal Pictures back then are so cool! Those Universal Pictures gems, RKO Val Lewton produced films and later 1950's and 1960's Hammer Films are amazing productions and intriguing stories as well. You might consider presenting those titles to your audience. There's a real passion for these films out there (ala TCM etc) and your fans would obviously plug into that material. I know I would! In closing, let me state again that your take on The Beatles reissues was nothing short of brilliant. The Beatles are the greatest act in the history of show business, in the history of art period. They did it all. I loved how you referenced the absurdity of repainting the Mona Lisa, recutting Gone With The Wind and colorizing Casablanca. "Art for arts sake" is what it's all about. It's nice to know that some people truly care about right and wrong. You my friend, belong to that exclusive club. Thank You! The evolution of The Beatles music between 1962 and 1970 as you know Dan, is legendary. Trying to modify and change art and culture to fit into a modern timeframe to attract the interest of new participants for solely commercial reasons is shortsighted, ignorant and doesn't show any respect for what came before. We learn, grow and evolve by studying the past, the triumphs and the tragedies of yesterday. The Beatles triumphed and changed the course of modern music. Hopefully, those incredible original mixes and subsequent beautifully done remasters of that music (ala 2009 remastered catalogue) will remain with us well into the future. Your very insightful nod to "even Spielberg" respecting the past and correcting ET back to the way it was, in that respect for history was remarkable Dan. In that light, your "are you listening George Lucas?" was perfect! Again, that one really cracked me up! 😂 How appropriate!! BTW, if you ever need a production associate with that same love, passion and respect for great cinema and music ("movies, music and monsters!") do drop me a note. I'd be honored to work with you. My friends, family and associates call me "Mickcinema" due to my passion and love for movies spanning the entire history of film. Feel free to reach out with your email address as it would be an honor to commiserate on film, music and the state of things today with you. You are truly awesome in the gift you share in your passion and knowledge of film and music. Thank You Dan! MickCinema 👍👍 🎬 🎶

in addition to your comments a lot of younger persons listen to there music from a MONO wifi speaker or there phones speaker so they don't appreciate a Stereo mix

Much the same happening with Elvis as he is really hot again. Mono to Stereo and full blown remixes. I understand it, but have a love hate relationship with it all. Really appreciate all these great videos you put out brother. Keep ROCKIN

I like the 53 Caddy Eldo model on your desk ( I owned an original real 53 Eldo and have that same model 😀) great topic and I agree that at least all of the original recordings need to be made available for future audiences....great job.

Maybe others have mentioned it in this comments sections, but the early (bad) stereo mixes were also released in the UK - not just the US. (And, likewise, Capitol released the mono mixes in the US up to the Magical Mystery Tour album.) In my life, I’ve bought all the Beatles albums on vinyl, then the 1987 CDs, then the 2009 remasters, and since 2017, the new remixes. One thing I like about the remixes is you can better hear deeper sounds like Paul’s bass and Ringo’s drums. (That was the first thing I noticed in the title track of Sgt. Pepper.) And, Dan, you showed “The Beatles’ Second Album” while decrying the early stereo mixes. I have to say I love that album. It was my own second Beatles’ LP purchase (Sgt. Pepper was the first), and I think it rocks. The slight reverb Capitol added to the tracks helps make those early 2-track stereo mixes a bit more palatable. (Compare those Capitol mixes to the dry UK ones. They are just punchier.)

F’ing LOVE it! But always appreciate the original. I have just about 90% of all Beatles recordings and love it all. You’re right! About the Mono recordings. Rubber Soul in Mono. Wow.

The new re-mixes are fine except when they change the balancing of the instruments so much that it becomes an alternative take. Listen to the new version of I am the Walrus. The ending sounds totally different. And this song appears on a greatest hits CD, not a bonus track on a future special edition of Magical Mystery Tour Eventually, the re-mixed version will probably become the definitive version, thereby altering the past and art of the Beatles.

A f’n men brother! You are spot on! Was Mozart or Bach or Beethoven updated for “modern audiences”? Isn’t Art created by the Artist and not the publisher? Beatles music is timeless. My 21 year old niece loves the Beatles, who she discovered on her own. They still can top the Billboard 100 as they recently did last November with “Now and Then”. I do not think it is a stretch to say that the Beatles will be remembered in the future the way we remember Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven today.

Must check out the mono mixes.

Thanks for this Dan. I believe the tracks should be appreciated as they are. That's the way they were originally intended, the way they were recorded and the way the artists worked with and far beyond the capabilities of the time. While I do have a fascination with the remixes, the original British mono is the way to go. If younger generations don't "get it" that's not due to mono, stereo or remixes. They are just too far down in the weeds of auto tune and overproduced and polished record company artists.

I've remixed a few Beatles songs! As LONG as they don't change the vibe too much, & it's not like tracks have been RE recorded, it SHOULD be ok!

I was 9 years old when The Beatles "invaded" the U.,S. and loved when I could listen to just the vocals or the instruments. Just listened to 'Come Together' (isolated drums)

The Beatles early recordings in German are a thing to behold, as it was the tour in Germany that made them a known band.

Discussing the Beatles with my kids always leads to how I experienced music in the 60s. Very few kids had more than 45 records with the single speaker player. I listened on AM transistor radio, powered by a 9 volt eveready battery. As I understood, artists structured music to for this. I vote to let it be. No pun intended. 🎉😊🙏

Very nice. I agree with both the pro & the con. The remixes allow me to hear more details in the original recordings, but the original mixes are golden, whether mono or stereo. Ringo's drums in stereo were just meant to be on one side or the other in the first few years, as was the case (I think) with most rock recordings early on. It did change when 100-watt amplifiers became the way to go. To clarify one thing: the British releases were indeed released in stereo back then. Please Please Me came out in stereo a few months after the mono. Most people only had mono players. Why did I buy Pepper in mono back in 67 when I was 12? It was a dollar cheaper! Who has $2 for a stereo version? Your "Forbidden Planet" video hooked me last week (I want the soundtrack album now! ha), as did the "Lost In Space" one. Gonna subscribe for more of your in-depth discussions. Topic: how did the Rolling Stones become the example of hard-edged bad-boys when Jagger was an economics student and Richards was a boy scout?

older music of all forms are better than anything out today

I grew up in the 60s when my friend and I would play a Beatles single and stand in front of the mirror as John and Paul. My friend being left-handed, He played Air Bass and I played rhythm air guitar. These singles were mono. We loved the music and the vocals. But I also remember finding out about "Beatles Stereo" They were just the way they were made. We never got the British versions at Bradlees or K-Mart so we listened to whatever we had access to. I remember discoing one speaker to get the vocals for "Because". WPIX plays Laurel and Hardy's March of the wooden Soldiers every Thanksgiving. It was shown in black and white because it was filmed in B/W. Years later the colorized it and ruined it for me. The colors looked slightly blurry and ruined the sharpness of the B/W version. Certain songs belong in stereo and some in mono. It depends on your preferences. Anyway, another great 3M video. Keep them coming.

You are correct sir. Do not alter the originals. Leave them as is for future generations to enjoy as intended.

Hey Dan, nice rant lol! I grew up listening to the Capitol albums in the 70s & 80s with that weird right/left mix, which was good for trying to learn the guitar parts but definitely wasn't the way they were intended to be heard. I had no idea about the original UK albums and that they were different, and as it turns out far superior. Though they were initially released in mono all their session were recorded simultaneously in mono & stereo, EMI figured that most teenagers didn't have stereo players and stereo releases were reserved for adult pop & classical albums. I recently got the new Red album and it sounds fantastic, there's just a subtle bit more clarity & space to be able to hear the individual elements more clearly. Especially Ringo's drums, but then he was the noisy one! 😄 I also have one of the Capitol CD box sets with stereo & mono, and the mono is much better. Even then the quality of some of the many re-mixes varies in sound depending on the source material used. There's an excellent YT channel called Parlogram, definitely worth looking into if you haven't already. He really goes into great detail on all things Beatles! Thanks, Chuck

Well said

Well argued.

Well stated.

I like the sixties stereo mixes, but feel many could be remastered to bring out the bottom end.

As a lifelong Beatle fan, I appreciate, understand and agree. To a point. The first time I heard the original stereo mixes, I thought they were hard to listen to and wished they were mono. The colas in one speaker was painful. Then I heard Van Halen was doing the same thing in some songs. Not all, mind you. Then I thought, “Well, if modern bands (at that time) were doing it, then okay.” Then I just got used to it. The newer mixes (of the last few years) are a nice take on things and also, part of the landscape that is the Beatles’ music. Though a part of the landscape, not the big picture. You have to have the original mono stuff in order to appreciate the new mixes. They all go hand in hand. Without one, you can’t appreciate the other, whichever angle you look at it. Is one better? No. Are they all good, in a way. I’d want to listen to the mono first though.

and... Ditto Dan !!!

Great take on appreciating and preserving artwork (be it music, literature or film) just how it was created and at the time it was made. Totally agree with you Dan (are you listening George Lucas!?) 😂

Hey Dan, they are also auto tuning a lot of the vocals of older recording we know and love when they remaster them and they don't even let us know! It's bad enough it's become a recording standard for today's music but leave the stuff I grew up with alone! I just don't get it! l love the US Capitol version of Rubber Soul, not the UK release. There are four song choices different on the two versions and the US version has the real magic! Example, "Drive My Car" is not on the US release, it's on the "Yesterday Day and Today" album that was a US only release. When I listen to the UK "Rubber Soul" it just doesn't sound like "Rubber Soul" to me! I didn't even know the UK version existed until I bought the MFSL 1/2 speed Mastered LP that came out in 1982, it was the UK version of the album. All I think all this remastering is going to accomplish is make all the music I've been collecting since 1964 a whole lot more valuable maybe so I'll just hold on to all of it until I'm gone!

I had to watch this one right lol well, as a Beatle fan since the original Red and Blues back in 1970 I can say I like most of what Giles Martin has done with the remixes. When I got the whole range on CD in 87 in the UK-which was the first time they'd been issued on that format-they were the bad separated stereo mixes(my opinion, I never liked that voice on one side instruments on the other thing) then I bought the 2009's which were still the same mix placements but improved sonics. Now with Pepper, White album, Red Blues, Abbey Road and my favorite Revolver, they've become my go to mixes. I know what you mean about the monos but to be honest even as a teenager back in the 70s mono was my pet hate. On our transistor radios of the time it sounded fine but if I try to listen to mono on my phone today with buds it's drives me nuts haha. I'm just so used to stereo. I think the difference with music and say the Mona Lisa is that we can always have the monos and every other mix available if we want it. Great channel by the way. I subbed today. Love my movies too, so all these what happened to's are great 😀

Totally agree. No need to do remix's and that goes for music and movies.

Leave them as they were. They were successful for what they were. I just like my movies and music to be just the way I loved them.

Dan, first generation Beatles fan here; listen to dj spinning Beatles records over a giant RCA radio/record player vacuum tubes no transitors. Man, hearing their music was the most exciting thing i ever experienced...Nothing so far matches it. Re-masters suck...period.

I've never heard the mono version of any songs but after hearing what what you said I would have to agree I would like to hear it just to know what it's like but if there's any questions as to were today's audience is going they just released a new Beatles song with AI imitating John Lennon and no one complained

The 2023 "Red & Blue" remixes have this horrible foggy sound-stage. What it sounds like to me is they recorded the new mixes off speakers and then fed THAT back into the mix. They sound set back from the speakers. The originals were direct, crisp and discrete. The greatest sin was literally adding new radio FX and a looped "heh, heh, heh, heh, heh" bit to "I Am the Walrus".

You have a bit of "Monster Mash" of musical influences lol

In my 60's and I disagree. If it means it will get young people to listen to the songs, when they otherwise wouldn't, all the better. While not all of the new remixes are good, there is nothing wrong with having different mixes available to listen to. Even the artists themselves (or maybe producers who had nothing to do with the original recording) make different mixes of the same song, sometimes even years later. For example, from what I understand, Paul McCarty made Let It Be - Naked in 2003, separate the other Beatles. That is, assuming the artists did the original mixing, which is not always the case. If someone prefers the old mixes, they are always there. So, it is not altering the past. Also, remixing the tracks that the Beatles made is not the same as painting over the Mona Lisa. Painting over the Mona would more equate to recording new parts and adding them to the mix.

You can't teach the young 😂

Re-mixes DO NOT change the past. It's not like speilberg with the ET guns. If that were the analogy, then they would've re-recorded or replaced guitar parts or drum parts or bass parts in the songs, completely replacing original recorded elements with new elements. But they didn't they simply re-mixed what was already there with new modern technology. You may be knowledgable about music, but you need to understand that mixing is simply a process of balancing, nothing more. The Beatles re-mixes are simply a result of balancing the tracks in a sensible manner with modern computers and stereo practices. The biggest complaint people seem to have is "too much bass", which is coming from the fact that digital audio can handle it where vinyl records could not.

I guess I am a purist. I want to experience things as they were originally; otherwise, the history is lost to time.

Sgt. Pepper in MONO?????? UGH! No way they could prefer that. It was mixed to have spread and... no, just, no. I was born in 1962. When they came here in 64, I was listening to music on radio and loved them from then to today. I have most of their vinyl LPs, all of the CDs. But remixing for "today"? It's like rewriting Beethoven's 9th. Mustn't be done. I don't even know what that means. I mean, I have some remasters, and they sound terrific, with nothing changed and a bit more content more audible. I even have a master cassette tape made directly from the original tapes of their first two albums (the American split version stereo). The CDs are the Mono versions. But, remixed? How, why? Nah. Will they consult Paul and Ringo?

Please,John Lennon would the 1st to say the The Fabs are not the Mona Lisa.That band was all about innovative milestones & this is just another one.Giles Martin(probably with Billy,er,Paul McCartney at the helm) did some great mixes with the bass a lot beefier,greater seperation & with digitzing the songs overall making them much clearer,punchier tracks.If you true believers think theses mixes are sacrilegious just wait till A.I. gets ahold of them the record company will then be issuing new/old & mutated Beatle's songs forever!Side note:Giles Martin narrated the audio version of "The Memoirs Of Billy Shears"a book about the alleged death & replacement of Paul McCartney with William Shepherd.Alegedlly.

Probably just removing the backmasking.

I prefer the 2009 remasters, in general. My LEAST favorite of the remixes is Revolver, the instruments are SUPPOSED to be in wide stereo. It sounds weird with everything brought to the middle.

I don't enjoy the remixes. This goes for The Beatles, and virtually all others I've heard. I've listened to the originals hundreds of times, and they just sound "wrong" to me. I won't go out of my way to buy (yet another time) the remixes, so if they are seeking profits, it won't be from my wallet. But, I'm just one person, your mileage may vary.

You're confusing Dave Dexter with George Martin somewhat.

"...rather, we should be teaching the children of today to appreciate what was in the past..." I don't think you understand what it is you want them to appreciate. The songs are great as they are, with the recorded elements as they are. A re-mix is not changing the song, it is simply re-balancing the elements of the song to work properly within a modern reproduction system. There are no flaws, and as someone who grew up on the vinyl records first, I can tell you that I am listening to these remixes with the songs as the first thought. Even when I listen to the Dolby Atmos mix on blu-ray, I am not even remotely thinking about whether or not the remix should've been done. I am only thinking about how much I love Abbey Road. Furthermore, Abbey Road was NOT in MONO. It was their first album to be mixed and released in stereo only. And it sounded fantastic and still does, so there goes your "theory" about the Beatles wanting their mixes in MONO. Their older albums were only in mono because that's what everybody had, stereo was brand new. If stereo wasn't such a new phenomenon and technology, they 100% would have mixed everything in stereo only, and not MONO. Mono was simply the limitation they dealt with at the time.

Geoff Emerick himself said that stereo mixes were made. The reason they were so bad is that very few people had stereo, especially outside the USA. So there wasn't much work put into them. With hindsight there is a need for a good stereo remix to be made since most music is heard on stereo now. I love them. I don't care for the zombie songs and don't listen to them.

Huge Beatles fan here. And also a historian. But...I disagree with you on this one. There's no such thing as "pure art". Artists make their music/paintings/poetry/sculpture/what have you for, always, many reasons. Michelangelo Buonarroti did the Sistine Chapel both as a masterpiece of his painting artistry, but also because he was being paid by the Pope. It was how he made his living. The Beatles made their art for many reasons. Joy in the act of creation, and performance, to enthrall and give joy to the listener, and to make money. There is nothing wrong with making money, and I think there is nothing wrong with adjusting your product for better sales. That said, I agree that an effort needs to be made to preserve the originals and keep them available. There will always be people like you and I who are willing and able to do the deep dive and seek out the original formats, the primary sources. But not everyone will, and I would argue, not everyone should - because everyone has their own foibles and likes.

Big Beatles fan. I am not a fan of the remixes. I am a music purist.

I hear what you are saying, someone needs to pant eyebrows on the Mona Lisa. Glad we had this chat.

You are right about the new generation who won't even watch Black & White movies -"It must be dull it because it's old" attitude.

Not a fan of altering any thing from the past. How can you see the evolution of art, culture; of anything, when you eliminate what came before it?

There are several albums where you can get mono and different takes, Revolver Super Deluxe is one example with 63 tracks.

Any original music or movies will always be superior to later remastered releases.

I’m with you Dan… Leave the Beatles songs as they were first recorded… Don’t need to redo any classic Beatles music…. To me, the Beatles paved the way for another great band, The Electric Light Orchestra…

Totally agree! I am not a fan of changing any original product for the sake of "new" viewers/buyers. You mentioned Lucas and what was done with Star Wars. Lots of that is being done with many old/older films. I discovered that Warner Bros. had added a gunshot sound effect during the bank robbery scene in Dirty Harry. That makes it seem like Harry fired six shots and not five (as originally done). That totally destroys the meaning of the "did I fire six shots or only five" monolog, making it seem like Harry got lucky at the end blowing the psycho away with shot number six. That is no different than having Greedo fire first instead of Han Solo. Anyway, gotta go. Thanks Dan.

Remixing the Beatles into better stereo imaging, good idea. With the limitations of early stereo now removed, we can give the songs more room to breathe. Let's not forget that some of the songs were mixed to cover up some flaws or mistakes that otherwise could not be removed with sixties technology. The mash up album "Love" CD/DVD has the music in a 5.1 mix, and you can hear a few audio scraps that were covered up in the original mixes. Current audio technology has the capability to allow us to hear The Beatles with better depth and clarity. I agree with Dan when he says the mono mixes are great. I also agree with Dan about the British stereo mixes being much better that the American ones. But I like what I hear with the ongoing remixes. The new mix of Let It Be triumphs over Phil Spector's overproduced version. Let's not forget that Let It Be ... Naked was released to give us a taste of what that LP was originally meant to sound like. Music is a living art form and the Beatles were ruthlessly experimental in the studio, let their desire to explore new territories live on with the remixes. This is not music for one generation, it's music for all generations.

Why record in mono? Because the way these recordings would get to the people was through AM Radio... in Mono, we were into the 70s before FM stereo was common. Stereo should make you feel you're in the room with the band; the bass player is on my left in the room and the rhythm guitar is set up on the right vocals come down the middle, but I hate when they play lead guitar on the left but you can't hear it at all on the right (several instances of that on the White Album alone), that isn't giving me the sense I'm in the room at all, just the opposite.

I'm a huge Beatles fan also, and since I'm older, I learned their songs guitar and piano parts not through RU-vid but through listening to them on vinyl and copying them by trying to match their playing with my own. I learned Blackbird, Dear Prudence, the Lady Madonna piano, etc only by reverse engineering what I heard. As I got older and more media was available from them, I learned that I did figure out how to play them exactly as they played it. I was also interested in their recording techniques, and initially that was hard to find but over the years that has finally come out. Ideally, even now, I would like to hear what they played before the final mix. This is like trying to learn painting from the masters, if you could actually see them as they painted. This is why I like the concept of the remixes, because with the use of AI the mono tracks one can extract this information. All of the instrumentation can be extracted from the mono mixes and sub mixes and we can hear a little clearer how they played and what they played. Because none of the Beatles wrote down what they did, all we have are the original recordings to learn from. I don't particularly like the new remixes, but if remixing these provide a way to extract the individual instruments and keep these as a reference to the original recordings, then we are preserving history to allow future artists to learn from the Beatles and their heritage. [As a side note, I am currently trying to learn "Skating" by Vince Guaraldi and it drives me crazy that there are no clear piano only recordings or actual transcriptions of what he really played. The left hand is really important and is not easily discernable, and all I have to learn from is the various remixes and transcriptions of what people "think" he played].

I think that with modern technical advances that all the recorded tracks should be available soon so that the user should be able to remix (as well as sample and possibly remix again ) the tracks the way the user prefers. They should become available by many artists in this manner.

As long as the originals are always available I'm okay with people doing a little monkey business with them. Maybe this is what will help to keep the Beatles music alive 100 years from now. None of us know for sure.

Hey. Just found your channel, happy to see a fellow GenXr telling it like it us. I don't always agree with you but I do enjoy most of your comments. Like me, you grew up watching standard definition television. When we were kids we were all limited by the device and much of the additional content that was captured during production didn't make to our Mono BW & Color TV's. It was all there was and all we knew. Fast forward to today. I enjoy many of the 4K upscales of our classic TV & Music videos from back in the day. Some it is amazing because we get to see content was recorded during production but were never able to enjoy. We get to see stuff that we never saw before or were meant to see. I think this is both a gift AND a curse because sometimes it reveals the "man behind the curtain" pulling the strings that lets us in the magic trick. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It's a mixed bag to be sure. That's how I view the original recordings of the beatless music, classics all but due to the limitations of the medium, the recording engineers had to remove some stuff the Beatles recorded. Examples include filtering and compressing some of the tonal qualities the band recorded, otherwise the record needles would skip. Also The classics contain many production blemishes that can be fixed with today's equipment. I'm talking about all the bleeps and bloops that got included in the final mixes such as yawns, pops & background noise. When you love something, you love it warts and all. But what if you could "cure" the warts? What if you could remove them? Doesn't mean you'd love them more but you do get to see what is underneath the warts and that does have some value. The beauty of the remixes is that Giles Martin was able to restore some of the missing content and remove some of the blemishes from the originals. What this means is we get to hear stuff we never heard before. Example. In the remixed version of Sgt Pepper Reprise includes some great Paul stuff that was recorded then but we never heard on the original. Hearing that for the first time was fantastic! There are many examples of this on the remixes...and I agree some of them are failures as the remixes don't always work. See the Revolver Remixes. Some are great, some are not. I enjoy archeology and some of the treasures Giles Martin has found in the Beatles catalog is Amazing, some of it is meh but that's what you get when you make discoveries. In that vein, I consider Peter Jackson's "Get Back" a masterpiece. Seeing the Beatles as young musicians, friends & troublemakers working together is an absolute gift. It's all hit or miss and as they peel back some of the layers we find new things such as lost guitar solos, alternative vocals with different lyrics and many other colors and hues that were lost. I love this because we get to learn more about the artist's process and their individual personalities. Restoring that old info, preserves it for a newer generation and so long as they don't destroy the original mixes, it is fun to explore the remixed versions to hear what was missed. I think that has value.

Wow so glad I subbed! You got me with Lost in Space and now Beatles! Yay! And a musician too and a 68 model as well I think if I did that math correctly? Do you have some videos about your music? Ok Beatles. Yes the stereo mixes (by I think Geoff Emmerck) are bizarre and weird but those versions are what I heard first and the ones I still prefer. I had everything on cassette both Parlophone and capitol then bought their entire catalogue on CD in late 80’s then the digital remasters of 2009 and also the mono box set. 🤑 Side note. I think the stereo mixes were used on radio airplay and for the Capitol releases. In the Uk you could buy stereo or Mono but the Mono was cheaper. I’ve tried to listen to the new remixes and I just can’t. On a funny note have you seen the cover version of Beatles tunes but they only do the left channel? Or just the right channel. Funny stuff.

Well, I'm a first-generation fan from the US. With only a small number of exceptions, I think the new mixes are remarkably better than the original. The art is in the music, and they make the music sound so much better. It sounds much more like it did in the studio, and I think that s a good thing.

Dan, when are you going to talk about the second Fab Four from Liverpool ? A Flock of Seagulls

So it begs the question: should they not have remastered Star Trek the original series with all that amazing CGI and made it look as pristine as if it were made yesterday? I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said in this video. I think it was a brilliant thesis. I personally grew up with the faux stereo Capitol mixes and, yeah, those will always be what I identify the Beatles with. I’m someone who finds it a little jarring to listen to With the Beatles. In fact, Meet the Beatles is so ingrained in my DNA that I can hear it in my head track for track- in the original key of each song! And I’ve tested myself on this! All that being said, I have listened to the Giles Martin remixes and I have to say they are brilliant for what they are trying to be. But it’s all good. Just the fact that the Beatles are still here and as relevant and modern as they ever were and always shall be is the important thing.

I'm 72 and STILL marvel and am greatfull that I lived through this whole period ,able to appreciate........ah fkit you know what I mean.

They’ve already ruined Queen for me by outlawing fat bottom girls.

I don't mind changes to the originals of anything as long as the original is still available... George Lucas. Make all versions available.

I rather enjoy monophonic listening because I grew up listening to a tinny staticky tiny transistor radio. 3 boys slept in one room, if i wanted to listen after lights-out, at first I had to put under my pillow. Then came earphones. I didn’t get my first real stereo until I was 18 in 1970, but continued buying monophonic albums. They were a buck cheaper. So I cut my teeth on mono until 45s were cut in stereo at the same price. Amazed at the difference. Imagine Tubular Bells in mono. Today I own a 5.1 Dolby mix. I’ve no objection with tinkering with the past. You put forth a false equivalency. The Master Tapes are usually still available in some form. They aren’t changing the Mona Lisa. They are changing a true version of it, leaving the source untouched. It’s refreshing the. Masterpiece for a new audience, keeping music, art, whatever fresh with a new spin for a new audience. If you don’t want to listen to the new spin, no one is putting a gun to your cabesa. Non one is torching the masters. Unless you didn’t store them someplace fireproof- which Universal MCA didn’t.

I'm a first-generation Beatles fan, having first heard them in 1964. With a small number of exceptions, the new mixed are fantastically better than the original mixes. The old mixes were severely limited by the technology at the time.

Have you seen what they did to the exterior shots with Star Trek 2.0? Blasphemy.

1:37 you sir, are an inspiration. Sweet Guild, too!

I agree. But pop music is also por dancing.

I agree that the original mixes were superior. The stereo mixes were done very poorly and just sound weird. I didn’t start listening to the Beatles until Rubber Soul but their older albums and 45’s were available to me and I certainly visited them often. Love your content and your presentation is icing on the cake.

I agree with you, Dan. Right on!

NOTE the spot may have mono or stereo ones note all the quad recordings as well that were out there yes MONO was good if you did not hear the first lot them micro records that came out when 78's were around when i was at school the pa record player had 78 and 33 on it no 45 speed it was mono i was alot older till i had stereo stereo came to me on 8 track tapes and some records nice to hear about your back ground in music i could tell what kind you are audio one is a good plan love to see what you say mix down them 4 track 1 inch tapes is a right pain they have to get that big deck out again

I like both styles. I think it just depends on the songs you are listening to. True, the earlier songs were made for and sound better in mono, although the stereo versions of the more intricate later songs are more pleasing to listen to. You get to hear things like the sound of a bus or an airplane buzzing across from one ear to another. Not to forget, some of the remasters let you hear detailed sounds that you don't hear in the originals.

When I was young, I did not want the past synthesized and cleaned up for me. I wanted to see it as it happened and hear it without some modern sheen. Got to believe there are plenty of young people today who feel the same way.

Leave it how they did it!!

You are so very right 😊

Well said! 👍

Hi Dan, I totally agree with your comments. The new Beatles remixes are nice (with a few exceptions, e.g. "She Loves You") but, like you, I'm fearful that the original mixes will be phased out in favor of these new "improved" mixes. You can't (and shouldn't try) to change the past, especially when it comes to music and art.

Wait, wait, wait....that's NOT why they were remixed. First, yes...money is the driving force. However, both surviving Beatles and the families of the two we lost agreed that, most of their music was based around the technology of the time. And they all understood that the 4 lads were all deeply into using technology to create their music. Giles, having worked very closely with his father in his later years was the natural choice to carry on his father's legacy and he's a trusted insider by The Beatles and their entities. Giles doesn't do anything with ought the approval of Apple Inc and the survivors of the band. Sean Lennon's own words were that his father would've loved all of the new wor I songs of that incredible catalog.

I'm 75 and a huge Beatles fan. I had all the albums, but since I didn't have a turntable and all those components anymore, I gave them fo another Beatles fan who is a little younger. Anyway, I only heard the stereo versions, being in the US. I loved them just the same. It would have been cool to hear both versions, though there used to be a switch on the tuner to switch from MONO to STEREO, that I probably never switched.

Sorry I just can't listen to music that sonically sits directly in front of my nose.

Just to mention Alan Parsons: he was talked into starting his Project on the theory that the producer of an album should be associated with like the director is associated with a film. If this idea had taken hold, these would not be marketed as "Beatles Remixes," but as "George Martin Remixes," but it's obviously not George Martin's anymore! Remixes would be looked at the way colorization is.

hello dan, i wanted to share with you my compleat beatles remake.

I agree with you Dan, Lennon and McCartney wanted us to hear their tracks in mono👍

What are the posters that are displayed framed on the wall?

i had to turn off Pepper cd cause it was not the record they made

06:54 exactly Dan ! Yep, my biggest concern is that these new mixes will become the ONLY versions you will be able to listen to or purchase _(then again physical media I guess will die out as well!)_ Oh, executives...! 😉

You seem to be leveling all the blame of these remixes on the "youth", except I don't think you realize that there are no young fans of the Beatles to the degree you assume. Sure there may be a few here and there. But broadly speaking the youngest fans of the Beatles that are consuming these re-mixes are in their 50's or older. People like you can't help but scream "those damn millennials!", but you're too ignorant in this case to realize that it's not Gen Z or millennials that are the target audience.

That's what a re-mix is, an alteration. But that's ALL it is. It is NOT a time machine, it does NOT go back and replace the original mixes. Therefore, if you prefer the original mixes, particularly the mono ones, then all you have to do is ignore the 2019-2022 remixes. Don't act like an additional product is somehow ruining the past and you'll be fine. People who complain about remixes and edits (like directors cuts of movies) are complete goofs who need a perspective change.

On the whole what Giles has been aloowed to do to Beatles music should be a jailable offence 15 25 years.

Don't call yourself The Old guy until you stop dyeing your hair