Beatles to release expanded "Red" and "Blue" compilations in Dolby Atmos, including brand new song "Now and Then"

[ar surround]

There are actually things missing from some tracks, on all of these releases. If I can identify those and he can't, he's just not the right person for this job.

Do you have a couple of examples? I'm not challenging you. I'm just curious and others probably are as well.

I wonder if some of these missing things were due to post processing of the original albums that simply could not be duplicated in the remixes.

 

[admsh]

Do you have a couple of examples? I'm not challenging you. I'm just curious and others probably are as well.

I wonder if some of these missing things were due to post processing of the original albums that simply could not be duplicated in the remixes.

It's many little things. One example that drives me nuts is Glass Onion. At 1:14 Paul joins John with a scream in the original (it could be John overdubbed, but I think it's Paul) and it's completely gone from the new mix. So maybe that track was missing, I'll accept that, but then there are also places where the original balance is completely different. Also a White Album example: Martha My Dear - around 1:43 there's a beautiful french horn in the background doing a variation on the melody, to me this was the highlight of this track always. You can barely hear it in the new mix, it's just almost gone. And if we're talking about the French Horn, on Penny Lane you can now barely hear the vocal harmonies that were layered on top of it starting 1:09 ("Aahhhh Aahhhh" and so on).

There's so much of that all over the place. It's all nits (with the exception of She Said She Said which is just an abomination in stereo), and granted, I know most of this by heart in a way no one really should LOL. But that just means they should have contacted me to do this! I don't consider myself a purist, but it is the Beatles we're dealing with here.

There's almost none of that happening on the Elton John mixes, for example. Or even on the Fleetwood Mac ones. Things added perhaps here and there, yes, but nothing missing like that.

 

[Ephi82]

I’m not sure I get all the hate for Giles Martin. The Beatles were among the best because of the songs, the singing, the playing and the sound/ production of the records. Us surround heads would love to hear extremely adventurous immersive mixes, but I’m not sure that the music buying public, and the directors at Apple want the product to not sound like what they have loved for close to 60 years.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I’m not sure I get all the hate for Giles Martin. The Beatles were among the best because of the songs, the singing, the playing and the sound/ production of the records. Us surround heads would love to hear extremely adventurous immersive mixes, but I’m not sure that the music buying public, and the directors at Apple want the product to not sound like what they have loved for close to 60 years.

Isn't that what the stereo mixes are for?

 

[ar surround]

I’m not sure I get all the hate for Giles Martin. The Beatles were among the best because of the songs, the singing, the playing and the sound/ production of the records. Us surround heads would love to hear extremely adventurous immersive mixes, but I’m not sure that the music buying public, and the directors at Apple want the product to not sound like what they have loved for close to 60 years.

"Hate" is a very strong word and I wish it wouldn't be used it in this context. I really doubt if anyone on this forum hates the man...or even slightly dislikes him.

Anyway, as I noted earlier it is the inconsistency of his surround sound mixes that I find frustrating. Had the Revolver box set included a blu-ray with the Atmos mix, I would have been annoyed at shelling out $150 for it. Giles stereo remix of that album is really good and shines when played through the Surround Master. The Stones Goats Head Soup is also an inconsistent Atmos mix.

 

[key_wiz]

I’m not sure I get all the hate for Giles Martin. The Beatles were among the best because of the songs, the singing, the playing and the sound/ production of the records. Us surround heads would love to hear extremely adventurous immersive mixes, but I’m not sure that the music buying public, and the directors at Apple want the product to not sound like what they have loved for close to 60 years.

No "hate" for Giles. Or his work. I just think he could have been more adventurous and no one would have complained. ESPECIALLY with the later albums that were all about being adventurous-in-the-studio anyway.

Giles could have done much more with the surround while still keeping to the sound and feel of the original records, IMO. He didn't have to turn them all into "Love" style mixes.

And besides, who else besides surround heads are these surround mixes even FOR anyway?

 

[Ephi82]

Isn't that what the stereo mixes are for?

No. This is a problem of defining what is a “ good” object based mix.

Some will say the only good one is one that aggressively makes very obvious use of many sound objects placed all around the 360 degree sound field.

I enjoy mixes like this, but I also love an approach that is very detailed, revealing previously unheard details and also immersive but retains the essential character of the original stereo recording. Giles has stated that is exactly what his goal has been, and I think he delivers overall. I believe this approach is just as valid as the more extreme approaches. It still art isn’t it?

 

[Ephi82]

Giles could have done much more with the surround while still keeping to the sound and feel of the original records, IMO. He didn't have to turn them all into "Love" style mixes.

And besides, who else besides surround heads are these surround mixes even FOR anyway?

People like me who love surround music and understand that there are many valid ways to execute a good surround mix.

 

[sjcorne]

No "hate" for Giles. Or his work. I just think he could have been more adventurous and no one would have complained. ESPECIALLY with the later albums that were all about being adventurous-in-the-studio anyway.

Giles could have done much more with the surround while still keeping to the sound and feel of the original records, IMO. He didn't have to turn them all into "Love" style mixes.

I think his mix of Abbey Road is probably about as adventurous as it could have been given the limitations of the source material. There are even some fun bits that deviate from the template of the original stereo, like the guitar at the beginning of "Sun King" panning around the room or bringing out Billy Preston's organ more throughout "I Want You".

I agree that there are few missed moments here and there where he could maybe have tried something a bit bolder - like having the guitar solos in "The End" move around the room instead of alternating left, center, right - but if they gave those tapes to Steven Wilson or Elliot Scheiner instead, I think the general soundstage/placement of elements wouldn't be all that dissimilar.

 

[ar surround]

People like me who love surround music and understand that there are many valid ways to execute a good surround mix.

Looking back at my poll ratings, one would have to say that I hold most of the final products in rather high regard despite my complaints about the mixing style:

Beatles 1+: 6
Sgt Pepper (with fronts lowered by 3dB): 9
The White Album (with some EQ and volume adjustments): 10
Abbey Road (Atmos): 10
Let It Be (Atmos): 10
Gimme Some Truth (Atmos): 10 [Per SJC correction, this is Paul Hicks' work]
Goats Head Soup (Atmos): 8
All Things Must Pass (Atmos): 9 [Per SJC correction, this is Paul Hicks' work]

Other than the Beatles 1+ debacle, the only other true disappointment has been Revolver...which actually can be 'bandaided' by lowering the front three channels by 3 to 5 dB on the non-immersive tracks.

 

[key_wiz]

People like me who love surround music and understand that there are many valid ways to execute a good surround mix.

As I said. 🤷‍♂️

 

[sjcorne]

Gimme Some Truth (Atmos): 10
All Things Must Pass (Atmos): 9

Those two are Paul Hicks' work

 

[key_wiz]

I think his mix of Abbey Road is probably about as adventurous as it could have been given the limitations of the source material. There are even some fun bits that deviate from the template of the original stereo, like the guitar at the beginning of "Sun King" panning around the room or bringing out Billy Preston's organ more throughout "I Want You".

I agree that there are few missed moments here and there where he could maybe have tried something a bit bolder - like having the guitar solos in "The End" move around the room instead of alternating left, center, right - but if they gave those tapes to Steven Wilson or Elliot Scheiner instead, I think the general soundstage/placement of elements wouldn't be all that dissimilar.

I don’t think he necessarily needed to “pan around” more. But simply placing more stuff in the rears would have been nice.

 

[ar surround]

Those two are Paul Hicks' work

Grumble, rumble and stumble...

 

[fetchmybeer]

Very impressed that they were able to pull that vocal from the source track.

But the song isn't very good. The solo is just a rehash of the vocal melody when I think it had a chance to elevate what is otherwise a melancholy song. I do like the string arrangement.

One thing I'll say is I was worried that they'd try to mix a heavily reverbed source vocal track with dry instrumentation, and thankfully they didn't do that.

 

[ar surround]

Those two are Paul Hicks' work

Revised accounting:

 

[admsh]

No. This is a problem of defining what is a “ good” object based mix.

Some will say the only good one is one that aggressively makes very obvious use of many sound objects placed all around the 360 degree sound field.

I enjoy mixes like this, but I also love an approach that is very detailed, revealing previously unheard details and also immersive but retains the essential character of the original stereo recording. Giles has stated that is exactly what his goal has been, and I think he delivers overall. I believe this approach is just as valid as the more extreme approaches. It still art isn’t it?

I actually do think that's in fact what stereo mixes are for, and the point of having a new stereo mix is to reveal more detail by cleaning things up and using the latest technology. The point of a surround mix is of course to reveal all that detail but also to create an immersive sound stage, and that's very inconsistent in Giles' work. I'm the first to agree the feel and character of the original recording must be retained - and I was a fan of what they did to the sound of the White Album for this reason exactly, they nailed that one. And as stated before, Elton John's remixes are the extreme of what can be done in Atmos and still retain the sound and feel of the original material. So we know it's possible.

My real issue is actually that it feels like Giles doesn't know the source material well enough because in many cases the balance of instruments and sounds is different than the original mix - opposite to what he claims he's trying to do. I'm assuming he did Live And Let Die as well, because it suffers from the same issue of things that were front and centre in the original mix just relegated to the background and barely audible now.

In any case, I think there's also clearly a progression in Giles' work over these releases, each album is a little better than the one before it. And that's part of the problem. I have no issue with him teaching himself how to mix in surround sound with INXS, but not with the Beatles please. "Hate" is definitely a strong word though, I'm just not a fan of his, and I think The Beatles deserved better.

 

[nikomen]

I agree. There are reasons why you would want the person who has the most expertise at doing Atmos mixes to work with such precious recordings, someone like Steven Wilson, who does them, all the time. It is unlikely that anyone will go back sometime in the future and redo an Atmos mix of Revolver ever again, and now we are stuck with that mix, which in IMHO is very disappointing. I think it is so bad that I am making my own 5.1 version from the remastered stereo tracks, and I'm pretty sure that my own mixes will turn out much better, AND more consistent with the way the original recordings sound. Personally I have, (by demixing technologies), "with a little help (and sometimes a lot) from my friends" created 2 complete Beatles albums in 5.1 as well another 40+ more Beatles tracks that sound just like the stereo tracks, except with the instruments and voices spread across 6 sound fields, occasionally with some boost to an LFE track to sound more contemporary, which Giles has done himself. There is no disrespect or loss from the original music. The Beatles really do deserve better!

 

[Ephi82]

I actually do think that's in fact what stereo mixes are for, and the point of having a new stereo mix is to reveal more detail by cleaning things up and using the latest technology. The point of a surround mix is of course to reveal all that detail but also to create an immersive sound stage, and that's very inconsistent in Giles' work. I'm the first to agree the feel and character of the original recording must be retained - and I was a fan of what they did to the sound of the White Album for this reason exactly, they nailed that one. And as stated before, Elton John's remixes are the extreme of what can be done in Atmos and still retain the sound and feel of the original material. So we know it's possible.

My real issue is actually that it feels like Giles doesn't know the source material well enough because in many cases the balance of instruments and sounds is different than the original mix - opposite to what he claims he's trying to do. I'm assuming he did Live And Let Die as well, because it suffers from the same issue of things that were front and centre in the original mix just relegated to the background and barely audible now.

In any case, I think there's also clearly a progression in Giles' work over these releases, each album is a little better than the one before it. And that's part of the problem. I have no issue with him teaching himself how to mix in surround sound with INXS, but not with the Beatles please. "Hate" is definitely a strong word though, I'm just not a fan of his, and I think The Beatles deserved better.

I regret using the word hate in my post. I forgot what forum I was on. Giles Martin IS hated in the extreme over on the Hoffman forums. You can’t believe some of what is said over there.

I’ll just repeat that I think some folks here think they “ own” the definition of what is a good immersive mix, and I don’t agree with that. Its art, there is no one answer to what is an artistic expression.

 

[admsh]

I regret using the word hate in my post. I forgot what forum I was on. Giles Martin IS hated in the extreme over on the Hoffman forums. You can’t believe some of what is said over there.

I’ll just repeat that I think some folks here think they “ own” the definition of what is a good immersive mix, and I don’t agree with that. Its art, there is no one answer to what is an artistic expression.

We're not debating whether or not this is (his) art. We're debating and discussing the quality of it. And I believe we're establishing a clear framework with which to analyse and critique a surround mix. I think everyone will agree some of his mixes are fine. Inconsistency, for example, is a clear and objective failure. That's not about "owning" anything, it goes beyond personal tastes. Take the Beatles themselves as an example, I met people who claim they "don't like the Beatles". Those people can't debate the Beatles' importance, influence, innovation or immaculate control of their craft. There are objective ways to discuss and judge the quality of any form of art, whether you do or don't like it.