News: - Make sure you know the Forum Rules and Guidelines

Also check out these related sites:

Author Topic: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty  (Read 15186 times)

OfflineFletch

  • Romeo
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Location: Australia
  • Registered: February 2009
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2013, 09:47:53 AM »
More pertinent to the debate is simply The Beatles themselves put NO care or artistic approval on those hastily done dodgy stereo mixes (especially sgt Pepper) - stereo was regarded as a gimmick and no one really knew if it would become popular, but the whole world listened to radios with one speaker.
I'd say the albums where you notice the biggest differences in sonic power (or a better way to say it might be a 'smooth carefully crafted mix') would be Rubber Soul, Revolver & Pepper.

Hearing the songs in stereo might be 'interesting' as far as being able to hear different instruments and vocal tracks, but the overall product is poor in comparison.

Yes it's subjective, but until you've heard the Mono originals, you ain't heard nothing !! ;)
Don't forget Sgt Pepper was lauded a masterpiece by the whole world loooooong before ordinary folk bought stereo LPs and a very long time before the awful 87 CDs were issued.

I did buy the stereo remaster set, hoping (foolishly) that the Abbey Road maestros would remix those original tracks with care and love, but no they simply polished the exact same stereo mixes that were done in such haphazard amateur fashion. I couldn't stand it, and purchased the mono remasters as well!! :)
Hey, i`ve got a truffle dog - finally a song the ordinary man can relate too!

Offlinevgonis

  • Juliet
  • ******
  • They waited for an hour and then nothing happened
  • Posts: 2647
  • Location: athens, greece
  • Registered: January 2010
    • greece in dire straits, life in greece
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2013, 11:06:56 AM »
I know it is not exactly relevant, but I think that the reason for the latest remasters is simply to by-pass the 50 year copyrights (from the moment of recording) that were about to expire for the first Beatles recordings. (at least in Europe)
Fletch since you seem aware of the whole thing, what do you think?
Come on, it is not funny anymore.

OfflineJF

  • Rüdiger
  • *******
  • Site : Textes, Blog & Rock'N'Roll
  • Posts: 3860
  • Location: France
  • Registered: August 2011
    • Blog about music
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2013, 07:06:22 PM »
thanks to all for this accurate explanation  :thumbsup

on the contrary I think that for example hendrix (and engineer Kramer) used the stereo very well (by creating a sound landscape I may say), and it was also around 67-68

Offlinevgonis

  • Juliet
  • ******
  • They waited for an hour and then nothing happened
  • Posts: 2647
  • Location: athens, greece
  • Registered: January 2010
    • greece in dire straits, life in greece
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2013, 07:18:32 PM »
Some artists like Dylan and Velvet underground actually recorded twice, once for Mono and another one for stereo, so actually two different recordings!
Come on, it is not funny anymore.

OfflineFletch

  • Romeo
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Location: Australia
  • Registered: February 2009
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2013, 08:57:59 PM »
I know it is not exactly relevant, but I think that the reason for the latest remasters is simply to by-pass the 50 year copyrights (from the moment of recording) that were about to expire for the first Beatles recordings. (at least in Europe)
Fletch since you seem aware of the whole thing, what do you think?

I honestly don't know much about copyright law stuff, except for the famous Dylan example.

With the stereo & mono remasters I know the engineers put A LOT of effort into polishing the tracks, plus all the CDs had already been reissued in 87/88.
I thought it was a shocking waste of a golden opportunity to re-mix those pre68 Beatles songs in stereo with love and care.

A great example would also be the song  If I Fell from hard days night.
The stereo mix has Paul's harmony voice famously cracking in the second verse/chorus, the remasters copied this faithfully !!! That's how lacksidasical they did stereo mixes up till 67, and only a hard core few ever heard this awful mix until stereo took off around 1970.
The mono version of If I Fell is what everyone heard, it's what the Beatles heard when it was finished and it's fantastic!

I think I've made my point!! ;) there's no doubt a lot of folk enjoy the stereo stuff (including Paul & Ringo!!) but that's just because they're ignorant haha!!!! :)
Hey, i`ve got a truffle dog - finally a song the ordinary man can relate too!

OfflineJF

  • Rüdiger
  • *******
  • Site : Textes, Blog & Rock'N'Roll
  • Posts: 3860
  • Location: France
  • Registered: August 2011
    • Blog about music
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2013, 09:01:12 PM »
on the contrary, The "love" album remixed lot of songs , and for example it restored the lead line which was bad edited on Day tripper

Offlinevgonis

  • Juliet
  • ******
  • They waited for an hour and then nothing happened
  • Posts: 2647
  • Location: athens, greece
  • Registered: January 2010
    • greece in dire straits, life in greece
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2013, 09:32:04 PM »
Thank you for the enlighting replies! Another point I would like to discuss would be about the true need of all these and the commercial tricks that actually target the same old fans, to re-buy the same recordings in various masterings, mixes, formats and editions. The case I have in mind is the Lennon box, which instead of including the great remastered CD versions of 00s (I know I have at least 2-3 of the CDs) includes the old muddy original transfers to the CD format. And the box does not contain either the 4CD collection of rarities or the naked Double fantasy.

On the other hand I very much liked the idea of putting together all the albums in a box, like Johnny Cash 2012 box. 65 CDs and in a resonable price. While Dylan on the other hand, an on going artist releases a similar box too pricey and not containing everything. You have to buy the mono versions seperately, the bootleg series and various compilations with rare tracks seperately and so on.
Come on, it is not funny anymore.

Offlineds1984

  • Rüdiger
  • *******
  • Used to be...
  • Posts: 3906
  • Registered: February 2009
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2013, 10:53:44 PM »
In Dylan case Sony/Columbia did owns unpublished material that under american law would become publishable by anyone getting a copy of the tapes under the "use it or loose it" law.

For the Beatles this is totally different. The European law stated until last year that a recordings made over 50 years would go to public domain and thus could be published by anyone getting a copy of the tape.
That mean that if EMI pubhish a remaster, only the remaster is protected  but not  the original pre 1963 tape.

The changed for all recording made and published after january 1st 1963 expending to 70 years instead of 50. (right owners are even asking now to go further to a 90 years protection!). For recording made and published before january 1st 1963 they are now in public domain. That is so true that the first Parlophone Beatles single, Love Me Do is now in public domain and you can find various release since end of  2012.

Now about the 2009 remasters.

They needed to be done because the 1987 technology was still developping and evolved since.
Be aware that remastering is not remixing. Remixing the Beatles are impossible as they mostly used 4 tracks tapes with already several voices or instrument mixed in each channel. You can't mix that. All they can do is to choose how they pan each of the 4 channels (and remember, these recording were mono intended).

At that time the recording were not "Hi Fi" intended neither, all they have to do is to sound good on the radio or on cheap record player.

So the source material is not top notch quality.

EMI did quite a very marketing choice. For the casual music listener if you ask him if stereo or mono is better the answer is evident : of course STREREO. The Bealtes afficionado knows that the truth is not that evident so EMI decided 2 things :

  • make the Stereo version more for casual listener with a bit of loudness war in it and selling the album individualy
  • make the Mono version for the "true" fan.
    Give it the autenthicity feel, LP replica, keep all the signal intact so if needed mastering it at a lower volume than the stereo version. But selling it in an expensive box, announcing that it would be a limited run (never official figures were given and to date still available for sale
The haters are those who write shit

Two weeks in Australia and Sydney striptease

Offlinevgonis

  • Juliet
  • ******
  • They waited for an hour and then nothing happened
  • Posts: 2647
  • Location: athens, greece
  • Registered: January 2010
    • greece in dire straits, life in greece
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2013, 11:09:54 PM »
Thanks ds1984. Didn't know that European copyright laws have changed to 70 years. This is unheard off! The 50 year copyrights from the time of recording and for that matter for literature (it used to be 50 and in the late 90ies changed to 70 but counting after the death of the author)
had a logical explanation: that the original performer, composer, and writer would live off his recordings for the rest of his life and his children as well. But 70 years means 3-4 generations. And the American law has extended to 100 years! It used to be 70 then 90 years and many recordings were made available until 1923, but then they extended it So no new public domain music before 2023...
Greedy companies I guess.
Come on, it is not funny anymore.

Offlineds1984

  • Rüdiger
  • *******
  • Used to be...
  • Posts: 3906
  • Registered: February 2009
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2013, 11:53:36 PM »
Thanks ds1984. Didn't know that European copyright laws have changed to 70 years. This is unheard off! The 50 year copyrights from the time of recording and for that matter for literature (it used to be 50 and in the late 90ies changed to 70 but counting after the death of the author)
had a logical explanation: that the original performer, composer, and writer would live off his recordings for the rest of his life and his children as well. But 70 years means 3-4 generations. And the American law has extended to 100 years! It used to be 70 then 90 years and many recordings were made available until 1923, but then they extended it So no new public domain music before 2023...
Greedy companies I guess.


We have to separate producer/publsher rights from author right to be paid.

The 50 to 70 extension only concern the publishing protection but the author right are a different thing.

The composers or the author still receive money even if the recording or the book is in the public domain.

That only mean that the producer/publisher have not exclusive right to exploit it anymore. In case of recording the performer if not author composer doens't get any penny anymore.

The authors right payment only extinct 70 years after the passing of the last surviving author/composer.

We should also note that in Europe we have two system depending of the country, some are more on copyright oriented (such as England) other on "author rights" (such as France) but the UE laws tend to make a one rule to everybody.
The haters are those who write shit

Two weeks in Australia and Sydney striptease

Offlinevgonis

  • Juliet
  • ******
  • They waited for an hour and then nothing happened
  • Posts: 2647
  • Location: athens, greece
  • Registered: January 2010
    • greece in dire straits, life in greece
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2013, 07:26:54 AM »
Thank you DS!

OK. So let's see if I got it right.

Authors get the rights while they are alive no matter how many years have passed.
If they write their masterpiece at 15 and live up to 115 this means 100 years.
And then after they die the rights go to his family for another 70 years.
I guess the same goes for lyrics.

But does it stand  for the musical composition as well?

So the author of a book actually never stops receiving rights from his work, because his work will become public domain 70 years after his death.

But the lyricist in a way loses his rights 70 -100 years after the original day of the first recording?

So if he recorded at 15, he stops receiving money at 85 from Europe and 115 from the  US?

Or is it that he still receives rights from the printed form of the lyrics but not from the recording containing them?

(The recording itself becomes public domain in Europe after 70 years and in the US in 100 years after)

I understand the copyright versus author rights and I believe that author's rights have a logic, although this extend of years is beyond reason and most probably the big corporations lobbied for the extensions.
Come on, it is not funny anymore.

OfflineJF

  • Rüdiger
  • *******
  • Site : Textes, Blog & Rock'N'Roll
  • Posts: 3860
  • Location: France
  • Registered: August 2011
    • Blog about music
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2013, 10:35:55 AM »
Many thanks DS1984, very enlightening  :thumbsup

Offlineds1984

  • Rüdiger
  • *******
  • Used to be...
  • Posts: 3906
  • Registered: February 2009
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2013, 07:57:31 PM »
Thank you DS!

OK. So let's see if I got it right.

Authors get the rights while they are alive no matter how many years have passed.
If they write their masterpiece at 15 and live up to 115 this means 100 years.
And then after they die the rights go to his family for another 70 years.
I guess the same goes for lyrics.

But does it stand  for the musical composition as well?

Yes

So the author of a book actually never stops receiving rights from his work, because his work will become public domain 70 years after his death.

But the lyricist in a way loses his rights 70 -100 years after the original day of the first recording?

No, he wrote song so he is consdered as an author.

The basic logic is :

- the creative work form the mind (writer, author, composer, arranger) are under the author right and paiment to them are due on every support / media / transmission/ diffusion done : passing +  70 years. When more of one author participate the 70 year count start when the last surviving of the "team" pass away.

- the editor, producer and the performer : exclusivity and mechanical rights  during 70 years following the first publishing


Example based on UE system :

Reccord : Hound Dog - song first published in 1953

Release date : February 1953

Performer :Big Mama Thornton

Label : Peacock Records

Author : Jerry Leiber (lyricist) and Mike Stoller (composer) -

Producer :   Johnny Otis (officialy - actualy it was Leiber and Stoller but not credited as it)

Publisher : Spin Music

Under the author system :

Author right until 70 years after passing
Production right until : 50 years after first publication (beware old system, now 70 for recordings published after january 1st 1963)


Jerry Leiber (lyricist) : receive fees each time his lyrics are reproduced (sung or written...)
Passed in 2011 so Hound Dog Lyrics are protected until  2081 (2011+70)

Mike Stoller (composer) : receive fees each time his music is reproduced (performed or written...)
Still alive so can't be determined now but at least until 2083

Big Mama Thornton and Johnny Otis : royalties and mechanical fees  from 1953 until 2003.
From 2004 onward they have received  nothing.

Peacock Records : had exclusive rights to exploit the tape until 2003 (1953+50). Since 2004 any record label can publish this recording but have to pay the author's right to Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller.

Spin Music : had exclusive rights to exploit printings of the music and lyrics until 2003 (1953+50). Since 2004 any publisher can print lyrics and /or music but have to pay the author's right to Jerry Leiber and/or Mike Stoller.
 

So if he recorded at 15, he stops receiving money at 85 from Europe and 115 from the  US?

Or is it that he still receives rights from the printed form of the lyrics but not from the recording containing them?

(The recording itself becomes public domain in Europe after 70 years and in the US in 100 years after)

Lyricist being an author he will receive money from everybody who use his work.
Each time a record is sold he gets his authors right on it.

Not the performer. He gets it only from the recording use and for 70 years after the recording date.


I understand the copyright versus author rights and I believe that author's rights have a logic, although this extend of years is beyond reason and most probably the big corporations lobbied for the extensions.

Of course. Actually the "passing +70 years" was also to protect the family of author who could die early in age. Dying at 30 this allowed his surviving to get the money at least until 80 at a time when 80 years old was considered quite very old. Now people live longer life and this meaned that some eldest could see their income cut before they die.
The haters are those who write shit

Two weeks in Australia and Sydney striptease

Offlinevgonis

  • Juliet
  • ******
  • They waited for an hour and then nothing happened
  • Posts: 2647
  • Location: athens, greece
  • Registered: January 2010
    • greece in dire straits, life in greece
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2013, 11:29:52 PM »
Thanks DS for breaking it down and for the nice example.  :wave
Still think (and this is only my personal opinion) that the system of rights, even if it benefits only the writer and performer and not the companies, is unfair and perpetuates the inequalities in our society. I think that it is unfair to all mankind when  a man to write 1, 2, 20 hit songs in his early age and live off of the rights until his old age.  And believe me I try to make a living off photographs, but no, not this way. Another man has to break his back for peanuts (as ZZTop used to sing"Just got paid today, got a pocket full of change"). It is not about ethics, morals, but about justice and logic. What do you think?
Come on, it is not funny anymore.

OfflineFletch

  • Romeo
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Location: Australia
  • Registered: February 2009
Re: Beatles : the "original" version of the Abbey Road medley with Her majesty
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2013, 03:13:42 AM »
Hey vg, I've seen and admired your photos on Facebook. My son has rapidly educated himself with a basic SLR this year and I'm amazed at his dedication and progress.
His flickr account is fleeeeeetch
Would you mind casting your pro eye over his work and offering and tips / advice ? He's thinking of enrolling in a course as a Xmas present, would that be a good idea? I know you take lots of artistic portrait shots, I'm not sure Joel is throwing himself into any particular niche yet, he's too young.

Sorry for going way off topic !!! :)
Hey, i`ve got a truffle dog - finally a song the ordinary man can relate too!

 

© 2024 amarkintime.org
This is an unofficial website dedicated to Mark Knopfler developed and maintained by fans.
Top banner design by Dutchessy.
This theme is based on the SMF theme Carbonate by Bloc.
SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Page created in 0.04 seconds with 34 queries.