The Beatles Revolver


Just read where Giles Martin is using  AI-powered audio separation technology to remix Revolver. From what I read he can take the mono tracks and separate all the instruments and vocals on the 4 track tape the were recorded on and then I guess remix them in 24 track or whatever he wants. Is this good? I love The Beatles and no matter how much better it my sound it not the same. They had what they had in 1966. And George Martin did wonders with 4 tracks. Where does this reissuing of classic albums stop. Is Revolver remixed in multi tracks still Revolver?

128x128lenmc2964

At the time of Revolver and before (and maybe even after) the Beatles mostly left the mixing to others.

Even though I listened to the original stereo mixes for years, I mostly love Giles' remixes of the 1967-1968 material, and I bet the Beatles would, too.  He does things like separating instruments or voices that were originally mixed together so you can hear the timbre and lines of each more clearly, and it adds power to a song like "Birthday" when the guitars are hard panned rather than sharing the same channel.

I forget about audiophile notions of hearing musicians in a space when I listen to most rock music from this period.  I just accept that the mix is a work of art in itself. However, I don't like it when a drum set is panned unrealistically wide--a problem even in newer jazz recordings as well as classic rock recordings.

I bought the other three and I’ll buy Revolver when it comes out.
 

Nuff said.

What he did with Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl is a game changer. But lots of liberties were taken. Small parts weren’t from the actual live recording. I own it...I love it. You can hear how hard Ringo hits.

His Abbey Road reissue sounds great and punchy and you do hear things not before heard but it does sound like a modern interpretation as someone earlier in this thread put it.

In the end I prefer the original recording. It has stood against another previous reissue as well. Something is gained but no doubt something is lost. I can’t put my finger on it but there it is.

 

ANYTHING released from Beatles, Stones and a few select others is simply

TIRED, BORING and a money grab for whoever decides it's time for a new "super" release.

Spend the money on a minty first press-at least that's got SOME kind of intrinsic value. Play it once to put it on you NAS setup or CD. Now you can enjoy endless perfect LP sound along with an album that will be worth $10 bucks more in 50 years.

I fundamentally reject altering someone else’s art as a means of updating it for modernity as a replacement, in this case, if it were being done so that forever more we hear nothing but the new stereo product.

“Is Revolver remixed in multi tracks still Revolver?”

Absolutely not.

Yet I welcome a respectful experiment that gives us an opportunity to appreciate their art from a different angle, so to speak, that illuminates their art such that we can better appreciate the original.

The things is, we’re at a remarkable threshold of technology.

So-called ‘AI’ (which at present is really only brute force machine processing with no intelligence at all and requires a knowledgeable human handler who necessarily must add his input) does have the capacity to do things we could hardly imagine.

Consider what Peter Jackson did by steadying and colorizing WWI footage.

If, in say, 1975, one went to The Beatles and explained that it were possible to ‘correctly’ do the transfer from mono to stereo, as with today’s technology, I wonder what they would have replied, and I readily admit that their answer might well have been no.

I’d like to hear Paul’s and Ringo’s opinion on the matter; in fact, they should be involved in the project.