As I mentioned previously, good ol' Macca is releasing his remasters slowly, and out of order. The first record out of the gate was Band on the Run, which of course is technically a Wings album. Last week saw the release of not one but two more reissues, McCartney I and II. Inserts that come with these CDs indicate that several more are on the way, including Ram, and Venus and Mars.
I'm not really sure what, if any logic is being applied to this process. Band on the Run is probably the most recognizable of Paul's post Beatles work, so it makes sense as a first choice. And the two self titled albums which just came out share a similar thematic bent, in that he made them entirely by himself (minus some backing vocals from Linda). As for the rest, I'm stumped. I'll be curious to see in what order they are released.
One of the striking aspects of McCartney's remasters is how - I don't know a better term to use, so I'll go with this - "money grubbing" they are. Each of the three that are out have been released in multiple versions. You've got basic and special editions CDs as well as massive $80-$90 versions containing extra discs, DVDs, and books, none of which looks to be worth all that scratch. And yet here's the rub - if you don't spring for the $80 mega editions, you're shit out of luck when it comes to retrospective and historical content. The plain old CD's contain no notes, no interviews, nothing of the sort. This is true even with the two disc McCartney I/II reissues (though the presence of a second disc means that there's at least some bonus tracks). Call me cynical, but this feels like an attempt to get you to buy the expensive one, in order to get the "best" experience possible. The Jimi Hendrix remasters were a few bucks cheaper, and had nice little DVDs with them. It's not impossible to do.
On the other hand, a part of me feels as if these basic releases are a good thing in their own way. What you're getting is, essentially, what people got when these records were first released. The same songs, with the same kind of artwork. You're left to judge the music yourself, without anything coloring your perspective. Compare this to the Lennon remasters. Nice as those are, their liner notes would have you believe that every one of his solo works was a masterpiece. That kind of revisionism can be bothersome, and while Paul doesn't completely shy away from it, his output can only be available in super deluxe editions that will be purchased by the biggest of diehards. Lennon's gospel, on the other hand, is written into even the basest of his reissues.
Reviews of the albums themselves should, hopefully, come soon.
Monday, June 20, 2011
That Damn Stripe
Ever the 2009 remastering of The Beatles catalog, some of the former band members (or their estates) have made efforts to remaster their solo material. What's odd about this is not that it is happening. In my view, the 2009 reissue garnered enough goodwill (and rekindled enough nostalgia) in people that they're more likely to continue to buy and rebuy, and they'll arguably be that much more willing to believe whatever revisionist history is written about any one of the four.
No, what I find odd is how they are being released. Each of the ex-Beatles worked with different labels during their solo careers, and so each of the remastering efforts are their own little projects. Lennon's discography was handled with help from EMI, and came out all at once. McCartney, on the other hand, is still working through that weird Starbucks music label, and he's releasing his work at a trickle. George Harrison's had a a few special packages made up, but his people haven't gone full steam ahead with anything major. As for Ringo, I could have sworn I read a press release about some All-Starr band remasters, but I can't find it. Also, don't forget the Apple Records remasters of all the non Beatles acts that recorded for the label.
And yet, while each of these are individual projects, they have a sense of commonality about them. For one, most of them are being handled in part by the Abbey Road team that did the 2009 Beatles remaster. Since could be hired numerous times over, this makes some sense. But consider the album covers for all these remasters. Here's Sgt. Pepper:
Notice the vertical stripe on the left side of the cover. Now here's a Lennon remaster:
Same stripe, different text. And the cover to Band on the Run?
Again, the same stripe with its own text and color. And lastly, those Apple Records remasters look like this:
If you lined up all these CD's on a book shelf, or laid them out together on the table, they'd look as if they're part of one giant set. But they're not, and I haven't found anything that suggests this is anything more than Lennon and McCartney's camps deciding to stay in line with the style chosen to represent their old band. (I think the biggest proof that this is the case is that the stripes aren't all the same size). Coincidence or not, I think it's a good idea, and if George and Ringo do wind up with remasters, it will be interesting to see if they follow suit.
No, what I find odd is how they are being released. Each of the ex-Beatles worked with different labels during their solo careers, and so each of the remastering efforts are their own little projects. Lennon's discography was handled with help from EMI, and came out all at once. McCartney, on the other hand, is still working through that weird Starbucks music label, and he's releasing his work at a trickle. George Harrison's had a a few special packages made up, but his people haven't gone full steam ahead with anything major. As for Ringo, I could have sworn I read a press release about some All-Starr band remasters, but I can't find it. Also, don't forget the Apple Records remasters of all the non Beatles acts that recorded for the label.
And yet, while each of these are individual projects, they have a sense of commonality about them. For one, most of them are being handled in part by the Abbey Road team that did the 2009 Beatles remaster. Since could be hired numerous times over, this makes some sense. But consider the album covers for all these remasters. Here's Sgt. Pepper:
Notice the vertical stripe on the left side of the cover. Now here's a Lennon remaster:
Same stripe, different text. And the cover to Band on the Run?
Again, the same stripe with its own text and color. And lastly, those Apple Records remasters look like this:
If you lined up all these CD's on a book shelf, or laid them out together on the table, they'd look as if they're part of one giant set. But they're not, and I haven't found anything that suggests this is anything more than Lennon and McCartney's camps deciding to stay in line with the style chosen to represent their old band. (I think the biggest proof that this is the case is that the stripes aren't all the same size). Coincidence or not, I think it's a good idea, and if George and Ringo do wind up with remasters, it will be interesting to see if they follow suit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)