George Harrison rejected White Album

Do talk back
User avatar
der nister
Posts: 15564
Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 18:42

George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby der nister » 18 Jun 2010, 16:58

1 of 33:
Due to use of new equipment Harrison was not happy with the MASTERED sound, too compressed:
http://cgi.ebay.com/BEATLES-WHITE-ALBUM ... 3a5bda827c
It's kinda depressing for a music forum to be proud of not knowing musicians.

Bungo the Mungo

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 18 Jun 2010, 17:25

Ah. Right.

User avatar
der nister
Posts: 15564
Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 18:42

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby der nister » 18 Jun 2010, 17:29

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... ost3321420
Bruce Spizer:
The story of George
Harrison insisting that The White Album be remastered in not a myth. On page
118 of my book "The Beatles on Apple Records," I discuss the incident.
George Harrison, along with Mal Evans, was in Los Angeles to produce Jackie
Lomax's upcoming Apple album. He dropped by the Capitol Tower to hear the
White Album. He had left London for LA prior to the banding session during
which the order of the songs was selected for The White Album, and wanted to
hear the finished product. He did not like what he heard and insisted that
he be allowed to work with Capitol's engineers to remaster the album.

This story is told by Mal Evans in an issue of The Beatles Book (the
official Beatles Fan Club monthly publication) in which he states that
Capitol's engineers had "done all sorts of technical things to it that
altered half the effects." As was often the practice at the time, Capitols
engineers had run the sound through a limiter and compressed the volume
range of the recording by cutting back the high volume peaks and bringing up
the low passages. This would have been particularly noticeable on "Helter
Skelter," a loud rocker with a fake fade-out ending, and Harrison's "Long,
Long, Long," which has quiet passages throughout and loud distortion at the
end.

Ken Mansfield, who was a Capitol A&R man given the job of being Apple's
first U.S. manager, confirms Harrison's remastering of the album in his
latest book, "The White Book."

There is also physical evidence of the separate mastering. Capitol
originally mastered 33 sets of lacquers for the album. Because of Harrison's
insistence that the album be remastered, all 33 sets were ordered to be
destroyed. That is why first pressings of the album start with numbers like
A34, B35, A 36 and A37 in their trail off areas. You also see that copies
were cut on the H/I lathe at the Tower as evidenced by numbers such as J40,
J41, etc. up through J66. Later LA pressings have H70 and H74. Winchester
originally had A70 and A71. Later lacquers were cut for Winchester in New
York with numbers such as W5, X6, W7 and X8 and F72 and F77.

All of this is detailed in my book "The Beatles on Apple Records" on page
118. At the time I wrote the book, I stated that there were no numbers below
A34 cut at the Tower because all of these lacquers were destroyed. A few
years ago, someone had me examine a White Album with A28, B29, A28 and B29
for sides one through four. This showed that not all lacquers were
destroyed. These discs sound slightly different that the White Album we all
know and love. It is not a dramatic difference because the lacquers were cut
from the same master tape. We did a digital wave comparison of the discs
with A28 & B29 to a standard White Album. The difference is clearly visible.
You can see the compression on the original Capitol master. The digital wave
comparison appears on page 270 of my latest book, "The Beatles Swan Song:
"She Loves You" and Other Records." In addition, a lacquer of side one of
The White Album has recently turned up that further confirms Harrison's
remastering. The lacquer was cut at Sound Recorders Studio, 6226 Yucca,
Hollywood, CA, which is just around the corner from the Capitol Tower. An
image of the lacquer is in my Swan book, also on page 270. This is one of
the lacquers cut under Harrison's supervision. Ken Mansfield confirms that
Harrison went to that studio for the initial remastering. Obviously, the
lacquers used to cut the album were done at the Tower, as evidenced by the A
and B lathe numbers.

I hope that this proves for once and for all that the Harrison remaster
story is not a myth, but is in fact true. I also hope those who have not
bought my books do so. No matter how much you think you know about the
Beatles records, you will learn more if you read my books.
It's kinda depressing for a music forum to be proud of not knowing musicians.

User avatar
Muskrat
World's Foremost Authority
Posts: 21129
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 01:05
Location: Next to the park; across the street from the college; and the freeway at my back
Contact:

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Muskrat » 18 Jun 2010, 17:34

zphage wrote:1 of 33:
Due to use of new equipment Harrison was not happy with the MASTERED sound, too compressed:
http://cgi.ebay.com/BEATLES-WHITE-ALBUM ... 3a5bda827c


I blame Peter Mew.
Things that a fella can't forget...

Mike Boom wrote:It is brilliant of course, probably the best of the complete Thick as a Brick boots.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53421
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Snarfyguy » 18 Jun 2010, 18:07

Bruce Spizer wrote:The difference is clearly visible.

:roll:

What a hoser.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 16151
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby bobzilla77 » 18 Jun 2010, 18:21

$2 grand for a copy of the White Album that sounds SHITTIER than the original. What a deal.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 47180
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Quaco » 19 Jun 2010, 20:04

Well, I hope whoever buys it burns a copy and shares it with the world. I've never heard about it before, but would be interested in what it sounds like.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

User avatar
der nister
Posts: 15564
Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 18:42

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby der nister » 20 Jun 2010, 16:35

Sold $2000
It's kinda depressing for a music forum to be proud of not knowing musicians.

User avatar
Mychael
Posts: 5452
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:49
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Mychael » 20 Jun 2010, 17:47

zphage wrote:Sold $2000


So do I understand this correctly - Capitol used a new, Harrison-supervised, mastering for their pressings.

The rest of the world used the "rejected" mastering from EMI in Britain? EMI must have sent copies of their master tapes to pressing plants in other countries at the same time so they could all have copies ready for the release date.

So the sound of these "rare 33 copies" is identical to the millions of worldwide vinyl copies of the White Album?
Bear tracks, bear tracks comin' up to you: http://www.bearfamilyradio.com/index.php?lang=en

User avatar
Muskrat
World's Foremost Authority
Posts: 21129
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 01:05
Location: Next to the park; across the street from the college; and the freeway at my back
Contact:

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Muskrat » 20 Jun 2010, 18:32

Mychael wrote:
zphage wrote:Sold $2000


So do I understand this correctly - Capitol used a new, Harrison-supervised, mastering for their pressings.

The rest of the world used the "rejected" mastering from EMI in Britain? EMI must have sent copies of their master tapes to pressing plants in other countries at the same time so they could all have copies ready for the release date.

So the sound of these "rare 33 copies" is identical to the millions of worldwide vinyl copies of the White Album?



Sssshhhh. You'll upset the collectors' market.
Things that a fella can't forget...

Mike Boom wrote:It is brilliant of course, probably the best of the complete Thick as a Brick boots.

User avatar
der nister
Posts: 15564
Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 18:42

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby der nister » 20 Jun 2010, 19:03

Mychael wrote:
zphage wrote:Sold $2000


So do I understand this correctly - Capitol used a new, Harrison-supervised, mastering for their pressings.

The rest of the world used the "rejected" mastering from EMI in Britain? EMI must have sent copies of their master tapes to pressing plants in other countries at the same time so they could all have copies ready for the release date.

So the sound of these "rare 33 copies" is identical to the millions of worldwide vinyl copies of the White Album?


I think we all got the Harrison remaster, these 33 were never used.
It's kinda depressing for a music forum to be proud of not knowing musicians.

User avatar
Mychael
Posts: 5452
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:49
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Mychael » 20 Jun 2010, 21:11

zphage wrote:...Bruce Spizer:
...As was often the practice at the time, Capitols
engineers had run the sound through a limiter and compressed the volume
range of the recording by cutting back the high volume peaks and bringing up
the low passages....
....You can see the compression on the original Capitol master. ....


This all refers to US masters.

The EMI masters were cut at Abbey Road by Harry Moss on October 18 and 19 (mono) and October 21 (stereo).

I can't imagine the people at EMI sending their master tapes to the engineers at Capitol for approval or a final tweaking. (Apart from the time schedule: the album was released on November 22 in the UK, 25 in the US. Thousands of disc had to be manufactured by then.)
I guess it's just a case of people altering the disc cutting masters for their own pressing plants. It is well known that the mastering engineers at EMI's German pressing plants fiddled with the Beatles masters too - they thought their factory superior and put more bass on their own disc cutting masters. That's why German vinyl often sounds more like the early Capitol pressings - but with the original UK mixes.
Bear tracks, bear tracks comin' up to you: http://www.bearfamilyradio.com/index.php?lang=en

User avatar
Muskrat
World's Foremost Authority
Posts: 21129
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 01:05
Location: Next to the park; across the street from the college; and the freeway at my back
Contact:

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Muskrat » 21 Jun 2010, 00:51

Mychael wrote:I can't imagine the people at EMI sending their master tapes to the engineers at Capitol for approval or a final tweaking.


Certainly not after Apple. Dexterization must have pissed the boys off royally. On the other hand, I wouldn't doubt that they'd have prepared the masters "for American tastes" if they thought they could have got away with it.
Things that a fella can't forget...

Mike Boom wrote:It is brilliant of course, probably the best of the complete Thick as a Brick boots.

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 40408
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: George Harrison rejected White Album

Postby Charlie O. » 21 Jun 2010, 01:40

Each side of the White Album contained between 22 and 25 minutes of music - not unheard of, but still a lot, especially for a "pop" album. I suspect that the compression was just to make the disc cutter's job a little easier, rather than because they thought it sounded better.
Image