Home› Music

The Beatles 1 or 1 Remasterd, which one should I get?

CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,372
Forum Member
✭✭
in Music #1
I almost bought a copy of 1 by The Beatles today, but figured I should check the price onilne.

Anyways I came hom and looked online, to find there is a remastered version, any point getting the remasterd version, as im pretty sure 1 itself was updated slightly.

Comments

  • crazychris12crazychris12 Posts: 26,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    Well 1 was first issued in November 2000. All the Beatles albums/tracks were re-mastered in 2009 so it's those improved versions that are on the new version of 1 which was re-issued a couple of weeks ago. I'd get the new version if I were you as they say the re-masters do sound better. I haven't bought any though and already have 1 from when I bought it in 2000.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    as long as they have not been fiddling with the songs or the tunes, Star Wars style does it matter which one?
  • crazychris12crazychris12 Posts: 26,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    Charnham wrote: »
    as long as they have not been fiddling with the songs or the tunes, Star Wars style does it matter which one?

    Not really but as both are available I'd personally get the newest release but it's up to you!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 136
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    Go for the new version..the old one has badly compressed sound.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    thanks you two, ill get the new one.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 136
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    Charnham wrote: »
    thanks you two, ill get the new one.

    You're welcome matey.:)
  • crazychris12crazychris12 Posts: 26,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    Charnham wrote: »
    thanks you two, ill get the new one.

    You're welcome. Good decision.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    its disappointing that it doesn't have Strawberry Fields.
  • CapablancaCapablanca Posts: 5,130
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    mc7t wrote: »
    Go for the new version..the old one has badly compressed sound.

    Yes, it did sound a bit nasty.The 2009 remasters were far more sympathetically done so I'd imagine the new '1' sounds good too.
  • divingbboydivingbboy Posts: 14,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #11
    The 2009 remasters sound way, way better than any previous versions.
  • peacelilypeacelily Posts: 4,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    Remastered versions are usually better in my opinion. Hence the term remastered. Makes good music, great.

    The Byrds remastered, is such an example.
  • soulboy77soulboy77 Posts: 24,487
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    Charnham wrote: »
    its disappointing that it doesn't have Strawberry Fields.
    I think I read that the original criteria was no.1 in either the UK of the U.S. Strawberry Fields Forever only made it to no.2 but then again Something was included on the album and that didn't get to no.1. Shame really as Strawberry Fields Forever was such a seminal piece of music. If they had included this and Please, Please Me then that would of been a complete list of the Beatles most popular singles to and including 1970.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #14
    obviously there will always be a debate of what is and what isnt the definitive list of Beatles tracks (as there is any band) but this is a No1s album, so in theory its not trying to be a definitive list, still they could do a 2 disc version that songs like Strawberry Fields, just to complete it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #15
    soulboy77 wrote: »
    I think I read that the original criteria was no.1 in either the UK of the U.S. Strawberry Fields Forever only made it to no.2 but then again Something was included on the album and that didn't get to no.1. Shame really as Strawberry Fields Forever was such a seminal piece of music. If they had included this and Please, Please Me then that would of been a complete list of the Beatles most popular singles to and including 1970.

    Something was No. 1 in the US. :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #16
    Charnham wrote: »
    obviously there will always be a debate of what is and what isnt the definitive list of Beatles tracks (as there is any band) but this is a No1s album, so in theory its not trying to be a definitive list, still they could do a 2 disc version that songs like Strawberry Fields, just to complete it.

    Well, they sort of did, there are the double album compilations 1962-1966 and 1967-1970.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #17
    CABLEDUDE wrote: »
    Well, they sort of did, there are the double album compilations 1962-1966 and 1967-1970.
    looking at the play list of the blue album, I think I want to change my mind, 1 doesnt have Sgt Pepper (how did I not spot that) nor Magical Mystery Tour.
  • crazychris12crazychris12 Posts: 26,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    The Red and Blue collections are great so if you don't have any Beatles at all you should start with that.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    crazychris12 wrote: »
    The Red and Blue collections are great so if you don't have any Beatles at all you should start with that.
    just looking for 1 CD to put in the car, im not sure a 4 CD boxset is what im looking for.

    Still maybe at some point in the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.