Xixax Film Forum

Non-Film Discussion => Real-Life Soundtracks => Topic started by: cine on October 23, 2003, 10:24:15 AM

Title: The Beatles
Post by: cine on October 23, 2003, 10:24:15 AM
I'm just think there should be more great bands with appreciation threads. I've always said this and I firmly believe if I had to listen to one band's music for the rest of my life, no contest - it'd be the Beatles. My personal favourites: Across the Universe, Helter Skelter, Hey Jude, Here Comes The Sun, and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds... much much more but I'll save it for later.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: godardian on October 23, 2003, 10:43:23 AM
Not really a big Beatles fan (this has been much discussed elsewhere... sure you looked through all the threads to make sure there was no Beatles item already?).

I like "Eleanor Rigby" and "She's Leaving Home," though. A lot of the rest is not as great as advertised, in my opinion.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cine on October 23, 2003, 10:56:13 AM
I looked mostly at the The Rolling Stones or The Beatles thread for what was covered, but there was no thread devoted to the actual band.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: ShanghaiOrange on October 23, 2003, 11:09:00 AM
Best moment in a rock and roll song ever: when Ringo yells "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS" at the end of Helter Skelter.

The Beatles are the my favorite band, and probably the best band ever, but they are overrated.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: SoNowThen on October 23, 2003, 11:52:18 AM
that was Ringo? I always thought it sounded like John...
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Sleuth on October 23, 2003, 01:02:48 PM
What can I say that hasn't already been said
Title: The Beatles
Post by: aclockworkjj on October 23, 2003, 02:41:51 PM
I probably wouldn't argue that the Beatles were the greatest band ever.  Their influence is one thing....

What I like is, the fact over time they seriously developed a sound, with great lyrics...that can easily be compared to any possible mood, place, object or anything else.  They can be used as metaphors in almost any possible sense...

xixax (http://www.gubby.de:8080/Songs/The%20Beatles%20-%20All%20Together%20Now%20(%20Yellow%20).mp3)
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cine on October 23, 2003, 03:42:44 PM
Ringo yells that he has blisters on his fingers because the song was actually 27 mins originally.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cine on October 23, 2003, 09:19:36 PM
Ah, my apologies. I was looking for threads with the Beatles in the title.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: TheVoiceOfNick on October 24, 2003, 02:47:24 PM
The Beatles aren't as good as the Beach Boys...
Title: The Beatles
Post by: modage on October 24, 2003, 03:00:24 PM
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickThe Beatles aren't as good as the Beach Boys...

only because the Beatles werent on Full House.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nowtv.ca%2Fvan%2Fshows%2Fimages%2Ffullhouse_cast.jpg&hash=b41fd735a33b29b96c7694d964e2835659dbc43f)
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Witkacy on October 24, 2003, 05:05:15 PM
Why were  the Beatles special????  I don't see it or hear it.  They're a fabricated icon within the library of pop music.  Long live Beatles muzak...
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Sleuth on October 24, 2003, 05:53:40 PM
Quote from: WitkacyWhy were  the Beatles special????  I don't see it or hear it.  They're a fabricated icon within the library of pop music.  Long live Beatles muzak...

When the Beatles started out, they were doing what everyone else was, just really well.  If you can appreciate any oldies at all, you can appreciate them at this time.  Then they started growing as artists and experimenting with different instruments, and other means of creating music.  The big deal is that even then, they were still the biggest thing around and they were expanding horizons for what is played on the radio (pop music if you absolutely must label it).  It didn't hurt that girls loved them and they released soooooo many albums, and that their timing was great (what better time to bring experimentative music than the 60s and 70s).  So here you have a band that is on nobody's badside (except Mr. Xixax) with a huuuuge library of songs that have a huuuuuge range and they were still commercially accessible.  That's a pretty big deal.  No other band has accomplished that, not even Radiohead (not ever Radiohead).  They are a constant influence on countless people for countless reasons, and I thank them so much for giving us their music.  That's just my theory though, I might be wrong.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: modage on October 24, 2003, 05:56:34 PM
Quote from: tremoloslothI might be wrong.
you're not.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: godardian on October 24, 2003, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: WitkacyWhy were  the Beatles special????  I don't see it or hear it.  They're a fabricated icon within the library of pop music.  Long live Beatles muzak...

Situationism, Montreal-style, is alive and well!!!!

Seriously, they weren't nearly as special as most people seem to think... still, if you can overlook the suffocating legend, there are a few very good songs.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: TheVoiceOfNick on October 24, 2003, 06:27:58 PM
Quote from: tremoloslothNo other band has accomplished that, not even Radiohead (not ever Radiohead).

Don't get me started on how much I HATE Radiohead... pretentious fucks they are... grrrr...
Title: The Beatles
Post by: godardian on October 24, 2003, 06:30:44 PM
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Don't get me started on how much I HATE Radiohead... pretentious fucks they are... grrrr...

:)  It's widely known that I feel pretty much the same way.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Sleuth on October 24, 2003, 06:31:47 PM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick

Don't get me started on how much I HATE Radiohead... pretentious fucks they are... grrrr...

:)  It's widely known that I feel pretty much the same way.

Not me.  I was just saying that they are the closest thing, and they still can't touch the Beatles.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: TheVoiceOfNick on October 24, 2003, 06:39:37 PM
Quote from: tremoloslothNot me.  I was just saying that they are the closest thing, and they still can't touch the Beatles.

Are you jokin, bro?  You think Radiohead had the depth and range the Beatles did?  I don't think the Beatles are the end all be all, although they ARE damn good, but Radiohead could never be like them... not unless York stops whining like he's got a stick up his butt (that a bandmate is surely twirling and twisting in there) and they stop riding their high-horses... they think they're so high and mighty... they're just snobs who suck monkey nuts...
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Sleuth on October 24, 2003, 06:44:23 PM
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNick
Quote from: tremoloslothNot me.  I was just saying that they are the closest thing, and they still can't touch the Beatles.

Are you jokin, bro?  You think Radiohead had the depth and range the Beatles did?  I don't think the Beatles are the end all be all, although they ARE damn good, but Radiohead could never be like them... not unless York stops whining like he's got a stick up his butt (that a bandmate is surely twirling and twisting in there) and they stop riding their high-horses... they think they're so high and mighty... they're just snobs who suck monkey nuts...

What makes them snobs?  They aren't confined to do the style of music everyone expected them to do after OKC (or even the Bends for some).  They're doing their own thing

And no I'm not joking, go back and read my defense of the Beatles.  Why does music have to be "rock" so that people won't call it pretentious?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: aclockworkjj on October 24, 2003, 07:50:59 PM
in a talk about being pretentious...

....you guys are being way too fuckin' negative!
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 24, 2003, 09:06:49 PM
I have a love for The Beatles while agreeing they are overrated. Revolver feels dated and more comparative to their earlier works than the groundbreaking album it is claimed to be alongside Pet Sounds. And in comparing Revolver to their earlier works, it lacks the energy. Sgt Peppers is an experimental album, but mostly off balanced the entire way through and never fully experimenting with the ideas to make full fledged music out of it. They're structure and basis on that album was still very premature and just the new sounds of what they were doing where overshadowing everything else.

That said, I consider Abbey Road one of the very best rock albums ever. The album is so adventurous in trying to capture 4 personalities and eccentities, but makes up for everything premature in Sgt Peppers with musical confidence to link all the different sounds into an album that really feels complete and whole. I still get a thrill from hearing that album and the talent the beatles had in bringing everything together the way they did. I also am a major fan of their early work because of early fun rock, I love their work the best. No other band seemed to capture the heart, energy and innocence of the time period as the beatles do. as simple to category the music in general pop, something has to be said of that. Funny, the film critic Stanley Kauffmann best summed up the beatles by not calling them just by their band name, but as "Lovely Beatles".

~rougerum
Title: The Beatles
Post by: aclockworkjj on October 24, 2003, 11:26:12 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetRevolver
I will agree with what you said about this album...(realize even though, when completely wasted, I will even like their bubblegum crap, but I really dig the latter years)... Revolver I believe was the turning point in their career.  There are hints on Help...but it was here that I first heard what would later become the sound I grew to rely on.  

sorry, I'm only sleepin' (http://burningart.com/mizpoon/pics/03_I'm_Only_Sleeping.mp3)...
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on October 24, 2003, 11:45:50 PM
how does Revolver feel more dated?

Tomorrow Never Knows is "fresher" than anything today.........i love Pet Sounds a little more, but Revolver is a whole other bird

i don't see how you can say the Beatles only have a few good songs. have you actually "listened" to them very much? i don't mean casually, on the radio, or in your house while you're doing other things.........have you REALLY listened to them??

to me only a few songs aren't good
Title: The Beatles
Post by: russiasusha on October 25, 2003, 12:31:39 AM
Help me out with this list of things that they did first:

-  Used feedback (I Feel Fine)
-  Sampling (I am the Walrus, sampling Hamlet or some other shakespear play
-  Play in a stadium (Shea Stadium)
-  First band to be accepted by pretty much every country on the planet
-  The use of Indian instruments

There's others, I know
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on October 25, 2003, 01:13:15 PM
i think:
fuzz bass on Rubber Soul
reversed guitars, sounds on a rock record (i think paul was listening to music concrete'(sp?).......first on Rain i think, and more on Revolver
tape loops maybe?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: russiasusha on October 25, 2003, 04:20:32 PM
Quotei think:
fuzz bass on Rubber Soul
reversed guitars, sounds on a rock record (i think paul was listening to music concrete'(sp?).......first on Rain i think, and more on Revolver
tape loops maybe?

Yeah sounds right
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Vile5 on October 25, 2003, 04:39:05 PM
Favorite album:
Abbey Road

Favorite songs:
Something
You've got to hide your love away
Across the universe
Revolution
Birthday
Come together
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on October 25, 2003, 05:03:17 PM
Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeBest moment in a rock and roll song ever: when Ringo yells "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS" at the end of Helter Skelter.

The Beatles are the my favorite band, and probably the best band ever, but they are overrated.

Wasn't it you who once described perfect happiness as the part in Hey Jude when it goes like : "Make it better, better, better, BETTER, BETTER AHHHHH" ?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on October 25, 2003, 10:24:38 PM
i think they also pioneered the Chorus effect........they wanted to figure out a way to get the effect of doubling their voices without actually tracking twice
Title: The Beatles
Post by: phil marlowe on October 26, 2003, 07:03:34 AM
beatles are good, i dig them alot...but naming someone the greates band ever will allways fall pretty flat. exept it's busted or something then it's funny.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: ShanghaiOrange on October 26, 2003, 01:47:44 PM
Quote from: Pas Rapport
Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeBest moment in a rock and roll song ever: when Ringo yells "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS" at the end of Helter Skelter.

The Beatles are the my favorite band, and probably the best band ever, but they are overrated.

Wasn't it you who once described perfect happiness as the part in Hey Jude when it goes like : "Make it better, better, better, BETTER, BETTER AHHHHH" ?

Yeah, but rock and roll perfection and happiness are to different things. But the Beatles produced both of them. :(
Title: The Beatles
Post by: TheVoiceOfNick on October 27, 2003, 10:15:54 AM
Quote from: russiasushaHelp me out with this list of things that they did first:

Yes, they did these things first, but they didn't do it best... People lose sight of that fact...

Nick
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on October 27, 2003, 06:55:54 PM
to makest that statement, thou must backeth it upeth
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Sleuth on October 27, 2003, 06:58:54 PM
Opeth?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: classical gas on October 27, 2003, 08:54:33 PM
i think the beatles are the greatest band of all time when it comes down to it.  i'm really not being defensive here, just curious as to hear what bands do you guys think are better than the beatles, and explain.  and again, this isn't a 'fuck you, give me proof that they're not the best', because it's all opinions; i'm just curious.  but try to give some specifics and so on.  maybe they're simply not your cup off tea, so it's not why they're not your favorite, just who as a whole is better.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: classical gas on October 28, 2003, 02:46:31 AM
sorry, but seriously to continue the thread, don't want it to die on me, i'd feel guilty.  isn't 'strawberry fields forever' two songs together?  aren't they the first to do that?  maybe the last?  this might have already been said.  i'm sure they were the first to have an orchestra play out of tune for a song (day in the life).  also, john lennon was the first to have a top ten hit single with the word 'fuck' in it. i'm sure they did somethig first with 'tomorrow never knows' and 'yellow submarine', but i'm not a music expert.
so please, keep talking beatles, it makes me happy...i never knew others liked this band.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: fulty on October 31, 2003, 06:53:27 PM
I'm really enjoying some of the Anthology albums.
Very interesting to hear the early attempts at Strawberry Fields,
and then see how they fixed it up for the final hit.

Also, "A Concert for George" blew me away.
Just wondering if that movie has been discussed around here.?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: classical gas on November 01, 2003, 12:34:19 AM
didn't they uncover a lot of music that was unreleased from the white album?  has anyone heard anything about this?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Lucinda Bryte on November 01, 2003, 10:06:49 AM
I love the Beatles but I detest most McCartney songs. They are sooo whiny. Paperback Writer is okay though... And a couple others.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Sigur Rós on November 01, 2003, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Lucinda Brytebut I detest most McCartney songs. They are sooo whiny. Paperback Writer is okay though... And a couple others.

I agree.'Yesterday' is the worst whiny crap ever made.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cine on November 01, 2003, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: Jesus Christ Bobby!
Quote from: Lucinda Brytebut I detest most McCartney songs. They are sooo whiny. Paperback Writer is okay though... And a couple others.

I agree.'Yesterday' is the worst whiny crap ever made.
Even 'Hey Jude'?!?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on November 01, 2003, 11:32:19 PM
Helter Skelter????

i don't care much for Paperback Writer....if i want Beach Boy harmonies......well, by golly, i listen to the Beach Boys....a let down after We Can Work It Out
Title: The Beatles
Post by: phil marlowe on November 02, 2003, 02:43:05 PM
beatles has allways been one big mess of good/bad things, i don't understand why people(beatles fans) just wont admit that. the mcartney songs are no exeptions.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 16, 2004, 12:08:51 PM
Quote from: classical gasdidn't they uncover a lot of music that was unreleased from the white album?  has anyone heard anything about this?

Yes they did but it is very rare and hard to find. I think they were going called release it as 'the black album'. On another note I don't know if you know this or has already posted this in a thread but a Dj called DJ Danger Mouse put Jay-Z's Lyric's from His 'Black Album' over The White Album's music and I thought it was an interesting to put THAT together. The DJ called it The Grey Album but, of course, it isn't going to be released. I DID hear it though and it sounds very strange but it works slightly well...I guess it all depends if you like Jay-Z

Favorite Beatles Songs:
Helter Skelter
Hey Jude
Elenor Rigby
Everything On The 'Abby Road' Album
and
Accross The Universe
Title: The Beatles
Post by: modage on March 16, 2004, 12:32:18 PM
Quote from: SiliasRuby
Quote from: classical gasdidn't they uncover a lot of music that was unreleased from the white album?  has anyone heard anything about this?

Yes they did but it is very rare and hard to find.
i've never heard of this.  is there any websites that list the songs that should be there?  or any known bootlegs that have the songs?  or are they just readily floating around on soulseek?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 16, 2004, 12:51:44 PM
Not that I know of but I'll look
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Fernando on March 16, 2004, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: SiliasRuby
Quote from: classical gasdidn't they uncover a lot of music that was unreleased from the white album?  has anyone heard anything about this?

Yes they did but it is very rare and hard to find.
i've never heard of this.  is there any websites that list the songs that should be there?  or any known bootlegs that have the songs?  or are they just readily floating around on soulseek?

I have the book EMI's the Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the Abbey Road Years by Mark Lewisohn, which btw amazon has it as OOP, and as far as I remember there were not much songs left out for the white album, or at least to make another, in fact George Martin didn't want that album to be double but they insisted on it, I'll try to give it another read at those sessions and see if they recorded other songs. Right now I'm remembering there was this Paul's recording called Carnival Light or something, it was a sort of Revolution #9 thing, but IIRC it was made before it, really experimental, they never released that one in those years (60's), but now I don't know if hey did in recent years (90's - 00's).
Title: The Beatles
Post by: mogwai on March 16, 2004, 01:41:42 PM
Quote from: FernandoEMI's the Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the Abbey Road Years by Mark Lewisohn
also known as the complete "beatles" chronicle a.k.a. the bible 8)
Title: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 16, 2004, 05:26:55 PM
Gee, I might be wrong, I just heard from a friend that there was this certain 'black album' so it might just be bullshit rumor that my friend fell for and thought was true but I don't know....sorry
Title: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on March 16, 2004, 05:42:27 PM
Maybe your friend meant these:

Stolen Beatles tapes found in Australia

Stolen reel-to-reel tapes thought to be original studio recordings by the Beatles have been found in Australia.

Police recovered a recording of the White album - officially titled The Beatles - and one of the Abbey Road album as well as original artwork.

They had been advertised for sale in the listings section of a Sydney newspaper.

Detectives arrested a 27-year-old man after uncovering the haul, but he was later released without charge.

Australian police were tipped off by British detectives from Operation Acetone, an investigation into thefts of original Beatles music from Abbey Road studios in London in the 1960s and 1970s.

The attempt to sell them was reported to Acetone detectives following publicity over an operation two weeks ago in which 500 tapes, dubbed the Get Back sessions, were recovered.

Five people were arrested in London and the Netherlands and are still on police bail.

Two of those arrested were thought to have worked at Abbey Road studios.

They had allegedly tried to sell the tapes for £270,000.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 16, 2004, 06:24:04 PM
Maybe, I'll double check with her Thursday which is the next time I see her. I heard about that happening so...maybe it was those. Thanks Mac.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on March 17, 2004, 05:58:01 PM
you might be thinking of the White Album demos they recorded at George's house........search on eBay and you can find them.....i've never head them so i don't know the quality........there are a few White Album songs that didn't make the album that i know of like What's the New Mary Jane and some others
Title: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 18, 2004, 03:42:58 AM
That's probably exactly what I am thinking about
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Weird. Oh on March 23, 2004, 02:14:46 AM
It's great to see that people still have a love for The Beatles 40 years after they made their splash into American popular culture. I myself am only 19 years old and The Beatles are my favorite band by far.  The Beatles were so many things. Their music represented an entire decade. They started out doing more blues-pop stylized music and as the decade wore on they grew into brilliant songwriters.

The Beatles in a span of 8 years made 13 albums. This feat has never been mimicked to date. Its not even like these albums were crap. They had amazing musical range. They did songs in a variety of styles. They played in virtually every key and timing. They utilized many different instruments that had never been heard in music prior. They used indian instrument and other instruments like a fire bell. In the studio is where they garnered a great deal of fame in regards to recording innovation. They utitlized feedback, chorus, delay, reverse tracking, reverb, distortion. They bascially created limitless tracking whereas prior musicians were limited to 4 tracks. This allowed them to use overdubs also.  Many people say Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club band was the first progressive rock album too.

I don't understand how anyone with knowledge of popular music throughout the 20th century could argue otherwise that The Beatles weren't the most important band. I'd like to see people disprove it and see the basis for their arguement. It's always refreshing to hear different viewpoints. So I'd appreciate it!
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cron on August 31, 2004, 07:06:12 PM
I was listening to a pretty heavy  beatles / beatle song  today  but I don't know what's its name...
Macca was the leading voice,  Á la 'Why Don't We Don't Do it in the Road" . Like I said, heavy (for Beatle standards). I'm guessing it's from his solo stuff, but if anyone knows which song might be, please let me know.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Sleuth on August 31, 2004, 07:14:54 PM
Helter Skelter?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cron on August 31, 2004, 07:16:57 PM
nope. I'm as intrigued as you may are now.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on August 31, 2004, 07:29:28 PM
Gonna need more to go on than that. Remember any lyrics?

Get Back?
Oh! Darling?
Back In The USSR?
I've Got A Feeling?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cron on August 31, 2004, 07:54:37 PM
i think there was a phrase that said "catch up".


There's a radio show here in Mexico called LA HORA DE LOS BEATLES (the beatles hour)  and you get to listen to geniunely rare stuff by them. I listened to it in the morning and  I tried to remind a piece of lyric  from it but  McCartney shouts  a lot.

Edit: It could be Paul McCartney's Monkberry Moon Delight.


IT IS!
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Fernando on September 01, 2004, 10:37:28 AM
Quote from: cronopioi think there was a phrase that said "catch up".


There's a radio show here in Mexico called LA HORA DE LOS BEATLES (the beatles hour)  and you get to listen to geniunely rare stuff by them. I listened to it in the morning and  I tried to remind a piece of lyric  from it but  McCartney shouts  a lot.

Edit: It could be Paul McCartney's Monkberry Moon Delight.


IT IS!

I love that song, it's from his second solo effort RAM, which btw is essential if you like old Mac.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB000002UC7.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=4387434e33ec17429ebbcab4fa55132ae24b7e73)
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Mesh on September 02, 2004, 02:23:30 PM
Quote from: WitkacyWhy were  the Beatles special????  I don't see it or hear it.  They're a fabricated icon within the library of pop music.  Long live Beatles muzak...

This is just ludicrous, I can't even begin to argue with such a moronic opinion.  "Fabricated"?  You're thinking of the Monkees, dork.  Or Ruben Studdard.

Quote from: godardianSeriously, they weren't nearly as special as most people seem to think... still, if you can overlook the suffocating legend, there are a few very good songs.

I guess my response to that would be: "Who better deserves the adoration/respect they've recieved?"  How in the world could you be a Smiths nut and not like The Beatles?

Quote from: classical gasisn't 'strawberry fields forever' two songs together?  aren't they the first to do that?  maybe the last?

No, it's not; no, they weren't; no, a million songs are like that.  See: "Band on the Run" by Wings for a Beatle-related example, it's at least three songs edited together.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Film Student on September 02, 2004, 04:04:40 PM
Must agree with Mesh (minus the name-calling) on this one.  You can't listen to/enjoy much of any latter-half-of-the-20thCentury pop music without giving the Beatles their proper due.  If you can't recognize their brilliance, chances are you haven't listened to much of them.  

On the piecing several songs together topic:

They also did that with "Happiness is a Warm Gun" and "A Day in the Life", among others.  

Trivia note:  Thom Yorke said (regarding "Paranoid Android") that he was inspired by "Happiness is a Warm Gun" to take three half-finished pieces he couldn't grab a hold of and create one epic song.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: bonanzataz on September 02, 2004, 04:16:40 PM
Quote from: Film StudentTrivia note:  Thom Yorke said (regarding "Paranoid Android") that he was inspired by "Happiness is a Warm Gun" to take three half-finished pieces he couldn't grab a hold of and create one epic song.

JUST as i read that, paranoid android starting playing on itunes.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: modage on September 02, 2004, 04:35:11 PM
is it just me or is this beatles thread more popular now than when they were still together?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Ravi on September 03, 2004, 01:21:22 PM
Quote from: themodernage02is it just me or is this beatles thread more popular now than when they were still together?

Yes, this thread is more popular than it was in the 1960s.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: modage on September 03, 2004, 02:54:29 PM
you realize i was making a joke.  but i dont realize if you are.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Weird. Oh on September 04, 2004, 03:15:03 AM
Since the quality of popular music today has diminished due to several factors, many people look backwards and find great music that wasn't tainted by today's marketing machines. (The same could be said about film)

Although, to play devil's advocate, the Beatles enjoyed immense success initially because of their image. However, their musicianship equaled anything heard from pop music prior to that era and has obviously affected as discussed before music from the 60's to today.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Ravi on September 04, 2004, 11:19:48 PM
But we have to remember that in the past there were vapid teen idols like Bobby Sherman, Leif Garrett, etc., so it's not like all the music back then was groundbreaking.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 06, 2004, 01:32:49 AM
Quote from: bonanzataz
Quote from: Film StudentTrivia note:  Thom Yorke said (regarding "Paranoid Android") that he was inspired by "Happiness is a Warm Gun" to take three half-finished pieces he couldn't grab a hold of and create one epic song.

JUST as i read that, paranoid android starting playing on itunes.

i'm guessing the Beatles got this idea from Good Vibrations which was several pieces of music recorded in different studios and then spliced together.......if you've heard stuff from the Smile sessions, the Beatles ain't got nothing on BW.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Mesh on September 07, 2004, 11:48:33 AM
Quote from: Reformed WeirdoSince the quality of popular music today has diminished due to several factors, many people look backwards and find great music that wasn't tainted by today's marketing machines.

You have to remember, though, that the Beatles phenomenon owed quite a lot to the fledgling pop music marketing machine of that era.  Re-re-packaged songs/albums, promo films, toys, games, magazines...... They're the reason N'Sync is considered a) a mega-success and b) insanely cliche.

edit re: "namecalling":  He called the Beatles "fabricated," I called him a moronic dork.  Quid pro quo.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 07, 2004, 10:42:18 PM
i don't quite understand. the Beatles wrote their own songs and did some covers, but they were a pub band for a long time. it wasn't like they were picked out of auditioners, they were a tight band from years of playing long long hours all through the night. the progression they made in around 5 years is hard to comptemplate.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Mesh on September 08, 2004, 10:31:48 AM
Quote from: bigideas.....if you've heard stuff from the Smile sessions, the Beatles ain't got nothing on BW.

Yeah, no.  Both Brian Wilson and Paul McCartney have admitted to being insanely jealous/competitive with/against each other during the Revolver/Pet Sounds/Sgt. Pepper/Smile era.  They fed off of each other, stole/reworked ideas, tried to one-up each other in a "friendly competition" way.

I don't think it's accurate to say "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" is any sort of direct response to "Good Vibrations" though.

Quote from: Some crazy website Wilson has long said he felt a sense of artistic competitiveness
 with the Fab Four. Each group has acknowledged the influence of
 the other.The Beatles' 1965 album "Rubber Soul" inspired Wilson
 to move beyond the teen simplicity of the Beach Boys' early work
 to the musical maturity and emotional expressiveness of 1966's
 "Pet Sounds."The ambitions of "Pet Sounds" helped spur the
 Beatles to new heights in their next album, "Revolver."Wilson
 was determined to top his rivals again with "Smile." He promised
 it would be as much of a progression over "Pet Sounds" as that
 was over its predecessor, "Beach Boys Party!""Smile" was
 expected at the end of 1966 — while the Beatles were working on
 "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

 Immediately after "Pet Sounds," Wilson created the band's most
 intricately crafted recording, "Good Vibrations," a song
 intended for "Smile." It became the Beach Boys' biggest hit up
 to that time, proof that there was a market for Wilson's
 increasingly sophisticated music.

So you can see how contemporary Smile and Sgt. Pepper were, both bands combining several songs into one, experimenting in a million ways....
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 08, 2004, 02:19:19 PM
but Happiness is off of the White Album.
Good Vibrations was released before Pepper. remember, it was the release of Sgt. Pepper that made BW abandon Smile for good............until now of course.
i'm not saying Happiness is copying from GV in any way except that Brian showed what you could do, how you could "cut & paste" fragments together in the pop music world. the Beatles also started using found sound (animals sounds, etc) after falling in love with Pet Sounds (think the ending of CAroline, No).

you're trying to make me sound anti-Beatles but i love them. it's just BW was the first to release a commercial single like that.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on October 13, 2004, 12:36:59 AM
Capitol boxes U.S. versions of first Beatles albums on CD

Capitol Records will issue the first four U.S. albums by the Beatles as a boxed set, "The Capitol Albums Vol. 1," on Nov. 16.

The release marks the first time the Fab Four's evergreen early American catalog is being made available on compact disc. Priced at $69.98 (and undoubtedly a prime target for price-slashing by mass merchants), it will be a slam-dunk sales bonanza for Capitol in the busy preholiday shopping season.

Capitol Records president Andy Slater says, "It's been a personal quest for me over the last three years to get these records released because this is the way I remember them, the way I first heard them."

The band's initial quartet of American albums -- "Meet the Beatles," "The Beatles' Second Album," "Something New" and "Beatles '65," all originally released in 1964 -- contain many of the No. 1 singles that launched the band's career, including "I Want to Hold Your Hand," "She Loves You," "I Feel Fine" and "She's a Woman."

The box, which Slater says will be available for a limited time only, will be the first new product from the band since the Apple/Capitol hits compilation "1" was issued in November 2000. That collection entered the Billboard 200 at No. 1 and has sold 9.7 million units to date, according to Nielsen SoundScan; it remains a fixture near the top of Billboard's top pop catalog chart.

So far, the Beatles have not licensed their catalog to any digital music service.

The upcoming box is the first significant upgrade of the Beatles' earliest music since the commercial dawn of the CD format.

When Capitol debuted the Beatles catalog on CD in 1987, the albums were issued worldwide in their original British configurations from EMI's Parlophone imprint, in mono.

Some American Beatlemaniacs howled in protest when the CDs appeared. While the English versions contained more songs than their American counterparts (which had appeared on LP in retitled formulations, whittled down to address higher music publishing costs, created by EMI's U.S. label Capitol), Stateside fans bemoaned the absence of the albums they grew up with and clamored for stereo versions.

Now, at the end of the year marking the 40th anniversary of the Beatles' "British invasion" (they played their first U.S. dates in February 1964), Capitol is finally releasing the American editions.

"The Capitol Albums Vol. 1" will comprise four discs, with the stereo and mono versions of the individual U.S. titles, mastered from the original tapes, available on each disc.

The stereo versions will be either true stereo or "duophonic." The duophonic sound was created by Capitol in the '60s using two mono channels that were equalized, compressed and reverbed. "It's fairly primitive stereo -- instruments in one channel, vocals in the other channel," Slater says. But, he added, "It creates a sound that your memory tells you is correct."

He said, "When you actually listen to these records and hear them compared to what's (been) available, it's intoxicating."

The CDs in "The Capitol Albums" will be housed in miniature replicas of the original albums, and the set will include a 48-page booklet.

Slater said there are no plans to release the four individual titles separately and that a "Vol. 2" of American albums has not yet been scheduled.

The track list for "The Capitol Albums Vol. 1" follows.

"Meet the Beatles":
"I Want to Hold Your Hand"
"I Saw Her Standing There"
"This Boy"
"It Won't Be Long"
"All I've Got to Do"
"All My Loving"
"Don't Bother Me"
"Little Child"
"Till There Was You"
"Hold Me Tight"
"I Wanna Be Your Man"
"Not a Second Time"

"The Beatles Second Album":
"Roll Over Beethoven"
"Thank You Girl"
"You Really Got a Hold on Me"
"Devil in Her Heart"
"Money"
"You Can't Do That"
"Long Tall Sally"
"I Call Your Name"
"Please Mr. Postman"
"I'll Get You"
"She Loves You"

"Something New":
"I'll Cry Instead"
"Things We Said Today"
"Any Time At All"
"When I Get Home"
"Slow Down"
"Matchbox"
"Tell Me Why"
"And I Love Her"
"I'm Happy Just to Dance With You"
"If I Fell"
"Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand"

"Beatles '65":
"No Reply"
"I'm a Loser"
"Baby's in Black
"Rock and Roll Music"
"I'll Follow the Sun"
"Mr. Moonlight"
"Honey Don't"
"I'll Be Back"
"She's a Woman"
"I Feel Fine"
"Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby"
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Ravi on October 13, 2004, 11:02:47 AM
I had a bootleg CD of the first four albums in stereo but I lost it a long time ago  :cry:
Title: The Beatles
Post by: london on October 13, 2004, 12:53:17 PM
I was talking about bands and I mentioned John Lennon and this kid asked me who John Lennon was.  I almost fell over.  I said the Beatles?  Paul McCartney?  Assassination?  
Then I asked him if he had ever heard of Elvis.
Sacreligious.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Pubrick on October 14, 2004, 08:18:53 AM
Quote from: londonThen I asked him if he had ever heard of Elvis.
that's sumthing we should all forget.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on October 19, 2004, 09:35:37 PM
Beatles Songs Provide 'Love' for '60s Romance

The Beatles are headed to Hollywood.

Or, more precisely, Sony-based Revolution Studios is developing a film musical, "All You Need Is Love," that will feature more than a dozen cover versions of Fab Four tunes.

The project, from veteran British screenwriters Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, is a romance about a British boy and an American girl set against the backdrop of the social upheaval of the 1960s.

Although not about the Beatles, the musical will use their songs to drive the narrative, with the actors singing and dancing to the classic tunes. The filmmakers are in negotiations to secure re-recording rights for the project, set to feature 17-18 Beatles songs.

"Everyone loves the Beatles," Clement said. "No matter how old or young someone is, where they're from or what they're background is, the music is universal."

Added La Frenais: "Everyone has a memory associated with the Beatles. Whether it was your first kiss or the first time you saw that girl standing across from you at the high school dance, chances are that the DJ was playing a Beatles song."

The film's producer, Matthew Gross, noted that Clement and La Frenais knew late Beatles guitarist George Harrison and drummer Ringo Starr personally.

"We wanted to create a story that stood entirely on its own merits," Gross said. "Even without the music, their story is dramatic, moving and powerful. That being said, no matter what we wanted to convey in a scene, there was always a Beatles song available to help us push the narrative and emotional beats forward."

Clement and La Frenais, who first teamed in the '60s on such swingin' London titles as "The Jokers" and "Otley," have written dozens of movies including two films for Harrison, whose Handmade Films produced 1985's "Water" and 1983's "Bullshot," both of which Clement directed.

Clement and La Frenais are collaborating with AC/DC vocalist Brian Johnson on a Broadway musical. They also wrote "The Commitments." Their credits also include the classic British TV series "Porridge" and "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet."
Title: The Beatles
Post by: modage on October 19, 2004, 10:34:10 PM
Quote from: MacGuffinAdded La Frenais: "Everyone has a memory associated with the Beatles. Whether it was your first kiss or the first time you saw that girl standing across from you at the high school dance, chances are that the DJ was playing a Beatles song."
or the time that retard almost had his daughter taken away....
Title: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on October 19, 2004, 11:30:30 PM
Quote from: themodernage02or the time that retard almost had his daughter taken away....

I hope these cover versions will be a whole lot better than those God-awful ones (save for the Mann/Penn duet on "Two Of Us") for that film.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: meatwad on October 20, 2004, 08:51:16 AM
Quote from: MacGuffinI hope these cover versions will be a whole lot better than those God-awful ones (save for the Mann/Penn duet on "Two Of Us") for that film.

what about nick cave's cover of '"let it be"?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on October 20, 2004, 04:36:01 PM
I tought there were a couple good covers on that one...
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on October 20, 2004, 10:26:25 PM
why can't anyone use the original Beatles' recordings?
i know they would have been used a reused some many times by now, so maybe they wanted to keep that from happening.

i can think of two films that have actual Beatles' recordings:
Can't Buy Me Love - same as title
Ferris Bueller - cover of Twist and Shout
Title: The Beatles
Post by: modage on October 20, 2004, 10:47:53 PM
I Want To Hold Your Hand - lots
Bowling For Columbine - Happiness is a Warm Gun

umm... it has something to do with the rights something something, like michael jackson owns the publishing so anyone can cover a song but not use the orignal without surviving members/estates permissions.  something like that.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on October 20, 2004, 11:29:38 PM
It also costs a crap load of money.

More:

Come Together - "A Bronx Tale"
When I'm Sixty-Four - "World According To Garp"
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Pubrick on October 20, 2004, 11:34:01 PM
"I Should've Known Better"
"I Wanna Be Your Man"
"Don't Bother Me"
"All My Loving"
"If I Fell"
"Can't Buy Me Love"
"And I Love Her"
"I'm Happy Just to Dance with You"
"Tell Me Why"
"She Loves You"
"A Hard Day's Night"

-a hard day's night
Title: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on October 21, 2004, 06:58:25 AM
it must be a very high price (i wish i could find figures) because, like i said, you know everyone and their mom would have been using them. it blew my mind when i turned on the tv one day and saw Patrick Dempsey riding a lawn mower to Can't Buy Me Love. i guess they were wiling to cut the price for Bowling for Columbine (i'm guessing its budget is a lot less than your average feature).
what are some films with I Want to Hold Your Hand?
Title: The Beatles
Post by: modage on October 21, 2004, 09:56:25 AM
Quote from: bigideaswhat are some films with I Want to Hold Your Hand?
early robert zemeckis, just released on dvd, i will be seeing it this month...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00028HBJS.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=1ce1a41e56cf3a4c1657e81a07b12a0230f2e1c7)
Title: The Beatles
Post by: meatwad on October 21, 2004, 11:25:40 AM
i know wes anderson orig. wanted the beatles version of hey jude in the beginning of royal tenenbaums, and instead of van morrison's ''everyone'' at the end he wanted the beatles ''i'm looking through you''.....but they just could not afford it

and i may be wrong, but i think michael jackson only owns the rights to later beatles songs, and the beatles lost the rights to their early songs a while ago
Title: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 21, 2004, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: meatwad

and i may be wrong, but i think michael jackson only owns the rights to later beatles songs, and the beatles lost the rights to their early songs a while ago

I heard that Michael Jackson bought the rights to a lot of Beatles songs, as well.  I think it's pretty stupid, but hey, if I had the money, and was ugly as sin, I guess owning Beatles songs rights would be the thing going for me.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on October 21, 2004, 12:30:09 PM
My understanding is that Michael Jackson slyly acquired the copyrights to the entire Beatles library, much to the dismay of his ex-friend Paul McCartney. I also hear that despite much pleading, he refuses to sell any of them back. Does this mean that he can overdub the masters with his own voice? Are we liable to see copies of "Abbey Road" with five people crossing the street and mysterious falsettoes throughout?

StraightDope replies:

Come on. Think of the Sgt. Pepper cover, with all the boys in uniform. Michael Jackson would fit right in.  (Although you'd want the guy missing the glove to be Paul.) Don't worry, no musical travesties are going to happen, or at least they're not going to happen as a result of Jackson owning the Beatles library.

What Michael Jackson bought for $47.5 million in 1985 was the publishing rights to 159 or 251 Beatles songs, depending on who's counting. To maybe oversimplify a complicated business, publishing rights are basically the sheet music rights. When Paul McCartney wanted to print the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" and other Beatles classics in the program for his 1989 world tour, he discovered he'd have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson. The owner of the publishing rights (hereinafter the publisher) also gets a royalty when someone plays a Beatles song on a jukebox or the radio or does a cover version of a Fab Four tune. Particularly in the case of elevator music, to which, let's be frank, a lot of Beatles tunes are well suited, this can earn the publisher some serious cash.

But there are a couple things the publisher can't do. The first is to mess with, or license the use of, Beatles recordings. Michael Jackson agreed to license the words and music of "Revolution" to Nike for a 1987 shoe commercial, but he had to persuade Capitol Records, owner of the tune's North American recording rights, to allow use of the actual record. Most likely he'd have to do the same to overdub said record with his own voice, although he might get away with including a snippet in a musical collage, something even John Lennon did that has now become impossible to control.

Another thing the publisher can't do (in the U.S. at least) is prevent somebody from recording a cover version of a song the publisher owns. Usually the would-be cover artist and the publisher work out a deal on royalties. However, if negotiations fail, U.S. law allows the cover artist to make and market the recording anyway provided he pays a stipulated (and fairly stiff) royalty to the publisher.

The point is, being a publisher doesn't give you all that much control over the songs you own; mainly it gives you the right to the profits they earn. You don't even get to keep all of that; typically you have to give 50% to each song's composer(s), one reason not to feel too sorry for Paul McCartney and the estate of John Lennon. Another reason is that McCartney, despite having gotten skunked out of his own songs, contrived to buy the rights to 3,000 others, including the Buddy Holly catalog, and reportedly is worth $600 million. Not that he's happy, of course. Paul's mad at Michael Jackson not merely because he lost control of the Beatles library but also because Jackson won't discuss giving McCartney a higher composer's royalty for the old tunes.

The last reason not to feel sorry for Paul is that if he got skunked it's his own fault. In the 60s, to avoid confiscatory British taxes, he and Lennon turned their publishing rights over to newly-organized Northern Songs, a publicly-held company in which they owned sizable but apparently not controlling blocks of stock. In 1969 music mogul Lew Grade launched a takeover bid for Northern Songs in which he offered seven times the stock's original offering price. Lennon and McCartney, feuding as usual, were unable to organize an effective defense and the company was sold out from under them. This made them even more fabulously wealthy than they already were, since their stock was now worth seven times as much. However, they were still pissed on account of, you know, the principle of the thing. The Teeming Millions can surely sympathize.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Michael Jackson still own the publishing rights to the Beatles song catalog?

With a little help from our friends -- the urban legends site Snopes.com, Cecil Adams' Straight Dope column, and Yahoo! News -- we found the answer to your question.
Back in 1963, the Beatles gave their publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by their manager, Brian Epstein, and a music publisher, Dick James. Northern Songs went public in 1965, and John Lennon and Paul McCartney each had 15% of the company's shares, while Dick James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5% of shares. In 1969, James and Silver sold Northern Songs and its assets to the Associated Television Corporation (ATV).

In 1985, ATV's music catalog was sold, and Michael Jackson was the high bidder. Jacko paid a reported $47 million for the publishing rights to somewhere between 159 to 260 Beatles songs. A decade later, Jackson and Sony merged their music publishing businesses. Since 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing have jointly owned most of the Beatles songs.

While the Jackson-Sony collection includes practically all of the Beatles' greatest hits, they don't have every little thing. Paul McCartney bought the rights to "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Tell Me Why." Northern Songs never owned these early tunes, so they weren't included in the ATV deal.

In the past few years, the media has speculated that Jacko may need to sell the Beatles' rights to pay for his extravagant lifestyle and mounting legal costs. Sony reports that Jackson used his half of the Beatles' catalog as collateral for a loan from the music company. If Jackson defaults on the loan, Sony has the right to buy his share. In 2001, Jackson stated: "The Beatles catalogue is not for sale, has not been for sale and will never be for sale." But who knows? Maybe he'll try to take a sad song and make it better by cashing in.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: mogwai on November 10, 2004, 09:17:47 AM
Beatles classic voted worst song

The Beatles' 1968 song Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da has been voted the worst song ever in an online poll. The track was on the band's White Album - which is often regarded as one of the best albums ever made. It was rated as being worse than former footballer Paul Gascoigne's Fog On The Tyne in a Mars survey of 1,000 people. In third place was Meat Loaf's 1993 hit I'll Do Anything For Love, while 5ive, Cliff Richard, Vanilla Ice and Steps were also in the top 10. Three of the songs on the list are sung by footballers, including the 1987 song Diamond Lights by Glenn Hoddle and Chris Waddle. Liverpool's Anfield Rap, featuring John Barnes, also makes the top 10. Ian Edwards, lecturer at the Academy of Contemporary Music, said: "Admit it or not, most of these are songs that we liked when they first came out. "That is the nature of pop music as a part of fashion. Songs are popular at the time, but times change and often this results in embarrassing additions to your record collections. "It is interesting to note that they were nearly all hits." A spokesman for Mars said they asked voters to base their answers on the song's merits, not their opinions of the bands.

TOP 5 'WORST' SONGS
1. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da - The Beatles
2. Fog on the Tyne - Gazza and Lindisfarne
3. I'll Do Anything For Love - Meat Loaf
4. Diamond Lights - Glenn Hoddle and Chris Waddle
5. We Will Rock You - 5ive featuring Queen
Title: The Beatles
Post by: grand theft sparrow on November 10, 2004, 01:03:50 PM
I would have picked Octopus' Garden over Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da.  That song makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.   :shock:
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cine on November 10, 2004, 01:05:07 PM
Quote from: hacksparrowI would have picked Octopus' Garden over Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da.  That song makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.   :shock:
I love both of those songs.  :(
Title: The Beatles
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on November 10, 2004, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
Quote from: hacksparrowI would have picked Octopus' Garden over Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da.  That song makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.   :shock:
I love both of those songs.  :(
You're not alone, man.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on November 10, 2004, 06:10:13 PM
People actually hate Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da?

I knew elitist asses existed, but I thought we all posted on Xixax.  

(Then again, hacksparrow didn't like Octopus' Garden...)
Title: The Beatles
Post by: grand theft sparrow on November 12, 2004, 10:06:26 AM
Quote from: Walrus XI knew elitist asses existed, but I thought we all posted on Xixax.  

(Then again, hacksparrow didn't like Octopus' Garden...)

Blackadder: Baldrick, you do know what irony is, don't you?
Baldrick: Yeah, it's a bit like "goldy" and "bronzy", except it's irony.

I'm going back to the Radiohead thread.
Title: The Beatles
Post by: meatwad on November 18, 2004, 10:50:14 PM
The Grey Video (http://www.waxy.org/archive/2004/11/18/the_grey.shtml)
Title: The Beatles
Post by: cine on November 19, 2004, 02:08:22 AM
Quote from: meatwadThe Grey Video (http://www.waxy.org/archive/2004/11/18/the_grey.shtml)
Yeah, that *was* pretty gray..


100 thread replies!
Title: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on April 16, 2005, 06:53:01 AM
The Beatles Could Bail Out Jackson
The beleaguered pop star's financial salvation may lie in selling his share of the Fab Four's songbook. But there's no sign yet of a deal.

When Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog for $47.5 million two decades ago, he said the song he coveted most was "Yesterday." In those brighter times, his own troubles seemed so far away.

But today is another matter.

Jackson not only is standing trial for alleged child molestation, but he also faces debt so crushing that his handlers are pushing him to shed a substantial stake in the Fab Four's fabled songbook — something the self-proclaimed King of Pop said he would never do.

Although speculation has long swirled about whether Jackson eventually would be forced to part with an asset valued at as much as $500 million, rumors of a possible sale have gained velocity in recent days as the singer's representatives have leaked word of their renewed efforts to keep creditors at bay.

There's general agreement that no deal is imminent. But a consensus is building among Jackson's advisors and others in the recording industry that he may have no other way to pay an estimated $270 million in Bank of America loans he has used to underwrite his famously lavish spending.

The clock is ticking. The potential of Jackson's defaulting on those loans could be greatly increased should he be found guilty by the jury now hearing testimony in Santa Maria. With his recording career on the slide for years, Jackson's only other way to generate quick cash would be to hit the concert circuit overseas, where he remains popular.

"If there's a conviction," said Los Angeles entertainment lawyer Jeffrey Light, "he loses his ability to go out and make meaningful money as a live performer because he'd be in jail."

The Beatles songs jointly owned by Jackson and Sony Corp. through a separate entity — Sony/ATV Music Publishing — represent a treasure trove of music by the songwriting team of John Lennon and Paul McCartney that generates vast sums every year through licensing and royalty deals. Since the Beatles landed on U.S. soil in the early 1960s, no group has enjoyed such sustained success.

"This band changed music forever," said Scott Francis, president of BMG Songs North America, another power in the publishing field. "There are always new uses for these songs. New generations are being introduced to this catalog all the time."

When a song is used in a commercial, film, television show, stage performance, video game or cellphone ring tone, a licensing fee is paid. That revenue is split between the songwriter and the publisher. So every time "Can't Buy Me Love" is used, for example, half the money goes to McCartney and the Lennon estate, with the rest going to Sony/ATV.

Under one scenario being floated by Jackson's representatives, he would reduce his interest in Sony/ATV from 50% to 15%. The money he'd make by selling a 35% stake would repay his debts and give him $10 million in cash upfront, while still assuring him a stream of about $10 million a year from the catalog, according to one of the singer's changing cast of business advisors. Jackson would also receive a one-time $10-million payment.

"He has been reluctant to face reality," said the advisor, who acknowledged that Jackson had rebuffed previous overtures to sell. "But it's getting to the point something needs to be done, and he needs to accept that."

For Jackson, however, owning the publishing rights to the Lennon/McCartney songs has always been more about emotion than money.

Indirectly, Jackson got the idea of buying the Beatles catalog from McCartney himself. It was the early 1980s, and the two were in London working together on a record. After eating dinner at McCartney's home, the former Beatle showed Jackson a bound notebook filled with song titles McCartney owned. Among them were hits by artists including the late Buddy Holly. Jackson was intrigued. He peppered McCartney with questions about how he could get into the game.

Soon after, Jackson talked to his attorney, John Branca, about buying the copyrights to songs he loved. He snapped up a collection of Sly Stone songs and Dion's "Run Around Sue." Making it clear he wanted to buy songs only if they had personal meaning for him, Jackson passed on valuable catalogs when the music didn't move him. But in September 1984, when Branca told him that the ATV catalog was available, he jumped on it.

ATV was an entertainment conglomerate that in 1969 had purchased Northern Songs, a publishing company established by the Beatles. The catalog was huge — it included 4,000 songs — but the more than 200 Beatles songs were the most valuable in the bunch, worth an estimated two-thirds of the catalog's value.

ATV was then owned by Australian tycoon Robert Holmes a Court. His company, Bell Group, negotiated with Jackson for 10 months. The process was so laborious and complicated that some insiders began calling it "The Long and Winding Road."

When the deal was done in August 1985, Jackson had triumphed over several other suitors, including London-based Virgin Records and New York real estate tycoon Samuel J. Lefrak.

In 1995, looking to deal with money problems that were surfacing even then, Jackson went from 100% owner to 50% owner after merging ATV with Sony's publishing arm. The deal also gave Jackson a 50% stake in new songs added to the company's catalog. That's why Jackson now profits from the tunes of Destiny's Child and other young acts, much to Sony's chagrin.

Branca, who negotiated the Sony/ATV deal, declined to comment on any changes that may be in the offing.

The Sony/ATV catalog generates an estimated $80 million in annual revenue, half from Beatles songs. Although the Beatles songs may be the Hope diamond of music publishing, the ATV collection of songs has plenty of other jewels. They are as varied as Bob Dylan's classic "Blowin' in the Wind" and Will Smith's "Gettin' Jiggy Wit It."

Other famous names in the catalog include Garth Brooks, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Nicks, System of a Down, Stephen Stills, Sarah McLachlan, Neil Diamond and Sade.

Jackson's financial problems could be a blessing for Sony, which has grown frustrated with having to share so much money with the singer from publishing rights obtained since the merger. That includes the Acuff-Rose and Tree Publishing catalogs, the two biggest country music publishing houses.

With no deal on the near horizon, music industry insiders Friday were left to ponder who might make a run at Jackson's holdings. Most said they'd be surprised if Sony did not have some sort of contractural clause giving it the inside track.

Several high-placed executives at Sony said they had no knowledge of the proposal that Jackson's advisors were pushing. The company had no official comment Friday.

A publishing business veteran who worked with Jackson in the past said Friday that there would be no bigger symbol of the severity of Jackson's plight than if he said goodbye to the Beatles.

"It would be very clear proof he is totally destroyed financially," said this former associate. "He would do anything except that."
Title: The Beatles
Post by: Two Lane Blacktop on April 16, 2005, 08:10:53 PM
Quote from: MacGuffinThe Beatles Could Bail Out Jackson
The beleaguered pop star's financial salvation may lie in selling his share of the Fab Four's songbook.

He should just parcel 'em out a few at a time on eBay.  I bet I could afford "The Fool On The Hill" or "Getting Better" if I sneaked a bid in late.

2LB
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pubrick on April 06, 2006, 01:16:24 PM
i already made up my mind, but i'd like to hear your collective thoughts on this anyway.. i have two double features to choose from.

A Hard Day's Night + Help!

or

Yellow Submarine + Magical Mystery Tour

i've seen all except Magical Mystery Tour, because it sucks, and precisely for this reason i think i should probably see it eventually. i've chosen the first pair cos i've seen and liked them (Help was a long time ago), the added gimmick of the big screen is the basis for choosing sure-shots. MMT would look shit anyway cos it was made for TV, and i'm over Yellow Submarine. does MMT have any redeeming qualities?

ps. getting high for the second pair is not an option.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: mogwai on April 06, 2006, 01:23:36 PM
definitely the first feature films even though 'help!' seriously freaked me out on the first viewing. i've later come to accept it as just a movie and that it's so bizarre. imagine of what could happen if you fed a marijuana hungry band and later shoot some stuff with them high? that's 'help' in a very clear nutshell!
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Ravi on April 06, 2006, 01:34:13 PM
Help! is kind of a stupid movie, but I have seen it countless times anyways.  Its a lot of fun though.  And of course, AHDN is a very good film.  I'd go with the first double feature.  Hard to believe they're from the same filmmaker.

I think I've fast-forwarded through a lot of MMT.  Whatever I've seen of it was pretty bad.  The song numbers are cool, particularly I am the Walrus and Hello Goodbye.  Lots of nonsense, but you have to see it if you're a Beatles fan.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Alethia on April 06, 2006, 01:38:28 PM
definitely the first one, i havent seen help! in a few years but i used to have a vhs copy of it and watched it fairly often for a good year or two, i remember it being quite funny
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: cron on April 06, 2006, 10:43:12 PM
help is one of my favorite movies even if i haven't seen it in at least 15 years.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Ravi on April 28, 2006, 01:33:08 PM
Bollywood Beatles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ky5ClIjL8&search=beatles)

Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on April 28, 2006, 02:28:56 PM
A little know fact about me is that I got my Xixax handle from a certain Beatles song. 
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: sickfins on April 28, 2006, 03:11:18 PM
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.html

read along with these when listening to the beatles for some interesting technical insight.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on April 28, 2006, 07:06:52 PM
Quote from: sickfins on April 28, 2006, 03:11:18 PM
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.html

read along with these when listening to the beatles for some interesting technical insight.

wow, this is pretty cool. can you give me any background on it? i've taken a little music theory, so i doubt i will grasp most of it, but still interesting to read.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: sickfins on May 07, 2006, 02:24:29 PM
read a little bit about tonics and just play the songs as you read the articles...it's actually a good way to learn pieces of music theory you haven't picked up yet by looking up what he's talking about and finding the example in the song.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on May 07, 2006, 09:58:19 PM
i meant more like who the guy is and the site in general.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: pete on May 07, 2006, 10:25:24 PM
yeah, but similar insights can be written on most good pop bands.  Beatles did not have chord progressions that were especially groundbreaking or note-worthy--except for Michelle.  That song went from diminished minor 7 to major and back again, like a snake!
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: JG on May 12, 2006, 10:34:58 PM
yeah but some of their songs were surprisingly complex. 
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SHAFTR on July 01, 2006, 02:22:42 AM
I just want to point out how fantastic John Lennon's Plastic Ono Band album is.  If you do buy the cd though, take off the 2 bonus tracks (Power to the People & Do the Oz) since they ruin the mood of the album.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: bonanzataz on July 09, 2006, 02:32:04 PM
Quote from: SHAFTR on July 01, 2006, 02:22:42 AM
I just want to point out how fantastic John Lennon's Plastic Ono Band album is.  If you do buy the cd though, take off the 2 bonus tracks (Power to the People & Do the Oz) since they ruin the mood of the album.

agreed, but on its own, do the oz kicks ass. power to the people kind of blows.

anybody buy/know about yoko ono's plastic ono band? they both released albums entitled "plastic ono band" on the same day with these covers.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fg-images.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fciu%2F9c%2F81%2F6a44b340dca098c3e7ec2010.L.jpg&hash=01e0c24b168a07aee8e0f119d97b0e3ad9286787)
john's plastic ono band.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fab%2FYoko_Ono_POB.jpg%2F604px-Yoko_Ono_POB.jpg&hash=236204f2ad200c70f27cf0ad80919d12cd5c6b1e)
yoko's plastic ono band.

john featured classic john songwriting, yoko featured really cool backing tracks with her doing primal screams. needless to say, when fans bought yoko's album expecting john's album, they were pissed. i just bought yoko's album, and i kind of love it.

any insane beatles fans out there with a shit-ton of bootlegs? i have this really great bootleg in which they're recording what was to become "let it be" and george has left the band after having that fight with paul. paul is in the background freaking out and playing martha my dear on the piano while the producers are all freaking out asking john what the hell they're going to do and if this is the end of the beatles. yoko asks for a mic and just starts SCREAMING repeatedly, to the tune of martha my dear, "JOHN! JOHN!" her and john engage in lyrical loveplay (much to the dismay of the producers). i understand why people hate yoko so much. i completely love her.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: JG on July 09, 2006, 02:48:13 PM
haha i would love to hear that.  all i have is the demos for the white album.  honey pie is pretty cool!
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on July 09, 2006, 09:54:19 PM
this scene might actually be in the Let It Be footage. it's been a while since i've seen it. i know George gets shocked at one point.

any way you could Honey Pie up somewhere?

i love the WA version, so i'm anxious to hear the demo.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on July 09, 2006, 11:35:15 PM
Is your Honey Pie different than the one minute nineteen second demo on Anthology 3?
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: JG on July 10, 2006, 01:11:53 PM
My version is two mintues long.  I'll yousendit that one and couple other cool ones later if you want, but to tell you the truth i might have gotten the link for all the demos i have from this thread somewhere. 
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SHAFTR on July 10, 2006, 11:55:54 PM
Quote from: bonanzataz on July 09, 2006, 02:32:04 PM
Quote from: SHAFTR on July 01, 2006, 02:22:42 AM
I just want to point out how fantastic John Lennon's Plastic Ono Band album is.  If you do buy the cd though, take off the 2 bonus tracks (Power to the People & Do the Oz) since they ruin the mood of the album.

agreed, but on its own, do the oz kicks ass. power to the people kind of blows.


It isn't about the quality of the songs that upsets me, it's just that they don't fit with the album.  It is perfect ending with "My Mummy's Dead".  Also, I have a problem with rock albums being revisted and tracks added.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: bonanzataz on July 11, 2006, 05:30:46 PM
i know. that's why i agreed with you.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on October 03, 2006, 11:54:46 PM
'New' Beatles Album to be Released
Producer George Martin remixes songs used for the Cirque du Soleil show, "Love."
From Reuters

A "new" album of Beatles music mixed by their legendary producer George Martin and described as a new "way of reliving the whole Beatles musical lifespan", will be released in November.

EMI Music and Apple Corps Ltd. said on Tuesday that Martin and his son Giles began work on the album, called "Love", after getting permission from Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Yoko Ono Lennon and Olivia Harrison representing John Lennon and George Harrison.

The music has already been used as the soundtrack to the theatrical Cirque du Soleil show called "Love".

"This music was designed for the Love show in Las Vegas but in doing so we've created a new Beatles album," George Martin said in a statement.

"The Beatles always looked for other ways of expressing themselves and this is another step forward for them.

"What people will be hearing on the album is a new experience, a way of re-living the whole Beatles musical lifespan in a very condensed period."

The Martins worked from the original master tapes from the Abbey Road studios to produce a medley of Beatles music by remixing favorite songs, such as Harrison's "Within You Without You" being played to the drum-track of "Tomorrow Never Knows."

EMI Music, part of EMI Group Plc, and Apple Corps Ltd., the English company that administers The Beatles' interests, said the album would be released worldwide in November. Additional information such as the track listing will be released later.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on November 12, 2007, 09:54:46 PM
i dont' know if anyone else picked up the new 2 disc edition of Help! on DVD, but it has an "appreciation" by Martin Scorsese in the booklet.

some really beautiful sequences, especially the scenes that are a precursor to the modern music video.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on November 23, 2008, 06:29:02 AM
Funny, riduculous, useless, Beatles News....(I still love them after all these years)...

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Vatican's newspaper has finally forgiven John Lennon for declaring that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, calling the remark a "boast" by a young man grappling with sudden fame.

The comment by Lennon to a London newspaper in 1966 infuriated Christians, particularly in the United States, some of whom burned Beatles' albums in huge pyres.

But time apparently heals all wounds.



"The remark by John Lennon, which triggered deep indignation mainly in the United States, after many years sounds only like a 'boast' by a young working-class Englishman faced with unexpected success, after growing up in the legend of Elvis and rock and roll," Vatican daily Osservatore Romano said.

The article, marking the 40th anniversary of the Beatles' The White Album, went on to praise the pop band.

"The fact remains that 38 years after breaking up, the songs of the Lennon-McCartney brand have shown an extraordinary resistance to the passage of time, becoming a source of inspiration for more than one generation of pop musicians," it said.

Lennon was murdered in New York in 1980.

(Writing by Deepa Babington; editing by Keith Weir)

An unreleased, experimental track by The Beatles could be made public 41 years after it was recorded at Abbey Road studios, ex-member Paul McCartney has said.

McCartney, one of two surviving members of arguably the most successful pop band in history, told BBC Radio that "Carnival of Light" was The Beatles at their most free, "going off piste."

"I said it would be great to put this on because it would show we were working with really avant-garde stuff," McCartney told Radio 4's Front Row culture show in an interview to be broadcast on Thursday.


He confirmed that he had a master tape of the track, which many Beatles fans assumed until now was a piece of musical myth, and added: "The time has come for it to get its moment."
The 14-minute track was made for an electronic music festival, the only occasion the music was played in public.

"I said all I want you to do is just wander around all the stuff, bang it, shout, play it, it doesn't need to make any sense," McCartney told the program.

"Hit a drum then wander on to the piano, hit a few notes, just wander around. So that's what we did and then put a bit of an echo on it. It's very free."

In order for Carnival of Light to be released, McCartney would have to get the agreement of Ringo Starr and the estates of John Lennon and George Harrison. According to the BBC, McCartney had wanted to include the track on The Beatles' Anthology compilations in the mid-1990s, but the rest of the band vetoed the idea.

(Writing by Mike Collett-White)
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Stefen on November 23, 2008, 12:15:48 PM
I'll never get over the amazing fact that the Beatles basically played out their whole career in 6 or 7 years. How is that possible? It feels like their career spanned 20-30 years.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on November 23, 2008, 01:00:43 PM
It was actually 12 years...they got together in 1958 and broke up in 1970 but I get your point.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Stefen on November 23, 2008, 01:13:49 PM
But they weren't on the map until around 1964, right?
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on November 23, 2008, 01:24:58 PM
Not until 1962
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on December 02, 2008, 05:07:28 PM
Even though Beatlemania era songs are easily forgettable.  They're catchy alright, but in the way that a headache is an aneurysm.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: mogwai on April 07, 2009, 12:21:20 PM
Beatles' back catalogue to be remastered for September release

The Beatles' entire back catalogue has been digitally remastered for release this September.

The extensive collection, which features all 13 of The Beatles' studio albums along with the 'Past Masters' compilations, will be released worldwide on September 9 - the same day The Beatles' 'Rock Band' game is set to come out.

A statement regarding the release said that a team of Abbey Road technicians have spent four years remastering the albums in stereo, resulting in the catalogue being available to buy at its highest fidelity since it was first released.

For a limited time each album will contain an embedded link to a special mini-documentary featuring previously unreleased snippets of The Beatles chatting in the studio and archive footage.

Each stereo album will be available to buy individually, or as a collection in a box set.

A further box set of mono recordings - called 'The Beatles In Mono' - is also being released on September 9.

The new collection is the first time The Beatles' material has been remastered for CD since 1987.

It is currently unclear whether the collection will be available digitally. Speaking last month, George Harrison's son Dhani said the group is considering launching its own online application to sell its music digitally.

The full list of remastered Beatles' albums being released this September is as follows.

Stereo albums (available individually and as a box set):

'Please Please Me'
'With The Beatles'
'A Hard Day's Night'
'Beatles For Sale'
'Help!'
'Rubber Soul'
'Revolver'
'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'
'Magical Mystery Tour'
'The Beatles'
'Yellow Submarine'
'Abbey Road'
'Let It Be'
'Past Masters'

'The Beatles In Mono' (box set only):

'Please Please Me'
'With The Beatles'
'A Hard Day's Night'
'Beatles For Sale'
'Help!' (CD also includes original 1965 stereo mix)
'Rubber Soul' (CD also include original 1965 stereo mix)
'Revolver'
'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'
'Magical Mystery Tour'
'The Beatles'
'Mono Masters'
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on April 07, 2009, 02:06:46 PM
I wish they would have just put both Mono and Stereo mixes on the same disc a la Pet Sounds, especially since they're not including outtakes, etc. and then have a seperate documentary DVD or something.

Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on April 07, 2009, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: bigideas on April 07, 2009, 02:06:46 PM
I wish they would have just put both Mono and Stereo mixes on the same disc a la Pet Sounds, especially since they're not including outtakes, etc. and then have a seperat documentary DVD or something.


I second that idea.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Ravi on April 07, 2009, 08:17:29 PM
Quote from: mogwai on April 07, 2009, 12:21:20 PM
It is currently unclear whether the collection will be available digitally. Speaking last month, George Harrison's son Dhani said the group is considering launching its own online application to sell its music digitally.

I hate the misuse of the word "digital."  CDs are digital!  DVDs are digital!  So yes, these songs are going to be available digitally!

I hope these remasters are done well, i.e., not compressed or noise-reduced or improperly EQed to death.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on April 08, 2009, 07:48:54 AM
Quote from: Ravi on April 07, 2009, 08:17:29 PM
I hope these remasters are done well, i.e., not compressed or noise-reduced or improperly EQed to death.

there is a lot longer release on the Beatle site that goes into that.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: bonanzataz on April 08, 2009, 01:05:40 PM
Well they say they're going to boost the volume a bit so there's definitely gonna be some compression. I have faith that they won't overdo it, but I also don't really care because I'm just gonna stick with the old masters anyway.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on April 08, 2009, 02:07:23 PM
i've never been totally sure if the Stereo versions on the original CD's that exist now are correct.

some of those mixes are pretty weird - all vocals on one side - instruments on the other.

i have read that they only were there for Mono mixes and didn't care as much about Stereo.

i just read that Geoff Emerick book last year, but i've forgotten most of it probably.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on July 14, 2009, 02:07:16 PM
They loved mono and that's how they recorded all of their albums. I've been listening to these guys since I was 9 years old and I'll never get old for them. Some times I'm ashamed that I was born in 1984 when I should have been born in 1948. Not you guys, but I know plenty of people who listen to shitty music. Hey, I listen to some myself (I also apolgteticly love limp bizkit) but these people are completely fine and proud to be ignorant about one of the best bands in history. Those who are only slightly naive when it comes to the Beatles but dismiss them, thinking they only wrote high quality backstreet boys are cut from my friends list and I'll dismiss them as comple fucking idiots. Sorry, I get very passionate about one of my favorite bands.

From 'Rubber Soul' on they were pushing boundries and experimenting, trying to go deeper, harder, faster with their melodies. I compare them to Radiohead in that they were always willing to stretch themselves and their music until they popped which I think will happen to Radiohead soon.

As you might have figured I own all of their official albums. They are on my computer. I have 4 actual beatles LP vinyl records: Meet The Beatles, Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The White Album and Magical Mystery Tour. I even have the 'Paul is dead' radio hour on 2 mp3's. For the record I don't believe he's dead. I think John was just fucking with us with all these notable clues. Anyway, Awesome music

I secretly want Trent Reznor to cover 'I want you (she's so heavy)' on his next album, either him or metallica. No one ever talks about that song and its my second favorite, right under 'helter skelter'. I'm actually listening to them now at home in my bed because I'm very sick at the moment. I don't give a fuck how this makes me look but I often dance along to their music, happily.

I unfortunately only have a little more than 25 songs from the anthology albums...so if anyone has any links to any of the anthology albums let me know.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on August 07, 2009, 07:53:58 AM
Anyone who likes early solo McCartney would probably like Emitt Rhodes - he had a song on Royal Tenenbaums. Hip-O recently released a 2 CD comp with all four of his out of print solo albums. They say it's "limited" with only 5,000 copies pressed.

What's really great* is that Emitt has actually started recording again with a band:

http://www.myspace.com/theemittrhodesband

*Then again, no one's really heard any output from him since the mid 70's.

Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on August 26, 2009, 09:40:35 AM
Remastered Beatles CDs: A sneak preview
Source: Los Angeles Times

How do the newly remastered Beatles CDs sound?

As one who got a sneak preview recently at Capitol Records in Hollywood, let me boil it down to one word: Fab.

These won't leave anyone feeling that they've been missing out for all these years, and they're not likely to make Beatlemaniacs out of anyone who hasn't cared for the Liverpudlians' sound before now.

But they do offer something that might have seemed nearly impossible so many years down the line: a fresh listen.

Two of EMI Records' engineers who have overseen the remasters, Allen Rouse and Guy Massey, were on hand to A:B the new versions against the CDs that Beatles fans have been accustomed to since they were first issued 22 years ago.

Three of us — I was joined by writers for a couple of audiophile magazines — listened to a CD that included portions of new and old versions of 14 songs spanning the group's recording career.

Calendar will have an in-depth piece in Sunday's Arts & Music section looking behind the scenes of the remastering process as well as a glimpse into the Fab Four's entry into the world of videogames through The Beatles: Rock Band.

But here are a few observations from the preview session:


• "Till There Was You":  On the '87 CD, Paul McCartney's voice still sounds dreamily mellow, somewhat masked, on the Meredith Willson love song from "The Music Man"; the new version brings out more fullness in his voice, as well as more crispness in the percussion work.

• "Eight Days A Week": This exuberant track sounded immediately compressed in the old CD master; the new one gains openness and adds noticeable presence to the signature hand claps.

• "Yesterday": Remastering can't alter the beauty of McCartney's classic lament, but now the pluck of his fingers on the strings of his acoustic guitar is even more visceral.

• "In My Life": As in many of the previewed tracks, it's the drums and bass that are most immediately improved. Even though it's not a powerhouse track, Ringo's rhythmic accents are bigger and sharper.

• "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band": The opening guitar riff felt like it would rip through the speakers in Capitol's Studio C with the added vibrancy Paul's lead guitar gets in the new version.

• "Good Night": The closing track from "The Beatles," a.k.a. the White Album, starts with string accompaniment that sounded canned on the old CD. I noted a slight harshness in the remastered version but also a fuller orchestral sound and an especially appealing purity in the flutes behind Ringo's sweetly melancholy vocal.

• "The Long and Winding Road": Paul may cringe at those sweeping strings that Phil Spector overdubbed onto his swan-song Beatles ballad, but they sound even broader and more spacious on the remaster than on the 1987 CD.

After the prepared A:B CD was through, Rouse and Massey opened the floor for requests. I asked to hear "She's Leaving Home" from the mono mix of "Sgt. Pepper," because the track was slowed down for the stereo mix that most U.S. listeners (myself included) are used to. McCartney's voice sounded sweeter, the harp more luminous.

I also got them to cue up Harrison's "Savoy Truffle" from the White Album. As a longtime sax player, I wanted to hear how the sax section came through the remastering -- nicely fat -- but the part that grabbed the attention of everyone in the room was the screaming guitar solo, which picks up considerable sting in the new version.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on August 26, 2009, 12:49:43 PM
**i copied and pasted this from another board so hopefully it's not confusing. it seems mono is really the way to go, but that is a lot of money. seems if it is as Emerick says, this should be the one they'd most be trying to get out there. my wish is that they put the albums out with both mixes - most of their albums don't take up half of a CD (other than White, Sgt, Abbey maybe?)**

Geoff Emerick talking about mixing:

Quote


Question: In your new book with Howard Massey, Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles (Gotham), you write that "true Beatles fans" should get the mono versions of Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band "because far more time and effort went into those mixes than into the stereo mixes."

Answer: We mixed Sgt. Pepper in three weeks — of that, only three days were spent on the stereo version.


So, out of 21 days (if they worked every day) it took 18 days to mix the album in mono, and 3 for stereo.


Quote


Question: That might explain something that has always bothered me. In the transition from "Good Morning Good Morning" to the reprise of thetitle track, the famous segue from chicken to guitar is missing a noteon the stereo version.
I never noticed that!

Question: Here, let's listen. [KR does an A/B comparison of the mono and stereo versions.] That one extra note in the mono version makes a big difference. The segue is much smoother.
Yeah, exactly. That's something that [Paul] McCartney would have immediately picked up on if he'd been at the stereo mixing session.There's a reason for that note being there. And it's great that you brought this in; I'm glad you pointed that out, because it's a very good example of going from the mono to the stereo. It's such a small thing, but it's an extremely valid point: that was the way they wanted it.

The mono version of Pepper is indeed the only one — it's the mix the Beatles were present at. And we might have gone back for another day to redo the stereo version if it had been for an error like that. Because all those little touches are so important on that album.That's why it's such a perfect album — and it's why I wouldn't even allow the mastering engineer [to alter it]. I wrote on the tape box:"Please transfer flat."

We had fun mixing those mono tracks. And the thing is, if someone screwed up on the last bar of any mix, we'd go back to the beginningand redo it right from the top. We'd never do an edit piece and spliceit in. I know we did for "Strawberry Fields Forever," but that was the exception... A mix was a performance by the people on the mixing console. For instance, with 4-track, on the last overdub track, you may have a guitar, a keyboard, a couple of harmony voices, and something else, and there's a question of moving the pan pot because the voices are in the middle, and there's a drop-in for the guitar over to one side to make room for the next drop-in because that relates to that, and you have to change the echo and switch it back — and I've got only one pair of hands. We did the best we could. And it was a performance. Which was great. I mean, the feeling after doing a mix was just brilliant.

I used to ride all the guitar bits and lift up all the drum breaks.Always, after the last note of any guitar solo, when George [Harrison]was taking his finger off the note, I used to boost that 20 dB so you could actually feel that presence. It's like Paul counting off the reprise of "Sgt. Pepper" — you can hear that energy. It's all little stuff like that.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 11, 2009, 08:48:08 AM
i'm trying to stay away from these, but the original mono versions are really calling me.

anyone find a cheaper price than Amazon for the mono?

DDD and B&N only list stereo.

i didn't see either box set in person at Target or Best Buy.

saw plenty of the stand alone stereo albums though.

i guess hearing these in mono is equivalent to watching the original star wars trilogy - it was how you would have heard (seen) it if you were there at the time.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on September 11, 2009, 09:48:32 AM
then again it is not hearing them as the ''best'' version the band made them (if that sentence makes sense) I mean, they spent more time on the mono yes but it might just be because it sounded so shitty and took so much time to make it sound right. I'm just talking out of my ass here, I don't know anything about mixing

BUT I heard the new Rubber Soul stereo and it definitely sounds a bit nicer, especially the high pitch sounds. and Rubber Soul is my favorite Beatles album since always. Revolver I didn't really notice the difference but I wasn't playing it loud.

I haven't bought these remasters because I already have all the Beatles albums I want and also they have plenty enough money, I'll probably download my favorite ones
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 11, 2009, 11:36:18 AM
Quote from: Pas Rap on September 11, 2009, 09:48:32 AM
then again it is not hearing them as the ''best'' version the band made them (if that sentence makes sense) I mean, they spent more time on the mono yes but it might just be because it sounded so shitty and took so much time to make it sound right. I'm just talking out of my ass here, I don't know anything about mixing

if you want to hear what you would hear if you bought their record on that day back when the albums originally came out, you would get mono.

in a similiar case with Pet Sounds - they have a CD with the original Mono mix by Brian Wilson and then a newer Stereo mix. honestly, i probably like listening to the new Stereo mix - it's more lush and you can hear parts more clearly - except that when they went to do the mix all the elements weren't available. it really hurts one song where a double tracked vocal is missing. so really mono is the truth. stereo is the lush. if stereo had all the parts i would proabably listen to it more.

i'm sure there are some essays written well about the difference between the versions/box sets.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on September 11, 2009, 11:39:24 AM
yeah surely there are

a good exemple for me of a perfect remaster is Let It Be Naked, which is marketed as ''the way it was intented to be'' and I think it's much better than Let it Be.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 11, 2009, 01:07:48 PM
Quote from: Pas Rap on September 11, 2009, 11:39:24 AM
yeah surely there are

a good exemple for me of a perfect remaster is Let It Be Naked, which is marketed as ''the way it was intented to be'' and I think it's much better than Let it Be.

that's controversial though - if you know the history behind it.

here are some reviews i've been reading:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RHLOCMWFJQ5VS/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg2?ie=UTF8&cdPage=2

http://blog.allmusic.com/2009/8/31/a-splendid-time-is-guaranteed-for-all-the-beatles-remastered/

http://www.tonepublications.com/music/beatles-box-in-stereo-and-mono/

Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 11, 2009, 01:57:16 PM
I REALLY know the history of it and all beatles history, which is really scary because I should be a beatles scholar.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 11, 2009, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: SiliasRuby on September 11, 2009, 01:57:16 PM
I REALLY know the history of it and all beatles history, which is really scary because I should be a beatles scholar.

did you get anything?

Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 11, 2009, 02:18:03 PM
No....
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Stefen on September 11, 2009, 02:50:30 PM
lol
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 11, 2009, 03:24:25 PM
Quote from: Stefen on September 11, 2009, 02:50:30 PM
lol

you lost me on that one.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on September 11, 2009, 04:55:44 PM
hahahaha what the hell happened there
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Stefen on September 11, 2009, 06:40:09 PM
What happened to not having to explain jokes? Sheesh.

I thought it was funny because Silias was like, "I am a Beatles expert! I am a Beatles scholar! I own everything by them!" then bigideas is like, "Did you buy the remasters?" and Silias goes, "no."

It warranted an lol, wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on September 11, 2009, 11:47:45 PM
hahaha fuckin a it did, I was laughing out loud. I was ''wtf'' about silias, not you. bigideas what did you miss?!?!!?
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on September 12, 2009, 08:47:14 AM
man they sound incredible, just dloaded them all it sounds great. It sounds fucking perfect.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Stefen on September 12, 2009, 06:03:20 PM
Just picked up Beatles Rock Band today. Can't wait to play.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 14, 2009, 06:58:32 AM
I'm asking for the remasters for my birthday on Nov. 15th
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 14, 2009, 07:57:12 AM
Also, have you heard this cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qamBmWt8Cwo ?
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 14, 2009, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: Stefen on September 11, 2009, 06:40:09 PM
What happened to not having to explain jokes? Sheesh.

I thought it was funny because Silias was like, "I am a Beatles expert! I am a Beatles scholar! I own everything by them!" then bigideas is like, "Did you buy the remasters?" and Silias goes, "no."

It warranted an lol, wouldn't you say?

i am paranoid from being told i ask too many questions over my lifetime.

i'm still on the fence. luckily i didn't see the actual box in person or i probably would buy it.

on the one hand i've dreamed of hearing the original mixes, etc (like i bought the day i came out - mono),
but on the other hand that is quite a bit of money. as popular as the beatles are their stuff usually comes out in the 'limited' editions for diehards/biggest cash grab, and then later at more reasonable price (just like seeing the Kubrick box set at Sam's the other day).

and then just the fact that i have all the old cd's - will it really change my perception of the music all that much?

do i enjoy Vertigo after it has been restored or would i basically love it as much seeing a pre-restored version - that kind of question.

i fear maybe there really won't be any more mono though. =(
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 14, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
I was just informed this morning that I am getting it for my birthday. Bigideas, I've heard some samples. If you are a beatles fanatic, you'll love it no matter what. It might not change your perceptions of the music but it is a immense improvement over the CD's that last were remastered in 1987. Get mono if you can. It'll be much rarer but that's not what I'm getting I want to make it easier for my parents. Also, The White album, Abbey Road, and Let it be weren't recorded in mono so you'll have to buy them separately on stereo.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 14, 2009, 03:24:18 PM
what i've read - Abbey, Let and Yellow were the only albums not mixed for mono.

White Album definitely was - i've read the mono doesn't have the "i've got blisters on me fingers" bit.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on September 14, 2009, 03:34:56 PM
I can't wait till they re-release the remasters, you know?  I'm going to download the whole thing in FLAC.  It'll be in the purest quality of sound and then I'll finally be able to appreciate The Beatles.  I used to think they were OK at best, but song structure aside, this band was all about one thing: Production, Production, Production! (OK, I guess THREE things!!)

Also, is it just me, or do more listens of music that predates the Beatles sort of deflates their significance in your heart?  They've got some masterful tracks, no doubt about it.  It could be overlistening to the Beatles on my part, and I'm willing to admit that, but the more I back-peddle into music that predates 1960, The Beatles rarely come to mind when I'm concerned with what record to accompany a bowl.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Neil on September 14, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DMWDTIU3 (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=DMWDTIU3)

good luck, should be down, within minutes, PM me if you want the pass.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 14, 2009, 05:06:31 PM
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! Well, it isn't down yet. Its downloading for me. Are these the mono or the stereo?
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Neil on September 14, 2009, 05:17:28 PM
stereo, sorry, i was looking for mono, but i can't seem to find them, if i do, i'll put em up.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 14, 2009, 05:52:04 PM
Well, thanks anyway!!!! I really appreciate it.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: RegularKarate on September 15, 2009, 11:08:58 AM
I found the tracks in apple lossless last night... just brought Abbey Road and Revolver (two favs) to work... I could tell the difference right away on just headphones... can't wait to pump it through some good speakers.

I did a comparison with a couple songs and it's pretty incredible.  The stereo mixes sound way less annoying too.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Neil on September 15, 2009, 11:31:43 AM
it's 14 albums, and they sound so fucking full you'll shit yourself.


don't give me your elitist bullshit,  because i have rubber soul and revolver on vinyl and these rival those, no lie, if you're a sucker for the static, get over it, this mix does their music and vox so much justice, they even keep the vibration of the snares on the bottom of the drum in "don't let me down"

Big ideas, it's 14 albums, and they're compressed into each own folder, hurry hurry now
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on September 15, 2009, 12:14:05 PM
Do you like Apple?


(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi116.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo15%2FMac_Guffin%2FP1020880.jpg&hash=c9986b65e78ba576b7e8ac79fbc32f5a3594a774)



Apple Sauce, bitch!!!!
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 15, 2009, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 15, 2009, 11:31:43 AM
Big ideas, it's 14 albums, and they're compressed into each own folder, hurry hurry now

i thought you said something about a password - and what is the 'hurry' for? nothing i can do now.
i figure it was huge so it would probably have to be a weekend download thing.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Neil on September 15, 2009, 03:38:55 PM
aka, hurry before the link goes down, some people told me that it made them give a pass. it didn't for me, so i was just making sure.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 15, 2009, 04:17:28 PM
Quote from: bigideas on September 15, 2009, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 15, 2009, 11:31:43 AM
Big ideas, it's 14 albums, and they're compressed into each own folder, hurry hurry now

i thought you said something about a password - and what is the 'hurry' for? nothing i can do now.
i figure it was huge so it would probably have to be a weekend download thing.
It was 883 MBs total....The difference is out of this world
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on September 15, 2009, 08:32:33 PM
You know when you have a cold and it gets in your ear, and it plugs up your hearing so everything is muffled. Then all of a sudden it POPS and you can hear everything again? That's what these stereo editions are like. It's like hearing them all this time in 180, but now they are 360 degrees. The horns on the Golden Slumbers suite stand out, as they also do on Good Morning; A Day In The Life has never sounded better. George and Ringo benefit the most from these.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 16, 2009, 11:32:51 AM
is Long Long Long still super quiet on The White Album?
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 16, 2009, 11:47:53 AM
Just download it from the link and find out
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: john on September 16, 2009, 02:52:39 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 15, 2009, 08:32:33 PM
You know when you have a cold and it gets in your ear, and it plugs up your hearing so everything is muffled. Then all of a sudden it POPS and you can hear everything again? That's what these stereo editions are like. It's like hearing them all this time in 180, but now they are 360 degrees. The horns on the Golden Slumbers suite stand out, as they also do on Good Morning; A Day In The Life has never sounded better. George and Ringo benefit the most from these.

That pretty much sums it up. I decided just to buy a couple titles, picked up Let It Be and Abbey Road, and was instantly won over - so rich and clear. Unfortunately, now I have to get all of them and individually.

Is there anything too exceptional I'm missing out on by not having the box?
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on September 16, 2009, 02:58:52 PM
Add Hello Goodbye to that list. It's so full and rich.


Quote from: john on September 16, 2009, 02:52:39 PMIs there anything too exceptional I'm missing out on by not having the box?

Nah, the mini documentaries are all included on their respective discs. It's just a nice display box is all, and more cost efficient.


EDIT:

Quote from: john on September 16, 2009, 02:52:39 PM
Let It Be

This is probably the best so far. Every song feels like you are in the studio with them. So happy with how I Me Mine (my fave track) turned out.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 16, 2009, 05:24:35 PM
and today i read someone's opinion about how the remasters basically just sound like the old ones but louder.

"the world may never know..."
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on September 16, 2009, 11:13:38 PM
Quote from: bigideas on September 16, 2009, 05:24:35 PMand today i read someone's opinion about how the remasters basically just sound like the old ones but louder.

Well, they are. But here's why: The audio has a much more wider, dynamic range; it surrounds your hearing better. And every instrument is clearly heard and so distinctly. There are some elements in the songs I swear I never heard before; like a barritone bass singer (I think) on Happiness Is A Warm Gun during the "shoot, shoot" parts.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on September 17, 2009, 07:08:57 AM
apparently 15 of the top 20 billboard are beatles albums this week  :shock:
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Neil on September 17, 2009, 12:32:45 PM
and all around the same time as a McCartney tour wraps up, and rockband comes out for them.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 17, 2009, 01:05:39 PM
and it's 9-9-09

number nine number nine number nine
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on September 17, 2009, 02:17:04 PM
he'll probably make a billion dollar this year seriously
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Stefen on September 17, 2009, 02:38:37 PM
Quote from: bigideas on September 17, 2009, 01:05:39 PM
and it's 9-9-09

number nine number nine number nine

:shock:
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Neil on September 17, 2009, 03:02:50 PM
Don't worry half will be lost in the next divorce.


Oh, girl
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 17, 2009, 03:14:23 PM
First of all beatles music sells out every year. Second, that 9/09/09 thing was planned. And Third he's going to be making more money (or at least saving more money) since Michael jackson said in his will that when he dies he's giving back the whole beatles catalogue back to paul, yoko, ringo, and olivia.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on September 17, 2009, 04:26:21 PM
I wonder what it's like to not only be loaded but to ensured that you'll be even more loaded for years to come, and all you had to do was start doing all kinds of drugs turning your pop band psychedelic.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 17, 2009, 10:09:25 PM
They were making tons of money before they took any drugs. Then in 1965 Bob Dylan introduced them to pot and that led to Cocaine, LSD, and heroin.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on September 17, 2009, 11:33:52 PM
YEAH AND THEN THEY GOT GOOD.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 17, 2009, 11:39:43 PM
Yeah, rubber soul on to let it be is 10, top notch.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 18, 2009, 11:31:16 AM
Let it Be is not really an album. i mean really. it is, but it isn't.
everybody didn't jive on it.
it's pretty cool for what it is with John's commentary jabs.
no ringo song, duh.

just listened to several live covers of Beatles' tunes by Elliott Smith. He was always pretty faithful to the original versions.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Neil on September 18, 2009, 01:20:33 PM
Quote from: bigideas on September 18, 2009, 11:31:16 AM
Let it Be is not really an album. i mean really. it is, but it isn't.
everybody didn't jive on it.
it's pretty cool for what it is with John's commentary jabs.
no ringo song, duh.

just listened to several live covers of Beatles' tunes by Elliott Smith. He was always pretty faithful to the original versions.

OH, it jives. If someone is speaking of being consumed with the idea of them not really liking each other or something, so their "thing" doesn't transfer (not sure if that's why you think it's not an album, just commenting) that's far off, when the music started they did not give a fuck and the magic happens because three badass mofo's are helping carry another badass mofo's song., look no further than the rooftop concert.  Maybe ringo doesn't sing a song, but at that time no one needed a carl perkins tune. Besides they didn't like each other way before then.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pas on September 18, 2009, 03:16:22 PM
yeah let it be is really good. Except the song Let it Be. That one and Yesterday are two of the most annoying songs ever. When I see someone with a guitar in a party and he starts playing either of these two songs I know he's a fool
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on September 18, 2009, 03:19:49 PM
Quote from: bigideas on September 18, 2009, 11:31:16 AMno ringo song, duh.

You don't count his rendition of Oh Danny Boy?


Quote from: Pas Rap on September 18, 2009, 03:16:22 PMWhen I see someone with a guitar in a party and he starts playing either of these two songs I know he's a fool [on the hill]
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on September 18, 2009, 03:20:47 PM
Didn't jive?  What more do you want from the album that brought us such choice singles:

Two of Us
Dig a Pony
Across The Universe
I Me Mine
Dig It
Let It Be
Maggie Mae
I've Got a Feeling
One After 909
The Long And Winding Road
For You Blue
Get Back

And that's even considering a very thorough editing process where I eliminated all my least favorite songs from the album.
Quote from: Pas Rap on September 18, 2009, 03:16:22 PM
yeah let it be is really good. Except the song Let it Be. That one and Yesterday are two of the most annoying songs ever. When I see someone with a guitar in a party and he starts playing either of these two songs I know he's a fool

So Let It Be is a shitty song because people overplay it?  I wonder what drives them to overplay it (not to say that by virtue of being overplayed necessarily means it's a good song, but I digress).
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 18, 2009, 05:15:33 PM
Pas and Big Ideas are starting to get on my nerves.

Walrus hit the nail on the head.

God damnit I'm angry
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on September 18, 2009, 07:53:58 PM
Quote from: SiliasRuby on September 18, 2009, 05:15:33 PM
Pas and Big Ideas are starting to get on my nerves.

Walrus hit the nail on the head.

God damnit I'm angry

I'll go you one better. So, The Breeders open for the Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs, and Kim Deal announces they are going to do a Beatles song. They proceed to do a pretty good version of Happiness Is A Warm Gun.

The yahoos behind me:

Douche #1: She said they were going to do a Beatles song. That's not a Beatles song.
Douche #2: I dunno. Maybe it was one of their older ones.
Douche #1: I don't think so.


Douche #1 also proceeded to make fun of Kim Deal's weight whenever he got the chance. I felt like turning 'round and telling him, "When you make better music that the Pixies did, then you can talk that shit." But I just bit my tongue knowing that he probably has no idea who the Pixies are.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: john on September 18, 2009, 09:32:34 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 18, 2009, 07:53:58 PM

Douche #1 also proceeded to make fun of Kim Deal's weight whenever he got the chance. I felt like turning 'round and telling him, "When you make better music that the Pixies did, then you can talk that shit." But I just bit my tongue knowing that he probably has no idea who the Pixies are.

I met this guy at a party once who made the tossed off comment that "Kim Deal is a junkie and she sucks at bass".

I spent the rest of the night berating him for being wrong on both counts. Other than that comment, his taste in film and music otherwise mirrored mine. Proving that there's no correlation between liking good things and not being a terrible person. I imagine those two douches talking shit about Deal will also attend the upcoming Doolittle shows - so will the guy I met at the party.

I can emphasize with what Pas and Big are saying, though I can't agree with it. I do think you can hear a song enough that it becomes too ubiquitous to connect to critically or emotionally. I might have no reason to listen to Let It Be (the song) or Yesterday as often as I do, say, the last half of Abbey Road - but it doesn't discredit their brilliance.

Further example: Blowin' In The Wind, deceptively simple and successfully succinct... but I'll probably never willfully put it on and listen to it.I've heard it enough. I've heard about it enough, it's cultural repetition devalues my excitement for it, but doesn't devalue the song itself.

I'll take New Morning instead.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on September 19, 2009, 12:57:56 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 18, 2009, 07:53:58 PM

I'll go you one better. So, The Breeders open for the Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs, and Kim Deal announces they are going to do a Beatles song. They proceed to do a pretty good version of Happiness Is A Warm Gun.


Good: Breeders cover Happiness is a Warm Gun.
Bad: They're opening for Yeah Yeah Yeahs.
Ugly: Audience member(s) unaware of one of the best Beatles songs.
Ugliest: They're so soaked in their own ignorance that they vocalize it to each other.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 21, 2009, 11:40:09 AM
I don't think I ever said Let it Be was bad, I just said it's not really a Beatles album (in the same way Yellow Submarine and Magical Mystery Tour aren't).

All albums they "worked" on together include a Ringo song (love it or hate it).

I downloaded that link this past weekend. I was disappointed that it was MP3's and not the original wav files. Of course, that file would have been a lot bigger (a 80 min CD is 750 mb i think and that download was 800 something mb all together zipped).

I burned a copy of Sgt Pepper's and unfortunately I didn't uncheck that 1 second lead in so the tracks are broken up with silence.

I did seem to notice the bass more especially during Paul's part on A Day in the Life. I haven't done an apt comparison between my old and the new (and I don't know that I truly can with an mp3 rip).

I don't think the stereo remasters will do much more for me as I actually used to listen to all the Beatles albums on headphones giving all my attention to them, so the mono box set is still what intrigues me.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 21, 2009, 12:14:47 PM
I'm with you, bigideas, when it comes that 'yellow submarine' isn't really a beatles album but the others are, even though all three of them were essentially soundtracks. 'Yellow submarine' has the title track and 'its all too much' as decent songs but the rest are orchestral just for the movie, which is extremely surreal if you've seen it. 'Let it be' is a maligned beatles album but a LP just the same. Its better to listen to 'let it be naked' if you want to listen to what the paul and George Martin wanted for the production. 'Magical Mystery Tour' is a strange but ultimately bad art film that really goes nowhere. The album 'MMT' however is something you can listen to over and over again and will be just a great collection of songs even if you haven't seen the movie. I listened to 'magical mystery tour' for years and years before subjecting myself to the film, which is an exercise in absurdity.


'An exercise in absurdity'? Marquee that.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 21, 2009, 01:08:14 PM
I mean it's not an album in that MMT was actually an EP - it was only an LP in America where they added the singles at the time - Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, etc.

It is an album in the sense that someone released it as an entity together, but not in the musical sense.

A greatest hits album is an 'album,' but not really an album as far as the band it represents.

I'm a musician, so I'm looking at it from that perspective.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pubrick on September 21, 2009, 11:15:58 PM
Quote from: bigideas on September 21, 2009, 01:08:14 PM
I'm a musician, so I'm looking at it from that perspective.

oh god, i'd hate to see you performing or rehearsing. do you find it hard stopping every 4 seconds to ask everyone around you what key to play in? or to ask everyone if they can hear you alrite? "strum... strum.. can anyone hear me?.. strum.. strum.. does this sound ok?" you should call your band The Kiddy Riddlers.. you'd be huge among the amnesiac/clueless crowd, with such hit songs as "Nothing but a Q thang", "I Just Called to Ask You Something", and "Can You Feel the Question Mark Tonight.."
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Reinhold on September 21, 2009, 11:19:54 PM
Quote from: :P on September 21, 2009, 11:15:58 PM
Quote from: bigideas on September 21, 2009, 01:08:14 PM
I'm a musician, so I'm looking at it from that perspective.

oh god, i'd hate to see you performing or rehearsing. do you find it hard stopping every 4 seconds to ask everyone around you what key to play in? or to ask everyone if they can hear you alrite? "strum... strum.. can anyone hear me?.. strum.. strum.. does this sound ok?" you should call your band The Kiddy Riddlers.


yeah. then refuse to perform for a year and come back like you're the undead Lennon when in reality you were just a fairly interesting musician from time to time.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pubrick on September 21, 2009, 11:26:41 PM
and if you want to branch out to the sleepy crowd.. bring in special guest Reinhold, aka Narcolepoleon Boreaparte.

make a duet album called "Sleep Now, Ask Questions Later."
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Reinhold on September 22, 2009, 01:18:57 AM
yawn.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pubrick on September 22, 2009, 01:33:53 AM
keep reaching for that snooze button.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Reinhold on September 22, 2009, 01:34:44 AM
what the fuck does sharing a vaguely on-topic belittling fantasy of somebody you've presumably never met on the internet contribute to a conversation? where's the conversation supposed to go from there? sure, i say stupid shit and i've sleepily killed more than a few threads, but at least i'm not doing that by being a dick.

what do you think of the magical mystery tour?


i, for one, happen to like every song on the album, but i wouldn't be upset to hear it on shuffle.  this and sgt pepper were on a lot in my childhood so the sounds were familiar but i never really looked into the lyrics until after i had already gotten into their other major works... the ones that are more cohesive... i can see why it'd feel like a collection of songs given the unified feel of some of their albums (even Help, for example, is underrated as an album because it often gets dissected into singles, but i find that i like the songs a lot more individually when i listen to the whole thing..)
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: polkablues on September 22, 2009, 02:02:28 AM
I never thought of the Beatles as a band that people actually listen to... More like something that just exists in the collective unconscious of the Western world, like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat," or "Itsy Bitsy Spider," but for grownups. I also just realized I don't have a single Beatles song on my iPod. Huh. That seems weird, now that I think about it. Oh well, what are you gonna do?  :yabbse-smiley: 
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: picolas on September 22, 2009, 02:07:21 AM
Quote from: polkablues on September 22, 2009, 02:02:28 AM
I never thought of the Beatles as a band that people actually listen to... More like something that just exists in the collective unconscious of the Western world, like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat," or "Itsy Bitsy Spider," but for grownups. I also just realized I don't have a single Beatles song on my iPod. Huh. That seems weird, now that I think about it. Oh well, what are you gonna do?  :yabbse-smiley: 
because of these remasters i listened to abbey road for the first time as an album a week ago. it blew me away. you should try it.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Pubrick on September 22, 2009, 02:23:57 AM
Quote from: Reinhold on September 22, 2009, 01:34:44 AM
what do you think of the magical mystery tour? 

well, if you insist..

it used to be my favourite and made my top 10 of all time a few years ago

Quote from: :P on March 05, 2004, 05:31:27 AM

6. 
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffusionanomaly.net%2Fbeatlesmagicalmysterytour.jpg&hash=079c863f9cda157339e1bfd2fe6dc227217b642b)
MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR - the beatles


don't think i'd put it that high anymore cos i don't listen to the beatles as much as i used to. i find it strange anytime they have a resurgence in popularity, but i guess it's a testament to their greatness that a digital remastering or whatever is enough to make a whole new generation go beatles crazy.  i don't think we'll ever see the end of the beatles. it feels like every decade a new generation MUST be introduced to them and unless people evolve beyond the use for ears (fingers crossed for telepathy by 2020), it is pretty much unstoppable cultural rite of passage. they say history goes in cycles, and the measure of beatles interest should be the new way to notice the beginning of a new cycle.

i think this explains Radiohead's willingness to inject themselves in the mainstream with their single in New Moon. if you ignore the latest waves you will sink. but we shouldn't forget they also still have their finger in what actually matters, with greenwood's CMBB association, that was almost like a marriage among royalty.

my point is the beatles still lead the way in how to maintain cultural relevance, and MJ's estate managers would do well to pay attention to their methods. the beatles have the benefit of getting massive publicity (and a corresponding increase in sales) every time one of their surviving members gets in some multi-million dollar scandal, but that doesn't compare to the huge cash bonanza that accompanies their death. the next beatles wave will come when paul croaks, (go ringo!). if MJ's ppl were smart they'd start laying the groundwork for the $$$ fallout from the remains of the jackson clan.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 22, 2009, 08:51:22 AM
The Beatles have rarely lent their recordings to film.

I can only think of some odd ones that have them - Ferris Bueller (cover) and Can't Buy Me Love (how that happened i'll never know unless they spent their whole budget getting it).

It makes me wonder if they would be perceived a lot differently if they had let their recordings be used in advertising and films/tv.

There would have been so much overexposure because everyone would want to use it.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 22, 2009, 12:46:19 PM
The song 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' was used in 'shampoo'. Michael Jackson, having purchase the whole beatle catalogue (Its been said that Jackson wrote in his will that the estate will give the Beatle music catalogue back to Paul, ringo, olivia, and yoko after he dies) , made it impossibly expensive to use any beatles songs throughout the years. Obviously Michael bought the catologue after 'can't buy me love' and 'ferris bueller's day off'.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 22, 2009, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: SiliasRuby on September 22, 2009, 12:46:19 PM
The song 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' was used in 'shampoo'. Michael Jackson, having purchase the whole beatle catalogue (Its been said that Jackson wrote in his will that the estate will give the Beatle music catalogue back to Paul, ringo, olivia, and yoko after he dies) , made it impossibly expensive to use any beatles songs throughout the years. Obviously Michael bought the catologue after 'can't buy me love' and 'ferris bueller's day off'.

I thought MJ owned the publishing rights, not the actual recordings, so then he would have allowed all the covers (I Am Sam, Across the Universe, etc). There have been tons of covers in advertising.

It's a complicated thing. I even took a copyright class or two, but too much time has past for me to remember the ins and outs.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: SiliasRuby on September 22, 2009, 01:40:39 PM
Quote from: bigideas on September 22, 2009, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: SiliasRuby on September 22, 2009, 12:46:19 PM
The song 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' was used in 'shampoo'. Michael Jackson, having purchase the whole beatle catalogue (Its been said that Jackson wrote in his will that the estate will give the Beatle music catalogue back to Paul, ringo, olivia, and yoko after he dies) , made it impossibly expensive to use any beatles songs throughout the years. Obviously Michael bought the catologue after 'can't buy me love' and 'ferris bueller's day off'.

I thought MJ owned the publishing rights, not the actual recordings, so then he would have allowed all the covers (I Am Sam, Across the Universe, etc). There have been tons of covers in advertising.

It's a complicated thing. I even took a copyright class or two, but too much time has past for me to remember the ins and outs.
You are right he may have owned just the publishing rights. I stand corrected.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: MacGuffin on September 22, 2009, 01:43:03 PM
Reminds me of the same discussion back in 2004:

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=4172.msg160792#msg160792
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: tpfkabi on September 22, 2009, 04:30:43 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 22, 2009, 01:43:03 PM
Reminds me of the same discussion back in 2004:

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=4172.msg160792#msg160792

That covers it well 5 years too early.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Ravi on October 26, 2009, 12:46:28 AM
I just received the Beatles mono box set.  Haven't delved into it too deeply.  I listened to Pepper all the way through, and skipped around on most of the other albums.  The differences aren't always revalatory, but there are some interesting ones.  Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, for example, has a flanging effect on John's vocal that isn't there on the stereo mix.

Some of the earlier stereo mixes have a giant "hole" in the middle, which means nothing was mixed into both left and right channels.  It makes for a strange listening experience.  The mono mixes sometimes sound more unified.

The standalone stereo CDs of Rubber Soul and Help! are the 1987 remixes.  The mono box includes the original stereo mixes on the same CD as the mono mixes.

More thoughts later once I've listened to more of the mono mixes.

On a side note, watch these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x5Mqges1Zg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQr8WzY5zUk&feature=related
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Lottery on September 13, 2013, 10:03:26 PM
What kind of cataclysmic destruction and upheaval of peace did it take to reform the continents into a peace sign?

Cool, a Beatles thread.

Anyway, I chopped up the White Album the other day to make something consistent and cohesive, it was a lot harder than I thought because you lose a bunch of good songs. Part of the album's appeal is that it's a big mess. In some ways it's my favourite album but at the same time I feel that same way about Revolver and Abbey Road. Also, Magical Mystery Tour turned out to be what I expected Sgt. Pepper to sound like before I heard either. So MMT is pretty damn great.

Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Nails9 on November 30, 2018, 01:00:53 PM
*Blows Dust Off*Drops Needle*

This is one of the best things to come from the new "White Album" re-release, and if you listen closely, one might hear the birth of Jon Brion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBRss5I_uw0&app=desktop
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on November 03, 2021, 03:54:38 PM
https://twitter.com/ellardent/status/1454234990779248641

I think this is 90% of why I like the Beatles.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: wilberfan on November 03, 2021, 03:57:14 PM
Fuck yeah.  Ringo is held in the highest regard by drummers that know what they're doing.    Just finished listening to Sir Paul on Fresh Air with Terry Gross.   Really looking forward to the new doc this TG weekend...
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Robyn on November 03, 2021, 04:54:43 PM
What George did was way cooler.

(https://1265745076.rsc.cdn77.org/1024/jpg/1121.jpg)
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: wilberfan on November 03, 2021, 05:14:20 PM
I had a Harrison Phase a decade or two ago.  Gobbled up everything he produced and spent hours listening to it--over and over again...  That followed my Brian Wilson Phase, where, ditto.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Drenk on November 03, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
I like Paul's movies.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Alethia on November 04, 2021, 07:56:48 AM
George is the best. All Things Must Pass rivals anything The Beatles put out.

Very much looking forward to the Get Back series.
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Robyn on November 04, 2021, 08:15:05 AM
So many hot takes today :p
Title: Re: The Beatles
Post by: Robyn on November 04, 2021, 08:29:21 AM
One of the great covers