The Beatles are far and away the most important musical group EVER. Together with George Martin they pushed the music industry forward, and outward, at a break-neck speed.
If your emphasis is on "group" I might agree, but the greatest musical force in the last 60 years is Elvis. As John Lennon said "Before Elvis, there was nothing."
Wow that is a hell of a sweeping statement. Al Jolson is the greatest overall entertainer who ever lived. He could sing and dance like there was no tomorrow. Also Ella Jane Fitzgerald , Duke Ellington, Leadbelly, Muddy Waters, and probably some other great names in the blues/jazz scene. Rock and Roll orginated from that style of music. However these greats are always sadly eclisped by the people who they influenced like Elvis and The Beatles.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Loeffs, a fellow Beatle fan! Perhaps you could render some assistance!
Glad to do it. Problem is, it used to be simply a musical taste thing: some people like the moptop, "She Loves You"-era Beatles, other prefer the more trippy, post-"Sgt. Pepper's" Beatles; some (like me) love everything they did. Then there are those who simply preferred other rock bands---or Mantovani, or Duke Ellington, or something completely different. Now it's become a generational thing, where even an appreciation for the gigantic influence of a group such as the Beatles---like them or not---is begining to slip away, even among rock fandom.
I'm reminded of the great Les Paul's passing not so long ago. To many, he's just a model of Gibson guitar. His musicianship, the electric guitar, his pioneering in multi-track recording, his influence on recorded music altogether, goes largely unsung.
The way I see it, there were two HUGE seismic events in rock music and pop culture in the 20th Century. Elvis was the first...and then, about ten years later---the aftershock of all aftershocks---came these four lads from Liverpool (who used to be five lads from Liverpool) who simply redefined the landscape. Everyone making rock music at the time stopped to listen and learn...and anyone making rock music since then, whether he/she knows it or not, stands upon their shoulders. And I'd say this is true whether one likes them, or at least appreciates them, or not. I can understand anyone who simply doesn't like the style, or content, or whatever, of their music---but their influence is hard to dispute with any intellectual honesty.
I'll never forget a kid I knew, about ten years ago, who thought that Kurt Cobain had basically invented rock and roll attitude. This kid detested the Beatles, refusing to acknowledge them as songwriters or musicians. C'est la vie. What can you do with an obstinate person---who's blind simply because he keeps his eyes tightly closed---except to nod silently in agreement? B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Anyway, if you're flush I recommend the boxed set in mono, then buying a few of the later in stereo if you fancy it, just my opinion mind. Ideally you could pick and mix. Certainly the White Album I will get again, as on CD it does nothing for me while on vinyl it's the best Beatles album ever, and the most contemporary sounding - both clean-sounding and grungey, no mean feat.
Oh, to be flush 'Fraid this has to go on the 'some day' list, but I definitely want it...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The way I see it, there were two HUGE seismic events in rock music and pop culture in the 20th Century. Elvis was the first...and then, about ten years later---the aftershock of all aftershocks---came these four lads from Liverpool (who used to be five lads from Liverpool) who simply redefined the landscape.
A bit like talking about the 1941-45 war eh Loeffs! Americans! )
Having got 2 older brother's, one of which was Beatles mad, I grew up listening to their music - I would never consider myself a fan per se, their music does resonate, and I can appreciate their musical influence on many other bands (Oasis being the one I see most recently... {:) ) I defy most people not to know, or sing along with any of their more popular tracks - 'Love Me Do' is one of my favourites
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
A bit like talking about the 1941-45 war eh Loeffs! Americans! )
All right, you've confused me... ?:) I confess, sometimes I find you difficult to decipher...besides, I think that war started in '39.
Americans!
?:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,769Chief of Staff
The Beatles are far and away the most important musical group EVER. Together with George Martin they pushed the music industry forward, and outward, at a break-neck speed.
If your emphasis is on "group" I might agree, but the greatest musical force in the last 60 years is Elvis. As John Lennon said "Before Elvis, there was nothing."
Yea well, John said a lot of things - he said they were bigger than Jesus, but he was right about that.
You can't knock Elvis, I'm happy to listen to his music - but how many songs did he write ?
I'm with Loeff too - I love the full spectrum of their music, to dismiss them as a 'pop band' is ridiculous, it may be where they started, but certainly not where they finished.
You can't knock Elvis, I'm happy to listen to his music - but how many songs did he write ?
Discounting on-the-spot studio jams such as "I Didn't Make It On Playing Guitar", re-arrangements of out-of-copyright old gospel songs, and songs where his name was added to the writing credits purely to receive a share of the writing royalties...
One (and even that one has co-writers)
It's called "You'll Be Gone". Elvis had the idea of writing new lyrics to the standard "Begin The Beguine", and did so with the aid of his friend Red West (an able songwriter). Cole Porter, who had written that song, refused permission for them to use the result, so Elvis aide Charlie Hodge came up with a new melody for it.
A bit like talking about the 1941-45 war eh Loeffs! Americans! )
All right, you've confused me... ?:) I confess, sometimes I find you difficult to decipher...besides, I think that war started in '39.
Americans!
?:)
OUTED!
"I must confess, not being English, I find your sense of humour a little difficult to follow..."
It's due to your saying the Beatles hit America around 10 years after. Elvis was 56, so that would be 1966. Okay, the Beatles hit in 1964 in the US, but two years earlier in the UK.
It's referencing the way some Yanks say WWII started in 1941, whereas us Brits got it two years earlier...
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited September 2009
Elvis recorded "That's All Right, Mama" (a regional radio hit) at Sun Records in 1954---two years before you recognize his success in Great Britain---making it ten years before the Beatles went worldwide in 1964, and appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show...seems as if we're both taking our frame of reference from where we live, so the 'quick-draw' nationalism is as misplaced as it is off-putting.
Still, I'm happy to have sidestepped your terribly clever '1941' trap.
This is what I get for answering an S.O.S. on a Beatles thread...
Brits!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Here's an interesting article I read recently about the new 'The Beatles: Rock Band' video game, as well as the digital remastering of the group's catalogue:
Beatles for sale, again
IT'S pop music's most distinguished and lucrative catalogue. Yet, as most artists have embraced new media in the past 10 years, the Beatles' canon has been the missing link.
That will change on Wednesday, September 9 - 09/09/09.
Although there has been no shortage of Beatles-related curios in the past 20 years, next week marks a significant day in Beatles history.
Finally, their catalogue of albums will be released in luxurious, digitally remastered glory. And, almost unfathomably, the Fab Four, who broke up almost 40 years ago, are the hook behind this year's most anticipated video game.
The Beatles: Rock Band is pitched as both a watershed moment in gaming and a proactive rejuvenation of a legacy for a new generation of potential fans. Still, the game has created a schism among Beatles militants, who are divided over whether it is a brilliant strategic move or cynical exploitation.
It was Dhani Harrison, the 31-year-old gaming-fanatic son of late Beatles guitarist George, who convinced the estate to consider a game based on Beatles music. Throughout the game's two-year development, Harrison would receive a different version each week and play it obsessively, before proffering technical feedback and challenging staff at the game's developer, Harmonix, to beat him.
The catalogue remastering, however, came from the top. Beatles tragics bemoan the thin, shrill transfer to CD the band's catalogue received in 1987.
It's not as if fans have ever stopped buying their records. The Beatles have sold 600 million albums since 1963, 57 million since 1991.
Four years ago, Abbey Road's staff technicians began transferring the master tapes to digital files. The result is 14 stereo albums, sold individually or boxed together. All feature new mini-documentaries, artwork and liner notes, archival photos and historical notes. A second box set presents every existing mono mix of the band's music.
There was significant crossover in staff and technology employed with the game and the catalogue remastering. The techniques used by Abbey Road engineers to clean up the tapes were similar to those Giles Martin, the 39-year-old son of the Beatles' celebrated producer, Sir George, used to separate the instruments on to individual tracks as he formatted the game's music.
"The Beatles haven't been heard in the right way for a long time," Martin says. "The quality of the CD back in the late 1980s was no good. The Beatles were a loud, vibrant, young band and this finally captures that."
Harmonix and MTV executives met with surviving Beatles Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, and the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, in 2007, to propose The Beatles: Rock Band. Those conducting business with the Beatles ominously refer to its four principals as ''the shareholders'', as each Beatles-branded product must receive approval from this occasionally dissonant group.
The Rock Band series of games, on Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii, uses replica plastic instruments and sophisticated technology for players to ''play'' along with the song on the screen.
Along with Dhani Harrison, Giles Martin, who produced the Beatles' 2006 Cirque du Soleil soundtrack, Love, and is a trusted confidante of the shareholders, was crucial in liaisons. "We had to be careful," the audio director for Harmonix, Eric Brosius, says.
"Everything we did was done through Giles. He has the trust of the shareholders. Sometimes, he would tell us how far we could go."
"Apple [Corps, the Beatles' company] demands the best," Martin says. "But they're less complicated than people think.
''Ringo and Paul, if you're showing them something they've seen before, it doesn't interest them. But The Beatles: Rock Band did."
The game features 45 classic songs, including one mystery, unannounced track, and follows the Beatles from their Cavern Club era right through to the final, legendary Let It Be rooftop concert.
The game will also allow the first digital downloads of Beatles music. Apple Corps and the Apple computer and software company have never agreed on what a Beatles' download should be worth on iTunes, so Beatles' songs have never been made available to iTunes, and will not for the foreseeable future. Instead, the Rock Band game features its own store that will allow fans to buy - so far - three albums this year that can be listened to, and played with, using the Rock Band software. Next month, Abbey Road will be released, followed by Sgt Peppers in November and Rubber Soul in December, for $US16.99 (about $A20) each.
The game begins with a stunning animated sequence that offers a whirlwind pictorial tour of the Beatles' history.
The creative director for Harmonix, Josh Randall, filmed Beatles tribute bands with motion capture to play up the animation's emotional impact.
The designers developed technology allowing the digitised Beatles to smile at each other and hold eye-contact as they play.
"The music means so much to so many people," Randall says. "It hits them in a deep way. I wanted the game to do that, too."
The gameplay allows players to ''win'' access to previously unseen pictures and curios (including a fan-club only Christmas single from 1963), depending on playing skill.
When the Beatles recorded, everything was documented meticulously, including all of the different takes of each song and the chatter before and after each song. Martin spent hundreds of hours absorbing the takes and has planted rare, previously unheard in-studio banter in the game.
"A lot of people will buy the game for that stuff alone," audio director Brosius says. "Hearing them joke on each other, talk songs and then count in and deliver a fantastic rendition, it reminds you how funny and charming they were."
Yoko Ono flew to Boston and sat with Harmonix's artists for five hours improving digital John. "Our version of John was not great," Randall admits. "Yoko said our John lacked confidence. This guy was a hero and should look like one. So we [via programming] took John's spine back and changed the way he stands."
The co-founder and chief executive for Harmonix, Alex Rigopulos, says The Beatles: Rock Band received strong validation when McCartney debuted footage from the game while playing at the Coachella music festival.
"We were doing cartwheels," Rigopulos says. "It was a powerful public endorsement."
Another validation: the shareholders chose to release the remasters the same day as Harmonix's game street-date: 09/09/09. Still, not all reaction has been positive.
"There's a little undercurrent of people wanting to be too hip for the Beatles," game lead designer Chris Foster says. "That's not just among gamers. The Beatles are so fundamental to music, like the air we breathe, so we expected it."
Excepting perhaps a Blu-Ray box set, surely now the Beatles barrel has been scraped clean?
"It's not as if anybody's holding anything back," Martin says. "Apple didn't say to me: 'You can't use all of it because we're using it for something else.' But it depends what the next project is. I'm sure we can find more material."
Beatles historians say the patience taken with the remastering and game demonstrates that the Beatles are not being crassly exploited. The Rolling Stones, for example, have had their albums remastered three times.
"This will not grow the Beatles' legacy," Martin says. "Because the legacy will go on far longer. The game and remasters will introduce a new generation of fans. But their music will last forever and we're, if you like, the slaves to it."
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I saw the game at walmart's electronics display and it is surreal. Picture the 80s arcade game Dragon's Lair but with the fab four. Just too much for me bro.
It's one thing to love the group, but the constant rehashing, repackaging, and now, arcade game characters is enough to make even a die hard fan recoil. Like everything else good in this earth, they've sucked all the freshness out for the cause of commercial enterprise.
Bought Abbey Road yesterday. It's the one to get as it avoids the whole mono or stereo debate; the album originally came out in Stereo so there's no choice.
Yet to play it but the packaging is great and really uplifting. Except, I understand it's one of those cardboard CD cases where you have to scratch and drag your CD out of the box sleeve rather than lift it out, so damaging the CD over time.
Bought Abbey Road yesterday. It's the one to get as it avoids the whole mono or stereo debate; the album originally came out in Stereo so there's no choice.
Yet to play it but the packaging is great and really uplifting. Except, I understand it's one of those cardboard CD cases where you have to scratch and drag your CD out of the box sleeve rather than lift it out, so damaging the CD over time.
I hate these cardboard CD cases, not only do they damage the CDs over time, but they also get knocked about themselves, however careful you are with them.
Well I think the answer is to get some paper CD sleeves (look on eBay) or keep it in a plastic CD wallet loose in the gatefold. I do this with the MGMT's album.
I listened to track one of Abbey Road this morning. For comparison's sake, I played the old CD and yep, it's thin, reedy and underwhelming, unlistenable really.
Then I put the remastered CD in.
It comes in louder, and the quality is better, no question. But it still didn't sound that great. I wasn't blown away. It didn't quite hit the spot.
What do I mean by the 'spot'? Well, I listened to Abbey Road on vinyl on the mate's expensive turntable a year or so ago and it rocked. It had that bluesy, sexy, soft porn hippyish vibe that digital transfer pretty much annihilates. And so it does here. All I could think was, well, maybe on SACD it will sound better. Or on Blu Ray. All I could hear was the compression.
Listening to the Beatles' music is like being in the company of a beautiful woman. In one instance, you can touch her, kiss her, inhale her phermones. But never mind that, because in the other scenario you can, okay not actually touch her, but you get to see her in great clarity, as if she has a neon light overhead. Great, except you can then see her complexion is a bit washed out and one eye is bloodshot. That's how I felt about this, the guitar when it comes in on Come Together is nothing spesh.
I'll add a caveat. I listened to this on a Philips hi-fi micro theatre. As you may recall from another thread, it struggles with some CDs, it doesn't sound quite right. Oh, it's high quality and Macca's latest, Electric Arguments, sounds great, it fills the room. But it lacks that neurotic oompf that white pop needs. I played Come Together on my mate's cheaper CD player, basically like a portable and with far less power, and it did sound much better ironically. So these remasters may hit the spot if you have a basic CD player, I'm not sure otherwise you'll get that modern sound, it may still sound wanting. And if you have a basic CD player, you may as well have the mono, because it all comes out of one speaker anyway if you see what I mean.
That's a great explanation of the Beatles, NP. Well spoken sir. When it comes to classic band's transferral to cd, I know exactly what you're talking about. Black Sabbath's Paranoid and Master Of Reality sound like muddy crap on cd, but listening to the record you get that beautiful crisp church bell intro, awesome old school tube/pignose amp sound.
Compare 70s rock albums which were recorded in studios by professional soundmen to stuff that's all recorded on a computer, no contest. Put on Faces or Uriah Heep, the bass comes out strong but not overwhelming, drums are perfect, guitars are split evenly and the vocals aren't either too background or too fore.
Put a cd mixed on a computer on your home stereo and watch the bass not know where it's going. It can't decide whether to boom or not. Nothing is evenly distributed and sounds like an amateur. Like watching a bootleg dvd you have to suddenly turn down when a music cue blasts you off your chair.
I will always prefer analog recording to digital.
Ironically, I ripped Abbey Road, Peppers, and Mystery Tour cds onto my pc and sold the discs off. (for personal enjoyment only), & Abbey Road sounds absolutely terrific on my five year old Dell with stock speakers. Probably because Apple records had some damn fine quality.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,769Chief of Staff
It's more than likely I'll get the new re-mastered box set at Christmas, in stereo. It's interesting reading NP's comments so far - I look forward to hearing more from him when he plays the new cd on a 'higher-end' system.
BBC4 have been showing some really good Beatles programmes this week, seldom shown stuff and very interesting. Plus The Times and The Sunday Times have produced two very good magazines - some quality stuff.
Well, like I say Sir Miles, most fans are saying that the mono box set is the one to get. The stereo albums you can pick up singley. What do you mean 'high end' system? My hi-fi is supposedly good quality, a Philips Micro Threatre. Ironically I'm saying that the new CDs would sound better on a portable CD player, a bit larger than the sort you might have on a kitchen surface.
I swapped Abbey Road for Revolver, which sounds much better, then again it always did on CD strangely. I listened to a few tracks, though I must say I was more impressed than enjoying it. It's as though digital offers a whole lot of space for sound, space that sadly the Beatles just can't fill; it's like letting a puppy loose in the Sahara desert. You can hear every little instrument flourish fine. What it totally lacks is any depth.
For instance, You Never Give Me Your Money (how inappropriate a title for the Beatles to sing) on AR is a lush tune, with tinkely bluesy piano and Macca's most wistful vocal. It then segues into a honky-tonk piano boogie woogie tune. This could be jarring but on the vinyl it's great because the vocal is embedded or emeshed in the music. On the CD it just can't do that because it doesn't do depth. It sort of has the vocal going over the top.
It's like vinyl is a glorious stew, with lots of good ingredients and flavours going into it, intermingling, while digital is nouveau cuisine.
Oddly however, I have another CD called The Best Friends With Album In the World, a Rat Pack-style compilation with Nancy S's These Boots are Made for Walking and Doris Day's Move Over Darling and so on, sounds great on my new system. No question.
The Beatle remasters remind me of the kerfuffle over the Bond Ultimate Edition. Sure, it's better quality but there's always something to annoy me. Like John Barry's sound doesn't come in strong enough on OHMSS or AVTAK. Some will say, Naps, upgrade your DVD and get surround sound, it will sound great! But why should I fork out a grand for all that, when all the DVDs I rent from lovefilm seem okay? And if I do, then bet all those DVDs will sound and look rubbish, so you're between a rock and hard place.
All this stuff about how great the remasters sound, we had it when the CDs came out in the late 1980s. In five years time we'll have it again when they're on SACD or Blu Ray. And there's some guy who's got his old vinyl albums and hasn't bothered with any of it. (Though is it possible to take that stuff of vinyl and put it on iPod?)
Though I like the Revolver remaster, the stereo is a bit amateurish. You can sort of hear Macca doubletracking himself on Here There and Everywhere, with one take out of one speaker, the other vocal out of the other, it's not emeshed as it might be on the mono vinyl.
Again, it does depend what your hi-fi is like, I'm sure. I'd see if you can buy one first from HMV, have a listen on your stereo to get an idea, then take it back and get the box set if you like it. I think anyone would agree with me if they had my stereo (which technically is not rubbish) but then again not everyone has that stereo.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,769Chief of Staff
Thanks for the link, NP - it certainly puts a cat amongst the pigeons ! Perhaps I may try and borrow a cd off a friend first, to see how it sounds on my system before I buy the whole lot.
The thing is, with something like this, you will always upset someone - so it really is down to personal choice.
And I'm not denegrating your system either, NP - I have no idea what your system is like and if it came across that I was, then I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional.
So it's no slouch. But some stuff sounds great on it, other stuff weak. It's like the rambling appraisal TonyDP offers on the QoS sound quality thread about the BluRay, how he can't make out the sound and has to twiddle with it... all well and good but blimey, didn't have to do all that with the version I video recorded off the telly... that's progress for you.
Personally I'm even checking out mono vinyl on eBay... that's where I'm at now. That stuff stays as it should do, kind of, whereas well, just you wait for the BluRay Beatle upgrade in five years time with all the dusty anecdotes and 'lost' Lennon inteviews wheeled out again... 8-)
EDIT: Then again... you can get a decent quality CD on eBay, with vinyl you never quite know. One guy lists Sgt Pepper quality as 'very good' then also sleeve as 'very good'... look at sleeve and it is dead worn... hmmm, don't trust his appraisal suddenly...
Sorry to bang on like a broken record (though even that sounds better in vinyl...)
Just got Lennon The Definitive Collection on eBay for a song, just £2. It's remastered. Now, this taps into my theory that anything from 1980 will sound great, anything before, watch out! Because Watching the Wheels of 1980's Double Fantasy sounds just wonderful. Buut No. 9 Dream some five years earlier, a great surreal song with fine production... The sturdy almost Hawaian guitar at the beginning sounds plinky plonky! In no way does it sound how it has always sounded blaring out the radio... It's all swings and roundabouts, same for Jealous Guy, it's just not quite right.
Oh, what, in a band? No. Used to write songs and sent them off as demos to record companies. Fame and fortune beckoned, I got signed and spent two years as a major recording artist in the UK* but got bored of that and decided it would be more fun to mong out doing a tedious daytime job in an office with only ajb007 for any entertainment and respite, as you do...
Comments
Wow that is a hell of a sweeping statement. Al Jolson is the greatest overall entertainer who ever lived. He could sing and dance like there was no tomorrow. Also Ella Jane Fitzgerald , Duke Ellington, Leadbelly, Muddy Waters, and probably some other great names in the blues/jazz scene. Rock and Roll orginated from that style of music. However these greats are always sadly eclisped by the people who they influenced like Elvis and The Beatles.
Glad to do it. Problem is, it used to be simply a musical taste thing: some people like the moptop, "She Loves You"-era Beatles, other prefer the more trippy, post-"Sgt. Pepper's" Beatles; some (like me) love everything they did. Then there are those who simply preferred other rock bands---or Mantovani, or Duke Ellington, or something completely different. Now it's become a generational thing, where even an appreciation for the gigantic influence of a group such as the Beatles---like them or not---is begining to slip away, even among rock fandom.
I'm reminded of the great Les Paul's passing not so long ago. To many, he's just a model of Gibson guitar. His musicianship, the electric guitar, his pioneering in multi-track recording, his influence on recorded music altogether, goes largely unsung.
The way I see it, there were two HUGE seismic events in rock music and pop culture in the 20th Century. Elvis was the first...and then, about ten years later---the aftershock of all aftershocks---came these four lads from Liverpool (who used to be five lads from Liverpool) who simply redefined the landscape. Everyone making rock music at the time stopped to listen and learn...and anyone making rock music since then, whether he/she knows it or not, stands upon their shoulders. And I'd say this is true whether one likes them, or at least appreciates them, or not. I can understand anyone who simply doesn't like the style, or content, or whatever, of their music---but their influence is hard to dispute with any intellectual honesty.
I'll never forget a kid I knew, about ten years ago, who thought that Kurt Cobain had basically invented rock and roll attitude. This kid detested the Beatles, refusing to acknowledge them as songwriters or musicians. C'est la vie. What can you do with an obstinate person---who's blind simply because he keeps his eyes tightly closed---except to nod silently in agreement? B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I would count Micheal Jackson as number 3. No he wasn't rock but he was pop like The Beatles.
Oh, to be flush
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A bit like talking about the 1941-45 war eh Loeffs! Americans!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
All right, you've confused me... ?:) I confess, sometimes I find you difficult to decipher...besides, I think that war started in '39.
Americans!
?:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yea well, John said a lot of things - he said they were bigger than Jesus, but he was right about that.
You can't knock Elvis, I'm happy to listen to his music - but how many songs did he write ?
I'm with Loeff too - I love the full spectrum of their music, to dismiss them as a 'pop band' is ridiculous, it may be where they started, but certainly not where they finished.
Discounting on-the-spot studio jams such as "I Didn't Make It On Playing Guitar", re-arrangements of out-of-copyright old gospel songs, and songs where his name was added to the writing credits purely to receive a share of the writing royalties...
One (and even that one has co-writers)
It's called "You'll Be Gone". Elvis had the idea of writing new lyrics to the standard "Begin The Beguine", and did so with the aid of his friend Red West (an able songwriter). Cole Porter, who had written that song, refused permission for them to use the result, so Elvis aide Charlie Hodge came up with a new melody for it.
OUTED!
"I must confess, not being English, I find your sense of humour a little difficult to follow..."
It's due to your saying the Beatles hit America around 10 years after. Elvis was 56, so that would be 1966. Okay, the Beatles hit in 1964 in the US, but two years earlier in the UK.
It's referencing the way some Yanks say WWII started in 1941, whereas us Brits got it two years earlier...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Still, I'm happy to have sidestepped your terribly clever '1941' trap.
This is what I get for answering an S.O.S. on a Beatles thread...
Brits!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I stand corrected about Elvis' 1954 debut, I always thought it was '56!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Beatles for sale, again
IT'S pop music's most distinguished and lucrative catalogue. Yet, as most artists have embraced new media in the past 10 years, the Beatles' canon has been the missing link.
That will change on Wednesday, September 9 - 09/09/09.
Although there has been no shortage of Beatles-related curios in the past 20 years, next week marks a significant day in Beatles history.
Finally, their catalogue of albums will be released in luxurious, digitally remastered glory. And, almost unfathomably, the Fab Four, who broke up almost 40 years ago, are the hook behind this year's most anticipated video game.
The Beatles: Rock Band is pitched as both a watershed moment in gaming and a proactive rejuvenation of a legacy for a new generation of potential fans. Still, the game has created a schism among Beatles militants, who are divided over whether it is a brilliant strategic move or cynical exploitation.
It was Dhani Harrison, the 31-year-old gaming-fanatic son of late Beatles guitarist George, who convinced the estate to consider a game based on Beatles music. Throughout the game's two-year development, Harrison would receive a different version each week and play it obsessively, before proffering technical feedback and challenging staff at the game's developer, Harmonix, to beat him.
The catalogue remastering, however, came from the top. Beatles tragics bemoan the thin, shrill transfer to CD the band's catalogue received in 1987.
It's not as if fans have ever stopped buying their records. The Beatles have sold 600 million albums since 1963, 57 million since 1991.
Four years ago, Abbey Road's staff technicians began transferring the master tapes to digital files. The result is 14 stereo albums, sold individually or boxed together. All feature new mini-documentaries, artwork and liner notes, archival photos and historical notes. A second box set presents every existing mono mix of the band's music.
There was significant crossover in staff and technology employed with the game and the catalogue remastering. The techniques used by Abbey Road engineers to clean up the tapes were similar to those Giles Martin, the 39-year-old son of the Beatles' celebrated producer, Sir George, used to separate the instruments on to individual tracks as he formatted the game's music.
"The Beatles haven't been heard in the right way for a long time," Martin says. "The quality of the CD back in the late 1980s was no good. The Beatles were a loud, vibrant, young band and this finally captures that."
Harmonix and MTV executives met with surviving Beatles Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, and the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, in 2007, to propose The Beatles: Rock Band. Those conducting business with the Beatles ominously refer to its four principals as ''the shareholders'', as each Beatles-branded product must receive approval from this occasionally dissonant group.
The Rock Band series of games, on Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii, uses replica plastic instruments and sophisticated technology for players to ''play'' along with the song on the screen.
Along with Dhani Harrison, Giles Martin, who produced the Beatles' 2006 Cirque du Soleil soundtrack, Love, and is a trusted confidante of the shareholders, was crucial in liaisons. "We had to be careful," the audio director for Harmonix, Eric Brosius, says.
"Everything we did was done through Giles. He has the trust of the shareholders. Sometimes, he would tell us how far we could go."
"Apple [Corps, the Beatles' company] demands the best," Martin says. "But they're less complicated than people think.
''Ringo and Paul, if you're showing them something they've seen before, it doesn't interest them. But The Beatles: Rock Band did."
The game features 45 classic songs, including one mystery, unannounced track, and follows the Beatles from their Cavern Club era right through to the final, legendary Let It Be rooftop concert.
The game will also allow the first digital downloads of Beatles music. Apple Corps and the Apple computer and software company have never agreed on what a Beatles' download should be worth on iTunes, so Beatles' songs have never been made available to iTunes, and will not for the foreseeable future. Instead, the Rock Band game features its own store that will allow fans to buy - so far - three albums this year that can be listened to, and played with, using the Rock Band software. Next month, Abbey Road will be released, followed by Sgt Peppers in November and Rubber Soul in December, for $US16.99 (about $A20) each.
The game begins with a stunning animated sequence that offers a whirlwind pictorial tour of the Beatles' history.
The creative director for Harmonix, Josh Randall, filmed Beatles tribute bands with motion capture to play up the animation's emotional impact.
The designers developed technology allowing the digitised Beatles to smile at each other and hold eye-contact as they play.
"The music means so much to so many people," Randall says. "It hits them in a deep way. I wanted the game to do that, too."
The gameplay allows players to ''win'' access to previously unseen pictures and curios (including a fan-club only Christmas single from 1963), depending on playing skill.
When the Beatles recorded, everything was documented meticulously, including all of the different takes of each song and the chatter before and after each song. Martin spent hundreds of hours absorbing the takes and has planted rare, previously unheard in-studio banter in the game.
"A lot of people will buy the game for that stuff alone," audio director Brosius says. "Hearing them joke on each other, talk songs and then count in and deliver a fantastic rendition, it reminds you how funny and charming they were."
Yoko Ono flew to Boston and sat with Harmonix's artists for five hours improving digital John. "Our version of John was not great," Randall admits. "Yoko said our John lacked confidence. This guy was a hero and should look like one. So we [via programming] took John's spine back and changed the way he stands."
The co-founder and chief executive for Harmonix, Alex Rigopulos, says The Beatles: Rock Band received strong validation when McCartney debuted footage from the game while playing at the Coachella music festival.
"We were doing cartwheels," Rigopulos says. "It was a powerful public endorsement."
Another validation: the shareholders chose to release the remasters the same day as Harmonix's game street-date: 09/09/09. Still, not all reaction has been positive.
"There's a little undercurrent of people wanting to be too hip for the Beatles," game lead designer Chris Foster says. "That's not just among gamers. The Beatles are so fundamental to music, like the air we breathe, so we expected it."
Excepting perhaps a Blu-Ray box set, surely now the Beatles barrel has been scraped clean?
"It's not as if anybody's holding anything back," Martin says. "Apple didn't say to me: 'You can't use all of it because we're using it for something else.' But it depends what the next project is. I'm sure we can find more material."
Beatles historians say the patience taken with the remastering and game demonstrates that the Beatles are not being crassly exploited. The Rolling Stones, for example, have had their albums remastered three times.
"This will not grow the Beatles' legacy," Martin says. "Because the legacy will go on far longer. The game and remasters will introduce a new generation of fans. But their music will last forever and we're, if you like, the slaves to it."
It's one thing to love the group, but the constant rehashing, repackaging, and now, arcade game characters is enough to make even a die hard fan recoil. Like everything else good in this earth, they've sucked all the freshness out for the cause of commercial enterprise.
Yet to play it but the packaging is great and really uplifting. Except, I understand it's one of those cardboard CD cases where you have to scratch and drag your CD out of the box sleeve rather than lift it out, so damaging the CD over time.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I hate these cardboard CD cases, not only do they damage the CDs over time, but they also get knocked about themselves, however careful you are with them.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I listened to track one of Abbey Road this morning. For comparison's sake, I played the old CD and yep, it's thin, reedy and underwhelming, unlistenable really.
Then I put the remastered CD in.
It comes in louder, and the quality is better, no question. But it still didn't sound that great. I wasn't blown away. It didn't quite hit the spot.
What do I mean by the 'spot'? Well, I listened to Abbey Road on vinyl on the mate's expensive turntable a year or so ago and it rocked. It had that bluesy, sexy, soft porn hippyish vibe that digital transfer pretty much annihilates. And so it does here. All I could think was, well, maybe on SACD it will sound better. Or on Blu Ray. All I could hear was the compression.
Listening to the Beatles' music is like being in the company of a beautiful woman. In one instance, you can touch her, kiss her, inhale her phermones. But never mind that, because in the other scenario you can, okay not actually touch her, but you get to see her in great clarity, as if she has a neon light overhead. Great, except you can then see her complexion is a bit washed out and one eye is bloodshot. That's how I felt about this, the guitar when it comes in on Come Together is nothing spesh.
I'll add a caveat. I listened to this on a Philips hi-fi micro theatre. As you may recall from another thread, it struggles with some CDs, it doesn't sound quite right. Oh, it's high quality and Macca's latest, Electric Arguments, sounds great, it fills the room. But it lacks that neurotic oompf that white pop needs. I played Come Together on my mate's cheaper CD player, basically like a portable and with far less power, and it did sound much better ironically. So these remasters may hit the spot if you have a basic CD player, I'm not sure otherwise you'll get that modern sound, it may still sound wanting. And if you have a basic CD player, you may as well have the mono, because it all comes out of one speaker anyway if you see what I mean.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Compare 70s rock albums which were recorded in studios by professional soundmen to stuff that's all recorded on a computer, no contest. Put on Faces or Uriah Heep, the bass comes out strong but not overwhelming, drums are perfect, guitars are split evenly and the vocals aren't either too background or too fore.
Put a cd mixed on a computer on your home stereo and watch the bass not know where it's going. It can't decide whether to boom or not. Nothing is evenly distributed and sounds like an amateur. Like watching a bootleg dvd you have to suddenly turn down when a music cue blasts you off your chair.
I will always prefer analog recording to digital.
Ironically, I ripped Abbey Road, Peppers, and Mystery Tour cds onto my pc and sold the discs off. (for personal enjoyment only), & Abbey Road sounds absolutely terrific on my five year old Dell with stock speakers. Probably because Apple records had some damn fine quality.
BBC4 have been showing some really good Beatles programmes this week, seldom shown stuff and very interesting. Plus The Times and The Sunday Times have produced two very good magazines - some quality stuff.
I swapped Abbey Road for Revolver, which sounds much better, then again it always did on CD strangely. I listened to a few tracks, though I must say I was more impressed than enjoying it. It's as though digital offers a whole lot of space for sound, space that sadly the Beatles just can't fill; it's like letting a puppy loose in the Sahara desert. You can hear every little instrument flourish fine. What it totally lacks is any depth.
For instance, You Never Give Me Your Money (how inappropriate a title for the Beatles to sing) on AR is a lush tune, with tinkely bluesy piano and Macca's most wistful vocal. It then segues into a honky-tonk piano boogie woogie tune. This could be jarring but on the vinyl it's great because the vocal is embedded or emeshed in the music. On the CD it just can't do that because it doesn't do depth. It sort of has the vocal going over the top.
It's like vinyl is a glorious stew, with lots of good ingredients and flavours going into it, intermingling, while digital is nouveau cuisine.
Oddly however, I have another CD called The Best Friends With Album In the World, a Rat Pack-style compilation with Nancy S's These Boots are Made for Walking and Doris Day's Move Over Darling and so on, sounds great on my new system. No question.
The Beatle remasters remind me of the kerfuffle over the Bond Ultimate Edition. Sure, it's better quality but there's always something to annoy me. Like John Barry's sound doesn't come in strong enough on OHMSS or AVTAK.
All this stuff about how great the remasters sound, we had it when the CDs came out in the late 1980s. In five years time we'll have it again when they're on SACD or Blu Ray. And there's some guy who's got his old vinyl albums and hasn't bothered with any of it. (Though is it possible to take that stuff of vinyl and put it on iPod?)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
http://maccaboard.devstars.eu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=72402&start=60
Though I like the Revolver remaster, the stereo is a bit amateurish. You can sort of hear Macca doubletracking himself on Here There and Everywhere, with one take out of one speaker, the other vocal out of the other, it's not emeshed as it might be on the mono vinyl.
Again, it does depend what your hi-fi is like, I'm sure. I'd see if you can buy one first from HMV, have a listen on your stereo to get an idea, then take it back and get the box set if you like it. I think anyone would agree with me if they had my stereo (which technically is not rubbish) but then again not everyone has that stereo.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The thing is, with something like this, you will always upset someone - so it really is down to personal choice.
And I'm not denegrating your system either, NP - I have no idea what your system is like and if it came across that I was, then I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional.
Here it is, with some great reviews underneath:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MCD708-Philips-Micro-Theatre-System/dp/B000E16ZIQ
So it's no slouch. But some stuff sounds great on it, other stuff weak. It's like the rambling appraisal TonyDP offers on the QoS sound quality thread about the BluRay, how he can't make out the sound and has to twiddle with it... all well and good but blimey, didn't have to do all that with the version I video recorded off the telly... that's progress for you.
Personally I'm even checking out mono vinyl on eBay...
EDIT: Then again... you can get a decent quality CD on eBay, with vinyl you never quite know. One guy lists Sgt Pepper quality as 'very good' then also sleeve as 'very good'... look at sleeve and it is dead worn... hmmm, don't trust his appraisal suddenly...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Just got Lennon The Definitive Collection on eBay for a song, just £2. It's remastered. Now, this taps into my theory that anything from 1980 will sound great, anything before, watch out! Because Watching the Wheels of 1980's Double Fantasy sounds just wonderful.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh, what, in a band? No. Used to write songs and sent them off as demos to record companies. Fame and fortune beckoned, I got signed and spent two years as a major recording artist in the UK* but got bored of that and decided it would be more fun to mong out doing a tedious daytime job in an office with only ajb007 for any entertainment and respite, as you do...
* Edit: Sigh... not true Monique.
Roger Moore 1927-2017