Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Do the Beatles get too much credit..
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Do the Beatles get too much credit..

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 26>
Poll Question: See opening post for question.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
52 [31.14%]
112 [67.07%]
3 [1.80%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Cristi View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Crossover / Prog Metal Teams

Joined: July 27 2006
Location: wonderland
Status: Offline
Points: 43519
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cristi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Do the Beatles get too much credit..
    Posted: Yesterday at 10:53
Originally posted by Starshiper Starshiper wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Originally posted by Starshiper Starshiper wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo!
Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead.


Yeah but Yoko still went shopping! Too bad she couldn't buy a better singing style LOL
Well, one could argue that shopping is a perfectly legitimate pastime, especially when one is negotiating the vagaries of fame and creativity. Even avant-garde artists need to pick up essentials—be it a new pair of shoes or perhaps some paint with which to create their next opus.

As for the dig about her singing style, well, let's just say art is in the eye of the beholder. What one person interprets as an unpolished vocal delivery another may find profoundly touching. For instance, The Shaggs' "Philosophy of the World" was praised by Kurt Cobain; "Trout Mask Replica" is a well-regarded record by many; Damo Suzuki's free-flowing vocals embellished some of the 1970s’ most open-minded rock music, et cetera. Ono's innovative musical style has been both celebrated and panned, but it certainly pushes the envelope. Maybe instead of hoping she had "bought" a different sound, we should celebrate the fact that she's game to buck a world that usually clings to its comfort zones.

Rather than criticise Yoko Ono for her shopping sprees or vocal deliverance, let's applaud her singular contributions to art and culture. After all, if we were to be bound by conventional notions of talent and conduct, from where would progress arise? So, the next time you hear of someone engaging in a bit of shopping therapy—or some experimentation with the voice—just know they may well be standing at the threshold of greatness.


it's mind boggling how you do not see Mike was joking. 😐
Back to Top
Starshiper View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2024
Location: Englantic
Status: Online
Points: 410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starshiper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 10:43
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Originally posted by Starshiper Starshiper wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo!
Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead.


Yeah but Yoko still went shopping! Too bad she couldn't buy a better singing style LOL
Well, one could argue that shopping is a perfectly legitimate pastime, especially when one is negotiating the vagaries of fame and creativity. Even avant-garde artists need to pick up essentials—be it a new pair of shoes or perhaps some paint with which to create their next opus.

As for the dig about her singing style, well, let's just say art is in the eye of the beholder. What one person interprets as an unpolished vocal delivery another may find profoundly touching. For instance, The Shaggs' "Philosophy of the World" was praised by Kurt Cobain; "Trout Mask Replica" is a well-regarded record by many; Damo Suzuki's free-flowing vocals embellished some of the 1970s’ most open-minded rock music, et cetera. Ono's innovative musical style has been both celebrated and panned, but it certainly pushes the envelope. Maybe instead of hoping she had "bought" a different sound, we should celebrate the fact that she's game to buck a world that usually clings to its comfort zones.

Rather than criticise Yoko Ono for her shopping sprees or vocal deliverance, let's applaud her singular contributions to art and culture. After all, if we were to be bound by conventional notions of talent and conduct, from where would progress arise? So, the next time you hear of someone engaging in a bit of shopping therapy—or some experimentation with the voice—just know they may well be standing at the threshold of greatness.


Yoko Ono – No, No, No, from "Season of Glass" (1981)

Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote siLLy puPPy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 09:39
Originally posted by Starshiper Starshiper wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo!
Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead.


Yeah but Yoko still went shopping! Too bad she couldn't buy a better singing style LOL

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy
Back to Top
Psychedelic Paul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 16 2019
Location: Nottingham, U.K
Status: Offline
Points: 39936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Psychedelic Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 08:27
The four apostles were named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but Beatles fans know them better as John, Paul, George and Ringo, and when an American tourist was asked if he'd heard of Ringo Starr, he said "The name rings a bell." Tongue
Back to Top
Starshiper View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2024
Location: Englantic
Status: Online
Points: 410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starshiper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 07:00
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo!
Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead.
Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote siLLy puPPy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 06:43
I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo!

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy
Back to Top
Starshiper View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2024
Location: Englantic
Status: Online
Points: 410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starshiper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Yesterday at 02:47
The Fab Four, with their unparalleled knack for melody and innovation, have not only shaped the landscape of popular music but have also influenced culture at large. To argue they receive “too much” credit is rather like claiming Shakespeare was just a chap who wrote a few plays; it simply doesn't hold water.

The Beatles' contributions span from pioneering studio techniques to introducing new genres, including shaping psychedelic rock with "Tomorrow Never Knows" and sowing seeds of progressive music in "Sgt Pepper" and "Magical Mistery Tour," as well as forerunnering the 70s art rock with "Abbey Road," all while crafting timeless tunes that still resonate even today and will resonate for good.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2024 at 07:23
Originally posted by Jacob Schoolcraft Jacob Schoolcraft wrote:

...
Years later it didn't feel that way because the radio played it everyday . Then it was smothering. Whatever? That's subjective to degrees...but by the 1980s radio made me sick of Beatles music. I have always owned their entire discography but for years I couldn't force myself to listen to them and often changed the station. Radio took away the enjoyment for me 😆

Hi, 

I'm glad that since 1974 I had Space Pirate Radio, and Guy Guden as a roommate and friend, and heard a lot of stuff that since then has become "progressive music". 

Radio was, already in the mid 70's, not very good, if Guy's first years in Santa Barbara radio were an issue ... and how he was treated was not nice, and bad, and he was getting paid, what he jokingly stated ... Mexican Wages!

Radio, specially the FM brand, was OK until the end of the 70's when almost all of the FM stations were bought out by various corporations and taken off the INDEPENDENT ownership, which allowed so much new music to be heard ... and since then, it has been all "classic" and no one gives a damn, and the FCC has changed rules so that us, the public, has no say in it, and can not return the stations to the local level that they had way back when! Today, no station anywhere in America serves them (the locality!)... they are all "corporate" sellers, and the majority of their advertising is all national accounts, and no local anything ... besides the fact that a local anything could not even buy a 15 second spot on their advertisements! The price was ridiculous and way above and beyond any company in town!

The main issue is/was ... that the Beatles did not need radio anymore ... and the Internet made radio even more stupid and ridiculous ... specially it still doing exactly the same thing it did 60 years ago ... that's progress, I suppose!

But it is sad, that people think that the Beatles were just another bruhaha song band, like so much of the really poor stuff being sold nowadays, and specified to be number 1 ... and supposedly selling. 

The Beatles (not the only ones) had a major effect on all things ... and check some things out ... some of the listing for the worst business decisions EVER ... and the Beatles and Rolling Stones, are in the top ten list ... with some folks being really out of it ... until some others opened up to the missions that could be made!


Edited by moshkito - Yesterday at 03:47
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Jacob Schoolcraft View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 22 2021
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 1067
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Jacob Schoolcraft Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2024 at 11:23
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

^ Nice post. By the way, when I made this topic those years ago, I was thinking back many years prior to some classes I had in Philosophy dealing with ontology and epistemology and wanting to angle at it from that perspective (the nature of being, the nature of knowing, what is true, what can be known, issues of justified true belief) as well as thinking it might be a bit of fun. I originally had prepared a much longer opening post to start it out and then just went with something of less substance). Turned out to me to be a very entertaining discussion with many interesting perspectives approaching this from different angles and side-discussions.


Fascinating!
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2024 at 11:18
^ Nice post. By the way, when I made this topic those years ago, I was thinking back many years prior to some classes I had in Philosophy dealing with ontology and epistemology and wanting to angle at it from that perspective (the nature of being, the nature of knowing, what is true, what can be known, issues of justified true belief) as well as thinking it might be a bit of fun. I originally had prepared a much longer opening post to start it out and then just went with something of less substance). Turned out to me to be a very entertaining discussion with many interesting perspectives approaching this from different angles and side-discussions.
Back to Top
Jacob Schoolcraft View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 22 2021
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 1067
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Jacob Schoolcraft Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2024 at 10:54
Obviously starting with Revolver and continuing till the end of the Beatles time together...I always got the impression that they were allowed to be creative. The Beatles and George Martin together seemed to have a lot of relaxed freedom.

Having the opportunity to experiment and try new things without a record executive sticking their 2 cents worth in. Or generally having contrived pointless ideas which are not from a creative standpoint...but more about making crap up. Thoughtless actually.

The Beatles became a band for the industry to exploit and were probably not as overrated as they were overplayed...or perhaps a combination of the two: Radio, television and selling their albums in America was quite a monopoly.

Their songwriting was unusual in the late 60s. It differed from other people in life except for those who outright copied the Beatles or were influenced by them. In one particular case you had a band that sounded a bit like Beatles but were interesting and worthwhile and that band was BADFINGER!!
Regarding the earlier Beatles songwriting style ...it seemed to filter throughout the 1970s with bands like The Raspberries and Cheap Trick...where bands like Heart and 10CC contained that element of Beatle-esq writing.

The impact they had was ridiculously insane! The sound and style of the late 1960s Beatles was yet another extended influence on bands. Many bands were trying to emulate it.

The first time I heard "Strawberry Fields Forever" was when it was first released as a single in America. Hearing then...was unusual! It was very different for those times and it was exciting and greatly enjoyable to play the 45rpm as you'd be thinking while placing the tonearm down: Here's something completely different and in a world of its own"

Years later it didn't feel that way because the radio played it everyday . Then it was smothering. Whatever? That's subjective to degrees...but by the 1980s radio made me sick of Beatles music. I have always owned their entire discography but for years I couldn't force myself to listen to them and often changed the station. Radio took away the enjoyment for me 😆
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 17 2024 at 13:14
Originally posted by Steve Wyzard Steve Wyzard wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

What the thread asks about the Beatles can be asked about Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and all the other bigs of the last century.  

Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra didn't WRITE/COMPOSE the songs recorded/released under their own names.

Hi,

Which ... btw ... is very important ... but we have to remember that not many of the hit songs on radio at the time, let's say early 60's (but keep it generalized please) were exactly written by the members of the band, and this changed big time with The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks and many others. Heck go back to The Monkees and realize how much was written by Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart ... and they had been writing a lot of stuff going back to 1961.

Your comment, btw, is one of the great changes in radio (especially in America with FM in the 60's) ... that helped bring out the new sounds and the new music, and kinda took the controls away from the recording groups and companies that were owned by the movie studios, who tried to get their stars hits to keep the money in house. They were the ones that defined the "copyrights" and how they were finally interpreted by Congress for the FCC, to take it away from a handful of megalomaniacs. 

One listen to American FM radio in 1971, would more than likely get you a good 90/95% of material done by the band singing it. But there still were many different folks writing stuff for others ... Kris Kristofferson was one of them, for example ... as were many others!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
progaardvark View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Crossover/Symphonic/RPI Teams

Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Sea of Peas
Status: Offline
Points: 50937
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote progaardvark Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 16 2024 at 13:30
I Am the Walrus pretty much sums up the influence the Beatles have had on me. Without hearing that one song, my musical output (strange as it is) may never had happened.
----------
i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag
that's a happy bag of lettuce
this car smells like cartilage
nothing beats a good video about fractions
Back to Top
Steve Wyzard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 30 2017
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 2567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Steve Wyzard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 16 2024 at 13:03
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

What the thread asks about the Beatles can be asked about Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and all the other bigs of the last century.  

Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra didn't WRITE/COMPOSE the songs recorded/released under their own names.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 16 2024 at 12:18
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

...
They were one of the groups that showed other people "hey, you know, it's alright to play whatever music we want" and from that stemmed nearly all later music, popular and less so, even if the bands in question aren't influenced in the slightest by the music of the Beatles.  It was the concept of creativity for the masses that makes them so important

Hi,

I tend to think that the creativity was always there, and there were many albums one could get, however, they did not become "famous" or as big as The Beatles, which kinda kept things somewhat hidden. When  The Beatles made it big, and a lot of reviewers were giving it some intelligent comments, instead of discussing pop music, then things made it back to the fans faster and faster, which I think helped pretty much hurt the AM Radio band in America ... my neighbor, was a DJ on the Santa Barbara AM station and to give you an idea, he loved ELP, but could not play any of it when he was on the air, until a single was released properly. But the 2 singles that showed up, were not given a touch ... because the station did not want to give the FM Radio Stations any credit or appreciation ... at that point, it was not about the music or single at all ... it was about making sure "they were not competing with that station over there ... "

But the fact that "creativity" had been opened up some more, really helped ... 

MASSIVE SIDE NOTE: This thing about the Beatles, would likely be more important in any other country other than America or England, where sales were not a major issue, but all of a sudden in Brazil (where I was in the early 60's), it took over the radio, along with the Rolling Stones. 

So yes, they deserve the credit for how so many other folks reacted to it ... but the American and English media tend to make that a not so important event ... and of course, one network, made sure that Ed Sullivan was a name that we would remember forever!!! Advertising for you! 

Us, here in America and Great Britain, will likely think the answer is NO, because both of those countries were way far ahead in terms of media and public knowledge of things ... as their radio waves, was about to enter a new era in music fidelity ... in America FM in STEREO ... helped showcase the new albums a lot, and it did not sound crappy like the AM radio dial! I do not think that the majority of folks posting in this thread, realize the incredible change from MONO to STEREO ... 60 years ago ... it was easily (for me) the greatest artistic event in the century ... you were hearing, for the first time, the music almost like ... you were sitting next to it! The internet today, has no idea how this could possibly have been like that ... and how so many of us old folks felt when we heard the difference. And let me tell you ... it was an even bigger difference in Latin America and other places around the world ... and we wonder how it was important or not ... IT WAS ... but there were differences in many places. 

But, honestly, I don't think that we have studied history of rock music well enough to be able to answer the OP properly ... I find some comments very sad.



Edited by moshkito - November 21 2024 at 07:11
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 27956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote richardh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 16 2024 at 08:35
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Maybe a little bit too much credit, especially in recent times, but really I think it's deservedly so.  They were one of the groups that showed other people "hey, you know, it's alright to play whatever music we want" and from that stemmed nearly all later music, popular and less so, even if the bands in question aren't influenced in the slightest by the music of the Beatles.  It was the concept of creativity for the masses that makes them so important

This was the very second post on the thread and nailed it. Could have just closed it straight away after.

I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about anymore. It would be a joke to suggest that The Beatles were great musicians but the point was that they were empowered and influential. Their songs were everywhere. They actually had personality and were able to sell their music. I believe though that there was resentment towards them for no reason whatsoever. Yeah they could have spent more time becoming better musicians but frankly what difference would it have made? Arguably they could even have been an influence on punk as the dream of the 'band of not very great musicians that made it big'. Also they were living the rock n roll lifestyle in spades and as everyone now realises they were not the cuddly mop heads that the record company was desperate to portray them as. This also weirdly became yet another cliche of rock music. Oasis have even sold millions pretending to be a version of them lol If the Beatles aren't at least the most important pop/rock band of the twentieth century then who is? Christ, even the name sucks but that didn't stop them.
Back to Top
octopus-4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14071
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote octopus-4 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 16 2024 at 07:36
The mainstream majors and media, before the electronic age, had the power of influencing the listeners, but they had the power of filtering out who they tought wasn't profitable enough for an investment, they were used to spend money in advertising, TV shows and whatsoever. 

But you can advertise Plastic Bertrand as much as you like and he won't last more than a summer.
Beatles have been surely advertised and monetized, but it didn't happen with a lot of pop rubbish even if presented as the "new big".

They have their merits, and as Dave Gilmour said in response to Johnny Rotten: "Make your stuff and if you can sell it, fine" 

What the thread asks about the Beatles can be asked about Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and all the other bigs of the last century.  
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 15 2024 at 10:03
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

...
You don't get it, this is like the millionth Beatles box set released in the last 10-15 years.....More will follow since the subject is release years.

Hi,

I do, however, it would be more to the benefit of the listeners and the buyers to know one of the main differences in a lot of those releases. The first wave, specially for America, waas about the stuff that had been hidden, and lowered in volume to the background in a lot of stuff, in Sgt. Peppers and MMTour.

What is crazy (for me!!!) is how another edition of the same thing is going to be different. I guess that we won't hear this with that, and that with this anymore, and stuff will be so separated as to seem like the 4 guys are not together at all ... but it sounds better? 

I have not bought any redo by any band ... with one exception ... Solar Music Live ... which instead of redo's has a lot of different versions of the same thing, and they are all neat. I'm not sure that any redo will sound better in my inner mind and vision ... and one I heard (KC) was actually really poor in my book ... it also hid more than it showed.
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Moonshake View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 16 2022
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Moonshake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2024 at 17:09
No
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2024 at 11:40
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Another money grab by your Fab Four, you all hurry up and pre-order For Nov release.........USD300.00 LOL LOL
...

Hi,

I imagine that it might be worth it, since almost all the Beatle albums released in America were taken from masters found in a garbage bin in NY, or London, or Paris! They were terrible.

I discovered this around 1972/1073 when out of curiosity and the fact that the cover was very different from the American version for the album MEDDLE by PF ... I also got the Sgt. Pepper's import ... and it was clean, and you could hear all the bits and pieces in the background. The same thing was STILL visible in 1974 with DSOTM, that was taken from another trash bin somewhere ... the background, and bits and pieces under it, were downplayed and were intentionally suppressed .... and I like to joke that it was a FCC somebody in America that wanted to clean up America ... and started with the words, not the smells of the bad rerecording to hide many details. I immediately bought the import ... and of course ... the posters were different and the sound of it was clear and the background bits were good enough to make a complete story on their own ... which, of course, later gave birth to THE WALL ... which for me is about all the bits they ever used.

So, in some ways, hearing a clean mix of the stuff, possibly in their original way, instead of another copy, would be kinda neat ... it won't make us feel any better about it all, but it will show the history of the Beatles with a lot more beauty than the versions in almost all of those albums that were, basically, ready for the AM radio as singles ... in Mono ... so to speak! Hearing it in pure stereo, instead of cardboard stereo wold make this a much more valuable purchase.

But that price leaves me out ... better things for me to get on Bandcamp!

You don't get it, this is like the millionth Beatles box set released in the last 10-15 years.....More will follow since the subject is release years.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 26>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.