Beatles reissues: is there a point, or...? - Page 2

Rob Instigator · 09.10.2009, 12:44 PM

plus it makes new fans, younger kids who never bought the shit, but will do so now, or get their parents to buy it for them as gifts and shit.

I just put on my old vinyls and turn that shit up to 11

automatic bzooty · 09.10.2009, 02:41 PM

cashgrab in the hay, y'all

Torn Curtain · 09.10.2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The mono remaster is obviously far more dramatic - almost like an entirely different take - and appears to be about 7 seconds shorter than either stereo version!

Yes, it seems to play a bit faster (it sounds higher pitched).

demonrail666 · 09.10.2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torn Curtain

Yes, it seems to play a bit faster (it sounds higher pitched).

That would definitely account for the shorter length; there doesn't seem to be any difference in terms of the actual structure of the song.

SuperCreep · 09.10.2009, 04:12 PM

With technology being so different in the past 22 years (and not a single Beatles reissue within that span) and the first official release of their pre-Abbey Road albums in mono on compact disc, how is not sort of a big deal?

Being 21 and never having access to the original LPs of this stuff (my mom had them all at one point, but threw them out when vinyl started becoming "useless junk") AND probably having to forkload a good chunk of money for a crisp LP version of Sgt. Pepper's, this is a big deal to me. I grew up with the poorly-transferred '87 CDs, and over time, my ears have become pretty discerning to a point where I simply couldn't go back to them after hearing various needledrop bootlegs of the original LPs. I feel these remasters are much more true to the original sound than anything we're ever going to get in digital format. Fuck, even Ebbetts decided to quit doing Beatles material after these batch of remasters came out. There isn't very much to be perfected on.

Call it a "cash-grab" or whatever (and perhaps it is with the added Beatles Rock Band and the seperate boxes for stereo and mono when they can all be in one box); I'm just really glad to be able to hear something like Tomorrow Never Knows or Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite cranked up in glorious mono. I'm falling in love with one of my favorite bands all over again.

atsonicpark · 09.10.2009, 04:19 PM

Elanor Rigby rules.

The rest can fuck off. Shit band, imo.

Sonic Youth 37 · 09.10.2009, 08:46 PM

I've never liked the Beatles. I've even tried to like them. I've heard most (if not all) the albums and I don't see the appeal at all. The White Album is probably the most overrated album of all time, hands down, if only for the reason that it came out almost 2 years after The Velvet Underground and Nico, which, for me, is the defining album of pre-1980s music.

noisereductions · 09.10.2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonic Youth 37

I've never liked the Beatles. I've even tried to like them. I've heard most (if not all) the albums and I don't see the appeal at all. The White Album is probably the most overrated album of all time, hands down, if only for the reason that it came out almost 2 years after The Velvet Underground and Nico, which, for me, is the defining album of pre-1980s music.

hahaha. Yeah. Well. VU&Nico certainly is AMAZING. But it's ballsy to classify music as either pre- or post-1980.

Sonic Youth 37 · 09.10.2009, 08:57 PM

That wasn't totally my intention. Example: someone asks me about "old" music and I know they're well-versed in everything post-1980, the first album I ask if they've heard is VU and Nico. Not any Dylan, not Cream, not Hendrix or Zeppelin or Sex Pistols or Clash, etc etc. However, if someone I knew who was well-versed in all of those asked me about post-1980 music, I'd take about 15 minutes to gather my thoughts and recommend a dozen albums by about 10 different artists.

noisereductions · 09.10.2009, 09:08 PM

haha. Alright cool, man. I gotcha. Whatever, VU&NICO does fuckign rule

09.10.2009, 09:19 PM

There isn't a point. There is certainly not a point in finding The Beatles the most important band ever in 2009, what with their naive attitude towards spirituality, their approximation of a psychedelic musicality, their ultimately ego-based (something that Sonic youth I think did a good job at deflating) vision of being in a band?

FreshChops · 09.10.2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

there is always a reason. Making MONEY

Wurd! .....beat me to it.

atsonicpark · 09.10.2009, 10:35 PM

Weren't they just some fucked-up assholes who spent a lot of time in the studio?

When you consider that Captain Beefheart (true rock innovator) and White Noise - An Electrical Storm (a beautiful, brilliant, multi-layered, insane studio production) existed around the same time (as well as countless others, obviously), it makes the Beatles look... not very important.. in comparison. They were able to reinvent themselves and so on, but come on, that doesn't make them geniuses. They just made a lot of money, farted around in the studio, and John Lennon liked El Topo and he made cool noise records, so he's the only one I respect.

So, bye.

Jeremy · 09.11.2009, 02:52 AM

The remasters I think are essential in the sense it sounds the way they were meant to be played. After hearing the new reissues compared to the old ones, I hear a huge difference. Granted, I'm buying them slowly when they go down in price, since right now there's way too many other things on my list of records that need my listening.

How people can shit on The Beatles is a mystery to me. They are one of the best pop bands ever; They've written more catchy melodies than most bands have written songs. Sure, say what you will about other bands from the timeline, but the Beatles allowed people to really care about music and go about tracking it down inside of just hoping for that song they like to be on the radio. It's similar to Nirvana; Yeah, they get a lot of credit when there were better bands then and before, but at the same time they made a good majority of their fans think, "Hmmm, these Nirvana guys sure do talk about so and so a lot... I wonder if I would like them too?", and it allowed so and so bands to make more records and gain more fans, not to mention get more exposure (Which admittedly did hurt some bands).

To each their own but I think most Beatles haters are just trying to be cool.

~Jeremy~

pbradley · 09.11.2009, 03:00 AM

Or maybe they actually don't like the Beatles' music as much as you do.

atsonicpark · 09.11.2009, 03:05 AM

Yeah, their music just does absolutely nothing for me. To be able to take some interesting, even occasionally avant-garde techniques that other musicians did better, and put them in a popular-music context is pretty cool, but meh. Lousy songs, most of 'em.

pbradley · 09.11.2009, 03:10 AM

"Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" is one particularly terrible song.

atsonicpark · 09.11.2009, 03:16 AM

I think, aside from "Elanor Rigby", their best song is probably "And Your Bird Can Sing", which John descibed as a throwaway song that was just to fill out the album. But yeah.

I think "Hey Jude" is probably the worst song I've heard in my life.

The Beets were better. See: "Killer Tofu", "Shout Your Lungs Out", and "Where's My Sock".

atsonicpark · 09.11.2009, 03:19 AM

Seriously

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFO_rfzFas0

Killer Tofu is better than the entire Beatles catalogue...

pbradley · 09.11.2009, 03:28 AM

Eleanor Rigby, A Day In The Life, and Helter Skelter. That's it. Admittedly, though, I never cared for their albums enough to remember them so there might be a few tracks here or there that I might be a few less popular songs that I might like but not worth the hassle.

And The Beets give me too many nostalgia vibes.

09.10.2009, 12:44 PM	#21
Rob Instigator invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the land of the Instigator Posts: 27,975	plus it makes new fans, younger kids who never bought the shit, but will do so now, or get their parents to buy it for them as gifts and shit. I just put on my old vinyls and turn that shit up to 11 __________________ RXTT's Intellectual Journey - my new blog where I talk about all the books I read.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 02:41 PM	#22
automatic bzooty invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,859	cashgrab in the hay, y'all
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 04:12 PM	#25
SuperCreep expwy. to yr skull Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: brooklyn Posts: 2,281	With technology being so different in the past 22 years (and not a single Beatles reissue within that span) and the first official release of their pre-Abbey Road albums in mono on compact disc, how is not sort of a big deal? Being 21 and never having access to the original LPs of this stuff (my mom had them all at one point, but threw them out when vinyl started becoming "useless junk") AND probably having to forkload a good chunk of money for a crisp LP version of Sgt. Pepper's, this is a big deal to me. I grew up with the poorly-transferred '87 CDs, and over time, my ears have become pretty discerning to a point where I simply couldn't go back to them after hearing various needledrop bootlegs of the original LPs. I feel these remasters are much more true to the original sound than anything we're ever going to get in digital format. Fuck, even Ebbetts decided to quit doing Beatles material after these batch of remasters came out. There isn't very much to be perfected on. Call it a "cash-grab" or whatever (and perhaps it is with the added Beatles Rock Band and the seperate boxes for stereo and mono when they can all be in one box); I'm just really glad to be able to hear something like Tomorrow Never Knows or Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite cranked up in glorious mono. I'm falling in love with one of my favorite bands all over again. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 04:19 PM	#26
atsonicpark invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 28,843	Elanor Rigby rules. The rest can fuck off. Shit band, imo. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 08:46 PM	#27
Sonic Youth 37 invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: if there is a bright spot in the universe, the farthest point from it Posts: 9,443	I've never liked the Beatles. I've even tried to like them. I've heard most (if not all) the albums and I don't see the appeal at all. The White Album is probably the most overrated album of all time, hands down, if only for the reason that it came out almost 2 years after The Velvet Underground and Nico, which, for me, is the defining album of pre-1980s music. __________________ "One: Where's the fife? and Two: Gimme the fife."
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 08:57 PM	#29
Sonic Youth 37 invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: if there is a bright spot in the universe, the farthest point from it Posts: 9,443	That wasn't totally my intention. Example: someone asks me about "old" music and I know they're well-versed in everything post-1980, the first album I ask if they've heard is VU and Nico. Not any Dylan, not Cream, not Hendrix or Zeppelin or Sex Pistols or Clash, etc etc. However, if someone I knew who was well-versed in all of those asked me about post-1980 music, I'd take about 15 minutes to gather my thoughts and recommend a dozen albums by about 10 different artists. __________________ "One: Where's the fife? and Two: Gimme the fife."
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 09:08 PM	#30
noisereductions invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: New England, USA Posts: 16,210	haha. Alright cool, man. I gotcha. Whatever, VU&NICO does fuckign rule __________________ noisereduxinstalled.weebly.com
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 09:19 PM	#31
sarramkrop Posts: n/a	There isn't a point. There is certainly not a point in finding The Beatles the most important band ever in 2009, what with their naive attitude towards spirituality, their approximation of a psychedelic musicality, their ultimately ego-based (something that Sonic youth I think did a good job at deflating) vision of being in a band?
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 10:35 PM	#33
atsonicpark invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 28,843	Weren't they just some fucked-up assholes who spent a lot of time in the studio? When you consider that Captain Beefheart (true rock innovator) and White Noise - An Electrical Storm (a beautiful, brilliant, multi-layered, insane studio production) existed around the same time (as well as countless others, obviously), it makes the Beatles look... not very important.. in comparison. They were able to reinvent themselves and so on, but come on, that doesn't make them geniuses. They just made a lot of money, farted around in the studio, and John Lennon liked El Topo and he made cool noise records, so he's the only one I respect. So, bye. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.11.2009, 02:52 AM	#34
Jeremy 100% Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: The Batcave Posts: 833	The remasters I think are essential in the sense it sounds the way they were meant to be played. After hearing the new reissues compared to the old ones, I hear a huge difference. Granted, I'm buying them slowly when they go down in price, since right now there's way too many other things on my list of records that need my listening. How people can shit on The Beatles is a mystery to me. They are one of the best pop bands ever; They've written more catchy melodies than most bands have written songs. Sure, say what you will about other bands from the timeline, but the Beatles allowed people to really care about music and go about tracking it down inside of just hoping for that song they like to be on the radio. It's similar to Nirvana; Yeah, they get a lot of credit when there were better bands then and before, but at the same time they made a good majority of their fans think, "Hmmm, these Nirvana guys sure do talk about so and so a lot... I wonder if I would like them too?", and it allowed so and so bands to make more records and gain more fans, not to mention get more exposure (Which admittedly did hurt some bands). To each their own but I think most Beatles haters are just trying to be cool. ~Jeremy~ __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.11.2009, 03:00 AM	#35
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	Or maybe they actually don't like the Beatles' music as much as you do.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.11.2009, 03:05 AM	#36
atsonicpark invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 28,843	Yeah, their music just does absolutely nothing for me. To be able to take some interesting, even occasionally avant-garde techniques that other musicians did better, and put them in a popular-music context is pretty cool, but meh. Lousy songs, most of 'em. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.11.2009, 03:10 AM	#37
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	"Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" is one particularly terrible song.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.11.2009, 03:16 AM	#38
atsonicpark invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 28,843	I think, aside from "Elanor Rigby", their best song is probably "And Your Bird Can Sing", which John descibed as a throwaway song that was just to fill out the album. But yeah. I think "Hey Jude" is probably the worst song I've heard in my life. The Beets were better. See: "Killer Tofu", "Shout Your Lungs Out", and "Where's My Sock". __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.11.2009, 03:19 AM	#39
atsonicpark invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 28,843	Seriously http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFO_rfzFas0 Killer Tofu is better than the entire Beatles catalogue... __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.11.2009, 03:28 AM	#40
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	Eleanor Rigby, A Day In The Life, and Helter Skelter. That's it. Admittedly, though, I never cared for their albums enough to remember them so there might be a few tracks here or there that I might be a few less popular songs that I might like but not worth the hassle. And The Beets give me too many nostalgia vibes.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|