The Beatles- Re-Mastered
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- moth0
"So, you're knocking the most inflluencial musical act of the last 100 years"
Absolutely yes.
Even given the batch of songs that I can bear to listen to, they do nothing for me.
Then there's the rest of their output, among which are some of THE most annoying, twee, sickly tunes ever committed to tape.
I don't care that countless musicians were influenced by them. I don't give a shit about legacy. I just listen to music, and any discussion outside of listening to it is just noise.
- CyBrain0
and you're only looking at the lame result of who was influenced by The Beatles. How about bands like the Rolling Stones, Who, Zeppelin and the rest of the British Invasion, Pink Floyd, anyone considered psychedelic, anyone who wrote their own songs, made music for albums and not just singles. Do I need to go on? A google search will open the floodgates of information
- Bullitt0
The problem with todays music is its just recycled songs from back in the day. The reason those acts like the band in question and The Who, Floyd etc is that they kept the need to evolve the music and experiment.
Of todays acts I listen to the likes of White Denim, The Aliens, Battles, Grizzly Bear, non get radio time but their moving things forward atleast.
- CALLES0
ok... so what did deaist say?
- moth0
The Beatles were not 'psychedelic'.
Anyone who's knocked back LSD would kill themselves if they wrote oh bla di oh bla da or yellow submarine.
- Name me some psychedelic music before Rain or Tomorrow Never Knows.CyBrain
- Why?moth
- dude, then go listen to your goth music and leave the beatles alone.Countryman
- Dylan_w0
I love how pitchfork is so daft as to think their review of the Beatles means shit.
- moth0
The fact you would put Pink Floyd anywhere near this discussion worries me. Syd Barrett was the real deal, and anyone with working ears would know that.
You're comparing masters to amateurs.
- yup, Floyd = substance. Period.morilla
- How dare you even breathe the Beatles and Floyd in the same breath.morilla
- <<<<<<<<ismith
- i would point out the irony here that the boys in floyd were thrilled to be recording at abbey road. it was a high point for them. they liked the beatles.exador1
- Barret could have bettered the Beatles had he not overdone it with the drugs.Bullitt
- Syd Barret did a song with the Beatles during the White Album sessions called What's the New Mary Jane. It's on Anthology 3CyBrain
- CyBrain0
Yeah, but Radiohead gets to be accepted by Indie loving people who don't recognize the similarity to a band that 30 years previously had a lot of hits.
- Countryman0
The beatles were the first indie band!!! They were the little pop band that turned into the first original genre of music. They really broke out of the box and changed everything.
just because they were pop at first doesnt mean shit. Can you say that everyone should hate biggie smalls, tupac, or jayz because they were popular???? NO just because everyone loved them doesnt make them a bad band.
- Meeklo0
You can say what you want about the beatles, you loved their music, the open doors to thousands of other acts, they influenced tons of music acts around the world, and that won't stop for centuries.. but.
they were still a pop music band.I never really cared for them, I don't hate them but it just wasn't for me, you can put it in the bag of people that think rolling stones had a better sound, although I don't really follow them either..
No reason to argue here, different people have different taste, period. I'm not denying their importance in the music world, Is just not my taste, simple.
I am however surprised with the amount of people with similar thinking here, I'm usually the only guy among my friends that never got into them, everyone gets all excited talking about it and then they look at me, what do you think? and I mumble... weeelllll I dont really like the beatles..
RIOT STARTS
hahaha
- sorry for the countless typosMeeklo
- I respect that position just fine. I dont think anyone should tell anyone else whats good or bad. Its apples and oranges. But to say the beatles suck is another story...Countryman
- < this. especially the last part. I'm usually ducking when I won't sing along with a beatles or stones album on play...ismith
- fooler20
Fooking Hell!
I want the box set but can't decide if I should get the mono or stereo version or just torrent the whole thing.
- Countryman0
50 bucks difference, the stereo set actually has quite a few songs in mono on it anyways. I don't think they sound particularly any better than the stereo. However, the later albums sound a bit washed out. It could have been from all the crazy recording tech they were using, I am not sure. They may sound better in Mono.
- CyBrain0
The early ones are better in mono because they didn't really get stereo back then. George Martin admits as much. He just put drums and vocals one side and the rest on the right. After Rubber Soul or Revolver, it's a different story. I remember that the mono mix of Tomorrow Never Knows is a different take on Revolover's mono version.
- 5timuli0
I just played through the entire game's Story mode. Playing about an hour a night. Pretty disappointed since I want so many more Beatles songs, and I bet the cunts are going to release them at double the cost of regular Rock Band.
I've still not completed the regular Rock Band Career mode, and I've played that for weeks.
- fooler20
I'm waiting for "Rock Band Paul McCartney & Wings" to come out.