Joking as usual with my friend Skipper...

So, Amazon is backordered for 2 to 4 weeks - this forced Helter to deal with Best Buy this morning (they've cleaned up their act and would not sell a box to me on the 7th or 8th, I pleaded). Called their "800" number and put one of the last Stereo Boxes in my neighborhood (Mono long gone) on hold with a CC till the GF went and picked it up later today. Been listening to the discs for hours - What Beautiful Music !!! Those boys and George Martin sure knew what they were doing... all this before 30, AMAZING !!!
This is NEVER gonna happen again, if you don't get it you're not going to. Those of us that grew up on this music understand... I don't see any competition with the Stones, it's 2 different types of music, both bands tops at what they were best at....

Saw it at Costco for about $53.

Quote
StonesTod
let's put it bluntly here, with all inherent risks at so doing fully acknowledged:

in a 100 years time, people will still be talking about, listening to, critically analyzing and writing about the Beatles' music. the Stones'? hmmmm....not so much.

sorry, but you know it's true....and it won't be because of some media hype. mozart wasn't just a media-hype talent, either....

maybe, maybe not. one things for sure, absolutely NO ONE will be discussing the early beegees albums lmFao!

I managed to find 30 good songs ( stereo ) among the all the tunes that somehow crept into my pc.Those 30 do really sound good. So I guess the rest is more than ok as well. If you like them.

My life's just too short for checking the remastering of Revolution no 9, Ob-la-dabla-delirium, Birthday, Maxwell's Silver Hammer et al

Joe Cocker did his great version of With a little help....
Jeff Beck performs a beautiful instrumental of A day in life
Stones revitalised I wanna be your man

Yeah, yeah, yeah...they did write some good tunes. I just cannot find one single album that comes close even to...Their Satanic Majesties Request

While My Guitar Gently Weeps is however still a masterpiece !
Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever still great! What a single in those days.

Just an opinion.
Buy it if you like the Beatles

So can some-one tell me that this 2 boxes is really worth the money because it's sounds soooooo much better now....even Ringo's "I wanna be your man" is sending me to heaven...

2 1 2 0

In my opinion, they are the greatest ever. The only others in their league for sheer artistry and innovation - Dylan and Hendrix. Listening to the remastered Tomorrow Never Knows - Go Ringo!

Bought Help, Magical Mystery Tour and Let It Be yesterday - and it all sounds AMAZING. Great packaging too!

Like others around here, I had intended to act rationally, keep my money together, and just have a look at these new editions. But then I grabbed Let it be, and it just looked fantastic, and when I even saw they had a special offer going at our local SATURN store, offering most of the albums for 9,90 € on that first day of release there was no stopping - I just had to get...at least some of them.

The stereo version of Thank You Girl is fantastic. Has anyone noticed the extra harmonica fills by John? Paul's back-up vocals are more prominent and the echo effect at the end is more pronounced - wonderful stuff!

Quote
tatters
I picked up the stereo Past Masters today at Best Buy for $12.99. Figured it was a good way to spend the least money possible and still get a good overview of their entire catalog in its 2009 remastered form. Everything sounds amazingly good. As soon as I heard the Sept. 4, 1962 version of Love Me Do (the one with Ringo playing drums that was used only on early pressings of the single), remastered from a RECORD because no master tape exists, come BOOMING out of the speakers, I knew they got it right. Interestingly, some of the most startling improvements involve some of their very earliest recorded tracks. Thank You Girl, an early B-side, recorded in March 1963, has remarkable POWER, and wait until you hear She Loves You! It's THUNDEROUS! Nothing else recorded in 1963 sounds like this!

I bought the first 4 albums as well as the White Album. Tatters I agree wholeheartedly that the early recordings seem to have benefited most from the remastering. There is a richness and vibrancy to these songs that was missing in all but the best quality lp's pressed from those years. As it stands these re-released Beatles recordings are excellent and deserve some high praise for the quality of the sound.

I felt the same way about the sound quality upgrade when the Stones released the SACD collection.

Quote
Kick Jaggards
Charles Manson is said to be loving the latest repackaging of the Beatles 1960's albums. "I'm crazy about the remastered version of 'Helter Skelter'", Manson said. "I'm hearing new stuff I never heard in there before. Y'all will have to wait to find out exactly what." Manson then gave what witnesses described as a "somewhat diabolical laugh".

Coincidentally (maybe) Manson family member Squeaky Fromme was released from prison just 3 weeks ago after serving a long sentence.

Fortunately, Susan Atkins isn't in much of a position at the minute to appreciate the mono remaster of The White Album....

Quote
frankotero
In response to Ross' question above, I cannot open the video content either. Maybe we need faster/better computers?

I tried to download a new version of Quicktime but it wanted to load iTunes also. When I look at the files on the discs it shows the last track as being very long. When I play it, it plays the song...then a long period of static noise.

Has anybody actually seen the videos?

Ross

Quote
boogie69

Quote

Re: OT: 09-09-09; The Beatles Are Coming!
Posted by: T&A ()
Date: September 10, 2009 00:57

Quote
MKjan
It seems the Beatle fanatics can't accept that other people have other opinions. To say they are overrated is not a bashing,it is an honest appraisal. It's bashing if I don't like them as much as you??


i don't think that's it at all. it's not a question of whether you like them or not, actually. the beatles are widely regarding as the most talented/influential/innovative/prolific (you can probably add a few more adjectives) band of the sixties. hence, the are rated #1. that has nothing to do with whether some fan likes or dislikes them. again, i have yet to see anyone who apparently disputes this list a single band that was more talented or influential or innovative or prolific, etc, during this period. rate someone higher if you think you they are over-rated....

I agree that they are #1 also, especially in artistic growth and endeavors, the quality of their songwriting, pretty much everything, except maybe as a live band. Since they quit playing live so prematurely, I think that's the only argument that could be made as to them having a weakness, or at least not fully proving themselves.

Having said that, I also see MKjan's view of things, and I think he's also right, for himself and many others. When most people like a particular group or artist, they think they can do no wrong, and can't understand how anyone can feel differently. If you don't care for a particular artist or group, it's hard to see them as being #1 regardless of their accomplishments. Who is best, or #1, or whatever, will always be a subjective thing that depends on a person's taste, and I don't think you can say how they feel is really wrong. I have a friend who feels the Beatles are overrated, and while I do not agree with him, I also cannot say he's entirely wrong. Philosophically, I just can't do it, regardless of how I feel. I can see why someone might not like them, if only because they were/are so huge, and are talked about and rated so highly and endlessly. And being a cynic, I feel some do drink the kool-aid a bit too much. There are a number of their songs I'm not exactly crazy about, so I can easily see someone else hating them all. It's the same thing with Elvis. A lot of people just see him as an overrated, fat slob. Which he may very well have been in his later years. But what he did in the 50's, along with the Beatles in the 60's, changed the world from how we knew it, to how we now know it. Everything went from black and white to technicolor, and everyone and everything, whether or not we realize it or see it, changed, from the way they were, to the way they are. I don't think most people realize how much, by having such a profound effect on people's attitudes and feelings, good or bad, those 5 guys changed the world. I honestly don't think people would be the way they are, and the world would be the way it is, if Elvis and the Beatles had never existed. And it may not all be good, I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it's bad either, just that it changed, it happened. And if someone doesn't get that, or doesn't like it, or is just plain tired of hearing about it, then in their view the Beatles are overrated.

Pretty good post. I'm not sure why some nelly queens hate reading different opinions about the beatles. Sure, I liked them better than The Stones - when I was 5!

Quote
glencar

Quote
boogie69

Quote

Re: OT: 09-09-09; The Beatles Are Coming!
Posted by: T&A ()
Date: September 10, 2009 00:57

Quote
MKjan
It seems the Beatle fanatics can't accept that other people have other opinions. To say they are overrated is not a bashing,it is an honest appraisal. It's bashing if I don't like them as much as you??


i don't think that's it at all. it's not a question of whether you like them or not, actually. the beatles are widely regarding as the most talented/influential/innovative/prolific (you can probably add a few more adjectives) band of the sixties. hence, the are rated #1. that has nothing to do with whether some fan likes or dislikes them. again, i have yet to see anyone who apparently disputes this list a single band that was more talented or influential or innovative or prolific, etc, during this period. rate someone higher if you think you they are over-rated....

I agree that they are #1 also, especially in artistic growth and endeavors, the quality of their songwriting, pretty much everything, except maybe as a live band. Since they quit playing live so prematurely, I think that's the only argument that could be made as to them having a weakness, or at least not fully proving themselves.

Having said that, I also see MKjan's view of things, and I think he's also right, for himself and many others. When most people like a particular group or artist, they think they can do no wrong, and can't understand how anyone can feel differently. If you don't care for a particular artist or group, it's hard to see them as being #1 regardless of their accomplishments. Who is best, or #1, or whatever, will always be a subjective thing that depends on a person's taste, and I don't think you can say how they feel is really wrong. I have a friend who feels the Beatles are overrated, and while I do not agree with him, I also cannot say he's entirely wrong. Philosophically, I just can't do it, regardless of how I feel. I can see why someone might not like them, if only because they were/are so huge, and are talked about and rated so highly and endlessly. And being a cynic, I feel some do drink the kool-aid a bit too much. There are a number of their songs I'm not exactly crazy about, so I can easily see someone else hating them all. It's the same thing with Elvis. A lot of people just see him as an overrated, fat slob. Which he may very well have been in his later years. But what he did in the 50's, along with the Beatles in the 60's, changed the world from how we knew it, to how we now know it. Everything went from black and white to technicolor, and everyone and everything, whether or not we realize it or see it, changed, from the way they were, to the way they are. I don't think most people realize how much, by having such a profound effect on people's attitudes and feelings, good or bad, those 5 guys changed the world. I honestly don't think people would be the way they are, and the world would be the way it is, if Elvis and the Beatles had never existed. And it may not all be good, I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it's bad either, just that it changed, it happened. And if someone doesn't get that, or doesn't like it, or is just plain tired of hearing about it, then in their view the Beatles are overrated.

Pretty good post. I'm not sure why some nelly queens hate reading different opinions about the beatles. Sure, I liked them better than The Stones - when I was 5!

...a year ago.

BTW I was at Best Buy yesterday & I did actually mull the idea of purchasing Past Masters but I bought a Van Morrison GH collection instead. Honestly, if I didn't have a gift card & I was using up, I wouldn't have even bought that!

Quote
glencar
BTW I was at Best Buy yesterday & I did actually mull the idea of purchasing Past Masters but I bought a Van Morrison GH collection instead. Honestly, if I didn't have a gift card & I was using up, I wouldn't have even bought that!

Aren't grandparents great!!!

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
glencar

Quote
boogie69

Quote

Re: OT: 09-09-09; The Beatles Are Coming!
Posted by: T&A ()
Date: September 10, 2009 00:57

Quote
MKjan
It seems the Beatle fanatics can't accept that other people have other opinions. To say they are overrated is not a bashing,it is an honest appraisal. It's bashing if I don't like them as much as you??


i don't think that's it at all. it's not a question of whether you like them or not, actually. the beatles are widely regarding as the most talented/influential/innovative/prolific (you can probably add a few more adjectives) band of the sixties. hence, the are rated #1. that has nothing to do with whether some fan likes or dislikes them. again, i have yet to see anyone who apparently disputes this list a single band that was more talented or influential or innovative or prolific, etc, during this period. rate someone higher if you think you they are over-rated....

I agree that they are #1 also, especially in artistic growth and endeavors, the quality of their songwriting, pretty much everything, except maybe as a live band. Since they quit playing live so prematurely, I think that's the only argument that could be made as to them having a weakness, or at least not fully proving themselves.

Having said that, I also see MKjan's view of things, and I think he's also right, for himself and many others. When most people like a particular group or artist, they think they can do no wrong, and can't understand how anyone can feel differently. If you don't care for a particular artist or group, it's hard to see them as being #1 regardless of their accomplishments. Who is best, or #1, or whatever, will always be a subjective thing that depends on a person's taste, and I don't think you can say how they feel is really wrong. I have a friend who feels the Beatles are overrated, and while I do not agree with him, I also cannot say he's entirely wrong. Philosophically, I just can't do it, regardless of how I feel. I can see why someone might not like them, if only because they were/are so huge, and are talked about and rated so highly and endlessly. And being a cynic, I feel some do drink the kool-aid a bit too much. There are a number of their songs I'm not exactly crazy about, so I can easily see someone else hating them all. It's the same thing with Elvis. A lot of people just see him as an overrated, fat slob. Which he may very well have been in his later years. But what he did in the 50's, along with the Beatles in the 60's, changed the world from how we knew it, to how we now know it. Everything went from black and white to technicolor, and everyone and everything, whether or not we realize it or see it, changed, from the way they were, to the way they are. I don't think most people realize how much, by having such a profound effect on people's attitudes and feelings, good or bad, those 5 guys changed the world. I honestly don't think people would be the way they are, and the world would be the way it is, if Elvis and the Beatles had never existed. And it may not all be good, I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it's bad either, just that it changed, it happened. And if someone doesn't get that, or doesn't like it, or is just plain tired of hearing about it, then in their view the Beatles are overrated.

Pretty good post. I'm not sure why some nelly queens hate reading different opinions about the beatles. Sure, I liked them better than The Stones - when I was 5!

...a year ago.

Even at age 5 I had more maturity than you. Perhaps you need to listen to Sgt. Pepper to inspire another witty comeback, brainiac?

...maturity is so over-rated.

just like beatles!

Quote
glencar
just like beatles!

Naw, you just don't get it. It's not fun getting older in most respects but they can NEVER take away that I grew up with The Beatles and the Stones. When you're one of the one's that saw them in your living room (via Ed Sulivan) in February, 1964 and then hear Satisfaction for the first time on the radio in 65 that stuff can't be taken away.... and for those kids that think The Stones tour in 81 was there first time around what can I say, you missed it man, the Stones peaked in 1969 than stayed way up there during all the 70's tours. The Beatles were 4 of the pilots that controlled art, style, and attitude in the 60's. If you missed all of that and only look back on it through Greatest Hits CD's, the way I do with Elvis Pre Army or the era of Sinatra than you missed the boat and can only IMAGINE what it was like. The whole thing was like the Stones 69 US tour, a month of magic that came and went. If you weren't there you missed it, no way to catch it now, to bring it back.... I can only say sorry.... THEY WERE magical moments in history, flashing by like a once in a lifetime comet - it's all gone now but it was beautiful and magical during those few short years (if you were there you know what I mean).....

Help! I'm a Beatles hater

[news.bbc.co.uk]

By Stephen Robb
BBC News




The re-release of the entire Beatles album catalogue has unleashed another wave of veneration for the 60s pop band. But could there really be anyone who actively dislikes their music?

James Bond apparently hated The Beatles.

In Goldfinger, he advises Jill Masterson that "drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees" is "as bad as listening to The Beatles without earmuffs".

The Bond girl's own verdict on the Fab Four, unfortunately, is not recorded before her untimely demise on the inside of a coating of gold paint.

That was 1964, when 007 may have felt threatened by that year's global success of The Beatles' first movie, A Hard Day's Night.


Beatles for Sale - the new Rock Band game could net $40m for the Beatles
Two years into their recording career and with Beatlemania raging on both sides of the Atlantic though, Bond was going characteristically violently against the prevailing mood. Forty-five years later, four decades after the Fab Four parted ways, his remark would be considered even more extraordinary, almost sacrilegious.

The devotional, feverish excitement over this week's release of re-mastered versions of all 13 UK Beatles albums highlights the band's unique, enduring appeal.

The first 50,000 box sets of mono versions of the discs, priced at £170, have already sold out, according to record company EMI.

Saturation media coverage to mark the release of the albums, of which an estimated billion copies already reside in record collections worldwide, has been led by the BBC's "Beatles Week" series of programmes.

The Beatles seem to occupy a uniquely unassailable position in popular culture - everybody loves them. Don't they?

What year did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs? 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967...

I Hate the Beatles website
Not Robert Elms. The author and broadcaster is one of a tiny minority who seem willing to stick their heads above the parapet and rubbish this most sacred of British institutions.

"They did a few things that lots of people liked," says Elms. "Everybody can like them, from grandma singing along to When I'm Sixty-Four to the little girl singing Yellow Submarine."

But he adds: "I just think they are either childlike and simple or rather leaden and pompous - one or the other all the time."

Theirs is a sanitised and anaemic version of American blues-inspired rock and roll, he complains.

"For me they turned something that was once sexy and raw and had roots, into something that was totally soulless, playground sing-along music."

It's the sort of talk which risks a midnight knock on the door from Britain's popular culture thought police.


Guaranteed a place on every Beatles fan's dartboard - Robert Elms
While he concedes that they did write some good songs, he can list rather more of what he calls The Beatles' "crimes against music" - Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Octopus's Garden.

Elms will not play The Beatles on his BBC London daily radio show, and says feedback from listeners suggests "there is a perhaps relatively small but vociferous group of people" who share his opinion of the band.

In an article for the Glasgow paper The Herald some years ago, author and music critic David Keenan set out to find musicians who shared his dislike of The Beatles - and could find no-one.

"It is a canon that you cannot question," he says. "Most people actually think you are just doing it for effect, putting on a front, playing the devil's advocate."

That this is the usual response is confirmed by Elms, who insists: "I do mean it; it's not made up."

Yoko lovers

However, occasionally mocking the supposed greatest band of all time can be "quite fun" as well, he admits.


David Keenan's favourite Beatle? Yoko Ono
"I think everything that is over-inflated deserves a pin-prick in it occasionally," Elms says. "How can they be above criticism? That's ludicrous."

Nor are the band any more sacred to Keenan, who says: "There is something so incredibly prissy about their music."

He adds: "I am in such a minority that my favourite Beatle is Yoko Ono; without Yoko's influence I don't think there would be any Beatles music I could listen to."

The avant-garde artist's influence in the latter stages of The Beatles' career inspired John Lennon, and in turn Paul McCartney, to new extremes of sonic adventure, he argues.

However, it is the slick pop of the band's early years that is to blame for the tameness of most UK guitar music today, he insists.

"The Beatles are the absolute curse of modern indie music," Keenan says.

"Anyone who says they are influenced by The Beatles, alarm bells start to go off; it means they are going to be completely ordinary. It's about writing this perfectly-crafted music, the classic song - in inverted commas. It's not about being adventurous."

Branded a moron

Keenan's search for likeminded dissenters finally found success, inevitably, on the internet.


'Phoney Beatlemania' - Comrade Strummer before entering re-education
The scattered online outposts of anti-Beatles sentiment include Suckmybeatles.com - tag-line: "Let it be ...over."

Sean, who runs the site, says fans' reactions range from "disbelief" to considering him "downright offensive".

"At first I'm accused of not knowing their material - usually while it's being played behind them in Muzak form," he says. "After I've proved that I'm familiar with the music, and that I can spout just as much useless trivia, I'm branded a moron who doesn't understand music and a dangerous lunatic who should be avoided."

"Q: What year did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs? A: 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966..." is typical of the witty tone of the I Hate The Beatles! Why don't you? web page.

But the hate mail these sites apparently attract suggests many Beatles fans fail to see the funny side of having their great heroes abused.

A rare fan

Suckmybeatles.com's Sean, of Toronto, Canada, even refuses to give his full name, owing, he says, to past death threats.

"I've been told the Beatles are all about 'peace' and 'love' (gimme a break, they're just a rock and roll band) and in the next sentence [they] threaten me with death," explains the home page of the site, Help! The Beatles Suck.


Cuddly mop tops with acute pop sensibilities... or insipid pop imperialists
Elms confirms: "On the internet, I can find some people who will hate me to the ends of the Earth because I don't like their favourite pop group."

Daily Telegraph music critic Neil McCormick, who calls The Beatles' work "the most extraordinary musical journey in pop history", is among those fans sceptical of an opposing view.

"It is a position people adopt because of the universal high regard for them," he says. "Popular music was in its infancy - with the talents compressed into that group they pulled it in every possible direction."

The resulting musical diversity to be found between 1962's Love Me Do and 1970's The Long and Winding Road includes something for everybody to enjoy, McCormick argues.

"There is a lifetime of music in The Beatles."

He adds: "If you like popular music of the modern day, to say that you don't like The Beatles is kind of absurd.

"It is the fount of popular culture."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-10 16:35 by Adrian-L.

One of our local FM stations here in St. Louis played selections from the White Album during afternoon drivetime. Even over my standard FM car stereo with the roof off, the sound improvement was stunning. So clear and the seperation of instruments was fantastic, I heard guitar and vocal parts I've never heard before.

Quote
HelterSkelter

Quote
glencar
just like beatles!

Naw, you just don't get it. It's not fun getting older in most respects but they can NEVER take away that I grew up with The Beatles and the Stones. When you're one of the one's that saw them in your living room (via Ed Sulivan) in February, 1964 and then hear Satisfaction for the first time on the radio in 65 that stuff can't be taken away.... and for those kids that think The Stones tour in 81 was there first time around what can I say, you missed it man, the Stones peaked in 1969 than stayed way up there during all the 70's tours. The Beatles were 4 of the pilots that controlled art, style, and attitude in the 60's. If you missed all of that and only look back on it through Greatest Hits CD's, the way I do with Elvis Pre Army or the era of Sinatra than you missed the boat and can only IMAGINE what it was like. The whole thing was like the Stones 69 US tour, a month of magic that came and went. If you weren't there you missed it, no way to catch it now, to bring it back.... I can only say sorry.... THEY WERE magical moments in history, flashing by like a once in a lifetime comet - it's all gone now but it was beautiful and magical during those few short years (if you were there you know what I mean).....

...sheer bloody poetry, Mr Skelter!

Quote
Big Al
The stereo version of Thank You Girl is fantastic. Has anyone noticed the extra harmonica fills by John? Paul's back-up vocals are more prominent and the echo effect at the end is more pronounced - wonderful stuff!

I'm really wanting to hear Please Please Me next, since that was also recorded on two-track in early '63. Maybe next week. I'll be able to prolong my gratification until December if I just start at the beginning and buy one CD every week!

Helter! Great post man, really beautiful. I always like reading your stuff, your pen has a true light to it.

I am flying to Singapore to get some skin hacked off from too much sun, and am picking up the Mono Box from HMV. I called them and said put it aside I am flying in from Jakarta. I want to listen to them in order and just soak it all in.

Great fun review here:
[www.avclub.com]

Quote
Barn Owl

Quote
HelterSkelter

Quote
glencar
just like beatles!

Naw, you just don't get it. It's not fun getting older in most respects but they can NEVER take away that I grew up with The Beatles and the Stones. When you're one of the one's that saw them in your living room (via Ed Sulivan) in February, 1964 and then hear Satisfaction for the first time on the radio in 65 that stuff can't be taken away.... and for those kids that think The Stones tour in 81 was there first time around what can I say, you missed it man, the Stones peaked in 1969 than stayed way up there during all the 70's tours. The Beatles were 4 of the pilots that controlled art, style, and attitude in the 60's. If you missed all of that and only look back on it through Greatest Hits CD's, the way I do with Elvis Pre Army or the era of Sinatra than you missed the boat and can only IMAGINE what it was like. The whole thing was like the Stones 69 US tour, a month of magic that came and went. If you weren't there you missed it, no way to catch it now, to bring it back.... I can only say sorry.... THEY WERE magical moments in history, flashing by like a once in a lifetime comet - it's all gone now but it was beautiful and magical during those few short years (if you were there you know what I mean).....

...sheer bloody poetry, Mr Skelter!

Go Helter Skelter.....great post.

The act you've known for all these years.......

Website Beatles.com was recently updated with many rare pics that I've never seen before... like this one of John Lennon and a Moog synthesizer.

Mike Vickers (formerly of Manfred Mann) is in this photograph - he was employed to program the Moog during the recording of the album "Abbey Road." Photographed on the same day as the "Abbey Road" album cover photograph. (Photographer not listed.)

I heard they're number 1 in England. That's fantastic.

JumpingKentFlash

what Helter Skelter wrote isn't exactly "sheer bloody poetry". that's a bit overrated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-10 19:10 by @#$%&.

...overrated is such an overrated word.

I thought what Kick Jaggards said about Manson was pretty underrated.