This new CD / 5.1 DVD Audio CD my Fiancee bought on Boxing Day is amazing. It has all the Beatles hits, but the producer went through all the old material to make an entirely new mix (for instance, compare the original "Get Back" to the new "Get Back", IMO, the new "Get Back" is a much more interesting mix).

In fact, this album was actually intended originally for a Cirque De Soleil ala Beatles theme.

The reason I love the album so much:

1) it's the Beatles, the greatest rock band ever (well, the Stones also claim this )
2) the mixes are more upbeat
3) each song blends into the next, so the album is one continuous song (like Dark Side of the Moon.)

I'd love to see such a compilation with other of my favourite bands ( Stones, OLP, Weezer, etc).

Anyone know of other bands with such mixes?

-Matt Lawson

I should really spell Beatles right in the topic..

I think you can edit it.

Yeah it is a great album, there are a couple of threads already here about 'LOVE', but they must be a few pages back.

However, some of your comments are interesting. It certainly does not contain all the beatles hits. In fact, one of the ideas they had (george martin and his son giles are the procucers) was that they could only use one 'style' of song once. This is hard to explain, but it is basically why there is 'i wanna hold your hand', but no 'she loves you', 'from me to you'. And you have 'drive my car' but no 'day tripper'. Hey jude but no let it be. Make sense?

It's hard to say whether the songs are more upbeat. Yes, some of them are blended together (drive my car/what you're doing/the word), the common term for this is a 'mash-up'. Some are seagued together,(get back/glass onion) while others have small bits from other songs inserted (lady madonna for example, during the new intro, has the drum fills from the beggining of 'why dont we do it in the road'), but i dont think it necessarily makes it more upbeat.

It is a good party album though, as you can leave it running for quite a while without breaks. Perfect example of this is revolution/back in the u.s.s.r .

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

MedievalMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) it's the Beatles, the greatest rock band ever
> (well, the Stones also claim this )
> 2) the mixes are more upbeat
> 3) each song blends into the next, so the album is
> one continuous song (like Dark Side of the Moon.)


1.- The Beatles is the greatest POP group of all time, no qustion. Just as the Stones are for rock 'n roll.

2.- The remasters are coming out this year. Will be great.

3.- Love is great for sure. There's a bootleg, where some fans have made their own "Love" style album, called "Hate".

JumpingKentFlash

You're right, it's not all the Beatles hits, but ones that fit the cd better

and yeah, the Beatles are considered the best "Pop rock" band, wheras the Stones would be the best "Rock 'n Roll" band. My bad

I'm interested in this "hate" compilation.. where can I find it? Is there any like it (fan made) for the Stones?

Thanks.

Matt

There's a bootleg,
> where some fans have made their own "Love" style
> album, called "Hate".

Yeah i would be interested to hear this as well. A basic mash up/ remix / mix is pretty easy to do as long as you have a couple of cd players, a good audio-editing software package, and a good sense of rythmn. Then you can use EQ etc to lose the bass for some parts of songs and mix them into others. Obviously it wouldnt sound as good as 'love' but would still be pretty cool.

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!

[www.thebeatleshate.com]


[www.thebeatleshate.com]

I didn't hear it yet, as a Beatles fan my first thought is don't @#$%& with songs as it was intented.

But I give it a try someday

__________________________

I've always preferred the Stones to the Beatles, but the Beatles really are too good and too important to classify as merely a pop band. They surely were a good one, but let's not deny their ability to rock and or their influence on the development of "art rock."

I heard Lady Madonna on the radio. They stuck on the solo for Hey Bulldog over top of it. Sounded kind of pointless.

I find LOVE to be an INCREDIBLY irritating album. I gave it a full listen at home and will never again play it. Furthermore I believe I'm gonna sell it on ebay or give it away. I don't want it in my collection. Sorry to hate on something alot of people enjoy but I honestly find the entire thing to be a horrible bastardization of perfectly good Beatles music. Maybe its "hip" to combine tracks and have bits and pieces from lots of other songs, but I think the original songs were much better on their own. The tough thing about getting rid of "Love" is that I don't want to give it to anyone who doesn't have a decent Beatles collection already. What a way to dirtyup a n00bs cd collection.

-Drake

sucks - just like the beetles, the first boy band

Drake, I find Love interesting, but you make some good points...

I try to find it on the internet to give it a try but I still can't find it.

As I read Drakes post i think I would have the same feeling looks like me that's "INCREDIBLY irritating" if they combine songs.

Let's assume they combine Midnight Rambler and Love in Vain or something like that, AHHHR

__________________________

I thought I was going to HATE IT alot but I got it for Christmas and found it incredibly moving. I think George Martin is a genius, the way he wove the tracks together, seamlessly, it is not annoying at all to me. It is like a perfect symphony. I wish he'd do this for the Stones. If it were me, I'd have left out a few of the tracks and included songs like " I Will". I have a ton of favorite Beatles songs, " In My Life" is in my top 5, but perhaps the melodies didn't mesh. Regardless, I love this cd and think everyone should listen to it at least once, all the way through, uninterrupted.

I enjoy it. I think its pretty good, but no way is iot going to be a regular fixture in my CD player like the original Beatles albums. Its fun and different, but nothing more and I actualy think thasts what George and Giles Martin intended it to be. It was never meant to replace anything.

I keep you informed about my experience .................

__________________________

Debra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought I was going to HATE IT alot but I got it
> for Christmas and found it incredibly moving. I
> think George Martin is a genius, the way he wove
> the tracks together, seamlessly, it is not
> annoying at all to me. It is like a perfect
> symphony. I wish he'd do this for the Stones. If
> it were me, I'd have left out a few of the tracks
> and included songs like " I Will". I have a ton of
> favorite Beatles songs, " In My Life" is in my top
> 5, but perhaps the melodies didn't mesh.
> Regardless, I love this cd and think everyone
> should listen to it at least once, all the way
> through, uninterrupted.

Absolutely correct, especially the last sentence.

_____________________________________________________

What's your favourite flavour?...........Cherry Red!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-04 03:54 by Mr Jimmy.

And I find it lame if you want some pretty cool versions of Beatlesongs listen to Jay Z s Grey Album.

texas fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've always preferred the Stones to the Beatles,
> but the Beatles really are too good and too
> important to classify as merely a pop band. They
> surely were a good one, but let's not deny their
> ability to rock and or their influence on the
> development of "art rock."


That's true. It's hard to classify what the Beatles made as anything. That's why I call it "Beatles music". However, if it is anything, it's art pop. Art for the latter days and pop for the early days.

BTW: You haven't listened to Love unless you've heard it in the special edition 5.1 surround sound mix. It's longer and better. The surround mix is incredible.

This CD is the work of George and Giles Martin and they have done a great job of it. I don't find the actual music "incredibly irritating" at all, but maybe the actual point of it is a little off. There's no need for it. Of course the original songs are better, but they didn't make this to better The Beatles or anything (Much like they didn't want to better The Beatles when they made the anthologies). The actual music on the CD kicks ass in my opinion, and for me that's all that counts (Same reason applies when I say I like Live Licks, Made In The Shade, Sucking In The Seventies and Rarities 1971 - 2003).

JumpingKentFlash

I'm not able to understand that people who like Lennon and real killer-songs like 'Yer Blues'can appreciate 'Love' and at the same time call themselves serious music lovers. I love all The Beatles real albums, and 'Let it Be' as number one for the challenge to have left Mr perfect out from the Recording-table...

2 1 2 0

Come On Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not able to understand that people who like
> Lennon and real killer-songs like 'Yer Blues'can
> appreciate 'Love' and at the same time call
> themselves serious music lovers. I love all The
> Beatles real albums, and 'Let it Be' as number one
> for the challenge to have left Mr perfect out from
> the Recording-table...


Maybe because all people, including yourself if you think about it, can appreciate a rythm and blues song as well as a pop song. I'm a serious music lover. I can pretty much guarantee you that much. I like "Love" and why shouldn't I? Because your definition of serious music doesn't allow projects like "Love"? You're kidding right? I mean it's not like "Love" is the same as Jive Bunny & The Megamixers right? And by the way: Why don't you count "Let It Be" as an original album? You say: "I love all The Beatles real albums, and 'Let it Be'". "Let It Be" was an original album. It just wasn't released until later because they started a new project instead, which turned out to be "Abbey Road".

JumpingKentFlash

Well, no danger on the roof, I know Let it be is a real Beatle album, but it's the only one not produced by Mr George Martin. Thanks to him The Beatles albums is not only ordinary Pop-albums, it's perfection...I would like him to release all of the outtakes that was made on Abbey Road instead, as it was recorded, that's what intressted me, and 75 % of it's is already aviable on boots...I can stand 'Love' as whistable car-music but what would John have said??..

2 1 2 0

MedievalMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In fact, this album was actually intended
> originally for a Cirque De Soleil ala Beatles
> theme.
>

...and indeed the Cirque show is playing at The Mirage in Las Vegas and I would strongly recommend anyone to go and see it. Due to the high-tech nature of the theatre (the old Seigfried and Roy theatre was rebuilt for LOVE) this show will not tour. The soundtrack CD is great in itself but the show takes the music to another level and brings the songs to life in front of you.

Sitting on a cornflake.....

NICOS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I keep you informed about my experience
> .................


It's even worst then I expected.

Man !!!! there are onle 5 songs that's are listenable

I'm completely frustated

__________________________

crap

It's just not right; it's sort of a novelty item that will tarnish the image;
..now I hear Mac wants to remake some Beatles song (titled "now and then")
with Lennon vocals that George thought was piss poor; It's like Mike Tyson
trying to make a comback..again...and again;

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crap


Mr. Sunshine speaks again

Well, it's a remix album, like Drum And Bass Collection "by" the Art Of Noise, so what did you expect? This is not essential listening at all, but it's probably good enough for Las Vegas. I don't need it.