Oh my...there goes $239.99 (Beatles mono box)

willrodgers

Over 100 posts
how many times must i buy, buy again, and re-buy this stuff?
my god.... lp's, cassettes, 8 tracks, cd's, bootlegs, etc.
they sure do know us Beatles completists.
 

Purple Stickpin

Billions served
The thing about the mono mixes is that the lads always looked at them as the definitive version. From what I know (and I've been researching the Beatles for some years), they were rarely, if ever, present for the stereo mix-downs. So the mono versions are indeed treasures, and likely contain some differences that are not what we are used to hearing (unless you collected 45s or bought the $1.98 mono LPs instead of the $2.98 stereo LPs back in '64-'68).

My plan is to buy the mono set and fill in the three non-mono discs (Yellow Sub, Abbey Road and Let it Be - they didn't make mono so much by then) as filler. From what I've read, these re-masters really make a difference. But, time will tell.
 

chronic

old and in the way
Over 1000 posts
This stuff's been available for a long time and in very good quality from Dr. Ebbetts, who recently sent out a mass email that the new EMI discs sound so good that he's retiring. See here.

I agree that it's about time that EMI did something worthwhile with the Beatles catalog, but I won't be buying them. Couldn't afford to if I wanted to anyway.

And when are they going to release Let It Be on DVD fer chrissake?
 

james

Over 1000 posts
for those that haven't seen it, check the rooftop show. it's pretty great.


also, the Beatles Anthology 1-3 cds are excellent as well. haven't seen the dvds yet...
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
Billions served
And when are they going to release Let It Be on DVD fer chrissake?
Can't you just take a few Ambien and get the same effect? ;)

I love the Beatles and documentaries about bands and musicians, especially when they are recording, but man, Let It Be just puts me to sleep.

Would I buy it? Well, yeah. Ha.
 

Purple Stickpin

Billions served
The Anthology dvds are highly recommended, although some of the more recent footage is just OK. But the viddies of Day Tripper, Drive my Car, Paperback Writer and Rain are especially great.
 

chronic

old and in the way
Over 1000 posts
Why would you want to see that train-wreck?
Can't you just take a few Ambien and get the same effect? ;)
Okay, it wasn't a great film, but it does make for a really good document of the last days of a great band who were (musically) still in their prime. And the rooftop concert section is very good.

I watched a bootleg DVD of it made from a Russian laserdisc recently and it's really not that bad of a film. The disc is not the high quality that everyone's used to from DVD these days, but it's still worth watching.
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
Billions served
You're right, it's a definite must-see. And like I said, I'd buy it and watch it. Just something sleepy about the thing overall.
 

Purple Stickpin

Billions served
I agree that the roof-top show is good, but the Twickenham Studio is just so damn depressing, and the guys hate each other, and much of the music isn't quite up to snuff, and oh, overall, it's just so miserable.
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
Billions served
Well, that's one thing the Rolling Stones did better than The Beatles: stay together despite how they felt/feel about each other.

Though had The Beatles stayed together it likely would have been albums of solo tunes anyway, so there may have been no point.
 

roni

Billions served
Who are the Beetles? Are they that band that sounds like Oasis?
true story:
a friend of mine, who teaches guitar, had a teenage-student around '96, who asked him to teach him "Michelle My Belle" by 'OASIS'!!!

... one thing the Rolling Stones did better than The Beatles: stay together despite how they felt/feel about each other.
I remember in an interview, way back in the late 80s/early 90s, Bono was asked, if U2 are a better band than 'The Beatles' (as some claimed those days). He answered something like: "We are not a better band than The Beatles, but we are MORE a band than them." I rather liked that statement.
 

Purple Stickpin

Billions served
I remember in an interview, way back in the late 80s/early 90s, Bono was asked, if U2 are a better band than 'The Beatles' (as some claimed those days). He answered something like: "We are not a better band than The Beatles, but we are MORE a band than them." I rather liked that statement.
And it's fairly true. I don't love U2, but I'll generally listen to their stuff if it's on the radio.

Ironically, the Beatles made a great step toward not being a band by doing exactly what they needed most in August 1966. George had very little to do with the making of Sgt. Pepper, and most all of the tracks have a very singular identity that's very attached to each of the members. The Beatles as we know them were really only a band up until Revolver, which ushered in the creative, individual phase that was part and parcel of why they couldn't continue.
 

Black Swan

Abord the Yorikke!
Over 1000 posts
true story:
a friend of mine, who teaches guitar, had a teenage-student around '96, who asked him to teach him "Michelle My Belle" by 'OASIS'!!!
...teenage-student around '96... more of a geriatric, I'd say. You have to forgive him for his mistake.;)
 

d gray

tried to do his best but could not
Founding member
Over 1000 posts
Though had The Beatles stayed together it likely would have been albums of solo tunes anyway, so there may have been no point.
The Beatles as we know them were really only a band up until Revolver, which ushered in the creative, individual phase that was part and parcel of why they couldn't continue.
true enough, but they were such a great rhythm section et al it's too bad they didn't hang in there.
i would've LOVED to heard their solo stuff done as the fabs.
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
Billions served
It would have been cool to hear that.

But consider the pressure to outdo yourselves with every record. You know as soon as they relaxed and put out an album with more than a few clunkers the rawk press would have been standing by with shovels, ready to bury them. The Stones stayed together, yes, but they are of no consequence any more. They are a nostalgia act. It would have sucked to see the Beatles in such a position, and had they stayed together that would have been inevitable.

You'll notice that many of music's "legends" died young and did not have to endure a 30 or 40 (or longer for some of these guys - hello Robert Zimmerman!) year career with its highs and lows.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Billions served
...but he was executive producer to a great movie, we all admire:
Life of Brian !!!
Yes, and he mortgaged his mansion to raise money for the movie - not that I think a former Beatle would have been homeless for long had the movie flopped...
 

d gray

tried to do his best but could not
Founding member
Over 1000 posts
indeed - they wouldn't have lasted long anyways after lennon shows up
and says "lads, here's one we can work on - it's called 'how do you sleep'" -

flashed by that new stones concert movie and couldn't watch 30 seconds. it was embarrassing seeing keef doing his 'draping arm around mick's neck with butt in mouth' to throw in some backup vocals. i'm sure you've seen 'cocksucker blues' - great live stuff and they sounded so great with mick taylor. the re-vamped altamont dvd is fantastic. lots of extra footage from the concert they played the nite before the speedway show.
 

Black Swan

Abord the Yorikke!
Over 1000 posts
I do have the 2 cd Anthology 1, the original release, I only played it once. It is now in my computer
I would be willing to part with it in exchange for something Bukowski.
If anyone is interested, let me know before thursday.
 

Purple Stickpin

Billions served
Ouch. I suppose the Beatles don't appeal to everyone. If I hadn't bought it already, I'd bite. To me, every single note they played is not just important, but critical to my existence.
 

nervas

more crickets than friends
Over 1000 posts
The Beatles are without a doubt my all time favorite band. What I don't get, and I must admit I can't sing "happy birthday" on key, or so I'm told..... How is this new release different from the Capitol Volumes that came out about 3-4 years ago? Since those presented the mono and stereo mixes of the original albums? Again, I say, I would probably fail trying to even tell the difference between the stereo and mono mixes? I'm looking forward to it, but just thought they had already done this to an extent?

I guess I'm looking more forward to the new Beatles Rockband game that comes out on 9-9.
 
Top