Why the Beatles? (1 Viewer)

The 2-CD set of the Sgt. Pepper remix is already on Spotify (free version). Some of the outtakes/alternate takes are interesting, I think. And on The Beatles Facebook page there's a 24 min. video interview with Giles Martin about the remix which is not too bad (the interview, not the remix).
Mixed opinions but plenty of complaining over on the Steve Hoffmann forums about the remix. If you like reading words or phrases such as "brickwalled" or "loudness wars" by all means, head on over. I like the outtakes very much but the new remix didn't strike me (I only listened to a portion). It is on the loud side to my ears, but not terrible.
If disc 4 is the same mono versions that we've had for years now, it seems like the cost of disc 2 and 3 is $150, which is a bit hard to swallow for me. I don't know if I can bring myself to put $150 into the remaining Beatles+Yoko's pocket for this. I'll wait a few months (or years) and buy a used copy for $30 somewhere and throw discs 1, 5 and 6 into the recycling bin where they belong.

I can geek out on the studio outtakes with the best of them. I bought that ridiculous 76 disc "Get Back Sessions" monster after all. But the rest of this release is bullshit. I mean, I guess I'm glad people are enjoying the LOUD modern remix and "high res" 5.1 surround mix, and the stickers and ringtones and Beatles energy drinks or whatever else is in that big package.

But it's all a bit like colorizing The Grapes of Wrath, isn't it. Like painting big hoop earrings and a tattoo on the Mona Lisa. "This is what it would sound like if it was recorded today." Oh, okay, well, great. Except it was recorded 50 fucking years ago, so get over it. It sounded like it sounded. How about appreciating that?

Ziggy Marley is releasing a 40th anniversary version of Bob's Exodus with the same remix bullshit. The tracks that I've heard aren't horrible. Ziggy seems to have used a light touch and brought the vocals more to the front. But the record was already finished. 40 years ago. The way the people who made it wanted it to be. Why do we keep pissing on their graves?

Rhetorical question. We all know the answer. Old people like "classic rock" like The Beatles, and they listened to Bob Marley when they were in college, and old people have all the money.
It is too expensive and discs 2 and 3 are what I'm most interested in (others are calling them a complete waste of time and garbage, but such is the mentality of many). At least I got it for $125 at Newbury Comics (they had the audacity to set the list price at $160 and told me I was saving $35 when I wasn't really necessarily saving anything if I had bought it at Amazon). I like that they are a music store that operates like they used to, more or less, so I patronize them. Literally and figuratively.
Well, John gave her that AMEX card, so don't blame her. You never hear anyone complaining about about Olivia Harrison spending all of George's Beatles money, and she came around long after Yoko did.

No one understands Yoko's stupid caterwauling. Not even Yoko. It's pointless, and the world sure doesn't need it. But it has nothing to do with whether she contributed to one of Lennon's songs. He said that she did, so she's entitled to the credit.

Everything I read about how she and John got together, and how she asserted control over him once they did, makes my skin crawl. But that was John's choice to make. He was a big boy - a big, rich, famous boy - so he could have done whatever he wanted to do, and he chose to be JohnandYoko (and told people to write it that way).

Much of Yoko's art and all of her music is dumb, but so what? Most art and music is dumb. But I have to say that any hatred for Yoko that stems from The Beatles or John Lennon is also dumb. She attached herself to Lennon, and we may not like that, but he seemed to like it, so what can you say about that? They both got what they wanted and needed, which is pretty much the definition of a perfect relationship between two people.
yes! well put and the only thing that really matters - that she was a big deal to him.

...but it's still fun to make fun of her...:DD
Meanwhile, the 50th Anniversary Sgt. Pepper's box continues to deliver the goods. When it was announced, I convinced myself that I didn't need it and didn't even really want it. Yet the day after it came out, some compelling force led me to my car and the closest Newbury Comics. Always follow those compelling forces.
last sunday sir Paul McCartney played a gig around here. three hours of Beatles and Wings. amazing show, he also keeps delivering the goods. and it's funny how the audience reacts when he talks about Linda, with such enthusiasm, and how they seem to be bored when he talks about Nancy.


Thanks for posting that d gray. I know that McCartney was no Lennon and if you asked me what my 20 favorite Beatles tracks were, likely 17-18 would be Lennon compositions and perhaps 2-3 would be McCartney compositions, but he was a very innovative bass player in the mid-'60s and he's a great showman to be sure (saw the Fenway Park show in Summer 2009).
Has anyone read vol. 1 of the Lewisohn study of the Beatles? I've heard it is good. If it is worth checking out, would you recommend the long or even longer version?
The long version is 944 pages and I've read it twice. Which is to say I would consider it worth checking out.

I would read the longer version, but it's not licensed for Kindle in America, and I don't want to lug those two volumes of printed book around with me for the rest of my life (and I've read that they were poorly made and fall apart anyway).

I'm at a bit of a loss as to how there could even be an additional 784 pages of material. The short long version goes in to so much detail...

It's kind of a masterpiece, and I hope I live long enough to see volume 2 (never mind volume 3 which will probably be published some time in 2050).
I don't know if I'd call 12 hours in the studio a "marathon," exactly, but that's a pretty good article.

12 hours to record an entire album, though - well, those were the days.

In the 80s and early 90s they'd spend 12 hours getting the kick drum sound before anyone else played a note (I exaggerate, but only slightly). I think I was in a 14 or 16 hour session where we only recorded the drums and bass for two songs, so what they were up to in the 50s and early 60s was some crazy shit, daddy-o.

Now every sound is a plug-in, and they make entire albums without micing anything but the vocals...

Which makes everything faster, so I guess we're going backward, as far as spending time making records.
they were so well oiled at that point you just marvel at how tight they were.

on the bbc clip you can really hear the difference in john lennon's voice compared to the album version singing with his cold.

and that pic is just way too cool.
on the bbc clip you can really hear the difference in john lennon's voice compared to the album version singing with his cold.
On Twist and Shout? The album version is insane, pure punk rock. ;) When I was a kid I'd play that song over and over and think, where can I find more of this? Turns out not lot of singers are willing to go there. Understandably, I suppose.

Speaking of screaming and spending 12 hours micing the kick drum, Kurt Cobain recorded all the vocals for Nevermind in one day, which might not sound like a big deal until you listen to them. He must have had a lot of herbal tea on hand. Or something.
On Twist and Shout? The album version is insane, pure punk rock..

oh i love his rough vocals on that version too. i didn't mean the bbc one was better, just way smoother.

he was such an amazing singer back then, he lost that range and tone i guess before the beatles were even done. mccartney could still rip it in the 70's but john's really was punk rock, like you said.

Users who are viewing this thread