Topic awaiting preservation: Let it Be - de-specterized =) (Page 1 of 2)

This may not be as exciting for some of you as it is for me, but the Beatles album Let it Be is being re-released by Apple with all of the terrible post-production that Phil Specter added of his own accord for the original release taken out -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/18/beatles.getback.reut/index.html

Yay =)

nice.

Winner!

sweet!

meh...


[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 09-19-2003).]

Great, can't wait to get it

party pooper...

I think my lymph nodes are tingling. Cool.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

who are they.....~ scratches head ~

^ Are you just fresh outta da chute or bin under a rock? =)

yeah, back to the roots

The Beatles, the original Backstreet Boys.



:::11oh1:::

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030919.wspec0919/BNStory/Entertainment/

Phil's been naughty

Jason

krets, you need to be beaten to the verge of death by midgets with dead hamsters for that.....

and yeah, Phil Specter is one of these people who's early success went straight to hid head and stayed there.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 09-19-2003).]

I dunno, if you think about it, the Beatles where in a way the first backstreet boys/bots. But the difference is they where the first before marketeers decided they could do it better and created the shite we hear constantly throughout our days. Do I make sense ? Every new pop band is more garish, childish, fake, disgustingly upbeat etc.. than the last. Saying true crap has spawned from the Beatles doesn't mean the Beatles are.

"The Beatles, the original Backstreet Boys." on its own is a bit harsh IMHO.

I like a lot of Beatles songs(LSD would be me favourite, love that tune.) but some songs piss me off as they sound so like nsync or some bollox, just more raw.

Just my 2c, please dont throw half eaten rotten cookies at me.

amazing how much they bring the beatles to the market

throws half eaten rotten cookies at binary

the beatles made their mark in european clubs and were well known there before they came to the us. here they were welcomed (63? 64?) as a breath of fresh air along with the rolling stones - a few other british bands followed. each of the beatle albums was original and different from the one before. they didn't stay with just one sound like many bands do today.
yes, elvis was still popular, but he had a different audience and johnny cash was doing country music back then too.

Hugh - obviously a lot of parallels can be drawn between the Beatles and the boy band crap of late.

But I feel pretty confident that 40 years from now, none of the boy bands will still be making significant record sales.

The Beatles are.

Why? Substance and talent.
Of course, as with any band, if you take their biggest hits, they're usually not their best songs. That's not the band's fault....that's the fault of a public that swallows up the most easily digestible bits only

VR - the Beatles big foray into the US was in '64. The Stones followed a little later, and then the floodgates opened for British bands.

I think another important factor in the fame of any earlier group is number. You can draw a parallel with modern cars.Why will very few of the cars today ever become classics? Because there are too friggin many of them. Mass production has done away with the classic car.

It's the same with new bands. There are just way too many bands that sound way too much alike. An original band hits the public and suddenly you have 100's of other bands putting out carbon copy records. I would imagine that if the Beattles arrived 40 years later they'd be something like Oasis. A talented group but not near the hit they were in the sixties.

:::11oh1:::

Reall, krets? I've seen "modern" bands that have already hit classic status. How about Sublime, or Red Hot Chili Peppers, or Nirvana, or Depeche Mode, or Ozzy Ozbourne, or Tool, or...

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 09-21-2003).]

Of course.....krets has a point. A very good one at that.

There just aren't the circumstances to recreate what happened in the sixties here today. Period.

And, of course, people like Ozzy and Depeche Moe are *not* current examples...they are peopl who have been around for decades.

It's a complicated bit of popular culture.

But...again...the talent and substance of the Beatles are forces that are difficult to reckon with.

what's music?

Right DL. Hell, even RHCP and Nirvana don't really fit into what I'd consider a "modern band."

:::11oh1:::

dl - thanks for pinning the date down

Ok: So new music could be defined as anything from Limp Bizkit (bleh!) to Brittany Spears (Bleh *2).

Why wouldn't Nirvana, RHCP or Sublime count? Those are all "modern," as in 80's and above bands that have originality and talent.

~~ Stomach ache ~~ Lord's cookies were really rotten.

I luv HipHop so dont look at me with those eyes coz i have never heard of the beatles.


~coming soon~

[This message has been edited by binary (edited 09-22-2003).]

CFB - there's obviously no black and white way to define what bands would count as modern....
but....

Sublime hit the status they did because their front man OD'd

Nirvana was certainly groundbreaking, and were an important force in changing music. However, a shotgun blast to the head helped their status as well.

Ozzy has been around since Black Sabbath put out their first LP in 1969. Somehow that doesn't seem "modern" to me. The Chili Peppers have been around for over 20 years. Depeche mode just about as long...

Tool, well....they're Tool. That's different =) But again, they are never going to have the popular status that a band like the Beatles have. Period.

The music industry - like most other things in modern society - is not what it used to be, and the circustances to achieve such things are no longer here in the same way.

Of course, the important thing is: Let it Be, (-Phil Specter) should be great.

How dare you compare a group of legends such as the Beatles to those five guys? They're in entirely different leagues.

Here's my opinion of the Beatles, to make it clear: They soun good, no doubt about it. I could listen to their albums one after another on repeat, just like I could any of the other bands I've mentioned (RHCP, Tool, Sublime, Depeche Mode etcetera). But, I really don't think that they deserve the praise that they get, although they accomplished two things: They popularized "simple music," and they paved they way for a new generation of music.

By simple music, I mean music that doesn't have many solos and isn't articulate. Does each simgle member of the Beatles have that much talent? No, not really. The guitars don't sound all that good when heard seperatly from a song, and the same goes for the vocals, but when they are all combined into one, it sounds really good. Listen to a song like "The Magic Mystery Tour," which is one of my favorite Beatles songs. I think that the song itself sound good, but pick out the vocals: do they sound that good when picked out of the song?

one of these days when I have more energy, I'll address each of those points CFB.

As it stands tonight, it would take longer than I have the attention span for....

So that explains why each of their solo careers flopped...

And for approximately the same reasons as DL stated, I'm gonna stop right there.

There are some other parallels.

For instance:

McCartney did a duet with Michael Jackson.
Justin Timberlake wants to be Michael Jackson...

:::11oh1:::

wrong boy-band

Does it matter?

Ok, CFB - some comments regarding your points -

quote:

---

But, I really don't think that they deserve the praise that they get, although they accomplished two things: They popularized "simple music," and they paved they way for a new generation of music.

---

Popularized "simple" music?
It's important to look at these things in context. For starters, if you look at the music of that era, the beatles were groundbreaking in many ways.
Contrary to your point, they progressively made music less simple. They popularized music that was more technically sound, with rich melody and fantastic harmony, with full chord progressions and arrangements and interactions that were more complex than what 90% of bands at that time were coming up with.

quote:

---

By simple music, I mean music that doesn't have many solos and isn't articulate.

---

Again, in the context of the time, "solos" weren't what the masturbatorial generations of the 70's and 80's made them....there were in fact many solos in Beatles songs, some of them actually quite good.
Articulate? No idea what you mean by that...

quote:

---

Does each simgle member of the Beatles have that much talent? No, not really. The guitars don't sound all that good when heard seperatly from a song, and the same goes for the vocals, but when they are all combined into one, it sounds really good.

---

Couldn't disagree more. Aside from Ringo, you have an exceptionally talented group of musicians. Are they Joe Satriani, Ingwe Malmsteen, kirk hammet? Of course not. But there is *far* more to being a talented musician than ripping off blazing solos for 20 minutes straight....
The cohesion of their songs, the complements of each musician to the other, the rich melodies, the harmonies, are all important aspects of good music that are largely lost today.
The vocals by and large are fantastic. All 3 (again I'll exclude ringo, for obvious reasons) have a great vocal talent, both as background and lead vocalists.

quote:

---

Listen to a song like "The Magic Mystery Tour," which is one of my favorite Beatles songs. I think that the song itself sound good, but pick out the vocals: do they sound that good when picked out of the song?

---

Well, for starters, that's far from a prime example of their work.
Secondly, if you take apart the song you will indeed find that yes, the vocals (particualry the background vocals) do require a level of talent that many modern "singers" simply do not have. I would challenge you to sing the song your self. I mean really sing it...not kind halfway sing-along the way the average person does when listening to a song. *really* get in there and sing. You'll find it is not anywhere near as easy as you seem to think...
Even with that song, the range and rolling smoothness of the melody is rather nice. It is a very technically sound piece of music that requires a vocalist with ability.

I think yo uvastly underestimate what it takes to write and perform music of this caliber.
If you look at the vast majority of popular music today, you will find that the bands are far less talented in almost every way. Obviously there are exceptions, but by and large this is true.
It is very easy to rely on a few simple tricks, and effects pedals, to make a sound that the average jackass can't distnguish from something more complex. If you take the average modern band, and put their live performance of a song next to their studio recording, you'lloften be hardpressed to associate the two. Why? Pure lack of talent. It's easy enough to take omeone into a studio and make their voice come out ok. Put them on a stage and get the same sound - then you've got some possible talent....

wow... talk about your delayed reactions...


Code - CGI - links - DHTML - Javascript - Perl - programming - Magic - http://www.twistedport.com
ICQ: 67751342

As Promised:

quote:

---

one of these days when I have more energy, I'll address each of those points CFB.

---

so...it took a while to get that much energy

where the hell did this thread come from

quote:

---

But, I really don't think that they deserve the praise that they get,

---

forgive me if this was already pointed out but one thing that some forget is that the Beatles did come to US a couple of years before their big "debut".
They didn't hit it off really. After that , they came back to the US. This time they were marketed heavily. Also at this time, Elvis was in the service, the Big Bopper, Buddy Holly and Richi Valenz were killed in a plane crash and Chuck Berry was spending quite a bit of time in prision. With those big names, especially Elvis, out of the way, the Beatles were set. They had the charm, the funky British accent and they drove the girls nuts.

To back all that up the music that they were producing was exactly what DL stated. So yes, they do deserve the praise they get. They were able to bring to the US something that it needed.

Later,

C:\


~Binary is best~

Your link is not working properly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/13/entertainment/main573125.shtml

My Detention Room