• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Music
Beatles
<<
<
2 of 6
>>
>
vesey
08-09-2009
yes here is a record that says McCartney/Lennon http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...=STRK:MEWAX:IT

anyone wanna buy it? lol
stevieboy378
08-09-2009
Originally Posted by vesey:
“anyone wanna buy it? lol”

Already got one
Miriams Sister
09-09-2009
I'm lucky enough to have been 17 in 1963 and experienced it all first-hand.

And by the way Paul was the most popular Beatle because of his looks then.
brunolover
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by xmsradx:
“
I don't mean to rant! Just John gets so much credit, and Paul doesn't deserve to be overshadowed like that when he put SO much into the Beatles from beginning to end.”

Completely agree. They were all great and all had their part to play but I do feel Paul is dismissed alot from people who don't know any better and somehow just feel it is the right or cool thing to say. They either do not know or forget how much of their material he really wrote.

From Sgt. Pepper onwards he was incredibly prolific and definitely became the main driving force within the band. Love him!
stevieboy378
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by Miriams Sister:
“And by the way Paul was the most popular Beatle because of his looks then.”

After Pete, of course . . . .
Andy2
09-09-2009
I grew up with Beatles music. I didn't like their early stuff and I still don't. It was rough and crude. They started getting good in about 65/66 with Rubber Soul and Revolver in my opinion.
But let's face it, it was a very lucky coming together of talent. Lennon & McCartney's song writing, George Martin's experience in production and a team of engineers who were prepared to go an extra mile.
Amazing when you think most of it was done on four-track with razor-blade editing and bouncing tapes down.
I've just treated meself to the remastered White Album. Superb! Never had this on CD before, just my 1968 LP version.
Angel_1612
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“ the fact is that no other musical act has such a timeless portfolio that the beatles have, crammed with class music.... like it or not.”

Well there is Queen for a kick off. Not to mention people like Dusty Springfield produced some much more timeless stuff than 'We All Live in a Yellow Submarine'.

My Mum was a massive fan of the Beatles when they were out and even she will admit that a lot of the back catalogue is now dated, although, admittedly, there are still some songs with relevance.

The reason they are always still used in X Factor is because of their 'iconic' status, not because all their material was timeless.
Paul Grayson
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by vesey:
“yes here is a record that says McCartney/Lennon http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...=STRK:MEWAX:IT

anyone wanna buy it? lol”

It's one of the first pressings with the original label design, which was changed not long after the album was issued to the regular black and yellow Parlophone label. Even though it's in near mint condition, it's probably overpriced as it's the more common mono version.

A stereo copy with the same label design is worth considerably more - not only were stereo copies less popular back then, but the stereo edition went into production later, and hence even fewer have the old label design. These copies are worth a considerable sum.

To make things more complicated, the publishing company associated with the self-penned songs changed whilst the gold & black label was in production, and hence copies can be found with both credits.
stevieboy378
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by Angel_1612:
“Not to mention people like Dusty Springfield produced some much more timeless stuff than 'We All Live in a Yellow submarine"”

Its not really fair to use one of the Beatles' weakest songs as a comparison to other artists work - try comparing Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday or Strawberry Fields Forever with the work of Dusty Springfield, and things look a little different . . .
Angel_1612
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by stevieboy378:
“Its not really fair to use one of the Beatles' weakest songs as a comparison to other artists work - try comparing Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday or Strawberry Fields Forever with the work of Dusty Springfield, and things look a little different . . . ”

Okay done. Things look no different to me.
mushymanrob
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by Angel_1612:
“Well there is Queen for a kick off. Not to mention people like Dusty Springfield produced some much more timeless stuff than 'We All Live in a Yellow Submarine'.

My Mum was a massive fan of the Beatles when they were out and even she will admit that a lot of the back catalogue is now dated, although, admittedly, there are still some songs with relevance.

The reason they are always still used in X Factor is because of their 'iconic' status, not because all their material was timeless.”

queen?... not in the same league by a country mile.

dusty?.... im a HUGE fan of dusty, but she didnt write 1 note, she just had an amazing voice, everything else was other peoples work.

no no no no..... the reason their material is still being used is because they are technically brilliant timeless songs and nothing to do with any 'iconic' status... hence why they have won many awards for their material. there are plenty of 'icons' whos work isnt held in such esteem.

like it or not.... the beatles contribution to music is second to none.
meglosmurmurs
09-09-2009
If a band deserves the title of 'The Best Band Ever' then it has to be the Beatles.

They were the first band to do so many things, even stuff like the first music video and lyrics being printed on an album sleeve.

The only thing that lets The Beatles down for me is that I just can't stand Paul McCartney. I find him very pompous, and also desperate to please people and be seen as the cool one. If he had just relaxed and been himself them I would like him more, but even with his songs I find he hides his true feelings as he doesn't seem to think of them as very professional. He does what he thinks others would want him to do, whereas the other Beatles were more my cup of tea - rather stubborn, self-indulgent and don't really go with what people want them to do.

I like John, George and Ringo because I feel like I know where they are coming from, even if their actions annoy me sometimes. But I really don't know who Paul is.
aaronon
09-09-2009
I've spent all morning importing them into iTunes. . . .the ANNOYING thing?

iTunes takes albums of the same year, and lumps them in alphabetical order so I've had to change the years of the albums to make them appear in order on my iPhone.

Worth it though.

Amazing.
stevieboy378
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by aaronon:
“Worth it though.

Amazing. ”

Quite - I love the way the remastering process has made the imperfections and mistakes in the tracks more audible - like when the lead vocal in "Eleanor Rigby" comes in - it starts in the left channel, and quickly jumps to the right channel, revealing that the first line is a comp of 2 takes, and the editing in those days wasn't as seamless as it is now . . .
stevieboy378
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“queen?... not in the same league by a country mile.”

Queen were a great band, but whenever anyone starts telling me they were perfect, I just utter the words "Hot Space" . . .
speigel
09-09-2009
can't beleive people still go on about them. they weren't that great. and those whinny voices arrgggh shut up. couldn't care less if they were the first to do this and that, it's boring.
berncol
09-09-2009
Has anyone done a direct comparison between the original CDs and the new remastered ones?
I bought all the albums on CD the first time round but wonder if it's worth collecting the new ones...
aaronon
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by stevieboy378:
“Quite - I love the way the remastering process has made the imperfections and mistakes in the tracks more audible - like when the lead vocal in "Eleanor Rigby" comes in - it starts in the left channel, and quickly jumps to the right channel, revealing that the first line is a comp of 2 takes, and the editing in those days wasn't as seamless as it is now . . .”

Yeah.

I originally thought they'd take that and make all the panning perfect and precise out but as you say they haven't.
Andy2
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by meglosmurmurs:
“The only thing that lets The Beatles down for me is that I just can't stand Paul McCartney. I find him very pompous, and also desperate to please people and be seen as the cool one. .”

Me too. He always tries (and you can see it plainly) to be 'matey' and ordinary, when you know he's putting it on. A brilliant song-writing talent and a great musician, but he just doesn't know how to let his front down.

Mind you, John was an insincere pseudo. He was always jumping on 'peace' bandwagons and trying to be arty, mainly to show Yoko how cool he was.

George seemed very open and I believe his Eastern stuff was quite genuine.

As for Ringo, what a drummer - waaaay underestimated and always written off by those who like to think they're being clever. Who the hell else could keep that 'Tomorrow never knows' rhythm going without falling over?
STEVE 03
09-09-2009
I love The Beatles and I am 30. I grew up having their music forced down my neck by my dad who idolised them when he was a teenager and throughout his life. Over time I've really got into their music, even their older material.

My favourite Beatles album is probably 'Help!'. This is a great album full of amazing songs, but I loved all their songs though, even during their 'wierd' era of the late 60's.
Capablanca
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by Andy2:
“I grew up with Beatles music. I didn't like their early stuff and I still don't. It was rough and crude. They started getting good in about 65/66 with Rubber Soul and Revolver in my opinion.
But let's face it, it was a very lucky coming together of talent. Lennon & McCartney's song writing, George Martin's experience in production and a team of engineers who were prepared to go an extra mile.
Amazing when you think most of it was done on four-track with razor-blade editing and bouncing tapes down.
I've just treated meself to the remastered White Album. Superb! Never had this on CD before, just my 1968 LP version.”

That's the one I treated myself to as well.

Sounds great...'Julia' is a beautiful song. Enjoy!
aaronon
09-09-2009
I love Back In The USSR off the White Album.

My favourite track off that album is Sexy Sadie though.

To STEVE 03. . .check out the "John Lennon Help Demo" on YouTube. . . it's what Help! was meant to sound like (a cry for help from John) before he was told it was too depressive and needed to be sped up and commercialised and thus butchered by George Martin (and Beatles management who needed it to be fast and catchy for the film). It's beautiful.
xmsradx
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by Angel_1612:
“
My Mum was a massive fan of the Beatles when they were out and even she will admit that a lot of the back catalogue is now dated.
The reason they are always still used in X Factor is because of their 'iconic' status, not because all their material was timeless.”

Again, I have to disagree. As a seventeen-year-old fan I think I'm in a position to prove the Beatles ARE timeless. Nobody introduced me to them... nobody forced them down my throat, I found them myself and never looked back. At house parties I go to, people dance and cheer and the mood goes up even higher when the Beatles are put on.

Listen to songs like Eleanor Rigby, I Am the Walrus, Blackbird, My Guitar Gently Weeps, Sgt Pepper Reprise, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Strawberry Fields. Those are better than ANYTHING that gets on the radio today.

And not only are they timeless but they also at the same time define the sixties. I feel I almost completely understand what happened in that generation, just from hearing that music every day.


Originally Posted by meglosmurmurs:
“
The only thing that lets The Beatles down for me is that I just can't stand Paul McCartney. I find him very pompous, and also desperate to please people and be seen as the cool one. If he had just relaxed and been himself them I would like him more, but even with his songs I find he hides his true feelings as he doesn't seem to think of them as very professional. He does what he thinks others would want him to do, whereas the other Beatles were more my cup of tea - rather stubborn, self-indulgent and don't really go with what people want them to do. ”

And I don't know Paul... but from all the books I read I think that IS Paul: the people pleaser. I don't think it's fake or a mask... he said himself he's being MORE fake when he was NOT making an effort. Plus I've seen interviews where he was just as stubborn and self-indulgent as the others, poking fun at the interviewer.

Hunter Davis said it's a shame some people were suspicious of Paul for being "calculating" when he was genuinley nice. Wheras people warmed more to John because he was "openly mean." . I think it's hard for some people to believe when people are simply nice guys. Particually celebrities. But I think Paul was that.

A lot of his songs WERE stories rather than true feelings, but we shouldn't critise him for it! Eleanor Rigby was lyrical genius. And he did write songs like I'm Looking Through You and You Won't See Me which were about his life.
stevieboy378
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by aaronon:
“I love Back In The USSR off the White Album.”

One of the bands I play in is a 60's / 70's "party band", and Back in the U.S.S.R. is one of those songs that everyone gets up and boogies to . . . its great fun to play too . . . .
Andy2
09-09-2009
Berncol - I haven't done a comparison as I don't have an old CD of the White Album to compare it with, but I think replacing all your CD copies would be a waste. Maybe noise levels are a bit lower and the odd click has been erased, but essentially they are just the same. There is a documentary Quicktime file at the end of each CD, but it's nothing much.
The only Beatles CD I've got is Abbey Road, so I'll be collecting Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Let it Be in remastered versions.
<<
<
2 of 6
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map