The Beatles--Love

[musicman1999]

Anybody heard this yet?If so what are your thoughts?

[MindGoneHaywire]

I've only heard snippets, although Howard Stern played a couple of songs pretty much in their entirety. I don't know, it seems to me like the Anthology plowed this ground as much as I personally felt like it had to be plowed. Yeah, I know. Two different things. But I sorta feel like there's not much new that can be, or needs to be, done to the existing songs. I've never felt like a remixing was necessary. Anyone disagree with that?

I almost picked the CD up the other day, just because I'm that kind of completist. But although I have to admit that I wasn't enthustiastic about Let It Be...Naked until I actually heard it, this is looking to me like the most pointless Beatles release since the U.S. version of Rarities in 1980.

[nobody]

I haven't heard it and for all I know it could be fantastic.

That said...enough with the f'n Beatles already.

Even if you want to take them as the best band in the world or whatever, they've been disbanded for over 35 years now. There is nothing new to find as far as Beatle music goes.

[Resident Loser]

...an incidental release to me...the remix was done to accompany a live presentation by Cirque du Soliel...that may be how it will work best.

Supposedly the brainchild of George Harrison, who has since left the building...McCartney seemd ambivalent in the tee-vee piece I saw (CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood) and Yoko...well...she's still Yoko...Don't recall input from Ringo...BTW, who sold the rights to the Beatle tune Macy's is using in its Christmas ads?

Just another way to repackage old stock...I mean do we really need the string part from this cut to be overlaid on another and somehow melded into something not-so-completely different?

jimHJJ(...I'll listen to Rubber Soul and Revolver thank you...and I get p!$$ed when they change the track sequence when goin' to CDs...))

[MindGoneHaywire]

Well, that it seems like an incidental release, that's kinda the point. Because, in spite of the numerous greatest hits packages and other compilations, one of the aspects of the Beatles' catalog is that there were few, if any, releases, that were considered incidental. Amongst anyone who's not anti-Beatles, which releases would seem incidental? The original Yellow Submarine soundtrack?

By the 90s it'd been 20 years since the 1970s slew of double-album compilations, and what did we get? No less than four double-CD collections, all comprised of previously unreleased material. Followed by a very different YS "songtrack," an alleged definitive hits collection on a single CD, the repackaging of the Capitol issues, the re-worked Let It Be...I can't see any serious Beatles fans actually dismissing any of these.

This is a different story. For me, there are a few things that would not inspire the indifference I feel towards this: the UK version of Rarities, the live Hollywood Bowl concerts, the Christmas album, maybe even some kind of Rock And Roll/Love Songs combo.

This just isn't something I can care that much about, for the same reason the Dylan musical failed: the Beatles' music is not suited to a circus. Or a stage production, at least not as far as my sensibilities go. But as much if not more than any of that, why remix stuff that just doesn't need it?

[Slosh]

http://www.toupltd.com

[Dusty Chalk]

...enough with the f'n Beatles already.

Even if you want to take them as the best band in the world or whatever, they've been disbanded for over 35 years now. There is nothing new to find as far as Beatle music goes.Seconded. Amen, brother.

[3-LockBox]

I haven't heard it and for all I know it could be fantastic.

That said...enough with the f'n Beatles already.

Even if you want to take them as the best band in the world or whatever, they've been disbanded for over 35 years now. There is nothing new to find as far as Beatle music goes.

I agree...

I've heard this one and I'm aPaul'd. I guess its supposed to be clever, but this sort of thing (mashing, I think its called) has been done before with other people's music (and done better), but its still just another way to repackage the same product. This isn't even all that clever.

I've heard this done before where someone will mash a modern song with say (off the top of my head) a Pink Floyd song, created a new and different track, while managing to maintain the spirit of the original songs, and managing to sound fresh. But even with the cleverest, most mindboggling and artsy of this style of re-mix, its wears out its welcome after one listen. I mean *Who's Next? the Stones? the Eagles? Do we really need to re-imagine Take It To The Limit.

But like I said, these aren't all that stark, or all that re-imagined. It's not like a DJ has surprisingly mixed The Beatles with other sounds or other people's work, just splices of tunes from the same album in some cases and in most cases, the same period; hardly a stretch (kinda like the Robert Plant song Tall Cool One which used snippets of Zep riffs within the song). And the whole thing is engineered in the typical modern, over compressed, wall-of-sound fashion.

It was 25 years ago that another project used the Beatles music to make an 'artistic statement' - Stars On 45...nuff said.

Pass.

*pun intended

[Modernaire]

My feeling on Love is that musically, the way ORIGINAL George Martin and son remixed it, was done tastefully and I feel, feels like a tribute, a collage of Beatles best. Its sort of emotional at times the way songs swing into one another. I found it to be great and lots o fun. I never tire of The Beatles.

BUT when I saw the Cirque footage that went along with the music I thought it was extremely gay. Just bad. Just made me sink in my chair. Its just ugh.

I also very much concur that that Beatles and Cirque should not be mixed. Mr. Kyte is as far it should go...that show has NO connection to Beatles visually and lacks a whimsical or certain Beatle feel if you know what I mean. Thats my view on this release.

[musicman1999]

Great replies.
The reason i asked was that i had bought this dvd-a and all,brought it home listened once and put it away.Did not like it much at all,as 3 lock box said Stars on 45 came instantly to mind and that is not good.The one thing it does do is point out howmuch the Beatle catalog needs redoing,the SQ is much better than my old cd realeases.

bill

[Resident Loser]

Well, that it seems like an incidental release, that's kinda the point. Because, in spite of the numerous greatest hits packages and other compilations, one of the aspects of the Beatles' catalog is that there were few, if any, releases, that were considered incidental. Amongst anyone who's not anti-Beatles, which releases would seem incidental? The original Yellow Submarine soundtrack?

What's "kinda the point"?...when I say incidental I mean almost an afterthought or a product of happenstance...although I'm fairly certain GM and the rest, after having done what they did for CduS, didn't just have an instant epiphany and think..."Why not release the soundtrack!!!"......If I choose to waste my time spoutin' what should be the bleedin' obvious, why try to turn it into some sort of bone-of-contention?... So what's your point?

The Yellow Submarine cartoon was a contrivance, a potential cash-cow as I see it...and even though I enjoyed the 'toon (particlarly when blitzed), it's soundtrack, like so many film soundtracks, were released more as a souvenir...keep in mind this is before home videotape...Was the soundtrack for [The Sound Of Music or Camelot somehow incidental?


This just isn't something I can care that much about, for the same reason the Dylan musical failed: the Beatles' music is not suited to a circus. Or a stage production, at least not as far as my sensibilities go. But as much if not more than any of that, why remix stuff that just doesn't need it?

I can't believe Mr. Zimmerman gave his blessing to what seemed to have been tripe...but I think the more we learn about Bob-O, the more it seems he's always been in it for the fame and money...any social agenda seems to have been incidental...

Beatles music not for the circus? Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite seems tailor-made for the part, particularly considering it's supposed history...Octopus' Garden?...probably more with or without some clever rearrangements...

jimHJJ(...gad zooks...)

[Resident Loser]

I haven't heard it and for all I know it could be fantastic.

That said...enough with the f'n Beatles already.

Even if you want to take them as the best band in the world or whatever, they've been disbanded for over 35 years now. There is nothing new to find as far as Beatle music goes.

...I was more into the 'Stones and others at the time and came to appreciate the Beatles much later, your post begs the question:

Which of today's artistes will be remembered 35 years from today?

jimHJJ(...lessee JS Bach, what's that 2-300 yrs. ago?...what's new?...)

[nobody]

Many will be remembered in 35 years. Basically, any artist putting out music that means a lot to some 16 year old kid will still hold a place in his heart in 35 years...just like the stuff we all listened to growing up still touches something in us today.

Who will the self-anointed musicologists and critics decide should be praised? That's a different question and will depend greatly on the shifts of time.

[bobsticks]

...
Which of today's artistes will be remembered 35 years from today?
jimHJJ(...lessee JS Bach, what's that 2-300 yrs. ago?...what's new?...)

Its a fair bet that Pink Floyd will still be touring... and will be asking for about US$3700.00 a ticket:ihih:

[Resident Loser]

Many will be remembered in 35 years. Basically, any artist putting out music that means a lot to some 16 year old kid will still hold a place in his heart in 35 years...just like the stuff we all listened to growing up still touches something in us today.

Who will the self-anointed musicologists and critics decide should be praised? That's a different question and will depend greatly on the shifts of time.

...submit that the two are completely different constructs...

If I may add some clarification, I don't simply mean remembered...I "remember" Sheb Wooley's Purple People Eater and David Seville's Witch Doctor...I mean to the extent that the Beatles are remembered...

jimHJJ(...and dissected and argued over and...)

[jrhymeammo]

Its a fair bet that Pink Floyd will still be touring... and will be asking for about US$3700.00 a ticket:ihih:
If I could go back about 20 years in time and vist, then yes I would pay $3700 for a ticket. I was at a In the Flesh tour, and it was magical for me. I might still go see him again, but not much left in him as a vocalist.

Gawd, can someone already assassinate the Stones already? Not bugging on others' taste or anything, but I just really dont like them...

JRA

[Resident Loser]

If I could go back about 20 years in time and vist, then yes I would pay $3700 for a ticket. I was at a In the Flesh tour, and it was magical for me. I might still go see him again, but not much left in him as a vocalist.

Gawd, can someone already assassinate the Stones already? Not bugging on others' taste or anything, but I just really dont like them...

JRA

...which one's Pink?

jimHJJ(...????...)

[nobody]

I'd have to say on the criteria of current bands being dissected and discussed as much as the Beatles that none will come close. However, that is not, to me anyway, a qualitative argument in their favor...which could be assumed since I'm not really a fan...although I have had I Wanna Be Your Man as a bit of an ear worm since hearing it this weekend. But, its been trading places with some Mitch Ryder as well.

Much of the Beatle discussion is driven at least in part by their standing at the top of a much more unified music scene that simply does not exist today. A band with every bit the quality of the Beatles could appear today and only the sliver of the music public that was interested in whatever genre they represented would give a dam, making them much less relevant in the larger sociological sense that the Beatles get discussed in. Toss in that they appealed to a generation with a huge population advantage over their successors as another ingredient to their continued exultation and the odds that a current band would be elevated in discourse to the extent of the Beatles is pretty slim indeed.

[Resident Loser]

I'd have to say on the criteria of current bands being dissected and discussed as much as the Beatles that none will come close. However, that is not, to me anyway, a qualitative argument in their favor...which could be assumed since I'm not really a fan...although I have had I Wanna Be Your Man as a bit of an ear worm since hearing it this weekend. But, its been trading places with some Mitch Ryder as well.

Much of the Beatle discussion is driven at least in part by their standing at the top of a much more unified music scene that simply does not exist today. A band with every bit the quality of the Beatles could appear today and only the sliver of the music public that was interested in whatever genre they represented would give a dam, making them much less relevant in the larger sociological sense that the Beatles get discussed in. Toss in that they appealed to a generation with a huge population advantage over their successors as another ingredient to their continued exultation and the odds that a current band would be elevated in discourse to the extent of the Beatles is pretty slim indeed.

.. know 'bout that...60s music unified? I mean this was a time you could find the Beatles, James Brown and Dylan along with Peggy Lee, Dean Martin and movie theme music on the radio and on the charts...About the only common thread I can see is that a sizeable chunk of it was actually good...It contained what I (and most folks) consider the basics of music...melody, counterpoint and harmony...things I find sorely lacking in most contempo stuff...

Nowadays we don't have an embarassment of riches, we have quantity over quality and the equivalent of everyone getting a blue ribbon just because they showed up. I don't think the has been more of a cookie-cutter mindset than there is today, witness the Spice Girl thread...Some might term it freedom of choice, it seems to be market glut to me...

And I haven't seen any numbers recently but the "important demographic" apropos the music buying public, is probably larger and has more disposable "income" than I or my peers ever did...and as we all know money talks...Cheez...I was lucky to get 50 cents a day allowance and that included carfare to and from school...at 16 when I first started working as a part-timer, the min. wage was what $1.25/hr.? Ten bucks of that weekly paycheck went to "room and board"...ain't no free-lunch...

I mean really...what really is there today? From my POV, aging jokesters, manufactured schlockmeisters queueing up for their 15 minute turn...then there's (c)rap and the monotonous dreck typified by the Dave Matthews-type of performer and the wool watch-cap crowd...

Is there any wonder I'm interested for alternative takes on basic repetoire of classical and looking back at jazz produced when I was younger than ten, which for the most part is an adventure in listening.

jimHJJ(...and we won't even get into the dismal delivery systems...)

P.S. nothin' wrong with Devil With The Blue Dress/Good Golly Miss Molly or Donovan's Catch The Wind...Both fine examples of that unified 60s music...

[nobody]

I guess I would have to say unified commercially...as in you could play one radio station and hear much of what was coming out. And, the sheer volume was more manageable.

Music today is distributed in ever-smaller slivers and virtually no one is able to process all of what's out there. So, you listen to a narowwly formatted radio show...you get internet radio where a station specialized in a very minute genre...a club will specialize in playing a specific type of music, etc... Everything is compartmentalized to an extent that it has never been before and that movement is only increasing.

[Resident Loser]

I guess I would have to say unified commercially...as in you could play one radio station and hear much of what was coming out. And, the sheer volume was more manageable.

Music today is distributed in ever-smaller slivers and virtually no one is able to process all of what's out there. So, you listen to a narowwly formatted radio show...you get internet radio where a station specialized in a very minute genre...a club will specialize in playing a specific type of music, etc... Everything is compartmentalized to an extent that it has never been before and that movement is only increasing.

...I tend to agree, but really, to what end? Do I really need a CD copy of Dylan's satellite broadcast of his favorite baseball music? What will probably happen is the monopoly that this is a result of, will have splintered so that every Joe Blow will have a little slice and it will all begin a retrograde motion and come together at some point in time...Consumers are a fickle bunch, at some point folks will tire of 24/7 Monkee music or whatever and it will resort to a much smaller group of players...it's really following the more recent business paradigm...companies divest for one reason or another and the market ultimately dictates who the survivors will be...Airlines, telecom, agro-businesses...explosion followed by implosion...

My wife complains about the plethora of toothpastes and shampoos...and none of them seem to work well...and when she finds one that works...poof!...next time it's gone...

jimHJJ(...can't go much more off-topic than that I'd reckon...)

[nobody]

I don't see it as a good thing...especially since I prefer a bit of variety in my listening. It's just the state of things. Personally, I don't see it ever reverting back much if at all with population growth fueling more and more media outlets and our world only becomming more and more diverse. If you're waiting for everyone to decide to just come back together and share rather than continuing to run off with their little piece of the pie, I think you're gonna be waiting for a really, really long time.

[Dusty Chalk]

I agree with nobody. Companies are too lazy to actually sit down and figure out target markets, yet that is exactly what has happened with music -- it's all splintered, and those of us with diverse and various tastes in music have to search high and low to find it, and will continue to do so, whereas the large conglomerate (until they implode, that is) will continue to push "pop" product -- despite the fact that they can't to the same group of people over and over again -- the population has just plain gotten too large, and with too diverse and various tastes as a whole to be pushed one particular type of music. Think of it this way: there will always be someone who disagrees with you. We just keep churning out more babies, and even if someone gets too old and too deaf to listen to music, there's someone else just growing up into listening age. I have long since come to peace with the fact that no-one will ever like the same music I do, there will always be people who listen to gangsta rap and twangy country and cheesy cliche ridden music and opera. And that's fine. What is most popular will ebb and flow, and that's fine too.

[3-LockBox]

extremely gay

not that there's anything wrong with that...

[shokhead]

I haven't heard it and for all I know it could be fantastic.

That said...enough with the f'n Beatles already.

Even if you want to take them as the best band in the world or whatever, they've been disbanded for over 35 years now. There is nothing new to find as far as Beatle music goes.

So whats your cut off date to not listen to a band,30 years,25 years?

[shokhead]

...an incidental release to me...the remix was done to accompany a live presentation by Cirque du Soliel...that may be how it will work best.

Supposedly the brainchild of George Harrison, who has since left the building...McCartney seemd ambivalent in the tee-vee piece I saw (CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood) and Yoko...well...she's still Yoko...Don't recall input from Ringo...BTW, who sold the rights to the Beatle tune Macy's is using in its Christmas ads?

Just another way to repackage old stock...I mean do we really need the string part from this cut to be overlaid on another and somehow melded into something not-so-completely different?

jimHJJ(...I'll listen to Rubber Soul and Revolver thank you...and I get p!$$ed when they change the track sequence when goin' to CDs...))

So you dont buy repackaged old stock as you put it? No remasters? No DCC or MFSL. You stay with org recording as poor as some are?

[Woochifer]

Sounds to me like this is just another example of "synergy" at work. Since this mix was commissioned in conjunction with the Cirque du Soleil show, they might as well market the thing as a "new" "reimagined" Beatles album. Otherwise, it's nothing more than the "original cast soundtrack" for a Cirque du Soleil production. And how many people out there own the soundtracks for any of Cirque's productions?

The mix would have been done anyway, so obviously they're trying to make a buck off of it. And the marketing of the album serves to further market the show, where most of the seats go for $125+.


Great replies.
The reason i asked was that i had bought this dvd-a and all,brought it home listened once and put it away.Did not like it much at all,as 3 lock box said Stars on 45 came instantly to mind and that is not good.The one thing it does do is point out howmuch the Beatle catalog needs redoing,the SQ is much better than my old cd realeases.

bill

I don't know if the old Beatles albums will be able to match the new mix for sound quality simply because they were mixed on older analog tape recorders. The only alternative would be to do a complete remix from the original multitrack masters. There's only so much you can do by tweaking with a two-channel master tape.

George Martin had to go back to the original multitrack masters to create the 5.1 mix, and presumably the two-channel mix was a mixdown from that 5.1 master. By going all the way back, and doing the remix on higher resolution equipment, Martin avoids the signal loss and audible degradation that occurs with multitrack mixdowns using older analog equipment.

[nobody]

So whats your cut off date to not listen to a band,30 years,25 years?

I listen to plenty of bands 30 years old and some much older. I just don't get excited about a crass over-commercialisation of a defunct band's music for a quick buck. They just toss these repackagings out...and in this case let some people slice and dice the tunes, slap the Beatle brand on it and make a few quick million.

I may be occasionally intersted in some music that gets an upgrade in sound...although I'm gererally just fine with old vinyl. But, after 30 years of searching the vaults and repackaging the music time and again, there is no new music to hear, no matter how they wanna spin it or re-edit the same old material.

[nobody]

The only alternative would be to do a complete remix from the original multitrack masters. There's only so much you can do by tweaking with a two-channel master tape.


I'm not enough of a Beatles fan to care one way or another, but if they wanna release Beatle material, this really is what should be done. We're talking about one of the biggest, most-loved bands in history. They really do deserve this sort of deluxe treatment if they wanna re-sell their catalog rather than a silly stage show soundtrack like Love.

[shokhead]

I listen to plenty of bands 30 years old and some much older. I just don't get excited about a crass over-commercialisation of a defunct band's music for a quick buck. They just toss these repackagings out...and in this case let some people slice and dice the tunes, slap the Beatle brand on it and make a few quick million.

I may be occasionally intersted in some music that gets an upgrade in sound...although I'm gererally just fine with old vinyl. But, after 30 years of searching the vaults and repackaging the music time and again, there is no new music to hear, no matter how they wanna spin it or re-edit the same old material.

Double talk but thats ok.

[jrhymeammo]

...which one's Pink?

jimHJJ(...????...)

I dont know..... the word on the street is that Pink is still lockeup in aylum writing songs for the devil.

JRA

[MindGoneHaywire]

It's not doubletalk. That's a sincere post from a sincere poster. The only thing is, most of the repackaging took place 3 decades ago, and most of what's been released in the last 12 years was in fact unreleased, or at least majorly retooled. There were a couple of exceptions, but the 1 collection, I believe, shouldn't be viewed in the same jaundiced way as one might feel towards the repackagings of other catalogs. But then I'm a Beatles fan & I think that one thing you can't accuse Apple of is an endless repackaging campaign. If anything, they're quite selective about their releases.

This looks like a marginal project, but I haven't heard it.


RL:

>.If I choose to waste my time spoutin' what should be the bleedin' obvious, why try to turn it into some sort of bone-of-contention?.

My, aren't we paranoid. I was agreeing with you, more than anything else. Those who don't like the Beatles might well point to the slew of releases over the past 12 years & view it as a cynical repackaging along the lines of endless hits packages that are rolled out for many acts, to the point of leaving redundancy far behind in the rearview mirror. I don't think that Apple has done much to cheapen their catalog by watering it down with such completist-only rehashes, not even Let It Be...Naked or the revamped Yellow Submarine "songtrack." This looks a lot closer to a cynical repackage than anything that a Beatles fan would feel is reasonably necessary at this point. That said, I haven't heard it, but I can't say I want to.

>The Yellow Submarine cartoon was a contrivance, a potential cash-cow as I see it...and even though I enjoyed the 'toon (particlarly when blitzed), it's soundtrack, like so many film soundtracks, were released more as a souvenir...keep in mind this is before home videotape...Was the soundtrack for [The Sound Of Music or Camelot somehow incidental?

Oh, excuse me. It's not as though it was only four new songs, with the rest of it being George Martin's original score, passed off, in spite of its classification as a soundtrack, as a Beatles album...hmmm?

If it's an argument you crave, then what else have I said to annoy you lately?

[shokhead]

I havent heard it but i cant say i want to. Now if thats the fairest way to judge something,well its more double talk'n but heck,thats what goes on in the forums all the time anyhow.LMAO

[Woochifer]

I'm not enough of a Beatles fan to care one way or another, but if they wanna release Beatle material, this really is what should be done. We're talking about one of the biggest, most-loved bands in history. They really do deserve this sort of deluxe treatment if they wanna re-sell their catalog rather than a silly stage show soundtrack like Love.

I don't know if that will ever happen. My understanding is that Lennon was very involved in the post-production work on the latter Beatles albums, and obviously his editorial input is not available. Then again, Genesis turned their entire catalog over to Nick Davis for new 5.1 AND two-channel remixes. What I've heard so far with the two-channel remixes definitely improves upon how the original mixdowns sounded on the early CD releases. And I read that Rush also turned their multitrack masters over to someone for 5.1 remixing.

This Beatles project seems to be more a byproduct than a dedicated product. The Cirque production is at a custom-built theater-in-the-round with a specially designed sound system. Martin was brought in to do a multichannel mix, and obviously had something that could be readily packaged and sold. And obviously it's easier to market the show soundtrack as a "reimagined" Beatles album than as a Cirque soundtrack.

[MindGoneHaywire]

>And obviously it's easier to market the show soundtrack as a "reimagined" Beatles album than as a Cirque soundtrack.

Only to those who are willing to accept Beatles music as the soundtrack to a circus. That doesn't appeal to me any more than using Dylan's songs in a stage production. If someone wants to spend their time doing either, good for them. Looks like the Beatles thing is popular even though the Dylan thing was not. If someone wanted to utilize the music of a rock band that was/is in the context of a record album (or CD), and not a rock opera ala Tommy or even a 'concept' album, I don't know what would be a more fruitful area to plunder, though there's probably one or two that come to mind. But when you force something, you often end up with a hemerrhoid, which for some is synonymous with a 1979 movie starring Peter Frampton & the Bee Gees.

Outside of any & all obvious reasons why one might reject any comparison of the' catalog to that of Rush or Genesis, there are some technical issues that I think were well-explained here:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/music/rock/messages/64684.html

[Dusty Chalk]

I havent heard it but i cant say i want to. Now if thats the fairest way to judge something,well its more double talk'n...Why is that double talk? Pick something that you have found the least interest in, say, opera. If a new opera were to come out based on some high profile writer, would you want to hear it? In all likelihood, no, there are better things to be listening to -- things you will in most likelihood be more likely to enjoy. If it's based on the Beatles, then I will most likely not like it, and therefore have no desire to hear it. You're right, there's a small chance that I may love it, but I kind of doubt it, historically speaking. On the chance that I will not like it, I'm not going to waste my time giving it a chance. There's only so many hours in a day. That's all.

It's not like it's a complete mystery -- it's not like there's a 50/50 chance of it being good or bad; there is some serious data here to make me think that I will in all likelihood not like it.

[nobody]

Yeah, I'm probably being hard on the Beatles a bit since they haven't repackaged their stuff nearly as much as many others.

I'm just not a big fan either repackaging in a mydiad of hits packages or trolling through the vaults to dig out "bonus" tracks...which they have done extensively. Occasionall, I"ll hear a gemm when bands do that, but more often than not, there's good reason why they were never released. And, yeah, that goes for my favorite bands too.

So, while I do like listening to older music, I'm of the mind that the music should pretty much just be left alone, and have little interest in raping the vaults for bits and pieces. This release is different in that it's familiar material all mashed together, but still just seems oportunistic to me.

And, I still hold to my original point...there is nothing new to glean from the Beatles at this point. Love 'em 'n listen to 'em if you like 'em. I'm the same with many older bands. But, I still see no reason to get all excited as if there's some new magical Beatles material dropping out of the sky.

[shokhead]

Would you rather listen to your fav band on a 8-track or the same music on SACD?

[MindGoneHaywire]

>I havent heard it but i cant say i want to. Now if thats the fairest way to judge something,well its more double talk'n

It's a project that's been released in conjunction with a CIRCUS. How is it doubletalk to say I don't want to hear something that exists because of something that has nothing to do with music?

If there's one band whose music doesn't need to be re-imagined as the soundtrack to a friggin' CIRCUS, it's the Beatles. kindly explain how my comment constitutes doubletalk.

[BradH]

I don't know if that will ever happen. My understanding is that Lennon was very involved in the post-production work on the latter Beatles albums, and obviously his editorial input is not available. Then again, Genesis turned their entire catalog over to Nick Davis for new 5.1 AND two-channel remixes.

I always heard Lennon was a one or two take kind of guy and left the technical stuff for others to work out. Maybe he got more involved in the later years but those were also the years when Martin left the actual mixing to subordinates. It's not like he did a bang up job on mastering the initial 80's cd's either. So if this Circus deal sounds good then that's a good sign. I never would've believed a remixed stereo Pet Sounds would sound so great but it does. Of course, it loses some of the magic in the process just like Sgt. Pepper's surely would in 5.1. That was a quirky sounding record with hard L/R imaging. I've got mixed reactions about this re-mixing issue. At this rate, we'll have 2-channel mixdowns from 5.1 on the shelves before a really good mastering job of the original 2-channel masters ever see the light of day on cd. That's my prediction. Oh well, I've got 62 of those Doc Ebbetts vinyl transfers and counting. But I have no interest in this Circus crap anymore than I wanted to see the stage production of Tommy. It strikes me as a lack of Harrison's creative imagination.

Even if something happened to Martin it may not be the end of the world. John Burns is b!tching that he's not involved in the Genesis 5.1's because there's no way for Davis to know how those mixes were done. He's right, but Burns's mixes sucked. Genesis never had the sound they deserved from Nursery Cryme to the Lamb. Genesis are well aware of that too, so it's not surprising they would hand it over to someone they trust. Although, in the Beatles case, I suppose Martin is still obviously the "go to" guy.

[nobody]

Would you rather listen to your fav band on a 8-track or the same music on SACD?

Never heard SACDs, so don't have an answer there.

Of course, I do prefer better quality sound, but I don't see that as the main issue for this release. Yes, they inproved the sound from what I've heard, but they also chopped everything into bits and pieces and put it back together all mashed up as if it is now something new and exciting. To me, that isn't enough to claim it as something new. I already said I think they should do a high quality remaster to make these things sound their best since so many people love them. But, that is not what this release is about in my estimation.

If this release appeals to you...go for it. Enjoy. It really does not matter even remotely to me if this release appeals to you. And if it doesn, I hope you enjoy it. I'm not the music police. It doesn't to me at all for several reasons...namely the crass repackaging...the cheesy slice and dice...the circus showtunes connection...and last, but certainly not least, I really don't give a crap about the Beatles.

[3-LockBox]

they also chopped everything into bits and pieces and put it back together all mashed up as if it is now something new and exciting. To me, that isn't enough to claim it as something new.

Once again, I agree...nothing to get worked up about. No new songs, here, just someone playing DJ...bfd.

[shokhead]

Never heard SACDs, so don't have an answer there.

Of course, I do prefer better quality sound, but I don't see that as the main issue for this release. Yes, they inproved the sound from what I've heard, but they also chopped everything into bits and pieces and put it back together all mashed up as if it is now something new and exciting. To me, that isn't enough to claim it as something new. I already said I think they should do a high quality remaster to make these things sound their best since so many people love them. But, that is not what this release is about in my estimation.

If this release appeals to you...go for it. Enjoy. It really does not matter even remotely to me if this release appeals to you. And if it doesn, I hope you enjoy it. I'm not the music police. It doesn't to me at all for several reasons...namely the crass repackaging...the cheesy slice and dice...the circus showtunes connection...and last, but certainly not least, I really don't give a crap about the Beatles.

LMAO:19:

[Resident Loser]

So you dont buy repackaged old stock as you put it? No remasters? No DCC or MFSL. You stay with org recording as poor as some are?

...the only CDs I've purchased, that are digital releases of vinyl that I already have, are minimal..So no, no SACDs etc. For the most part, new material for the new medium...with the exception of my faves Dylan, Beatles, Byrds, Davis and Coltrane...and that's because I want something familiar to play on my port GPX CDP($7USD after rebate)...Things have to be remastered from analog to digital, so it hands me a laff when I see old catalog touted with the whoop-de-doo words "digitally remastered"...fact-of-life, digital by-product, BFD...

Only MFSL, or Telarc or other premium audiopile-type disks I've purchased were DTD, half-speed mastered or early DDA vinyl...and the only previously released material (which I didn't previously own) that I can recall was Steeleye Span's All Around My Hat collection...and Springsteen's Born To Run...

jimHJJ(...I see no point in trying to duplicate my entire collection of old records and tapes...and besides many of them are no longer in print...)

[Resident Loser]

My, aren't we paranoid. I was agreeing with you, more than anything else.

Well, pardon my error...but you have an odd manner of being agreeable IMO...


Oh, excuse me. It's not as though it was only four new songs, with the rest of it being George Martin's original score, passed off, in spite of its classification as a soundtrack, as a Beatles album...hmmm?

All I said was I liked the 'toon...the original audio was neither here-nor-there from my POV...Yes...I see...very agreeable...


If it's an argument you crave, then what else have I said to annoy you lately?

That you agree with me?

jimHJJ(...BTW, have you heard The Little Willies' Cow Tippin'?...)

[nobody]

LMAO:19:


Amazing...even without words you are able to continue to make completly illogical statements. Simply, amazing.

[GMichael]

The Beatles? Isn't that the band that Paul McCartney joined after he was thrown out of Wings?

[shokhead]

Amazing...even without words you are able to continue to make completly illogical statements. Simply, amazing.

Nobody,that fits you like a glove.

[nobody]

I'm bored...go ahead and make some random comment for the last word since your oration skills seem to essentially consist of making random accusations with no basis in reality and then changing course to random weak insults once you run out of anything else to day.

[GMichael]

Can't you guys stop pissing at each other long enough to comment on my stupid (but funny) comment?

[Resident Loser]

Can't you guys stop pissing at each other long enough to comment on my stupid (but funny) comment?

...this forum is w-a-a-a-y too serious...no mere discussion of wires and electrons and cohesive wavefronts and inner details and all that tommyrot...THIS is where the intelligentsia meet to analyze the effects of pop music on the very course of civilization...

jimHJJ(...and Paul McCartney was in a band OTHER than WINGS!?!?!?!...land-a-goshen...)

[GMichael]

...this forum is w-a-a-a-y too serious...no mere discussion of wires and electrons and cohesive wavefronts and inner details and all that tommyrot...THIS is where the intelligentsia meet to analyze the effects of pop music on the very course of civilization...

jimHJJ(...and Paul McCartney was in a band OTHER than WINGS!?!?!?!...land-a-goshen...)

Thanks, I feel much better now.

[Resident Loser]

Thanks, I feel much better now.

...I think he was also in Tony Sheridan's back-up band...

jimHJJ(..."My Bonnie lies over the ocean..."...)

[shokhead]

I'm bored...go ahead and make some random comment for the last word since your oration skills seem to essentially consist of making random accusations with no basis in reality and then changing course to random weak insults once you run out of anything else to day.

:ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa: :ciappa:

[jrhymeammo]

I used to think Paul was singing "Hey Jew....." for the longest time....

I can't believe people would waste their time talking about the F'in Beatles....

Love,

JRA

[Dusty Chalk]

Well, pardon my error...but you have an odd manner of being agreeable IMO...Welcome to my world.

[Resident Loser]

...I can't believe people would waste their time talking about the F'in Beatles...

...can't believe people would waste their time yammerin' away on the internet about F***in' anything...

jimHJJ(...but perhaps the impact of Bach is more to your artistic liking...)

[shokhead]

Well your online now arent you? LOL

[GMichael]

Well your online now arent you? LOL

Don't ya get the irony?
Sarcasm is a great way of life for some of us.

[Resident Loser]

Don't ya get the irony?
Sarcasm is a great way of life for some of us.

...said it before and I'll say it again...one too many shocks to the head?...

jimHJJ(...ho-boy-y-y...)

[shokhead]

Don't ya get the irony?
Sarcasm is a great way of life for some of us.

Mirror? This fricken forum is full of sarcasm,are you kidding! Why do you think others are leaving? It gets old from the regulars and they are the only ones left until a new one comes on and gets it from them right off the bat. I can dish it out and take it,its just a game. To bad as this use to be a very good place for info but its gone downhill little by little because of the few.:incazzato: Dont worry,i wont go away. :crazy:

[Resident Loser]

Dont worry,i wont go away.

...that wasn't what I was worried about...

jimHJJ(...????...)

[GMichael]

Mirror? This fricken forum is full of sarcasm,are you kidding! Why do you think others are leaving? It gets old from the regulars and they are the only ones left until a new one comes on and gets it from them right off the bat. I can dish it out and take it,its just a game. To bad as this use to be a very good place for info but its gone downhill little by little because of the few.:incazzato: Dont worry,i wont go away. :crazy:

Maybe, but I've visited a few other sites. To me it seems that the ones with the most traffic also have the most sarcasm.
Glad you aren't leaving. We've had enough of that.

[Dusty Chalk]

This fricken forum is full of sarcasm,are you kidding!No!
Why do you think others are leaving? It gets old from the regulars and ...Um, dude. The world is full of sarcasm. This site. Other sites. Libraries. Grocery stores. Convenience shops. L, it's like Starbucks -- you got sarcasm across the street from sarcasm. The only way to get away from the sarcasm is to get away from this world.

Really.