The Beatles--Love

Printable View

  • 12-05-2006, 11:52 AM
    musicman1999
    The Beatles--Love
    Anybody heard this yet?If so what are your thoughts?
  • 12-05-2006, 12:39 PM
    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.
  • 12-05-2006, 01:23 PM
    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.
  • 12-05-2006, 01:28 PM
    Resident Loser
    Seems like...
    ...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...))
  • 12-05-2006, 01:57 PM
    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?
  • 12-05-2006, 04:30 PM
    Slosh
    these are pretty good
  • 12-05-2006, 06:08 PM
    Dusty Chalk
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nobody
    ...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.
  • 12-05-2006, 07:39 PM
    3-LockBox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    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
  • 12-06-2006, 12:05 AM
    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.
  • 12-06-2006, 06:25 AM
    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
  • 12-06-2006, 06:58 AM
    Resident Loser
    Huh?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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?

    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?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MGH
    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...)
  • 12-06-2006, 07:22 AM
    Resident Loser
    Even though...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    ...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?...)
  • 12-06-2006, 07:36 AM
    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.
  • 12-06-2006, 07:51 AM
    bobsticks
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...
    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:
  • 12-06-2006, 08:04 AM
    Resident Loser
    I respectfully..
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    ...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...)
  • 12-06-2006, 08:25 AM
    jrhymeammo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bobsticks
    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
  • 12-06-2006, 09:40 AM
    Resident Loser
    By the way...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jrhymeammo
    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(...????...)
  • 12-06-2006, 09:43 AM
    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.
  • 12-07-2006, 06:20 AM
    Resident Loser
    Don't really...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    .. 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...
  • 12-07-2006, 09:27 AM
    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.
  • 12-07-2006, 09:59 AM
    Resident Loser
    Yes...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    ...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...)
  • 12-07-2006, 10:16 AM
    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.
  • 12-07-2006, 11:00 PM
    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.
  • 12-08-2006, 09:30 AM
    3-LockBox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Modernaire
    extremely gay

    not that there's anything wrong with that...
  • 12-08-2006, 10:39 AM
    shokhead
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

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