Page 1 of 1

Beatles

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:28 pm
by AnĂ³nimo Juan
I know, I know they, and drugs were the greatest thing ever happened to hippies..


But that doesn't stop me from loving them :P If I weren't a werewolf fan I'd be a Beatles one, so, I just wanted to know, is there any other human/wolf who enjoys The Beatles?






Image

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:01 pm
by Irish Wolf
Yep...right here.

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:54 pm
by RedEye
I was enjoying them when they were still together and alive. Actually went to a Beatles Concert (never, never again...) and was almost crushed by human females (at least I think they were human as opposed to lemmings). :P

Still have both Abby Road and the White albums in the cellophane, too! :D

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:55 pm
by AnĂ³nimo Juan
I just bought "Love", it's the same old songs sold again but they are all remastered, I must say they sound terribly great

And I say " Across the Universe " yesterday, a musical with Beatles song, and they do make justice to the songs :)

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:16 pm
by Scott Gardener
I'm early in the process of discovering them as a band for myself, though I recognize their genius as well as their influence in so many other things I've heard over the years. I've got their CD "One," but I plan to go back through and listen to their original albums. I've seen Yellow Submarine and my wife owns a DVD of A Hard Day's Night; both are remarkable and brilliantly intelligent art films that put most of today's pop music to shame. I've also heard Sargent Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band, and it's first in line for my CD collection.

Two caveats. First, I kind of wish they were available on iTunes. The dispute between Apple and Apple Corps is the stuff of legend, but it gets in the way of accessing the music. Granted, it does force me to get uncompressed CDs, which make for better listening.

Next, I understand the American versions of their albums each had some songs trimmed off. Indeed, the "White Album" was not an album at all, but a compilation of music that was chopped out of previous albums in order to make them fit the 40 minute LP, 20 minutes each side, formula of the 1960s music industry. The band members were so put out with this dickering with their artistic vision that the original artwork they submitted for the album had them taking axes to toy babies, complete with mock blood and guts, to show how their music had been treated by the U.S. record labels. Needless to say, that cover didn't go over very well with those same executives, and the stark, cover-less cover became the second alternative, also in protest. I'm at odds with myself archivally, about whether I should get the "White Album" first and then, when I rip to mp3 their other CDs, try to research and restore their original intent, renumbering the files and re-ordering the ID3 tags to put back in the deleted songs, or just keep the existing order and rip CD to mp3 without reverse-fidgeting my archives, since historically, the albums are as they are? If the British original releases were longer, I'd just as soon go with their track lineups, as I do with early works by The Cure. (I treat Three Imaginary Boys as their first album, and "Boys Don't Cry" as a compilation, though I do count "Japanese Whispers" as an album, even though it's technically just a single and two EPs crammed together.)

Re: Beatles

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:46 am
by wolfward
I think that they're great, but not great enough to have on your i-pod, you know what I mean? Because of modern music compared to the Beatles, it just sounds way too old....you know?

Re: Beatles

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:09 pm
by Gevaudan
wolfward wrote:I think that they're great, but not great enough to have on your i-pod, you know what I mean? Because of modern music compared to the Beatles, it just sounds way too old....you know?
Yeah, but it's kind of like looking at a family tree. You can see where all of today's music traces from, and it's neat to see certain things develop as time goes on. I admit, I rock out to "I Am the Walrus." :P

Re: Beatles

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:26 pm
by Scott Gardener
Wolfward:
If The Beatles and U2 both sound too old, then you could be stuck in a contemporary time frame. Be careful not to decide that the only sound you can like is the one with which you're growing up. Otherwise, as soon as the next decade rolls along, everything else will suck, too.

I'm having a hard time not echewing newer music, because so much of it sounds so heavily manufactured for the lowest common denominator. Pop tarts and android voices singing about sex to hip-hop stop-and-start jerkiness just doesn't compare to music that's actually about something. And, try watching The Beatles' movie A Hard Day's Night or U2's Rattle and Hum. They're art films that are miles beyond the endless stream of concert footage movies we mostly get these days.

If you have to have a certain contemporary sound, at least look at the bands that influenced them. If you listen to anything with guitar riffs, chances are, it traces back sooner or later to either KISS, Black Sabbath, or Led Zeppelin. KISS might not be known for intellectual works outside their obscure Music from "The Elder," a soundtrack for a conceptual movie that was never made, but they demonstrate that heavy metal was around before you probably were. As for Led Zeppelin, five words: The Song Remains the Same.

I know, right now you're looking for fresh, full, amplified sound. But, I bet you in a few years, you'll be eating humble pie, when you start craving substance.

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:51 am
by Midnight
.

Re: Beatles

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:13 pm
by Scott Gardener
Nope; the link is dead. Can you give me a band name? I've got a bleepload of iTunes credit.

Re: Beatles

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:55 pm
by Baphnedia
Yeah - actually, I like a band known as Sacred Rite for doing a killer cover of Eleanor Rigby (that's right up there with Ray Charles' cover).