OT POLL: do you give a crap about Beatles remasters?

[Pasha]

I grown up with them, my older brother was listening to them all of the time.
I would like the glorious sound to remain the same but if it can be improved
I'm not the one complaining. However I voted 2.
I'm not a Beatles fanatic... but I was.

[adventurepants_]

Arent these sort of releases just about farming the baby boomers? To get them to exchange yet more of their money for the totems of their youth? I personally think the music itself is excellent, but that is largely irrelevant to the discussion.


Even if there is a buzz about these re-releases for people under 30, that demographic is statistically unlikely to actually pay any money for them, having known nothing but freely available music, and they dont buy whole albums anyway.

[knotkranky]

I don't listen to the mastering, I listen to the music.

And I won't be able to tell the difference cuz I won't be listening for it.

I bet they cleaned it up too much though

[leedsquietman]

Hendrix was a bit loose and languid in his playing style, I agree with that - probably today, producers would have warped him to sound a bit straighter, but that was his style. They would probably have done something with his guitar, a standard 3 single coil strat, like put EMGs in it, or Seymour Duncan hotrails and a bridge humbucker. Some of his songs and playing are still off the chart, dozens of people have covered Voodoo Chile and none of them compare to Jimi's version. Crosstown Traffic, Fire, Redhouse Blues, Little Wing, Angel, Dolly Dagger, Castles In The Sand, Hey Joe, All Along The Watchtower, Purple Haze - all brilliant stuff.

And at the time, his main competitors were Keith Richards, Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton - all great guitarists in their own right, but maybe Beck aside, not exactly groundbreaking stuff. Jimmy Page was only famous 2 years after Hendrix started and was definately influenced by Hendrix's playing to a degree. And Jimi always had a great backing band, Mitch Mitchell and Noel Redding or the Band of Gypsies, but his songwriting definately declined a little after the Experience years.

John Lennon is IMHO the greatest songwriter of all time, with Bob Marley a close second and McCartney is up there too.

Still, it has to be said, that for every couple of Beatles fans, there will be people out there arguing the genius of Britney Spears or Coldplay...dissing the Beatles for being 'boring old crap' without ever hearing more than a snippet of 'She Loves You' on some oldies show as they are going through the radio dial hoping to find 'Jai Ho' by Nicole Scherzinger, or Rihanna's latest.

[noisetonepause]

The Beatles were way ahead of their time, even by modern standards. They were in fact the first "samplists".

Err. No. They were not.

They did incorporate some of the techniques of European art music into their pop songs, but by and large they did not invent anything. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of knowing the history of it - so if you disagree, go learn about it instead of replying.

Personally, I think they've got some OK sounds in places, but I'm still trying to find out what it is that people mean by 'songwriting' and exactly why The Beatles are supposedly so much better than everyone. IMO they've never written anything as good as Love Will Tear Us Apart, or even Where Do I Begin. In my opinion.

Whether or not they are rated more highly than the quality of their output deserves compared to a lot of the other music that was made at the time is perhaps a matter of opinion. But to me there's no real question: they are.

[sherman]

Where's the "I never thought the beetles were that special, but I wasn't a 15yo girl in the '60s" option?

[littlepig]

Tarekith wrote:

I thought Jimi was a sloppy guitar player.

I wish I could play as sloppy as Hendrick

Tone Deft > nice clip add it to my favourites

[leedsquietman]

In the 60s there were groups and artists who influenced people and there were followers

influencers include Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Motown, The Byrds, The Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Cream, and CSNY - all of whom had elements of influence from others in this list and 50's rock and roll and blues, but added it into their own flava and took it forward.

The Beatles might not have invented anything, but certainly they pushed the engineers and producers at Abbey Road. They might not have been the first to have tape loops and sinister reverse messages on the out grooves of their album (Sgt Pepper, side 2), but they were the first band who were massively popular to do so. They were one of the first bands who took away the power of the record label by forming their own company after their Parlophone contract was up in Apple, even though EMI licensed and distributed the music, that still paid them a much great % of the profits. They were not the first group to take Acid, or visit the Maharishi, but they are the best known band to have done so *Donovan hardly stacks up as competition* John Lennon is reputed to have been the first artist to request his engineer hold down the tape flange to create flanging, but it cannot be proven. Because of The Beatles insistence, Abbey Road got 8 track recording (The Beatles recorded some demos at Olympic to state the point). The Beatles weren't the first to use a Moog, The Doors, The Byrds and The Monkees had songs in 1968 featuring it, but Abbey Road was the first platinum selling album to feature it and the Mellotron was featured in Beatles songs as far back as Tomorrow Never Knows - although arguably Strawberry Fields intro was one of the most classic uses of the Mellotron outside of the Moody Blues and Genesis. Tape loops, sound effects in major songs, different instruments - The Beatles used a sitar in 1965, on Norwegian Wood, before The Stones followed with Paint It Black a year later, 2 years before Sgt Pepper and in a period where they were still morphing from mop tops in suits to long haired hippies in fancy dress costumes.

As much as I love Joy Division and 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' (yes, a modern classic for sure), songs like Strawberry Fields Forever, Eleanor Rigby, She's Leaving Home and A Day In The Life were all excellently crafted songs commenting on social issues of the day, not just throw way cheese like 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' and 'She Loves You, yeah, yeah, yeah' like in earlier years. This group grew from being little more than a charming to girls boy band who could (barely) play their instruments, totally controlled by record company management with nothing important to say or do into being people who controlled their destiny and image, learned to play to a good level, and had all kinds of things to say on deep issues such as politics, religion, drugs and popular culture. John Lennon's peace initiatives. Giving back their MBEs to the Queen and then admitting to having smoked marijuana at Buckingham Palace, nude bed ins, giving different cultures and philosophies a try (Ravi Shankar and the Maha Rishi, buddhism and more). Leaving behind a career at a time when they were considered God like and could have quite easily have produced 2 or 3 albums of crap and still been the biggest band on Earth. Lennon writing songs like 'Give Peace A Chance', 'Imagine', 'Working Class Hero' and 'Cold Turkey' all of which are classic songs with a message.

So to me, the icon status was deserved, even if people did and do go overboard on them.

[UKRuss]

I could care less. I'm sure I'll shun myself from the musical community forever by my following statement, but there are two groups I could never understand the hype over:

- The Beatles
- Jimi Hendrix

Not saying they aren't good musicians or songwriters, but i never understood the diehard fanaticism people have with them. It's just "ok" music to me.

Hear, hear. I'm with you on this one. Never understood either of them, never really liked the music.

No doubting hendrixes technical ability but he was never a hero of mine.

PLus, why is it simply because we play guitar we should revere Hendrix and Clapton. Clapton is another one I never really understood the hype over...never dug his stuff.

[DrXparaMental]

I could care less. I'm sure I'll shun myself from the musical community forever by my following statement, but there are two groups I could never understand the hype over:

- The Beatles
- Jimi Hendrix

Not saying they aren't good musicians or songwriters, but i never understood the diehard fanaticism people have with them. It's just "ok" music to me.

[DrXparaMental]

In the 60s there were groups and artists who influenced people and there were followers

influencers include Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Motown, The Byrds, The Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Cream, and CSNY - all of whom had elements of influence from others in this list and 50's rock and roll and blues, but added it into their own flava and took it forward.

The Beatles might not have invented anything, but certainly they pushed the engineers and producers at Abbey Road. They might not have been the first to have tape loops and sinister reverse messages on the out grooves of their album (Sgt Pepper, side 2), but they were the first band who were massively popular to do so. They were one of the first bands who took away the power of the record label by forming their own company after their Parlophone contract was up in Apple, even though EMI licensed and distributed the music, that still paid them a much great % of the profits. They were not the first group to take Acid, or visit the Maharishi, but they are the best known band to have done so *Donovan hardly stacks up as competition* John Lennon is reputed to have been the first artist to request his engineer hold down the tape flange to create flanging, but it cannot be proven. Because of The Beatles insistence, Abbey Road got 8 track recording (The Beatles recorded some demos at Olympic to state the point). The Beatles weren't the first to use a Moog, The Doors, The Byrds and The Monkees had songs in 1968 featuring it, but Abbey Road was the first platinum selling album to feature it and the Mellotron was featured in Beatles songs as far back as Tomorrow Never Knows - although arguably Strawberry Fields intro was one of the most classic uses of the Mellotron outside of the Moody Blues and Genesis. Tape loops, sound effects in major songs, different instruments - The Beatles used a sitar in 1965, on Norwegian Wood, before The Stones followed with Paint It Black a year later, 2 years before Sgt Pepper and in a period where they were still morphing from mop tops in suits to long haired hippies in fancy dress costumes.

As much as I love Joy Division and 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' (yes, a modern classic for sure), songs like Strawberry Fields Forever, Eleanor Rigby, She's Leaving Home and A Day In The Life were all excellently crafted songs commenting on social issues of the day, not just throw way cheese like 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' and 'She Loves You, yeah, yeah, yeah' like in earlier years. This group grew from being little more than a charming to girls boy band who could (barely) play their instruments, totally controlled by record company management with nothing important to say or do into being people who controlled their destiny and image, learned to play to a good level, and had all kinds of things to say on deep issues such as politics, religion, drugs and popular culture. John Lennon's peace initiatives. Giving back their MBEs to the Queen and then admitting to having smoked marijuana at Buckingham Palace, nude bed ins, giving different cultures and philosophies a try (Ravi Shankar and the Maha Rishi, buddhism and more). Leaving behind a career at a time when they were considered God like and could have quite easily have produced 2 or 3 albums of crap and still been the biggest band on Earth. Lennon writing songs like 'Give Peace A Chance', 'Imagine', 'Working Class Hero' and 'Cold Turkey' all of which are classic songs with a message.

So to me, the icon status was deserved, even if people did and do go overboard on them.

You Sir, are very intelligent and your patient reserve is beyond reproach. Believe it or not, that's a very RARE trait. The Beatles & Hendrix were most likely two of the most influential electric rock artists of the 20th century. If that's not enough in and of itself to merit critical importance, you are either (a) a moron, or (B), have no interest in contemporary rock music and it's development whatsoever.

This has NOTHING to do with bizarre judgment calls concerning their techniques or anyone's personal opinion of their musical catalogs. It's simply a fact and to deny it as such requires unimaginable stupidity.

[logic_user99]

I don't give one monkey, let alone two! The Beatles, their music, and their estate should be left well alone now; surely EMI can exploit some other band/property, can't they?

I find The Beatles to be wildly over-rated for what they are, and the albums (and all of the releases, re-releases, re-masters, re-published with 742 extra track versions!) to be mostly uninteresting. I can totally see how they were revolutionary at the time (no small thanks to George Martin - excellent, excellent producer that man) but for 2009, they really should be left well alone.

Hell, we're going to end up with another Oasis if people keep referencing The Beatles as their main inspiration. And we all know how much they sucked...!

[wildcon]

I'm not a Beatles fan at all, but there can be no denying their songwriting prowess, and if i'd been into music at the time of their more experimental albums (a little too early for me) I'm sure they would have absolutely blown me away.

I honestly don't think you can argue really. I mean you have world renowed symphony orchestras dedicating nights to Beatles music!

Hendrix would have been the same to a lesser degree (on the song writing front). I think you would have had to have been there to really appreciate his playing, but the beauty of the song writing and absolute guitar skill on songs like little wing, Bold as Love etc is unsurpassed in my opinion. As already suggested I can't think of anybody who has improved on his songs and only SRV has come near for me.

I love Vai's playing but his version of Bold as Love just sounds weak and slightly contrived.

Satriani

more or less the reason i got into making music in the first place, though I admit his stuff is really ho hum and straightforward these days

is a good example fantastic teqhnique but pretty uninspiring from a compositional point of view (after the first couple of albums). Yet Hendrix is 'god' to him.

Joy division - Love will tear us apart. Again one of my faves, but we're talking 'one' great song, not album after album of great songs.

Just my 10 pence worth

[Bleep Blop Ima Robot]

i 100% dont give a crap about most old music...beatles are good tho ill give them that but could care less or will ever listen to any remastered songs

[necho]

I'm interested in mastering, and I know all the Beatles material very well (like since I was 5).

So from an academic point of view, I could give a crap. I'm interested to hear if cutting edge mastering improves the listening experience or not.