For Beatles and/or Rock Band fans

[Napoleon]

I am a huge Beatles fan so found this article on the making of their Rock Band game interesting. The slide show and trailer for it that is on the linked page is pretty interesting also.

NY Times: While My Guitar Gently Beeps (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16beatles-t.html)

PS, the entire Beatles catalog is being remastered as part of the project and will be released at the same time as the game in September. Amazingly before the project Apple had no back up to the Beatles master tapes.

[Sean Malone]

I saw the trailer last a little while ago. One of the best game trailers ever.
It will be interesting to see how this sells to the younger demographic.

[Napoleon]

It will be interesting to see how this sells to the younger demographic.

Indeed. While at the gym in the last week CNN was running and had some kind of pole results of peoples favorite musical acts and it was broken down by age group and they said when you combined all the results for everyone The Beatles came out #1 (for age groups though they were only #1 for the over 50 crowd) which means they did well across all age groups. I went to a Paul McCartney concert a few years ago and he had a really broad range of ages there (unlike Genesis and Van Halen concerts I went to). He had 20 year old women dancing in the aisles to I Saw Her Standing There.

[Sean Malone]

Indeed. While at the gym in the last week CNN was running and had some kind of pole results of peoples favorite musical acts and it was broken down by age group and they said when you combined all the results for everyone The Beatles came out #1 (for age groups though they were only #1 for the over 50 crowd) which means they did well across all age groups. I went to a Paul McCartney concert a few years ago and he had a really broad range of ages there (unlike Genesis and Van Halen concerts I went to). He had 20 year old women dancing in the aisles to I Saw Her Standing There.

Truly pop music for the ages. I have been disappointed in the past 5 years as my teen daughter hasn't developed a taste for the Beatles, or even an appreciation until that is she saw the recent movie 'Across the Universe'. Now she calls that her favorite movie and is looking forward to the Beatles Rock Band game.

[Napoleon]

I saw the trailer last a little while ago. One of the best game trailers ever.

My brother tells me that VH1 was playing a new Beatles video for Birthday and they use the graphics from the game.

[Napoleon]

With it being "Meet the Beatles, Reprised" week I ran into this factoid that totally blows me away.

The top selling album from 2000 to date is The Beatles "1".

Top selling artist from 2000 to date is Eminen w/ 32M in sales followed by The Beatles at 28M (followed by Tim McGraw w/24M). The reissue of their albums could put them over the top as the best selling artist of this decade. They now have 3 1/2 months to try and pull it off.

[Don Quixote]

I watched the Lennon documentary on Palladium last night. Not bad. Then I forced myself to sit through a circa 2007 concert by McCartney, ugh. I must say, however, in my advancing years I am hating him less and less. :D

[SteveH]

Here Nappy, enjoy this (http://thebeatles.com/#/news/The_Opening_Cinematic)

I watched Anthology last night on VH1. :thumbup:

[Methanolandbrats]

Most young kids think that kind of music sucks. All it takes is for them to stumble onto anything by Ringo or Harrison and it confirms their opinion.

[Michaelhatesfans]

Then I forced myself to sit through a circa 2007 concert by McCartney, ugh. I must say, however, in my advancing years I am hating him less and less. :D

Speaking of McCartney, how much does one have to be worth to purchase a hair dye that doesn't make your hair turn orange?:saywhat:


http://media.wkrg.com/images/sized/media/news6/McCartney-244x183.jpg

[chop456]

Seen Nick Lowe lately? Isn't so vain that he needs to dye his hair and is probably still more talented than McCartney even though he looks his age. :gomer:

I saw that concert on Palladia that DQ mentioned and made it though 2 songs. Props to the generously-proportioned drummer, though.

The Beatles made a lot of good music. They also made a lot of horrible music that could pass for something done by Raffi.

[Napoleon]

Seen Nick Lowe lately? Isn't so vain that he needs to dye his hair and is probably still more talented than McCartney even though he looks his age. :gomer:



OK, before responding to this I made sure I went back and listened to a compilation of Nick Lowe’s stuff I have on my I-pod while biking this weekend (and for good measure Dave Edmunds and Rockpile) and now I am ready to say “are you crazy?”

Having said that, no doubt that Lowe has never not given as much popular credit for how good he was (Edmunds either), but although I think his best stuff may be as good as the best stuff of a McCartney, he simply (IMO) never had the number of good songs (or consistency of turning them out) that McCartney had.

Admittedly it is a little difficult comparing the two. I actually think that broadly speaking Lowe’s songs and writing style are remarkably similar to the Beatles style, in particular McCartney, but in the execution of the songs Lowe for the most part plays in a rockabilly style whereas my shoot from the hip guess is that if you were to categorize all of the Beatles songs by style the largest single genre they played would be what as a kid I would have called pop, but more recently I heard a modern band whose style I would consider the same called a “power pop” group (maybe because people like M. Jackson watered down the term with the crap he put out). You know, fast tempo, upbeat songs with plenty of electric guitar and drums. That is the style I like the most. Lowe is more acoustic stuff, slightly slower tempo and to me comes off sounding to me blander/homogenous/less urgent.

So when judging Lowe do you try to take the songs in a vacuum for what they could be, or how they were actually performed? Interestingly the question isn’t entirely hypothetical since one of Lowe’s tunes, “(What’s so Funny ‘bout) Peace Love and Understanding” was played in classic power pop style by Elvis Costello and if I was forced to make a list of the greatest rock and roll songs of all time there is no way I would leave that one off of it, and if I get stuck on an island with an I-pod I hope that song is on it (I bet I could play it back to back for a day and not tire of it). When listening to Lowe’s versions of his songs its easy to imagine many of them done in that kind of style and IMO making them sound much better.

While typing this it occurred to me it would be really interesting to hear a modern power pop type group, say a Fountains of Wayne or Weezer do an entire album of Lowe cover songs.


(PS, if you know Nick responding to this made me replace the compilation disc I had with a new one Lowe has come out with this year, so ask him for your cut of the profits).

[chop456]

Fair enough.

I like the Beatles alot. To say they didn't make a bunch of crappy saccharine music also is fanboi talk. Revolver is great, then Yellow Submarine brings it to a grinding halt. Same thing with Abbey Road and Octopus's Garden. The White Album is one of the greatest of all time. It'd be even better if about 5 songs were cut out. Ob-La-Di makes me want to choke someone.

The last new McCartney album I listened to was Memory Almost Full and I found probably 1/3 of it unlistenable.

I won't even get into Say, Say, Say or Ebony and Ivory. :D

I used Lowe as an example just because of his lack of Grecian Formula. As an artist I think you're correct in that he's never received the credit he deserved - Edmunds, also. I also think that if McCartney's career had started with Wings, it would have ended with Wings. IMO, he's a talented guy that was far more talented when Lennon was around.

Hey, I was first in line to buy Let it Be - Naked.

I'll shut up now. :D

[Sean Malone]

Rubber Soul FTMFW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Add a few Squeeze and Badfinger ditty's to the FOW remake album and I'm golden.

Oh, and I prefer the original McCartney.;)

[SteveH]

IMO, he's a talented guy that was far more talented when Lennon was around.

I believe you could make the case that all four were more talented in each other's company than alone.

[cameraman]

Rubber Soul FTMFW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1

[Methanolandbrats]

I believe you could make the case that all four were more talented in each other's company than alone. Without Lennon the other three might have ended up working in a fish n chips shop.

[Napoleon]

The White Album is one of the greatest of all time. . . . .Ob-La-Di makes me want to choke someone.

Lennon hated that song. Called it “Paul’s granny shit” or something like that. The story is that after the umpteenth recording session of trying to get the song right the Beatles leave late at night and a couple hours later Lennon shows back up at the studio where some of the engineers are working on that days tapes, announces he is stoned then sits down at the piano and bashes out the intro to the song, announces to them that is the way it should be done then leaves. They ended up using his intro.


I also think that if McCartney's career had started with Wings, it would have ended with Wings. IMO, he's a talented guy that was far more talented when Lennon was around.

I could easily write 10,000 words on why I think they were successful, and while I think either McCartney or Lennon could have lead their own bands in the 60s which could have been right up there with up leading bands of 60’s (and maybe Harrison could have lead a mediocre band, something like The Move) there would have been nothing about their bands that would have made them stand above the others (although here is a thought experiment, if the Beatles did not exist to basically hammer open the American market would bands like the Kinks and Stones, or Lennon or McCartney ever have got a hearing in America). I am with Steve H that “all four were more talented in each other's company than alone” and maybe even stretch that to 5 to include George Martin. In particular the fact that any of the 4 had an equal vote on artistic matters and in fact could exercise a veto on anything artistic helped reign in each worst tendencies and minimized the self indulgent stuff. Harrison to the day he died single handedly keep the Beatles from releasing the longest song they ever recorded because he did not like it because it was experimental (think Revolution 9) (and also a 3rd song they did as part of Anthology) and when John wanted to release Revolution 1, which was the first song recorded in the White Album session as a single in advance of the White Album the others vetoed it as being to slow and forced him to rerecord it at the end of the recording sessions as the Revolution that was released as the single (backing Hey Jude which was recorded with the White Album). In a band that was just Lennon’s both those songs would have released as he wanted them, to his and the bands detriment.

[Sean Malone]

Lennon hated that song. Called it “Paul’s granny shit” or something like that. The story is that after the umpteenth recording session of trying to get the song right the Beatles leave late at night and a couple hours later Lennon shows back up at the studio where some of the engineers are working on that days tapes, announces he is stoned then sits down at the piano and bashes out the intro to the song, announces to them that is the way it should be done then leaves. They ended up using his intro.



I could easily write 10,000 words on why I think they were successful, and while I think either McCartney or Lennon could have lead their own bands in the 60s which could have been right up there with up leading bands of 60’s (and maybe Harrison could have lead a mediocre band, something like The Move) there would have been nothing about their bands that would have made them stand above the others (although here is a thought experiment, if the Beatles did not exist to basically hammer open the American market would bands like the Kinks and Stones, or Lennon or McCartney ever have got a hearing in America). I am with Steve H that “all four were more talented in each other's company than alone” and maybe even stretch that to 5 to include George Martin. In particular the fact that any of the 4 had an equal vote on artistic matters and in fact could exercise a veto on anything artistic helped reign in each worst tendencies and minimized the self indulgent stuff. Harrison to the day he died single handedly keep the Beatles from releasing the longest song they ever recorded because he did not like it because it was experimental (think Revolution 9) (and also a 3rd song they did as part of Anthology) and when John wanted to release Revolution 1, which was the first song recorded in the White Album session as a single in advance of the White Album the others vetoed it as being to slow and forced him to rerecord it at the end of the recording sessions as the Revolution that was released as the single (backing Hey Jude which was recorded with the White Album). In a band that was just Lennon’s both those songs would have released as he wanted them, to his and the bands detriment.

I have a recording session timeline book with trivia for each session, mesmerizing read for hard core fans. Forgot the name...it's in a box somewhere.

[opinionated ow]

I think this sums it up:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hifrxqw5ldse~T1

[Don Quixote]

Without Lennon the other three might have ended up working in a fish n chips shop. I agree to a point. Without Lennon, their music would have never been taken seriously. However, McCartney would have gone all boy band and still been somewhat a success. koo koo ca chooo.

[datachicane]

(although here is a thought experiment, if the Beatles did not exist to basically hammer open the American market would bands like the Kinks and Stones, or Lennon or McCartney ever have got a hearing in America).

I think they would have eventually, along with The Who, but we might have been spared The Mersey Beats and The Monkees.

Here's my though experiment- Lennon hooks up with Peter Green instead of McCartney...

[Napoleon]

This is too funny. I have been wondering if the reissue would send some of the Beatles records onto the charts. Well on NPR they just announced that the new number one in Britain is a reissue by Vera Lynn (yeah, the one mentioned in the Pink Floyd song Vera from The Wall). Her song was reissued as part of a remembrance of the start of WWII and she is something like 93 years old.

PS, the Beatles now hold 17 slots on Britain's top 100. Vera beat both the Beatles and the Arctic Monkeys for the top spot.

PPS - I would love to be in the room with Paul McCartney when he is told that he has just been beat by someone who his dad use to listen to. That is almost as funny as the fact that the first Beatles single that failed to make the number one slot, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, was denied the slot by Englebert Humperdink (sp?).

[Sean Malone]

I despise 'charts'. It's the reason the Lady GaGa's of the world get nominated for Grammy's.

The Beatles were ground breakers for numerous reasons, not just for the ability for John or Paul to pen classic pop tunes, and trust me Paul haters...'Yesterday' is a hook that all pop songwriters aspire to. But it wasn't just their tasty hooks that made The Beatles...it goes deeper than that. George and John were using phrasing and guitar progressions, even down to the chords (minor third intervals and clustered replacement chords) themselves new to 'rock' music throughout the 60's and still today a study in songwriting composition (the relationship between the replacement chords and the emotional conveyance of the words). Vocally, The Beatles used true three part harmony that is layered and intertwined into the fabric of their songs that the typical listener probably doesn't even notice the complexity...add in Martin's experienced guiding hand...ground breaking recording techniques...it's amazing that the end result is a neat little packaged pop ditty wrapped in a bow.
But of course their ability to evolve from one album to the next is what I believe make The Beatles music relative 45 years later. While there are songs that may not be rattling around in my head for hours on end, the album as a whole, coupled with the entire body of work and even the popular music environment at the time, paints the complete picture. Sort of like looking at a Dali painting, appreciating it's overall essence but knowing it's impact on the surrealist genre and the evolution and progress of the movement as a whole.

[Napoleon]

The Beatles were ground breakers for numerous reasons . . . .

. . . .

. . . the surrealist genre and the evolution and progress of the movement as a whole.

Plus those Sgt. Pepper outfits were groovy.

[SteveH]

Plus those Sgt. Pepper outfits were groovy.

Channeling Michael Jackson? ;) :D

[oddlycalm]

I think they would have eventually, along with The Who, but we might have been spared The Mersey Beats and The Monkees.

Here's my though experiment- Lennon hooks up with Peter Green instead of McCartney...
Yeah, someone with testicles would have taken it a completely different direction. No whimsy and much darker. Not sure that Green wouldn't still have checked out and gone all Syd Barrett for the duration though.

oc

[Indy]

Well said, Sean.

Hey, you must be pretty smart or something. :gomer:

[Sean Malone]

Well said, Sean.

Hey, you must be pretty smart or something. :gomer:

Hardly! The older I get the more I realize I'm an idiot. :)

[oddlycalm]

For those who get Showtime and are interested they are currently airing "All Together Now" which is a documentary of the Cirque du Soleil production of their Beatles show. Quite a few reflections by George Martin and his son as they were going though the old tapes to produce the sound track. Comments also from the surviving band members. IMO it is better than any documentary I've seen on the Beatles, maybe because the focus is tangential. The Cirque du Soleil "making of" aspect was certainly interesting as well. Not new, it's a 2008 release I think, so some may have seen it.

oc

[Napoleon]

Although here is a thought experiment, if the Beatles did not exist to basically hammer open the American market would bands like the Kinks and Stones, or Lennon or McCartney ever have got a hearing in America.

After posting this thread I decided that the next books I was going to read out of my pile of unread books were one on Beatles and one on 60’s rock and now I am thinking that my question was the wrong question. I should have said “If the Beatles did not exist to basically hammer open the British record market for rock/R&B bands, would bands like the Kinks and Stones, ever have got a record contract in Britain.”

The Beatles themselves had an enormously difficult time getting themselves signed to a label and its pretty clear from what I am reading that the record companies and promoters of the time really didn’t think much of that kind of music and acts. Those that were being signed really were the British versions of the type of pap that was being offered in America on top 30 radio, and the BBC just flat out didn’t play the type of music those bands played (If you liked, say, Carl Perkins or someone like that you had to listen to Radio Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Luxembourg_(English)) at night).

Jesus, that is like me having to listen to a radio station out of London, Ontario to hear the music I like.

It was basically not until the Beatles developed what was a cult following and burned up the charts that Britain’s 4 record companies (they had no independent labels at that time) started signing every act they could get their hand on because they suddenly realized they were asleep at the switch.

All of the above is really a lengthy intro to this story I read last night. I assume every one reading this is familiar with the famous Decca audition whereby Decca passed on signing the Beatles (the “biggest mistake in music history”). A little more then a year or so later after the Beatles were huge hits the Decca A& R guy who turned the Beatles down, Dick Rowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Rowe) by chance gets seated next George Harrison at an event and proceeds to apologize for not hiring them then says something like “people keep handing me my *** for not signing you guys” then ask Harrison something to the effect of “If you were me is there someone out there that you would sign”. Harrison thinks a few seconds and says “The Rolling Stones”.

Rowe snuck out of the event early, picked up his wife and drove to where the Stones were playing that night. He didn’t make the same mistake twice.

[Sean Malone]

I should have said “If the Beatles did not exist to basically hammer open the British record market for rock/R&B bands, would bands like the Kinks and Stones, ever have got a record contract in Britain.”




I think so. While retrospectively Lennon/McCartney songs were ground breaking 'ish' and their talent proved to be legendary, before they were trying to get record contracts they were among a large population of young Brits who had fallen in love with American blues. Even though they may have gotten out of the gates first...there were many breathing down their neck from the onset. Once signing of The Beatles opened the eyes of the record companies and the rush to sign as many copy cats as possible commenced, many of the bands were 'real' not fabricated in the modern boy band / Disney sense, which is why many of them not only had decent careers at the time but remain 'classic' and significant 4 decades later e.g. Stones/The Yardbirds/The Who/The Animals etc. In other words, the British Invasion grew out of a grass roots interpretation of another genre. I believe it would have happened with or without The Beatles.

[oddlycalm]

Your premise is correct IMO. The biz would have continued to lock out the young bands in order to jealously protect the (then) status quo.

Regardless of what business you're talking about the "suits" are are never the one's with imagination. We don't have to look farther than the US auto business to see the shining object lesson of an industry that was successful in keeping anyone with a spark of innovation out or driving out any that managed to sneak in.

When acts that were big in the 60's and early 70's still account for a serious percentage of sales 40yrs later some might be given to wonder if that wasn't at least partially due to the suits were steadfastly defending the status quo? :D How many people actually heard Jimi Hendrix in 1969? How many today when his tunes are part of everything from commercials to sports show intros...? From counterculture to mainstream in only 40yrs, or as long as business can milk it. I heard a few bars of "Crosstown Traffic" just last night on Speed News.

Somewhere out there are bands with real talent that have logged thousands of hours of club gigs together and can really play and write music. Most never achieve any significant popular success and those that do rarely achieve enough economic security to allow them time to pause long enough to reflect and to take it to the next level. The internet gives all of them a voice, but it's a very small voice in a sea of other voices.

oc

[Sean Malone]

Somewhere out there are bands with real talent that have logged thousands of hours of club gigs together and can really play and write music. Most never achieve any significant popular success and those that do rarely achieve enough economic security to allow them time to pause long enough to reflect and to take it to the next level. The internet gives all of them a voice, but it's a very small voice in a sea of other voices.

oc

15 years of my life right there. If I recall your son had or has a similear story. Is he still involved?

I have a lot of regrets concerning my musical ambitions...I had a few chances to sign self produced projects with indi labels but backed out and watched my friends bands do it. they lost money and never 'made it' but they hold it over my head that they were signed and I wasn't.

[Napoleon]

I believe it would have happened with or without The Beatles.

Probably, but its pretty clear to me that whoever it was pretty much had to be an overwhelming smash hit with some staying power in order to crush the prevailing orthodoxy at the record companies and open them up to considering a wider range of acts to sign. A one hit wonder or someone who sold well, but not spectacularly so wouldn't have done it. And that may have been the easy part of it. Getting signed in the first place would have been the hard part.

Britain had 4 record companies. 2 of them, Pye and Polydor, wouldn't give the Beatles the time of day, and that was with the Beatles having as their manager a guy whose family was one of the record companies biggest customers. Decca and EMI both turned them down (and in line with what I explain below as to how things worked at EMI Dick Rowe at Decca told the guy who wanted to hire the Beatles and one other pop band that he could only hire one of the two).

Interestingly the Beatles' manager was complaining about how record companies all but wouldn't consider the band to a contact of his in the record industry and this guy basically tells him "look, any producer who has a pop act isn't going to take on another" (think of the implications of that, if he is right then the number of pop/R&R/R&B acts that would be able to record in Britain would be limited to the number of producers at the 4 labels, and if producers are only working on one act at a time you can pretty much predict that they are likely making conservative choices on who to produce because they are not going to take a flyer on a potential throw away, and when you get right down to it the only type of act that could really be a runaway success is someone who really was offering something different). Any ways, this guy sits down and makes a list of every producer on EMI's roster and the pop act they have on roster, until he gets to their subsidiary label Parlophone and its sole producer and label chief George Martin, at which point he tells the manager something to the effect "he has no one, he is your only hope".

And if it worked out that the Beatles were good enough to make EMI money, but not great, then that was one less slot for someone like the Kinks or Stones or whoever could have been a real break out act to get signed.

[oddlycalm]

15 years of my life right there. If I recall your son had or has a similar story. Is he still involved?

I have a lot of regrets concerning my musical ambitions...I had a few chances to sign self produced projects with indi labels but backed out and watched my friends bands do it. they lost money and never 'made it' but they hold it over my head that they were signed and I wasn't.
Yep, he is still a weekend warrior bass player in a town full of great bass players.

Being "signed" to a contract that didn't provide a positive cash flow and didn't result in a positive career trajectory seems like a distinction without a difference to me. There are as many indie labels as there are guys with their own recording systems these days and if you're being asked to pay your own studio rent then all you're really doing is helping some guy amortize his hobby toys.

The only people I know in the music biz that seem happy long term in the music biz are the studio players in LA that are home every night.

oc

[dando]

Yep, he is still a weekend warrior bass player in a town full of great bass players.

How's his COPD progressing? :(

-Kevin

[oddlycalm]

How's his COPD progressing? :(
Fortunately it isn't, thanks. Turns out he has Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency, an inherited genetic disorder that is treatable by periodic infusions. The lung damage halt when the infusions start so the minor damage he has will never progress.

I wish I could say that a doctor caught this but that isn't what happened. I kept asking around because COPD in a non-smoker in their late 30's, regardless how much 2nd hand bar smoke they've been exposed to, is almost never seen. A pulmonary therapist I know told me about Alpha 1 and one blood screen later problem solved. There are periodic free blood screenings all around the country. Turned out my wife and mother-in-law have it as well though to a lesser degree.

There are estimates that put the number of people mis-diagnosed with COPD at < 30%.

I guess I have to retract my previous derogatory statements about 2nd hand bar smoke and it's effect on musicians. :gomer:

oc

[dando]

I guess I have to retract my previous derogatory statements about 2nd hand bar smoke and it's effect on musicians. :gomer:

oc

Good to hear. :thumbup:

Careful, there's a bar owner here fighting the oHIo smoking ban...you might be called to testify. :gomer: I just recently visited a couple of joints in Kintucky, where of course they can still smoke in bars, restaurants and hotels. :yuck: :saywhat:

-Kevin <== former light smoker

[Sean Malone]

I guess I have to retract my previous derogatory statements about 2nd hand bar smoke and it's effect on musicians. :gomer:

oc

There are a few other trade hazards however...blowing ones nightly cut on the bar tab (I remember more than once having a negative balance at the end of the night!)...the ladies in the front row...hot bartenders...the ladies in the front row...hot bartenders...

[Sean Malone]

TtV3lx4eT5w

[cameraman]

TtV3lx4eT5w

:eek::eek::eek:

Were there any criminal prosecutions in response to that?

That is epically bad.

[oddlycalm]

:eek::eek::eek:

Were there any criminal prosecutions in response to that?

That is epically bad.


Terry Bohner in A Mighty Wind

"There was abuse in my family, but it was mostly musical in nature.


The only thing they could have done to make that worse would have been to call Nancy Sinatra...:laugh:

oc

[Indy]

Oh, sweet Jeebus save us.

Sean, you are a sick man.

[RusH]

I saw a concert like that once, I swear, some dood grabbed my ass. :gomer:

[SteveH]

The History channel has a 1 hour documentary on the Beatles tonight. Can't imagine anything new will be broadcast, however the DVR is set.

http://www.history.com/genericContent.do?id=72934

[Don Quixote]

Really, what can you cover in one hour? My expectations are set oh so low.

[oddlycalm]

Really, what can you cover in one hour? My expectations are set oh so low.
For those of us that have only vague memories of the period these shows are valuable reconstructive tools.... :gomer:

oc