Every time I turn on any news channel at any time of day it seems there's some talking head or other prating on about the Beatles.

Frankly, I never liked their music and nor do I give a tinker's cuss about the fact that there's some computer game being released that features their music and allows people to pay for the privilige of playing air guitar to it.

It's not news you moronic ****monkeys!

"Tinker's cuss" – my old (now departed) Maths teacher at school used to use that phrase, the only time apart from now I've heard/seen it used 🙂

Yes, never a fan myself, but would never deny how great they were. Think it's something to do with a fortieth anniversary or something isn't it?

I bet though Flash, if they brought out an equivalent hair-metal game, you'd be down the precinct in a, well, flash! 😆

Better than the French hiphop tosh you played me in the car a few years back CFH.

I find the Beatles tunes rather depressing – a forerunner to Radiohead in fact!!

Darcy, hair metal comes with its own in-built air guitar, all part of the genre! 🙂

Dark Side, YGM….! 8)

A forerunner to Radiohead?? Now, that's a bit of a leap. Having said that, they were a forerunner to a lot of what is great about British rock music. Like I said, I was never a big fan, but enough singers and bands I have loved have cited them as a major influence so I'd never say they were shit.

Oh, and that French hiphop, if it's the one I hear a lot of, is great!

I like 'em, was watching them on TV Saturday night !

I ordered the "Blue Album" from Amazon t'other day. Hopefully it should be here today or tomorrow. 8)

I was forced to listen to it by my parents growing up and now cannot stand it.

CaptainFlashheart totally agree with you.i've never been a fan of the beatles either,but love playing air guitar to hair metal/any metal/rock to be honest!!!now where is my air tuner. 🙂

Anyone who's studied musical history would recognise the massive importance of the Beatles.
Anyone who's studied cultural history would recognise the massive importance of the Beatles.
Some of the music I love, some I can't stand and the personas of Lennon and McCartney make my p1ss boil but, as far as I'm concerned, the Beatles stand alone.

Similar story. I recognise their importance but I'm not a fan although I really do like The White Album.

I'd much rather listen to Mick and Keef

coyote – your "blue album" may as well be carvings on a stone tablet depicting the music of the beatles through the eyes of a caveman

if your not listening to one of the new remastered box sets your not really listening to the beatles

😉

(says the easily led fool who has spent 200 quid pre-ordering the mono box set – containing many, many songs he already has on CD) 😳

there was a prog about the beatles in russia on last night that was very interesting. Apparently they really were bigger than Jesus over there.

have just got hold of the remastered stereo boxset – the remasters are really quite amazing. anyone who is a fan of the beatles music, and in all truth it should be everyone, would be well advised to get hold of them – it's hard to put a finger on the difference, but it sounds like brand new music that you already know. top stuff.

BURN THE HERATIC

😆 i realised it was a risky business to make that claim, but it had to be said!

(out of interest, just so i know, are you upset with the stereo over mono choice, or just the whole remastered situation? 🙂 )

I'm a fan so biased, love the music, it has all sorts of really good and not so good memories for me, from holiday car journeys when I was younger, the whole family singing along to Yellow submarine, and the family in-jokes, to a hazy summer spent listening to the White, Abbey Road, and Revolver with my brother whilst my parents divorced noisily…

I'm enjoying working through the mono set. I have also got Abbey Road in Stereo. The difference in the bass is the biggest noticable change compared to the "old" CDs, also sounds much crisper and clearer.

certain tracks like "Ticket to Ride" just sound massive

the mono versions come in perfect miniature reproductions of the original vinyl sleeves, dust covers etc- evan including the free gifts from Sgt Peppar, the postcards from the White Album and the comic strip in the middle of Magical Mystery Tour.

Overpriced – probably
Geeky – very
Satisfying – oh yes

Sick of the buggers. If they were from Stoke or Ipswich or anywhere other than Liverpool would people bang on about them quite so much?

Harry – I can understand why bands that come after the Beatles might have got extra attention because they were from Liverpool, but why on earth would the Beatles? Your comment makes 0 sense

why have they released mono and stereo remastered versions? apart from the obvious, what is the difference?

g tim, i've only had abbey road on so far, and every track sounds much richer and with more distinction between the parts on the tracks. i hadn't expected the difference to be so pronounced. you're right – the bass is much more audible and clear. great stuff.

mongoridebike

during the 60s mono was the default format for an LP. Stereo was for Hi Fi geeks and was still regarded as a bit of a gimmik at the time.

Beatles legend has it that for pretty much all the albums most care and attention was paide to the mono mixes (the beatles for example attended the mono mixing sessions for Sgt Peppar, Revolver etc, but didn't bother turning up for the stereo mixes)

in addition to modern ears some of the early stereo mixes sound a little odd – all the drums in one speaker in a lot of cases. Some stereo mixes seemed to be trying to make the most of the new technology – at the expense of the music

if you are a real geek some of the mono versions are slightly different to the stereo ones (different takes used, different speeds etc)

Let it Be and Abbey Road are the only 2 albums which are Stereo only

Or, the real answer – cashing in before the end of copyright restrictions.

all the beatles did was take the black mans blues/rock music and repackage it in a nice safe friendly long hair- but not too long, hippy-but not too counter culture, sexy- but no elvis pelvis gyrations, stylee so it was accebtable and accessible to the white emergent tv watching masses as the world was emerging from the post war depression and eager for something new

you make it sound so simple Kimbers!

they might have started out a bit like that (although their hair was regarded as pretty outrageously long at the time) – but the Beatles can in no way be accused of paying it safe.

They went from "She Loves You" to "Tommorrow Never Knows" and "A Day in the Life" in about 3 years – name any other band that developed like that in such a short space of time.

pantera went from this

to this

in a few years 😉

Pantera are not in the same ball park

They are not evan the same sport as the fab four

well they both had band members shot to death!

and afaic youre right pantera are waaaaaay better

Overated tosh IMO, but decent songwriters.

From bad to worse, Kimbers? Wouldn't call myself a massive fan, but I do have 5 of their albums ❓ Anyone who doubts their influence or ability to write great songs is a fan of pointless metal wrong.

My parents hated them. That was good enough for me. At the time.

Like many I can appreciate the music and the ongoing effect they had on popular music but I am rather tired of hearing all about it again.

I quite like the fact that due to the ongoing Apple dispute that Itunes remains Beatles free!

This is all about money and appealing to some audiophiles who enjoy having several different copies of the same song. As I am tone deaf it makes bugger all differnce to me.

Hijack CFH guess you have bought latest copy of Bike with the Emily Batty interview?

What is so abundantly clear here isn't anything to do with liking the Beatles or their music, it's the total ignorance of musical history and the totally irrefutable fact that the Beatles were the most important contributors to world music. Before them, all popular music was written by writers on a production line basis, like the Brill Building, with Goffin and King, among many, and then the songs were presented to singers to perform. The Beatles were the first pop performers to write and perform their own material. The likes of Pet Clark, Dusty, Elvis, Pat Boone, et al, never sang their own songs. No-one did. The Beatles broke that wide open, allowing the likes of Radiohead and Pantera to exist. Plus, the Beatles were intimately involved in using the studio as an instrument, with tape effects, editing, multitracking, etc, that were also far ahead of their time. To say they are rubbish shows a remarkable level of ignorance, when there is such a broad range of styles in their music; compare Eleanor Rigby with Tomorrow Never Knows, which I love to bits, the drumming, played loud, is as good as anybody. I'll say now that I'm a fan, but as someone who is a fan of quality music of any genre, when I was at school, the cool kids were carrying around the White Album, but the first real rock album I ever heard was King Crimson, In The Court Of The Crimson King, and I loved Jethro Tull, and Simon and Garfuncle and ELP as well. One other thing, the Beatles broke the previous dominance of the Americans over pop music, which you should all be grateful for.

Like many I can appreciate the music and the ongoing effect they had on popular music but I am rather tired of hearing all about it again.

Spot on. Well put.

Hijack CFH guess you have bought latest copy of Bike with the Emily Batty interview?

Is that an "under the counter" magazine? 😉 Will go and have a look!

I love the irony that someone who regularly champions the zenith of bad taste that is mullet rock, starts a thread questioning The Beatles. Top work Flash 😆

🙂

Taste is a personal thing, my dear chap!

Actually, my original post was more about being bored of the endless hype about them that there has been recently. I'm no fan of their music, but as mentioned above, I can appreciate their place in the history books.

Their music still sucks, mind you. 😉