[Comments] Latest Comments from Ultimate-Guitar.Com. en-us Copyright 1998-2013 Ultimate-Guitar.Com. All rights reserved. http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html webmaster@ultimate-guitar.com Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:58:06 -0500 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:37:33 -0500 60 Ultimate-Guitar.Com http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/img/logo_rss.gif http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/ 144 44 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_1
I once read an interview with Janis Joplin where she complained (laughingly) about not being able to come up with new sounds or styles because the Beatles had already done it.

POSTED: 11/03/2009 07:04am]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:04:10 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_2 Jesus_Dean wrote:
Bands today have a certain style or format that the record label dictates which doesn’t allow them to be as creative as they otherwise could be.


ugh not true.. try listening to Brand New and Nirvana. They display way more contrast from album to album.

also, why even review this? "the same old beatles you've been hearing for thirty years but with better sound quality" = entire review.
POSTED: 11/03/2009 11:40am]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:40:47 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_3 KurdtStaley wrote:
also, why even review this? "the same old beatles you've been hearing for thirty years but with better sound quality" = entire review.

Not to offend you... But do you have any idea what this album even is? It's not remastered Beatles, its almost the opposite: Demos, instrumentals, songs in mono and songs that never made it on the albums. So your logic won't work.
POSTED: 11/03/2009 12:36pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:36:01 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_4 KurdtStaley wrote:
ugh not true.. try listening to Brand New and Nirvana. They display way more contrast from album to album.


Are you serious? You've obviously not been well acquainted with the Beatles catalogue.

A Hard Day's Night -> Rubber Soul -> Revolver -> Sgt. Pepper's -> The White Album -> Abbey Road

I left out a few, but each one of these steps were some of the most gradual musical changes by any band in the commercial music industry. I love Nirvana and own all three of their studio albums, but groups like this don't throw a stone on some of the greats of the 60s and 70s when it comes to album diversity
POSTED: 11/03/2009 01:13pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:13:54 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_5 KurdtStaley wrote:
ugh not true.. try listening to Brand New and Nirvana. They display way more contrast from album to album.

also, why even review this? "the same old beatles you've been hearing for thirty years but with better sound quality" = entire review.

Lol. Hahahaha. Wow... Nirvana shows way more contrast than the Beatles? Not even. You are completely misinformed about everything you responded to. As Wyngott pointed out, this is way more than just remastered Beatles.
POSTED: 11/03/2009 02:23pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:23:00 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_6 @Weyngott / yus_yus_13 / fiktion: You guys beat me to it! Thanx!
POSTED: 11/03/2009 03:47pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:47:48 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_7 POSTED: 11/03/2009 05:04pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:04:40 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_8 KurdtStaley wrote:

Jesus_Dean wrote:
Bands today have a certain style or format that the record label dictates which doesn’t allow them to be as creative as they otherwise could be.

ugh not true.. try listening to Brand New and Nirvana. They display way more contrast from album to album.

also, why even review this? "the same old beatles you've been hearing for thirty years but with better sound quality" = entire review.
you're a dumbass....

POSTED: 11/03/2009 06:47pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:47:07 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_9 in such a short amount of time While the Beatles were around for a while, their studio albums were made in ten years' time.

The Beatles aren't my favourite band - even though they're up there - but I can't think of a single band that did even half as much new stuff as they did in ten years. It's almost like they were sent back from the future with a checklist. Almost every record has a different sound, every record was great (even though not every track was great), and most importantly, every sound was NEW.

Meet The Beatles/With the Beatles launched the Britpop movement.

Magical Mystery Tour launched the Psychedelic movement. Which in turn, created Metal. Beatles, Jefferson Airplane, Steppenwolf, Sabbath, Maiden. There's your timeline.

Let it Be launched the Singer/Songwriter movement.

Between these guys, Bob Dylan(or Woody Guthrie if you're a purist), and Chuck Berry comes basically all modern pop and rock. It just takes some 'in between' steps like Quicksilver Messenger Service and Blue Cheer that, unfortunately, not nearly enough people are familiar with today.
POSTED: 11/03/2009 07:34pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:34:40 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_10 yus_yus_13 wrote:
Are you serious? You've obviously not been well acquainted with the Beatles catalogue.

A Hard Day's Night -> Rubber Soul -> Revolver -> Sgt. Pepper's -> The White Album -> Abbey Road

I left out a few, but each one of these steps were some of the most gradual musical changes by any band in the commercial music industry. I love Nirvana and own all three of their studio albums, but groups like this don't throw a stone on some of the greats of the 60s and 70s when it comes to album diversity

um you're trying to argue with me but you actually just agreed with me. I said they display a larger contrast from one album to the next as in from album A to A to B and then from B to C. The beatles changed more over their entire career from album A to K (or whatever it would be) but they've also had a much longer career than either of those bands.

fiktion wrote
Lol. Hahahaha. Wow... Nirvana shows way more contrast than the Beatles? Not even. You are completely misinformed about everything you responded to. As Wyngott pointed out, this is way more than just remastered Beatles.

Then to this idiot, who obviously doesn't understand english. You think there is more of a contrast from Help to a Hard Days Night than there is from Bleach to Nevermind? You're "obviously misinformed" about what the word "next" means. And no this isn't original. I have these anthology albums or something exactly the same under a different name that has all the beatles oddities and covers from their early years. So in fact you're the misinformed one but that's not surprising since you can't understand english, it must be hard to be well read.
POSTED: 11/03/2009 08:52pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:52:10 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_11 POSTED: 11/03/2009 09:59pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:59:12 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_12 POSTED: 11/03/2009 10:29pm]]> Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:29:47 -0500 http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/beatles/anthology_1/index.html#u_13
A Hard Day's Night -> Rubber Soul -> Revolver -> Sgt. Pepper's -> The White Album -> Abbey Road

I left out a few, but each one of these steps were some of the most gradual musical changes by any band in the commercial music industry. I love Nirvana and own all three of their studio albums, but groups like this don't throw a stone on some of the greats of the 60s and 70s when it comes to album diversity.
i like leather jackets
POSTED: 11/10/2009 02:37am]]> Comments Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:37:33 -0500