Entire Beatles Catalog To Be Remastered

Apple Corp Ltd. and EMI Music revealed in a joint statement that the entire catalog of music from The Beatles will be digitally remastered for the first time and is set to be released on September 9, 2009, the same day that The Beatles: Rock Band is scheduled to hit store shelves. Additionally, two new Beatles boxed CD sets will be released on the same day.

"The albums have been re-mastered by a dedicated team of engineers at EMI's Abbey Road Studios in London over a four year period utilising state of the art recording technology alongside vintage studio equipment, carefully maintaining the authenticity and integrity of the original analogue recordings," the statement reads. "The result of this painstaking process is the highest fidelity the catalogue has seen since its original release."

All 12 Beatles albums will be released in stereo sound along with the "Magical Mystery Tour" soundtrack. Additionally, the "Past Masters Vol. 1" and "Past Masters Vol. 2" discs will be combined into one CD. All of these titles will be coupled with a collection of documentaries and will be released as a boxed set.

The other boxed set, titled "The Beatles in Mono," will include all of The Beatles’ records that were recorded in mono as well as two more discs of mono masters similar to those featured in the "Past Masters" collection.

Regarding digital distribution of The Beatles’ music through online stores like iTunes, the statement reads, "Discussions regarding the digital distribution of the catalogue will continue. There is no further information available at this time."

Report by David Lowe-Bianco.

Comments

[InMyLife88]

09/09/09...one after 909 perhaps

[Echoplex]

Again?

[thfc]

Shit I just bought four of their albums a week ago, just my luck. I was actually really disappointed with the cd booklets, i was expecting the lyrics along with many pictures and maybe even long essays like most remastered albums but all I got was the track listings. Hope this is better and at a reasonable price.

[Paul DB]

Cool

[tands]

i think we have enough beatles box sets thank you

[avoideyecontact]

number nine number nine number nine number nine number nine number nine number nine geddit?

[grouch593]

Echoplex wrote:

Again?

The entire Beatles catalog has never been remastered before. So no, not again.

[eaglemike]

hooray... more money to spend!

[Lord Bonney]

About bloody time, the sound on the CD's is rubbish. Although this is old news, only the date is new.

[whaip]

I smell money,...

[InMyLife88]

ahh revolution number nine duh

[Hi_Imjeremy]

tands wrote:

i think we have enough beatles box sets thank you

But these are REMASTERED tracks.

[guitar67]

We need more Beatles box sets. The Best Ever. Live It, Learn It, Love It.

[Cobain_Is_King]

Why has it taken so long to remaster them? Most bands of this era had them remastered in the 90s didnt they?

[I am the Drake]

flashmdg wrote:

nice, maybe this will be a reason for someone to shoot one of the remaining members

Why in the hell would you say something like that?

[Tyler Durden]

flashmdg wrote:

nice, maybe this will be a reason for someone to shoot one of the remaining members

that was really uncalled for

[BassFishin]

tands wrote:

i think we have enough beatles box sets thank you

no such thing as 'enough beatles' in any sense!

[BassFishin]

flashmdg wrote:

nice, maybe this will be a reason for someone to shoot one of the remaining members

pssh way to draw attention to yourself. i hope your ears are torn off, because you don't deserve to listen to the beatles. not that you would, anyway...

[subliminaldelta]

This is going to suck, considering that the mono versions are the best.

[flashmdg]

BassFishin wrote:

flashmdg wrote:

nice, maybe this will be a reason for someone to shoot one of the remaining members

pssh way to draw attention to yourself. i hope your ears are torn off, because you don't deserve to listen to the beatles. not that you would, anyway...

nah I wouldn't listen to them

[Bubbles516]

Beatles and the stones, apparently remastering is the thing to do these days.

[Colohue]

checked.

A little advice. If somebody says something so demeaning again, do not quote it.

[biglaz84]

subliminaldelta wrote:

This is going to suck, considering that the mono versions are the best.

Agreed. Wouldn't it sound better in mono from an analog source. Fcuk CD's

[Tommy_sG]

Freakin Sweet

[phishfan08]

Cool, can't wait... and NO it hasn't already been done. You're thinking of the Love album which was pretty much remixed and blended with multiple songs... Oh, and there are never enough beatles box sets. If you dont like it, dont buy it.

[TJM2482]

yay now I can be bored in HIGH DEFINITION!

[Baconfish]

Yay, now I can experience bliss in High Definition!

[Kylianvb]

Well.. As a big Beatles-fan.. Great stuff!

[Kawk]

Glad of this. I probably won't re-buy their discography again though, just find some torrent and get it. Even though they're my favorite band, I'm not willing to buy it alllll over again haha.

[sweet-cheeks-72]

the beatles did nothing for music but lay down the road for stupid boy bands in the future. i respect them but don't like the music one bit

[PedophilePriest]

"The result of this painstaking process is the highest fidelity the catalogue has seen since its original release." So the original releases
are STILL better than what they're going to re-issue. Greedy bastards.

[J.A.M]

Let me guess, they're just going to make everything really loud.

[Vermintide]

Audiophiles the world around can now pretend they like the originals better with one more band.

[Soma3009]

Yep. I'm gonna' throw a whole paycheck away on 09/09/09.

[ThatWouldBeJon]

yawn

[badfish2829]

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

[tomsawyer67]

im actually kind of excited about the beatles rock band. they had some great tunes later in their career that will be especially fun to play.

[biglaz84]

Vermintide wrote:

Audiophiles the world around can now pretend they like the originals better with one more band.

what does that even mean, original vinyls are always better

[Mr. Chang]

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

How dare you have an opinion of the Beatles that isn't overwhelmingly positive

[badfish2829]

Mr. Chang wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

How dare you have an opinion of the Beatles that isn't overwhelmingly positive

Treason, I know. I just think that most people like them cause they feel they need to. I just want an idea of why people consider them Gods.

[Mr. Chang]

badfish2829 wrote:

Mr. Chang wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

How dare you have an opinion of the Beatles that isn't overwhelmingly positive

Treason, I know. I just think that most people like them cause they feel they need to. I just want an idea of why people consider them Gods.

I agree with you. I think they're the most overrated band ever, definitely wrote some good tunes but a lot of people are just buying into a their myth at this point.

Seems like I'm always getting into trouble writing about the Beatles on this site...

[Dinopaterno22]

InMyLife88 wrote:

ahh revolution number nine duh

LOL, +1

[dwmacfar2]

finally, I'll truly have abbey road on cd...

[Foolish_boy]

flashmdg wrote:

flashmdg wrote:

nice, maybe this will be a reason for someone to shoot off my members...

'fixed'

[StratStar21]

biglaz84 wrote:

Vermintide wrote:

Audiophiles the world around can now pretend they like the originals better with one more band.

what does that even mean, original vinyls are always better

ya ive always liked the originals better than remasters, too me im used to hearin it sound the "old" way and i think many others share this opinion as well.

[ThunderPX]

Not all remasters are automatically bad, you know. Some remasters actually make things sound clearer instead of just turning up the volume. Besides, what would be the point of doing that with The Beatles? It's not like any generic whiteboys are going to be blasting it on their shitty car stereo.

[StratStar21]

ThunderPX wrote:

Not all remasters are automatically bad, you know. Some remasters actually make things sound clearer instead of just turning up the volume. Besides, what would be the point of doing that with The Beatles? It's not like any generic whiteboys are going to be blasting it on their shitty car stereo.

i know, im just used to the "original" sound and will prefer it over anything else

[Pencil Man]

****, I just bought most of their CDs.

[ProgMetalDT]

Cool, I only have a few of their cds, but it will depend how much it costs

[oglockwood]

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

they were way ahead of every other band in the 60s. they made some pretty damn flawless albums.

overrated my ass

coldplay, dmb, nickelback, rhcp, acdc and guns n roses

[oglockwood]

^those are overrated bands^

[Shamanic Rhythm]

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

Whether or not you like their music, the Beatles set a new milestone for just how popular pop music could get. And far from just riding the wave of Beatlemania, they actually pulled away from the 2 minute pop routine and took music in new directions with psychedelia, and then before the excesses of that genre got too much they came back to really well crafted rock. That is what the draw to them is, because they stayed at the top of the business for almost a whole decade, as constant innovators.

[Luke.Zeppelin]

Whether or not you like their music, the Beatles set a new milestone for just how popular pop music could get. And far from just riding the wave of Beatlemania, they actually pulled away from the 2 minute pop routine and took music in new directions with psychedelia, and then before the excesses of that genre got too much they came back to really well crafted rock. That is what the draw to them is, because they stayed at the top of the business for almost a whole decade, as constant innovators.[/quote] couldnt of put it better myself lol

[gynther flynt]

That is what the draw to them is, because they stayed at the top of the business for almost a whole decade, as constant innovators.

Almost a decade means almost ten years...

[Mr. Chang]

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.
Whether or not you like their music, the Beatles set a new milestone for just how popular pop music could get. And far from just riding the wave of Beatlemania, they actually pulled away from the 2 minute pop routine and took music in new directions with psychedelia, and then before the excesses of that genre got too much they came back to really well crafted rock. That is what the draw to them is, because they stayed at the top of the business for almost a whole decade, as constant innovators.

This is where many of the misconceptions of the Beatles come from. You assume because they played psychedelia that they were innovators of it and had something to do with its creation. When the Beatles did that they only incorporated elements of it into their pop music after it had been established and was becoming commercially viable. There is absolutely nothing wrong that, what's wrong is to give them credit for that entire movement.

That's where the myth of the Beatles come from, people saw the Beatles did something, get blinded by their commercial success and give them all of the credit and exaggerate their legacy. Compared to many of their peers the Beatles were pretty tame in their experimentation, they basically always stuck to the pop format set in place in the 1950's.

[Underglow]

Compared to many of their peers the Beatles were pretty tame in their experimentation, they basically always stuck to the pop format set in place in the 1950's.

I was just going to say, Bob Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" broke more of the 2-minute pop format on radio than anything the Beatles had done yet. I think they were great songwriters, played music that was pleasing to the ear, and did set the tone for most pop-rock groups to come. I do not think, however, thay they changed the world the way people think.

[JPScralatchtica]

AWESOME!!!...I already have all of them though haha

[kgesme21]

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

Of course peopel out there think there overrated, but saying so just makes you sound like a pretentious snob.

[SirShredfast]

$$$$$

[flame_mc]

BassFishin wrote:

tands wrote:

i think we have enough beatles box sets thank you

no such thing as 'enough beatles' in any sense!

Everythig has it's limits, you know...

[zache57]

sounds like a waste of a cd and shelf space

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Mr. Chang wrote:

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.
Whether or not you like their music, the Beatles set a new milestone for just how popular pop music could get. And far from just riding the wave of Beatlemania, they actually pulled away from the 2 minute pop routine and took music in new directions with psychedelia, and then before the excesses of that genre got too much they came back to really well crafted rock. That is what the draw to them is, because they stayed at the top of the business for almost a whole decade, as constant innovators.

This is where many of the misconceptions of the Beatles come from. You assume because they played psychedelia that they were innovators of it and had something to do with its creation. When the Beatles did that they only incorporated elements of it into their pop music after it had been established and was becoming commercially viable. There is absolutely nothing wrong that, what's wrong is to give them credit for that entire movement.

That's where the myth of the Beatles come from, people saw the Beatles did something, get blinded by their commercial success and give them all of the credit and exaggerate their legacy. Compared to many of their peers the Beatles were pretty tame in their experimentation, they basically always stuck to the pop format set in place in the 1950's.

I don't assume anything, my good man. I have read several books about the chronology of rock music, I'm speaking from accumulated wisdom. When Rubber Soul was released in 1966, psychedelia was not a commercially successful genre, it was only just beginning to take off under the The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane over in San Francisco (although Jeff Beck makes the claim that the Yardbirds released the first psychedelic record in the same year). The Beatles were not the inventors of this genre when they came to it with Rubber Soul, but they were undoubtedly innovators on their next album, Revolver. Geoff Emerick, the engineer on Revolver introduced the Fairchild limiter to the drums on Tomorrow Never Knows, which results in that wooshing sound. McCartney also suggested various ways of distorting the tape sounds, by removing the heads to heavily saturate them. When Revolver was finally released, the previous commercial success of the Beatles ensured they had a receptive audience for the innovations on the album, and the genre reached even greater popularity.
Still think it's a myth?

[Altered_Carbon]

So unnecessary. The current masters are more than adequate.

[MRavioli]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

[Mr. Chang]

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

Mr. Chang wrote:

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

I don't assume anything, my good man. I have read several books about the chronology of rock music, I'm speaking from accumulated wisdom. When Rubber Soul was released in 1966, psychedelia was not a commercially successful genre, it was only just beginning to take off under the The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane over in San Francisco (although Jeff Beck makes the claim that the Yardbirds released the first psychedelic record in the same year). The Beatles were not the inventors of this genre when they came to it with Rubber Soul, but they were undoubtedly innovators on their next album, Revolver. Geoff Emerick, the engineer on Revolver introduced the Fairchild limiter to the drums on Tomorrow Never Knows, which results in that wooshing sound. McCartney also suggested various ways of distorting the tape sounds, by removing the heads to heavily saturate them. When Revolver was finally released, the previous commercial success of the Beatles ensured they had a receptive audience for the innovations on the album, and the genre reached even greater popularity.
Still think it's a myth?

By 1966 psychedelia was a commercially viable genre, it was poised to enter success. The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane were part of a much larger movement that included bands like the Thirteenth Floor Elevators, Cream, King Crimson, Can and many others from America to Germany.

The innovations on Revolver and Rubber Soul were no where near on the scale of Frank Zappa's early albums not to mention the early Fusion albums productions and minimalist/concrete recordings. It was these albums that the Beatles would be partly emulating and would water down for their releases.

And sorry for assuming, that can be annoying.

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Mr. Chang wrote:

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

Mr. Chang wrote:

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

By 1966 psychedelia was a commercially viable genre, it was poised to enter success. The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane were part of a much larger movement that included bands like the Thirteenth Floor Elevators, Cream, King Crimson, Can and many others from America to Germany.

The innovations on Revolver and Rubber Soul were no where near on the scale of Frank Zappa's early albums not to mention the early Fusion albums productions and minimalist/concrete recordings. It was these albums that the Beatles would be partly emulating and would water down for their releases.

And sorry for assuming, that can be annoying.

Look dude, I don't have all day to argue with you, but until you actually cite some evidence to back up what you're saying I can't take you seriously. Anyway, regardless of whether or not you think that Frank Zappa et al were more innovative than The Beatles, it doesn't change the fact that the Beatles were still innovators. They just happened to be commercially successful innovators. That doesn't make what they achieved any less important.

[joshw17]

sweet-cheeks-72 wrote:

the beatles did nothing for music but lay down the road for stupid boy bands in the future. i respect them but don't like the music one bit

Well, ya gotta think, didn't artists like Led Zeppelin lay down the road for the stupid hair metal bands of the future? Didn't Pink Floyd pave the way for countless atrocities of the 1980s? Didn't the music of the Ramones or the Sex Pistols eventually warp into being considered the filth emitted from groups like Simple Plan or Good Charlotte?

Awesome bands just have weird habit of inspiring hordes of awful imitators. That's all.

[Whip It]

I think Paul McCartney might need the money after Heather Mills took it all XD

[zekk]

oglockwood wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

they were way ahead of every other band in the 60s. they made some pretty damn flawless albums.

overrated my ass

coldplay, dmb, nickelback, rhcp, acdc and guns n roses

I agree with everything but the chili's preByTheWay (Which I still love). They were better prior to that, and not as acclaimed. But they're all still great, and John is a FANTASTIC songwriter (check out his solo stuff).

[Jordy]

To the people who are asking why there is still "Beatlemania":

The most popular band in my peer group, late teens and early 20s, is the Beatles. I know more people who like them than any other group.

They are also the single band I know that is named by the most people as their "favorite band". Still. After half a century.

That's gotta say something right there.

[jbrain95]

09/09/09 is going to be the most expensive day in 2009.

[astrocreep71]

Wasn't most (if not all) of their music remastered when CD's were invented? Plus purple chick remastered all of the catalog a few moons past. just google em.

[Mr. Chang]

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

Mr. Chang wrote:

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

Mr. Chang wrote:

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

Look dude, I don't have all day to argue with you, but until you actually cite some evidence to back up what you're saying I can't take you seriously. Anyway, regardless of whether or not you think that Frank Zappa et al were more innovative than The Beatles, it doesn't change the fact that the Beatles were still innovators. They just happened to be commercially successful innovators. That doesn't make what they achieved any less important.

Yeah you didn't cite anything either, you just said you read some books. And anybody can tell you musical biographies are the biggest pieces of trash to be called literature, all bias and drama and no objectivity.

The point that I'm trying to make is that there were far more important bands and musical movements going on around the Beatles, yet because they were commercially successful they get the credit.

It's like how Europe for centuries got all of the credit for creating civilization and technology as we know it even though many Asian countries played a bigger part in a lot of that. What's been happening is a much needed revisionist history where China and India and the like have been getting more credit and a more honest historical evaluation. That's exactly what needs to happen in Rock. These pseudo-musical historians tend to put all of the emphasis on only one or two groups. Like Nirvana gets almost all of the credit for the Alternative Rock explosion when in reality that was a massive movement that was built from the ground up by many bands starting roughly in the late '70's.

The Beatles innovated, definitely. They just were from the only ones and no more important than the many others.

[brentondig]

joshw17 wrote:

sweet-cheeks-72 wrote:

the beatles did nothing for music but lay down the road for stupid boy bands in the future. i respect them but don't like the music one bit

Well, ya gotta think, didn't artists like Led Zeppelin lay down the road for the stupid hair metal bands of the future? Didn't Pink Floyd pave the way for countless atrocities of the 1980s? Didn't the music of the Ramones or the Sex Pistols eventually warp into being considered the filth emitted from groups like Simple Plan or Good Charlotte?

Awesome bands just have weird habit of inspiring hordes of awful imitators. That's all.

This.

And regarding the article, I own Abbey Road, my dad owns ALL their records/cds/bootleg vinyl, and I have it on my iPod. I would buy the box set, but I may inherit his collection one day. However, it would be amazing to hear the remastered quality. I'm torn. Depends on the price. SHOW ME THE PRICE! Can I say at least $150 if not $200? I have a new amp to buy and more tuition to pay. We'll see. HAPPY CHRISTMAS/BIRTHDAY to me I guess...

[hackahobo]

Mr. Chang wrote:

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

Mr. Chang wrote:

Shamanic Rhythm wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

I don't assume anything, my good man. I have read several books about the chronology of rock music, I'm speaking from accumulated wisdom. When Rubber Soul was released in 1966, psychedelia was not a commercially successful genre, it was only just beginning to take off under the The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane over in San Francisco (although Jeff Beck makes the claim that the Yardbirds released the first psychedelic record in the same year). The Beatles were not the inventors of this genre when they came to it with Rubber Soul, but they were undoubtedly innovators on their next album, Revolver. Geoff Emerick, the engineer on Revolver introduced the Fairchild limiter to the drums on Tomorrow Never Knows, which results in that wooshing sound. McCartney also suggested various ways of distorting the tape sounds, by removing the heads to heavily saturate them. When Revolver was finally released, the previous commercial success of the Beatles ensured they had a receptive audience for the innovations on the album, and the genre reached even greater popularity.
Still think it's a myth?

By 1966 psychedelia was a commercially viable genre, it was poised to enter success. The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane were part of a much larger movement that included bands like the Thirteenth Floor Elevators, Cream, King Crimson, Can and many others from America to Germany.

The innovations on Revolver and Rubber Soul were no where near on the scale of Frank Zappa's early albums not to mention the early Fusion albums productions and minimalist/concrete recordings. It was these albums that the Beatles would be partly emulating and would water down for their releases.

And sorry for assuming, that can be annoying.

Uh sorry buddy, that's a fail for you. Psychadelic rock didn't become popular in mainstream music until the 1967-1968 timeframe. Clearly the Beatles' Revolver album was a milestone in psychadelic history, considering the fact that their first five albums stuck with their typical 50's-inspired blues-rock.

[mysecondlife]

i knew it was coming. It was implicitly confirmed when they're putting Beatles music in videogame

[jthm_guitarist]

Dammit I just bought some Beatles!

[qwerty_555]

Sweet
I was listening to them on my MP3 and the drum and bass was coming out of one headphone and the vocals and guitar were in the other. Pretty strange when your listening to it with only one headphone in on the odd occasion

[qwerty_555]

*you're

[Serjem]

again, what's the point on remastering? really.

[Mr. Chang]

hackahobo wrote:

Uh sorry buddy, that's a fail for you. Psychadelic rock didn't become popular in mainstream music until the 1967-1968 timeframe. Clearly the Beatles' Revolver album was a milestone in psychadelic history, considering the fact that their first five albums stuck with their typical 50's-inspired blues-rock.

I said it wasn't mainstream yet, but it was already developed and poised for success. It was commercially viable at that point. Read more carefully.

And that last part of your statement makes no sense. Because Revolver strayed a bit from their first 5 albums wouldn't make it a milestone in psychedelic music, it would make it a milestone for the Beatles I suppose. Either way it was still very much in the vein of '50's pop, same verse-chorus-verse-chorus type of deal.

[PedophilePriest]

Yeah you didn't cite anything either, you just said you read some books. And anybody can tell you musical biographies are the biggest pieces of trash to be called literature, all bias and drama and no objectivity.[quote]

- It amazes me that you can dismiss every music related biography as trash. Anybody can tell you that
your statement is myopic and over-exaggerated.

[quote]
The point that I'm trying to make is that there were far more important bands and musical movements going on around the Beatles, yet because they were commercially successful they get the credit.[quote]

- Speaking of bias and no objectivity, your "point" is just opinion. There may be more important bands and movements IN YOUR OPINION, but facts can't be disputed. Fact is, the Beatles have sold more records in the United States than any other band in history. Now to you that may not be important , but as far as the world is concerned it is.

[quote] It's like how Europe for centuries got all of the credit for creating civilization and technology as we know it even though many Asian countries played a bigger part in a lot of that. What's been happening is a much needed revisionist history where China and India and the like have been getting more credit and a more honest historical evaluation.[quote]

- What do you mean by credit? Who, exactly, gave Europe "credit" for creating civilization? I'll bet it was Europeans. Duh. Was it in the 7th grade Occidental history textbook you read? Revisionist history is to change what actually happened into "opinions" of what happened. I think you're confusing it with whats commonly referred to as "truth". The Chinese and Indians ( who probably collectively represent half of the worlds population) have always given themselves "credit".

That's exactly what needs to happen in Rock. These pseudo-musical historians tend to put all of the emphasis on only one or two groups. Like Nirvana gets almost all of the credit for the Alternative Rock explosion when in reality that was a massive movement that was built from the ground up by many bands starting roughly in the late '70's.
[/quote]
- The Beatles changed the world. Other bands may have been important, but they didn't have the impact the Beatles had on western culture. Thats a fact. Nirvana changed the world. Other bands may have been important, but they didn't have the impact Nirvana had on western culture. The Beatles and Nirvana "get the credit" because biographers ("These pseudo-musical historians") tend to write about people and bands that are POPULAR so they can sell more books. Amazing huh.
[/quote]
The Beatles innovated, definitely. They just were from the only ones and no more important than the many others.[/quote]
- Baffling.

[verona_bassist]

i read some comments, and..i think its funny how some people just come in to start arguments
as for the article itself? ill probably be seeing that remastered stuff in my house a day after it comes out...yayyyyy

[punk&metal]

yea lol

[Mr. Chang]

PedophilePriest wrote:

Yeah you didn't cite anything either, you just said you read some books. And anybody can tell you musical biographies are the biggest pieces of trash to be called literature, all bias and drama and no objectivity.[quote]

- It amazes me that you can dismiss every music related biography as trash. Anybody can tell you that
your statement is myopic and over-exaggerated.

[quote]
The point that I'm trying to make is that there were far more important bands and musical movements going on around the Beatles, yet because they were commercially successful they get the credit.[quote]

- Speaking of bias and no objectivity, your "point" is just opinion. There may be more important bands and movements IN YOUR OPINION, but facts can't be disputed. Fact is, the Beatles have sold more records in the United States than any other band in history. Now to you that may not be important , but as far as the world is concerned it is.

[quote] It's like how Europe for centuries got all of the credit for creating civilization and technology as we know it even though many Asian countries played a bigger part in a lot of that. What's been happening is a much needed revisionist history where China and India and the like have been getting more credit and a more honest historical evaluation.[quote]

- What do you mean by credit? Who, exactly, gave Europe "credit" for creating civilization? I'll bet it was Europeans. Duh. Was it in the 7th grade Occidental history textbook you read? Revisionist history is to change what actually happened into "opinions" of what happened. I think you're confusing it with whats commonly referred to as "truth". The Chinese and Indians ( who probably collectively represent half of the worlds population) have always given themselves "credit".

That's exactly what needs to happen in Rock. These pseudo-musical historians tend to put all of the emphasis on only one or two groups. Like Nirvana gets almost all of the credit for the Alternative Rock explosion when in reality that was a massive movement that was built from the ground up by many bands starting roughly in the late '70's.

- The Beatles changed the world. Other bands may have been important, but they didn't have the impact the Beatles had on western culture. Thats a fact. Nirvana changed the world. Other bands may have been important, but they didn't have the impact Nirvana had on western culture. The Beatles and Nirvana "get the credit" because biographers ("These pseudo-musical historians") tend to write about people and bands that are POPULAR so they can sell more books. Amazing huh.
[/quote]
The Beatles innovated, definitely. They just were from the only ones and no more important than the many others.[/quote]
- Baffling.

[/quote]

The Beatles record sales is not at all relevant to their music. It says absolutely nothing about what kind of innovations they may or may not have been doing or to the actual quality to the music, and it actually just proves my point that almost their entire legacy rests on their commercial success. And yes musical biographies are about 99% trash, even auto-biographies, but I'm not getting into that. The only source that should really matter is the music.

Revisionist History is an academic undertaking, it's a non-biased attempt by an entire field to recount history more accurately. Obviously I was referring to the West when I said that, and now Europeans and Americans are beginning to better understand the contributions of Eastern cultures.

You don't elaborate at all as to why the Beatles or Nirvana had a greater or more profound impact on Western culture. If it's just commercial success then I don't even know what to tell you. You have no idea how musical progress happens. You kind of proved my point by saying that musical historians write about popular bands to sell more books. That would mean the entire Rock canon was built on commercial blinded bias and only proves that we desperately need a revisionist history to more accurately recount it.

[HellBent1337]

Is this a plot to fix the world economy??

[archangelseren]

beatles comments are always the longest, bout time, the bowls crack me up.

[PedophilePriest]

The Beatles record sales is not at all relevant to their music.
- The Beatles music is relevant to their popularity (read "importance") and their record sales.

It says absolutely nothing about what kind of innovations they may or may not have been doing
-Innovations "they may or may not have been doing"? Who "does" innovations? WTF are you talking about? Wait... I think I know.

or to the actual quality to the music, and it actually just proves my point that almost their entire legacy rests on their commercial success.
- Wow. Quality concerning music is subjective. The sound of a car crash could be quality music to someone. You must be a musical historian.

And yes musical biographies are about 99% trash, even auto-biographies, but I'm not getting into that.
-Apparently you just did.

The only source that should really matter is the music.
- How profound. So you're finally admitting you're wrong. I accept your apology.

Revisionist History is an academic undertaking, it's a non-biased attempt by an entire field to recount history more accurately.
- An example of Revisionist History is denial of the Holocaust. Thats non-biased? I think you were looking at the wrong Wikipedia page.

Obviously I was referring to the West when I said that, and now Europeans and Americans are beginning to better understand the contributions of Eastern cultures.
- You have a very keen grasp of the obvious. Thanks for sharing.

You don't elaborate at all as to why the Beatles or Nirvana had a greater or more profound impact on Western culture.
- I don't have to. Thats the way facts work.

If it's just commercial success then I don't even know what to tell you.
-I'm SURE you'll think of something
.
You have no idea how musical progress happens.
- But YOU do don't you? Please, enlighten us all with your all-knowing wisdom.
Really... tell me how "musical progress" happens.

You kind of proved my point by saying that musical historians write about popular bands to sell more books.
- Really? Remember this... "The point that I'm trying to make is that there were far more important bands and musical movements going on around the Beatles, yet because they were commercially successful they get the credit." I said biographers write about popular people to sell books. I didn't say ANYTHING about musical historians. Those were your words.

That would mean the entire Rock canon was built on commercial blinded bias and only proves that we desperately need a revisionist history to more accurately recount it.
- Your whole argument is based on subjective bias. Perhaps there are several "musical history" books
that you can name that are bias to only "successful" artists. Better yet, why don't you go ahead and name
the bands that are factually "more important" than the Beatles? C'mon... share with all of us your wisdom.
Its been fun, sort of. But since, in the end, you'll never address any issue I've raised, and I'm sure theres a whole lot more vague bullshit in that bag of yours, I'm done here. Good luck. It seems you'll really need it.

[Cheeseman Jay]

coldplay, dmb, nickelback, rhcp, acdc and guns n roses

These are not over-rated. They are all brilliant. And now I brace for flaming.

[Power123]

Is this a plot to fix the world economy??

haha! +1!!

[piop]

Stop posting looong ass comments!

[DEATHPANDA]

Cheeseman Jay wrote:

coldplay, dmb, nickelback, rhcp, acdc and guns n roses

That's a pretty damn good selection of some of the worst over rated bands in the world.

fixed.

[Cheeseman Jay]

Cheeseman Jay wrote:

coldplay, dmb, nickelback, rhcp, acdc and guns n roses

That's a pretty damn good selection of some of the best bands around at the moment.

You got it slightly wrong.There we go!

[Cheeseman Jay]

Flaming imminent

[NemX162]

Vinyls are better if the recording itself was perfect. If they are making the original recording sound more true and crisp, then the lossyness from the CD or MP3 format is probably less than that of how lossy than the recording pre-remaster.

[Chips-]

[ignorant rant]
Just run it through a compressor, that should do the trick. MAX VOLUME, BITCHES!
[/ignorant rant]

I hope they don't. I have Help! on vinyl and it sounds great

[Tophue]

InMyLife88 wrote:

09/09/09...one after 909 perhaps

no then it would be on the tenth

[Mr. Chang]

Pedophile Priest,

You're a total mess. Commercial success is not relevant at all to the actual music. How many albums somebody sells says absolutely nothing about what's happening on those albums, at all. You think you're making a point but you're really just confused. You say one thing the Beatles did and then make a point to say that it's relevant to themselves. That's obvious, I'm not sure why you're even saying these things. The point is that those things weren't relevant to music as a whole, understand me so far.

Quality is not based entirely on opinion. Someone can like the car crash better but in every measurable way a composition by say Stravinsky is of a higher quality. It's ability to thoughtfully create a piece that expresses ideas and emotions cannot be matched by a car crash. If everything was based on opinions than everybody would live in their own little worlds and humanity would be pretty useless.

People who deny the Holocaust are a fringe group that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about and you know that. What I'm referring to is the collective undertaking of anthropologists and historians to better understand History as it happened. When we talk about civil rights in America we refer to people like Martin Luther King Jr. and don't take seriously the fringe people who were supporting anarchy and violence, they did exist. They just weren't relevant and neither are Holocaust deniers.

Here's how musical progress happens. Beethoven was hardly the most popular or well known of his European peers yet because he was doing something different it was his idea's that influenced music. His contemporaries were making the same old regressive compositions for the Church and Kings that had been in place for centuries yet because Beethoven explored tonality and harmonics, and was actually making music largely for himself he gave us many of the musical elements that we know and love. The Beatles are representative of this. Their peers like the Velvet Underground, Can, King Crimson, the Thirteenth Floor Elevators, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa and so many others were literally redefining what could be done in Rock music. They were creating long suites, using new technologies to create landscapes and textures never seen in music before, and using ideas like dissonance to introduce new elements into Rock music. The Beatles never left the '50's pop format created by Buddy Holly and used mild studio experimentation to create some noises as a backdrop to their verse-chorus music. There is a few examples of them kind of leaving this but the vast majority is there to be listened to, my point that the only source that matters is the music.

But you've proved that you're too ignorant to really understand any of this anyway because you only said that the Beatles and Nirvana are important because that's a fact. You didn't elaborate at all, didn't mention who made that a fact, you just took something that you've heard and accepted it without any thought. It's that kind of mindset that destroys civilizations, devalues culture and hold everybody back from their potential. Really I just pity you.

[Tophue]

badfish2829 wrote:

Mr. Chang wrote:

badfish2829 wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there: Does anyone else think that the Beatles are incredibly overrated? Sure, they have some decent stuff, but what's the draw to them? Honestly.

How dare you have an opinion of the Beatles that isn't overwhelmingly positive

Treason, I know. I just think that most people like them cause they feel they need to. I just want an idea of why people consider them Gods.

try to write and arrange a song as good as the beatles

[Tophue]

Mr. Chang wrote:

Pedophile Priest,

You're a total mess. Commercial success is not relevant at all to the actual music. How many albums somebody sells says absolutely nothing about what's happening on those albums, at all. You think you're making a point but you're really just confused. You say one thing the Beatles did and then make a point to say that it's relevant to themselves. That's obvious, I'm not sure why you're even saying these things. The point is that those things weren't relevant to music as a whole, understand me so far.

Quality is not based entirely on opinion. Someone can like the car crash better but in every measurable way a composition by say Stravinsky is of a higher quality. It's ability to thoughtfully create a piece that expresses ideas and emotions cannot be matched by a car crash. If everything was based on opinions than everybody would live in their own little worlds and humanity would be pretty useless.

People who deny the Holocaust are a fringe group that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about and you know that. What I'm referring to is the collective undertaking of anthropologists and historians to better understand History as it happened. When we talk about civil rights in America we refer to people like Martin Luther King Jr. and don't take seriously the fringe people who were supporting anarchy and violence, they did exist. They just weren't relevant and neither are Holocaust deniers.

Here's how musical progress happens. Beethoven was hardly the most popular or well known of his European peers yet because he was doing something different it was his idea's that influenced music. His contemporaries were making the same old regressive compositions for the Church and Kings that had been in place for centuries yet because Beethoven explored tonality and harmonics, and was actually making music largely for himself he gave us many of the musical elements that we know and love. The Beatles are representative of this. Their peers like the Velvet Underground, Can, King Crimson, the Thirteenth Floor Elevators, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa and so many others were literally redefining what could be done in Rock music. They were creating long suites, using new technologies to create landscapes and textures never seen in music before, and using ideas like dissonance to introduce new elements into Rock music. The Beatles never left the '50's pop format created by Buddy Holly and used mild studio experimentation to create some noises as a backdrop to their verse-chorus music. There is a few examples of them kind of leaving this but the vast majority is there to be listened to, my point that the only source that matters is the music.

But you've proved that you're too ignorant to really understand any of this anyway because you only said that the Beatles and Nirvana are important because that's a fact. You didn't elaborate at all, didn't mention who made that a fact, you just took something that you've heard and accepted it without any thought. It's that kind of mindset that destroys civilizations, devalues culture and hold everybody back from their potential. Really I just pity you.

hey what good is innovation if people don't like it???? also lol all those other groups you mentioned used verse chorus format too. there are lots of beatles songs that do NOT follow it, often changing keys and meters. side two of revolver, the first 4 tracks all end in keys different from where they started. But really none of that matters. none of that makes music good or bad. what makes it good is first and formost the people making it like it. And it just so happened everyone else in the world, those with good and bad taste, liked what they were doing.

[yus_yus_13]

I don't see why everyone hates the sound quality of the beatles cd's. Sure, the earlier stuff doesn't sound too nice, but rubber soul onward sounds great to me. I've actually always been impressed with the sound quality of those albums in comparison with the other music of the era. I'm not sure if I'll buy all of them, as I just bought about the whole catalog over the past couple years, but I'll be sure to check some out. If the original cd's are really as bad as most people seem to think, these remasters should be promising.

Whats up with all the arguing? Seriously, who gives a damn if they were good or not, why spend your day insulting each other about it. Either side will always find their view to be truth while the opposing side's view to be simply a misguided opinion. If you ask me, The Beatles were amazing, and if you can't see it then you're just caught up in dismissing them as a crappy pop band. I once made that mistake myself. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Mr. Chang]

Tophue wrote:

hey what good is innovation if people don't like it???? also lol all those other groups you mentioned used verse chorus format too. there are lots of beatles songs that do NOT follow it, often changing keys and meters. side two of revolver, the first 4 tracks all end in keys different from where they started. But really none of that matters. none of that makes music good or bad. what makes it good is first and formost the people making it like it. And it just so happened everyone else in the world, those with good and bad taste, liked what they were doing.

You have just said that bands that don't make music that is geared towards the most people liking it are pointless. Those bands I mentioned are loved by many and their innovations have permeated into the mainstream. That's how it works. Small political groups that hardly had any members in American politics were responsible for some of the countries greatest reforms. It took time but eventually their ideas were absorbed by the major parties and entered the mainstream. That's how it happens in music. And none of those bands are known for their verse chorus music, who talks about the Velvet Underground and says Lou Reed really knew how to make a great catchy chorus. It wasn't the cornerstone of their music unlike the Beatles.

And key changes weren't what I was talking about at all. They always stuck to the same structure. It was always built around the chorus. And
if the band likes the music their making than that would be the most important thing to them, that has absolutely nothing to do with the people listening. I do agree that making music for oneself should always be the case, but we as the listener cannot hear that in the music. And not everyone in the world likes the Beatles. I do, I'm a mild fan, but not everyone does. And saying you don't like them in no way makes someone an elitist who hates "simple pop." There is so much music outside of mainstream pop/rock, so incredibly much and it makes a lot of sense that a lot of people would not connect with the pop of the Beatles.

[Bonscott4ever]

First of all with out the Beatles, No other British bands would have been able to make it in America. They were the first to achieve commercial success in America allowing other bands from the UK to do the same ( I mention this because you listed Led Zeppelin in your example, which I know didn't care for musical success, but without the foothold the beatles left wouldn't have made it). Secondly, who says format means anything in a song. Yes The Beatles use the standard v-c-v-b-c etc. format, but lots of other bands did and still do. What makes the Beatles so incredible is the effect they had on pop culture and also what they did in the studio. They were developing new techniques, exploring all the studio had to offer, experimenting with tape effects, feed back, and even double tracking. Now I'm not saying they invented these things but I'm just saying they were the leading Pop band that did it. Not only that but they also explored so many different genres. Just listen to the white album, theres such a mixture of styles there that they had to make it a double album. It's not the fact that they stayed with the same format its what they did with it and how other bands could use it in those same ways.

[Mr. Chang]

British musicians had been popular in America since the country began. Don't know if you realize this but America was a British colony and British culture had been a huge part of the countries national identity since the start. So many bands had hits during the British invasion, the Beatles just had the most right from the beginning. Rightfully so too, they were the best of those bands. I never mentioned Led Zeppelin anywhere but how does the Beatles extend to that band. Are you honestly grouping all British bands together purely based on the fact that their British. Led Zeppelin comes from a different musical tradition and it was that music, probably started by Cream, that replaced the music of the Beatles on the charts. You could argue that there would be no Zeppelin without Cream, but the Beatles play no part in that.

Format isn't everything, that's very true and I didn't say it was. But since Rock started and until the '60's it always played out in the same structure. How can the music continue to grow and expand if it's constantly limited by the same form again and again. The point is there were bands who completely broke free of this and paved the way for Rock music to expand into endless musical horizons while the Beatles treaded the same ground over and over again. This is not a case to say you should like these bands better, this is just to say that there were bands who were more important than the Beatles. That the Beatles are getting credit for things that they didn't do. Sure they may have paved the way for pop bands, but the vast majority of all music is not released in the mainstream. Everything that's happening in music is almost entirely taking place outside of the charts, pop is such a small part of music as a whole. Their experimentations were nowhere near on the scale of other bands at the same time.

The White Album had by far the most filler of any Beatles album and when they used other styles it was always in the context of the pop song. Harrison would play a sitar and use it to create a melodic line that he would have done using a guitar. It kept their music a little more interesting but their exploration of other genres was very limited. And I suspect a huge part of their impact on pop culture was artificial at best, they were part of the largest publicity campaign in music history. Their management put so much money into creating an image that had no real meaning or importance. Beatlemania survives because of these reissues and music publications continually buying into the myth. This kind of thing still happens. Radiohead's OK Computer was part of a similar publicity campaign. Their label put a lot of money and time into building this image of a brilliant band that was doing something revolutionary. Slowly but surely music publications began to buy into it one by one as they became blinded by this publicity campaign and by the end of the decade, a few years after it was released, it was called one of the best if not the best albums of that decade. I think it's pretty clear that no album is ever the best of any decade, but for the '90's, one of Rock's most creative fertile periods from the mainstream to the underground an album like OK Computer is hardly a contender. I think Radiohead lived up to their hype by releasing four really solid albums this decade but the same thing happened with the Beatles but on a far larger scale. Look past the commercialism.

[PedophilePriest]

Mr. Chang wrote:

This is not a case to say you should like these bands better, this is just to say that there were bands who were more important than the Beatles. That the Beatles are getting credit for things that they didn't do. Their experimentations were nowhere near on the scale of other bands at the same time.

Lets see if you can answer a few simple questions. In your statement above, you say "there were
bands who were more important than the Beatles."
Who are those bands?

You also say "the Beatles are getting credit for things that they didn't do."
What things are the Beatles getting credit for that they didn't do?

[Mr. Chang]

PedophilePriest wrote:

Lets see if you can answer a few simple questions. In your statement above, you say "there were
bands who were more important than the Beatles."
Who are those bands?

You also say "the Beatles are getting credit for things that they didn't do."
What things are the Beatles getting credit for that they didn't do?

Now I understand your replies to my posts, you never actually read any of them. I answered both those questions already.

Now you can respond with something like "George Harrison playing the sitar mattered to his guitar playing thereby making the Beatles the most important band because that's a fact" and then try to paint me as some pseudo-intellectual who has no idea what he's talking about even though I elaborated on all of my posts and you have been vague at best.

[PedophilePriest]

Mr. Chang wrote:

PedophilePriest wrote:

Lets see if you can answer a few simple questions. In your statement above, you say "there were
bands who were more important than the Beatles."
Who are those bands?

You also say "the Beatles are getting credit for things that they didn't do."
What things are the Beatles getting credit for that they didn't do?

Now I understand your replies to my posts, you never actually read any of them. I answered both those questions already.

Now you can respond with something like "George Harrison playing the sitar mattered to his guitar playing thereby making the Beatles the most important band because that's a fact" and then try to paint me as some pseudo-intellectual who has no idea what he's talking about even though I elaborated on all of my posts and you have been vague at best.

Nope... you never said who those bands were, and if you inferred it was "13th Floor Elevator" or "Frank Zappa", your obviously talking out of your ass, which, based on this entire thread, is apparently what you always do. Also, you really shouldn't flatter yourself, you're not even close to being a pseudo-intellectual, you're just a blow hard who thinks they know more than anyone else. I pity you. Actually, no I don't. When it comes to your kind, euthanasia should be mandatory.

[Mr. Chang]

PedophilePriest wrote:

Nope... you never said who those bands were, and if you inferred it was "13th Floor Elevator" or "Frank Zappa", your obviously talking out of your ass, which, based on this entire thread, is apparently what you always do. Also, you really shouldn't flatter yourself, you're not even close to being a pseudo-intellectual, you're just a blow hard who thinks they know more than anyone else. I pity you. Actually, no I don't. When it comes to your kind, euthanasia should be mandatory.

Ah yes, now you're trying to do that thing where you make me out to be an elitist and continue to not to say anything worthwhile and only repeat personal attacks. Do you actually have any ideas or knowledge on music, I mean besides the ones you get from Rolling Stone Magazine? Or did you just see someone not praising the Beatles and then have a flicker of something that might be a thought, "but... Beatles good, it fact" and then feel compelled to write something of no value whatsoever.

Why am I talking out of my ass? Have you actually heard these bands, they're not really obscure. Besides it's more about movements in music, not individual bands. Say something as to why I might be wrong, why are the Beatles more relevant outside of commercial success. It might take more than your not so clever one liners. I doubt you'll manage that.

Are you this resistant every time someone tries to have a conversation about something that challenges your notions of music or whatever even in the slightest bit? Or do you just stare at a wall all day due to that apparent severe lobotomy you suffered?