Love the beatles

I just bought the Beatles in mono a couple weeks ago. It was literally the best 200 dollars I have ever spent on music. their stuff was seriously supposed to be listened to in mono. Mostly just because 80% of the stereo mixes are super annoying to listen to on headphones and even speakers sometimes.

Not to mention it is the best physical collectors item as far as CDs go.. Each album comes in a mini-replica LP sleeve that is exact, down to the construction of the cardboard and sleeves for the would-be vinyl discs. And the CDs all have protective slips on them as well.

Don't you think that music made for a certain presentation lacks something?

^ what do you mean?

You're joking? Underrated? The Beatles are constantly being praised for their work. Look at Any list created by the Rolling Stones (500 best albums, 500 best songs, etc) and you'll see that they dominate everything. People still listen to these guys too. Personally, I think if anything they are overrated, but then I would deny them their revolutionary compositions of music.

Beatles were brilliant for the same reason they were overrated. When psychedelic was coming around, and they were struggling to keep up, they learned how to extensively use new innovative studio tricks to compensate for the instrumental limitations.

In that, they truly are like the godfathers of post-production. In that essence, though, they were actually a really kind of a flawed band. Good band, even great, but not to the standard of excellence brought to their reputation.

It doesn't, however, mean that their innovations in studio production are not significant, and that they should be appreciated as such. They could have continued to **** in a bag at one point, and been a happy boyband who smile, and sing silly love songs, but they chose to be more.

That's why I appreciate the Beatles. (Albeit, I wish I could punch Paul McCartney in the face every single time I see him speak.)

And that's when things got interesting :)

care to elaborate? or you just don't like the way he looks or something... :(

Too damn cheery, and over the top.

Paul's happy - go - lucky persona is a façade, and by some accounts he's quite a nasty little fella (one only has to hear the 'pakis go home' nonsense).

But I'll forgive him as he did write 'For No One' and some other stuff that I enjoy very much indeed.

I don't know, it's not just that. Guess it's also that super dumb look he always has on his face as he speaks. As if he's lost.

Albeit, within the Beatles I greatly appreciate his contributions, and the ****er wrote Helter Skelter. Just something about his whole tone that gets me. Never was a fan of his solo work, though.

interesting.. my dad is a huge fan of Paul, he thinks he's a genius and all that. Personally I prefer Lennon's stuff but then I'm a fan of psychedelic, experimental and prog and my dad likes folk so not a surprise there.

Ringo is the best Beatle though.

Ha, really? He seems like a nice bloke but the only track I like with Ringo at the front is on their first LP, 'Boys'.

Really? I don't like that song at all, lol

I didn't mean musically, Lennon is my favorite there, more as a person, plus I think he is a super underrated drummer. He it actually really good. The drumming on Abbey Road especially is superb.

You do realize that the "pakis go home" nonsense was part of a parody song he had written? It was meant to be a satire and didn't reflect Paul's opinion at all.

He can be quite a difficult person but I doubt that he's a "nasty little fella" any more than any one else out there or here.

For the record, "See My Friends" had the Indian vibe but it didn't feature a sitar hence the comment about "Norweign Wood". Paul's contribution to the song was the idea and he wrote that section with John that the character burned down the flat IIRC adding a nasty element to the song. It's primarily a John song with contributions from Paul.

Mono was the stanard at the time and as I'm sure you're aware The Beatles themselves would be around for mono mixing sessions later in their career whereas stereo was an after thought with less time devoted to it (and sometimes Martin himself wasn't around).

Some of the stereo mixes were done by Martin, Norman Smith, etc. with the idea that if someone wanted to listen to them on a mono set (for whatever reason) they would "fold down" into mono when played that way--although I want to point out that the mono mixes were not in anyway a fold down (in fact the only fold down I recall being done during that time was for "Revolution 9" and, some argue, that "Revolution 1" although I'm not a strong believer in that theory based on what I recall of the mixing history of the White Album).

ya, it talks quite a bit about the mixing process and all that stuff in the booklet that comes with The Beatles In Mono. The most interesting thing I found about the mono mixes was that Helter Skelter is actually sped up quite a bit in the mono version making it a tone higher and an entire minute shorter. I quite prefer the sped up version actually. And the entire white album is very noticeably different between mono and stereo in actual aspects of the music not that its just one channel instead of two

Do you know if it is like that with the digitally remastered albums? I would love to have both if I could.

Geoff Emerick's book Here, There, and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles is a must read for Beatle fans, it goes into pretty good detail on the mixing process.

'Revolution In the Head' is also indispensable.

You mean the ones you can buy on iTunes? you can only get the stereo version digitally. You have to buy the Beatles In Mono to get the mono versions, but they are remastered like the stereo box set, it came out in 2009 with the rest of the remasters... not sure what you're asking.

It also reportedly has quite a few mistakes in it regarding events that occurred with the Fabs. IIRC Emerick states that Paul recorded "Blackbird" outside and the sound was a real blackbird-and neither is true.

It is a valuable tool though but evidently Emerick ticked off a lot of friends, associates, etc. that worked with him at Abbey Road including producer/engineer Ken Scott.

I'm asking if there is a digital remaster of the mono in how you say. I have the mono and stereo versions but the only difference I can find is that the mono just doesn't have the last minute added on like the stereo.

hey I never realized that, but it's actually very true now that I think about it, thanks for pointing it out! I have to listen to the album with that in mind now lol.

Rubber soul used to be my favorite album, until I really listened to Abbey Road and sgt. Peppers.

oh, sorry I made a mistake there. I looked at it again, it's 'Don't pass me by' that is half a pitch higher, helter skelter just got cut off a minute earlier lol. My bad

He says some stupd things in that book. The slagging off he gives Helter skelter is bizzare! He says something like it's heavy metal done by kids on toy instruments. Heavy metal didn't even exist then. You could even make a case that Helter skelter was the first heavy metal song.
He also says Glass Onion is unappealing. I love that song!

I don't know. I think he does a good job of being level headed instead of bowing down and gushing like a lot of writers might do. I think some people overrate 'Helter Skelter', perhaps because of it's notoriety (Charles Manson connection). It certainly sounds nowhere near as heavy or viscous as anything on Electric Ladyland which came out the same year.

Oh okay, thank you! I'll look it up!

The first 2 albums I bought were Sgt. Peppers and Led Zep 1

So who is the greatest band of the '60s? My top 10, in order, are;

The Beatles
The Funk Brothers (Motown's Studio Band for The Temptations, The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, etc.)
The Beach Boys
The Band
The Who
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Kinks
The Byrds
Velvet Underground
The Rolling Stones
Love

Sorry that's 11--I couldn't stop

You can find their lyrics on here: The Beatles Lyrics | The songs of the Beatles, the lyrics and all other stuff that you can find online.

Does anyone know what inspired I Am the Walrus?

I was hoping for one of those Sunday morning, Beatles Hour, "Behind the Music" explanations. But, I think you nailed it, Jack.

in the Beatles Anthology, Ringo (i think) and John said someone approached them for an interview. a student i think, because their professor wanted them to make a paper on the meaning of the songs of The Beatles.

they were shocked in the different interpretations and many of them were so negative. this was also the time when they were getting some heat for admitting they were using drugs.

to spite them, John wrote I am the Walrus. He put together words and sentences that didn't mean a thing and something like "Let them figure this one out" (i paraphrased).

Gotta love the beatles, they're music is erudite.

I wouldn't really call them "erudite," but their Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club album is fun to listen to. It pretty much jump-started progressive rock.

Well, I don't really think there's the "greatest band" of the sixties. The sixties had so much exploration, and many innovative bands contributed to the cause in their own way. It's entirely subjective anyways (but then again, so is everything else in life).

oh jeez!Thanks for that Beatles!!

I'd put The Kinks higher. Also The Moody Blues did some good music, but they straddled the 60s and 70s I suppose.

Best Beatles Album for a Beginner
 

What do you guys reckon is the best album to start someone off with from The Beatles?

i started with something called 20 Greatest Hits

i dunno whether it's still in print, you probably can get a comp called No. 1s now, I think