flyingarmadillo Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Has anyone heard this new remaster on vinyl? Not yet but I'm tempted. For those here in the US, PBS ran a special: "Sgt. Pepper's Musical Revolution" It's pretty interesting. Debuted last night and there are a couple other runs scheduled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merciful-evans Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Yes, they are. It doesn't matter how much money they make, how long they chart, or which genius wrote them. When you start selling music for a living, touring to support it, and making records that are anticipated by your fan base, you are producing music that is pop to someone. It's all pop, every bit of it. We choose to call certain things we don't like "pop" as though it were slanderous when really, it's all pop. Dickey was talking to some folks about talking to Gregg about maybe puttin the band together in some fashion. Would they do Ramblin' Man, Jessica, Blue Sky, those "pop" songs that Dickey worked so hard to stay away from for so long? "I'd go back to being a pop band in a second". Money is good, pop sells to somebody, somebody makes you money for your pop, and money is good. I trust all of you will turn down 7 figures for your next great song because you don't want to be "pop". rct ok then. We're all damned, hypocrites and w-hores for money. Glad we got that sorted out. It still doesn't address what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Anyway the new Pepper stereo mix is fantastic. I wasn't one to believe the hype but the reviews were so overwhelmingly positive I had to check it out. Just wish they would've included the vinyl in the box set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 The Beatles wrote a lot of GREAT "Pop/Rock" songs, even early on! As they "matured," musically, we did also! IMHO, if some folks disparage their early work, it's (mostly) because they weren't around, then...and have no real idea how much of a "breath of fresh air" they were, in a very stale "pop" market. The fact that they covered old '50's Rock, Soul classics, along with what they wrote of their own, brought a new audience and new appreciation, for the older music, as well as opening up the "black music" genre (along with the Rolling Stones, Animals, and Yardbirds), to "white" audiences, even more, simply because they were "white," and BRITISH!! Suddenly, that made it acceptable, for "mainstream" pop radio, to play music that was largely relegated to "race" music stations, mostly in the South! The initial "British Invasion," did a lot, in that area...and, The Beatles success, here in America, kicked in the door, for the rest. As far as "Pop" vs "Sophisticated" Rock, Folk, Classical, Jazz, World Music, etc.,...who cares?! It boils down to what, in ANY genre, you love, vs what you don't care for, really. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 https://media.giphy.com/media/3azIzLVJbIRA4/giphy.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 I'll order the vinyl next paycheck and will report back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 ok then. We're all damned, hypocrites and w-hores for money. Glad we got that sorted out. It still doesn't address what I said. I don't think anyone is damned, a hypocrite, or a w-hore for money. Every person has conflicts with their job, things about it they don't like, don't like doing, that don't match their personal values. But if you are doing something for money, you do it, because money is a good thing. Play, write, make money, and if you make enough to live a good life on God Bless You. It's all good, and it's all Pop! rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quapman Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Pepper was Ok. I liked it. My favorite Beatles album is the White Album. But I liked Pepper. That said,,, I liked this better. It's all pop, every bit of it. We choose to call certain things we don't like "pop" as though it were slanderous when really, it's all pop. Really? Even Zappa? Would you actually call Zappa pop? I'm sure he would get a good chuckle out of it if you did. So everything that makes money is pop? Is that how it works? Cuz he did make money off it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Really? Even Zappa? Would you actually call Zappa pop? I'm sure he would get a good chuckle out of it if you did. So everything that makes money is pop? Is that how it works? Cuz he did make money off it. He did. And he toured it. And they would put ads in Cream and Rolling Stone when there was a new record coming. And the "underground" FM stations would play his last two or three back to back with no commercial interruptions for the tapers the weekend his record was coming out. And then, all the Zappa fans would go buy it and then stand in line for tickets to see him. He hated his popularity, hated his sell outness. Yes, he was pop too. He talked a good line on **** Cavett or Johnny Carson or Tom Snyder or wherever, but I would be willing to bet a good chuckle that he wouldn't trade his job for anything, because it paid pretty effing good. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 It's funny how every Beatles related thread ends up like this. If I were to start a topic about any other artist...YES, The Clash, Zappa, Madonna, John Mayer...whatever...would it generate so many replies? That alone says something. Whenever I hear someone dismiss their music as "pop" "drivel" or whatever, it cracks me up. OK, if someone is not a musician, I have to kind-of listen to their "opinions" and just agree to disagree. But when someone who supposedly knows and plays music makes these kinds of comments, I can't help but to be skeptical. I want to hear the melodies and lyrics and harmonies and chord changes and time signatures and chord inversions and key changes etc. that they can come up with that compare to even the "simplest" Beatles song! Get your buddies together and record some harmonies that I can compare to "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah". Play me your version of "In My Life" or "Blackbird" or any other of their countless songs that anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past 50 years would recognize. If someone can do these things, and then still tell me that the music "sucks" or is "just pop" or whatever other negative descriptive word they want to use, then I just have to bow my head and concede defeat. But I will still love The Beatles songs and music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody78 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 It's funny how every Beatles related thread ends up like this. If I were to start a topic about any other artist...YES, The Clash, Zappa, Madonna, John Mayer...whatever...would it generate so many replies? That alone says something. Whenever I hear someone dismiss their music as "pop" "drivel" or whatever, it cracks me up. OK, if someone is not a musician, I have to kind-of listen to their "opinions" and just agree to disagree. But when someone who supposedly knows and plays music makes these kinds of comments, I can't help but to be skeptical. I want to hear the melodies and lyrics and harmonies and chord changes and time signatures and chord inversions and key changes etc. that they can come up with that compare to even the "simplest" Beatles song! Get your buddies together and record some harmonies that I can compare to "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah". Play me your version of "In My Life" or "Blackbird" or any other of their countless songs that anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past 50 years would recognize. If someone can do these things, and then still tell me that the music "sucks" or is "just pop" or whatever other negative descriptive word they want to use, then I just have to bow my head and concede defeat. But I will still love The Beatles songs and music. Ah, the old 'you can't be a proper musician if you're not a fan of the Beatles' line. Always makes me laugh! So, basically if you don't like any of the artists I like then you are not a proper musician either? I used to have lessons from a music lecturer who hated Led Zeppelin, but he loved Bob Marley. Clearly he wasn't a musician because he didn't like a band that I and millions of others liked. Wrong! He worked at Leeds College of Music here in the UK and was one of the senior lecturers. Madonna has sold millions of records and I imagine people will be listening to her in 50 years. I guess most guys on the forum wouldn't jump to her defense if someone wasn't a fan of her. You like what you like and it doesn't matter if you are a musician or not. I'm positive many great musicians both liked and disliked the Beatles. Many people love the Beatles, but believe it or not there are a lot who don't too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 'you can't be a proper musician if you're not a fan of the Beatles' .... Exactly But seriously. I didn't say a fan. I'm just saying when someone questions there musical skill and songwriting. Any who plays music would know that "A Day In The Life" or most other Beatles tunes. Even their so-called simple pop songs, have much more going on musically than the G C D chords of Achy Breaky Heart. As a comparison. I am not a Patriots or Tom Brady fan. Don't like their coach either. But it would be silly for me to make a comment like "they suck" or "Tom Brady is over rated!" or "Belicheck doesn't know what he's doing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Ah, the old 'you can't be a proper musician if you're not a fan of the Beatles' line. Always makes me laugh! So, basically if you don't like any of the artists I like then you are not a proper musician either? I used to have lessons from a music lecturer who hated Led Zeppelin, but he loved Bob Marley. Clearly he wasn't a musician because he didn't like a band that I and millions of others liked. Wrong! He worked at Leeds College of Music here in the UK and was one of the senior lecturers. Madonna has sold millions of records and I imagine people will be listening to her in 50 years. I guess most guys on the forum wouldn't jump to her defense if someone wasn't a fan of her. You like what you like and it doesn't matter if you are a musician or not. I'm positive many great musicians both liked and disliked the Beatles. Many people love the Beatles, but believe it or not there are a lot who don't too. and that's fine but the original post wasn't a commentary on whether they were pop or not or even if they were great or sucked. The OP was letting those who do like them know that this set was out and pretty darn good. I guess I just don't understand the point of joining in if you don't care for the artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quapman Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 If someone can do these things, and then still tell me that the music "sucks" or is "just pop" or whatever other negative descriptive word they want to use,,, I don't know man. I didn't hear anyone say they suck? Some don't like them but that's fine. I don't like the early stuff but I love everything they did after they dropped some cid. But I'm like Surf, I was 6 in 67. So I didn't live through all the hype. But I still like the later stuff. He talked a good line on **** Cavett or.... Bahhahahahahahahaha!!! He said ****. Oh man, I cried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retired Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 The wife told me they were celebrating their 50th Anniversary on the release of Sgt. Peppers album. When the Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, I wasn't into this band. Couldn't see what my 2 older sisters saw in them but when they released this album I saw a big change in their style. I absolutely love all the a Beatles songs today, even their early stuff. It just took me longer to realize their talent and song writing abilities and impact they made, plus Deb. is a huge fan. She has all but 2 albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody78 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 and that's fine but the original post wasn't a commentary on whether they were pop or not or even if they were great or sucked. The OP was letting those who do like them know that this set was out and pretty darn good. I guess I just don't understand the point of joining in if you don't care for the artist. Well, that's true about the OP, but the thread had gone slightly off topic before I joined in and that was why. I didn't say the Beatles suck, I just said I wasn't much of a fan overall. I'm not going to deny that they did write some great songs, but the early tunes I find as annoying as anything in modern chart music today. Later songs like 'Don't Let Me Down', 'I Want You (She's So Heavy)', 'Dig A Pony' and 'A Day in the Life' are great songs. Anyway, I will shut up now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Well, it's no secret that I'm a real "Beatles" fan, musically, and their sense of humor, as well! But, I was at the age, where I grew up with their music, as it happened! Their early stuff was, in the context of the times, Awesome..."Pop" or not! So, I have a prejudice, that way, about their "Pop Rock!" And, as they "grew," musically, so did their fans appreciation, and sophistication, along with it. That's all... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidblast Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I've stayed out of this discussion becuase I too was never a real big fan. in 67 I was 10.. Just starting to knock around on a guitar, My sisters had a few of their albums, but the craze they created was totally lost on me. In the following years as I started working a few bands where a some of the band mates were absolute beatles freaks, left me having to play endless times, a whole lot of songs I really didn't want to learn, or play. (but,, they did work for crowd appeal, which is why they were in the set list... if I never play Twist and Shout again, it will still be too soon) now on the other hand, some of the songs are great, not all of it is lost on me.. I am surprised that all these years later, people are still gobbling up everything that gets reissued or re-released. True testimony to fan loyalty? But not sure I "Get it" But after all these years, there is still this much infatuation and activity, does say something. I guess, you had to BE there?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxson50 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 The Beatles gave away more hits than most bands ever enjoy. Some one or two hit wonders owe what success they have ever had to Lennon, McCartney and Harrison words and melodies. As if being popular is a bad thing, every struggling artist strives for commercial recognition, ask any old blues or jazz guy who has starved for his art for 60 years and has nothing to show for it but a bad liver what he would give for one top 40 hit. https://www.discogs.com/The-Beatles-All-The-Songs-The-Beatles-Gave-Away-1963-1990/release/4296777 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r9IG0FU0ZFU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I've stayed out of this discussion becuase I too was never a real big fan. in 67 I was 10.. Just starting to knock around on a guitar, My sisters had a few of their albums, but the craze they created was totally lost on me. In the following years as I started working a few bands where a some of the band mates were absolute beatles freaks, left me having to play endless times, a whole lot of songs I really didn't want to learn, or play. (but,, they did work for crowd appeal, which is why they were in the set list... if I never play Twist and Shout again, it will still be too soon) now on the other hand, some of the songs are great, not all of it is lost on me.. I am surprised that all these years later, people are still gobbling up everything that gets reissued or re-released. True testimony to fan loyalty? But not sure I "Get it" But after all these years, there is still this much infatuation and activity, does say something. I guess, you had to BE there?? People still gobble everything up because The Beatles are eternal. I'd say at least half of the people buying this stuff (including myself) weren't even born when they were still a group. Like it or not, they are still the biggest band in the world (the "toppermost of the poppermost"), and probably will be forever. And you didn't have to be there. I wasn't, and I get it. I don't think fan loyalty comes into play here, honestly. When you say fan loyalty, I think of bands like KISS, Rush, The Grateful Dead, Phish, etc. Bands that don't have the mass appeal of The Beatles, but have their own cult followings, people that passionately eat up everything they put out. When it comes to The Beatles, it's a lot like Seinfeld (at least from my point of view); you must be a fan or at least appreciate their talent, or else you're one of "those" people that just doesn't get it. If that sounded condescending, I didn't mean it that way, I'm just speaking from what I've observed in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 ... The Beatles are eternal. At least among us white people. My black friends would likely disagree. Just doesn't seem to light them up in the same way for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 At least among us white people. My black friends would likely disagree. Just doesn't seem to light them up in the same way for some reason. Well, considering that The Beatles were one of the many bands that did better (economically) with "race" music than the black people that originally performed them, I can kinda see why... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidblast Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 The Beatles are eternal. personally, I think this is one of the best way I've heard any one explain it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 People still gobble everything up because The Beatles are eternal. I'd say at least half of the people buying this stuff (including myself) weren't even born when they were still a group. Like it or not, they are still the biggest band in the world (the "toppermost of the poppermost"), and probably will be forever. And you didn't have to be there. I wasn't, and I get it. I don't think fan loyalty comes into play here, honestly. When you say fan loyalty, I think of bands like KISS, Rush, The Grateful Dead, Phish, etc. Bands that don't have the mass appeal of The Beatles, but have their own cult followings, people that passionately eat up everything they put out. When it comes to The Beatles, it's a lot like Seinfeld (at least from my point of view); you must be a fan or at least appreciate their talent, or else you're one of "those" people that just doesn't get it. If that sounded condescending, I didn't mean it that way, I'm just speaking from what I've observed in real life. Or, they were first. Somebody had to be first. I'm not now nor did I ever say they suck, I never said "pop drivel", I never questioned their ability to write songs. I love pop music, all of it, I probably listen to more pop in a month than most of you have all year. I have Number Ones and White Album and Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road on my iPod, and I listen to them fairly regularly. I have played Beatles tunes in bands since the 70's. They are still a pop band, always were, always will be. They were more than arguably the first packaged, slicked back, let's go get some teenage money pop acts. The only people offended by someone calling the Beatles pop are those that use the word pop as an insult. I don't. Some of the best recording stuff, writing tricks, lyrical tricks, technical ability, and above all musical skill in the world goes into pop recording. Like...The Beatles! rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Or, they were first. Somebody had to be first. I'm not now nor did I ever say they suck, I never said "pop drivel", I never questioned their ability to write songs. I love pop music, all of it, I probably listen to more pop in a month than most of you have all year. I have Number Ones and White Album and Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road on my iPod, and I listen to them fairly regularly. I have played Beatles tunes in bands since the 70's. They are still a pop band, always were, always will be. They were more than arguably the first packaged, slicked back, let's go get some teenage money pop acts. The only people offended by someone calling the Beatles pop are those that use the word pop as an insult. I don't. Some of the best recording stuff, writing tricks, lyrical tricks, technical ability, and above all musical skill in the world goes into pop recording. Like...The Beatles! rct I find it insulting that people use the term "pop" as an insult! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.