The Beatles

[MAFE]

One is good! but well!!obviously there are not all the songs!!

 

Don't let me down is one of the most wicked songs...that's in let it be

[erinluv182]

Well, I had to revive a Beatles thread cause there wasn't much discussion going on about them and hey, I'm obsessed. Sooooo...... what do people think of the Beatles?

 

I of course, love them and think they are pretty much unrivalled. They're the reason I love good music and the reason why I realized just why British rock is 1 million times better than American.

[pepperland67]

Well, I had to revive a Beatles thread cause there wasn't much discussion going on about them and hey, I'm obsessed. Sooooo...... what do people think of the Beatles?

 

I of course, love them and think they are pretty much unrivalled. They're the reason I love good music and the reason why I realized just why British rock is 1 million times better than American.

 

I have to totally agree with you there. I'm new on here, and I LOVE Coldplay, and the Beatles are part of the reason why I do. I think Coldplay is just as committed to making music that stands the test of time as the Beatles were. The Beatles thought outside the box, as Coldplay does. Here's to Coldplay continuing to make many more years of incredible music!

[bonabon]

<3 the beatles baby

[putainfromage]

i love them so much. george harrison is one of the loves of my life.

[Sam]

The Beatles to Release New Album!!!!

 

Dunno if this should be here or news and sport.

 

"The Beatles are set to release an album of completely new music to mark the opening of a Las Vegas show based on the fab four.

 

Overseen by remaining Beatles members Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, the album will collate material from a series of live performances.

 

The show it will be released in collaboration with takes place this summer and features acrobats interpreting Beatles songs.

 

Speaking of the new album, Apple chief Neil Aspinall said: "It involves the creation, by the remixing and remastering of The Beatles' recorded performances, of completely new music, which will be featured in the show, and which should lead to the release of the show album," quote The Telegraph."

 

http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=15736

 

HOLY CRAP!!!

This better not sell them out.:\

[Sam]

If you don't understand that, I think it means that they are remastering new material from live performances, including George and John, and realeasing it. Big news.

[Black Rose]

It's been news that all the albums are being digitally remastered and released on iTunes as well on cd later this year, but this is new news for me

[bonabon]

:stunned: wow

[busybeeburns]

Are you sure they're being released on iTunes?

 

http://www.coldplaying.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1693

[Sam]

^Yeah does seem a 'bit starnge when you read that :lol:

[Ondes Martenot]

*bump*

 

Hey Jude is fantastic and Lovely Rita has a personal meaning for me :disappointed:

[Lera]

We have a Beatles thread?...I was about making one.Because and Elanor Ricby are the best for today.

[Lera]

And of course Yesterday-this song means so much to me I totally luff it :nice:

[Sindaelim]

The Beatles are <3 definately. Here comes the Sun ahhh I could listen to that on repeat for hours, and come together, sheesh, their is not one art class at school where i'm not listening to the beatles on my iPod =D

[Lera]

I can listen to Yeterday till I fall asleep and then again and again....There're many great songs of them of course but it's my forever favorite.

[Leire]

maybe not the best but they changed the world.

 

i love:

 

help

get back

lucky in the sky with diamonds

all the lonely ppl

a hard days night

 

and a lot more:P

[Lera]

'Bump'

 

Because the world is round it turns me on

Because the world is round...aaaaaahhhhhh

 

Because the wind is high it blows my mind

Because the wind is high......aaaaaaaahhhh

 

Love is old, love is new

Love is all, love is you

 

Because the sky is blue, it makes me cry

Because the sky is blue.......aaaaaaaahhhh

 

Aaaaahhhhhhhhhh....

[polkahard]

The White Album and Magical Mystery Tour are my two favorite Beatles albums. Strawberry Fields Forever is just my favorite song of all time. Baby, You're a Rich Man never gets old to me, either.

 

But some of the stuff the Beatles (well, mainly John) did were just ahead of their time. Imagine a commerically established band, like Coldplay, putting something like Revolution 9 on one of their albums. It wouldn't go over well. But they had the guts to do something like that! John wanted it to be a single...well, that might have been pushing it...

 

The Beatles are definitely one of my favorite bands.

[busybeeburns]

Fab and 40, Revolver rocks on

 

Forty years ago today, the Beatles' seminal album, Revolver, was released - and the era of rock as art was born. Steve Waldon reports.

 

GEOFF Emerick's recollections of working with John Lennon in 1966 include insights that have become no less delectable after four decades.

 

Emerick was just 20 when he was offered a job working alongside Beatles producer George Martin. He had no time to draw breath, being thrown to work as studio engineer on the remarkable Revolver album — released 40 years ago today.

 

The album took another few weeks to be shipped to Australia, but Tony Healey, who at the time was a 20-year-old journalist on Melbourne's Go-Set music paper, says there was a discernible anticipation of its arrival.

 

Radio stations such as 3UZ and 3XY would try to be first to put tracks to air, Healey says.

 

In a small way, he scooped them. His mother was overseas and mailed the single, Eleanor Rigby/Yellow Submarine to him.

 

"So I had the single ahead of the album, and I took it to a Toorak restaurant that night. Everyone was so excited, they played it all night," he says.

 

Less enthusiastic about the adulation were the Beatles. Heartily weary of the stage, the screaming, the intrusions and the colossal fuss that dogged their every move, they were retreating from the public gaze.

 

This happily coincided with their elevated interest in rock music as a serious art form. They were building inspired songs, and placing more pressure on studio boffins to help complete their visions.

 

"So they didn't want piano that sounded like piano, they didn't want guitar to sound like guitar, and they didn't want drums to sound like drums," Emerick recalled in a Los Angeles interview in 1992.

 

Motivated by the freedom to experiment, the Beatles' imaginations posed severe difficulties on the available equipment. Studio technicians ran to keep up with the band's requests for tape loops, overdubs, backwards guitar fills and sound effects that didn't exist.

 

An exciting time, Emerick remembers, but not without the occasional need to reconnect with reality.

 

For one lead vocal, he says, Lennon wanted to be suspended from the studio ceiling and set swinging so that his voice would come in and out of range of the microphones.

 

"George (Martin) explained that he (John) would have to have an operation to put a voice box in his neck and have a jack plug attached to his neck."

 

After four months of recording, the Beatles released an album that has mostly been buried in the praise heaped on its successor, 1967's Sergeant Pepper. But it has become fashionable to revisit the group's recorded output and place Pepper at No. 2 or maybe No. 3.

 

In its stead, Revolver is often cited as more seminal, not only because it is now possible to fully appreciate how much it hints at what is to follow, but because of its influence on popular music before Pepper followed with The Big Statement.

 

Shaun Carney, an Age associate editor and long-time music reviewer, has no doubts about Revolver's place in the pantheon.

 

"There's never been a better album by a rock group," he says.

 

"It was the last record the Beatles made while still a touring band and, as a result, the album preserves some of the final vestiges of that beguiling quality, the charm that had made them irresistible the first time you heard them."

 

Indeed, their last concert tour began in Chicago on August 12, just a week after Revolver's British release, and four days after the album hit record racks in the US.

 

Despite now being armed with another dozen excellent songs, the Beatles did not play one track from the new album.

 

As Mark Lewisohn notes in his vital 1988 book, The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: "The problem was that three guitars and a drum kit couldn't possibly reproduce Tomorrow Never Knows on stage."

 

Even 40 years of hindsight — and analysis that goes beyond exhaustive — does not shed enough light on how Lennon leapt from recording the wistful Girl on November 11, 1965, to the tumultuous Tomorrow Never Knows, just a few months later.

 

The first recording session for what would become Revolver was on April 6, 1966, and it was spent laying down the rhythm track for Lennon's first shot at junking pop music's recording conventions.

 

Lewisohn also has trouble reconciling Tomorrow Never Knows with the Beatles' previous work. "Coming less than three years after She Loves You, (it) reveals an unrivalled musical progression and the Beatles' willingness to first observe the boundaries and then smash right through them," Lewisohn says.

 

Lennon's contributions to Revolver are first-class, but in no way eclipse Paul McCartney's. Perhaps Eleanor Rigby, Here, There and Everywhere, For No One, Got To Get you Into My Life and Good Day Sunshine are his greatest clutch of songs.

 

At least until last year's Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, the Grammy-nominated album of which one English reviewer noted: "If it had been released by Radiohead or Coldplay, we'd all be falling over ourselves to praise it."

 

Charles Danby was going on 18 when Revolver was released. He had it on order at a music shop in Bedford, England, so intense was the competition among teenagers to be the first with the latest release.

 

Danby, a retired administrator, who arrived in Melbourne more than three decades ago, understands how fortunate he was to be a young Englishman in London in the Swinging Sixties, shopping for hip gear in Carnaby Street and Portobello Road, grooving to the live music pulsating in the city's famous clubs, and tuning in to pirate stations such as Radio Caroline.

 

But it is Revolver he often turns to when he thinks of 1966.

 

"They're great songs — just about all of them are songs you could put on at a party and everyone would be singing along," he says.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/news/music/fab-and-40-revolver-rocks-on/2006/08/04/1154198331866.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[crawlinwithin]

thank you for posting this. It truly was a remarkable and groundbreaking album. Everyone always talks about Sgt. Pepper and how it was their best work, but really it was Revolver that raised the bar for other musicians and changed the way music was heard and recorded.

[Black Rose]

The article Lies...

 

Revolver was released on the 5th August not the 4th August :smug:

[berrywoman]

hmmmm me thinks this should also be posted in WOM forum... :P

 

 

 

edit: nevermind.. twas I who was in the wrong forum.... :blush:

[Reilly]

Silly camu!

[busybeeburns]

The courtroom hit parade: The Beatles' top ten (lawsuits)

 

They are back where they have so often been since breaking up - in the law courts. This time, the world's most famous band is taking on EMI (again). Martin Hickman counts down their greatest legal hits

 

10 1971: McCartney vs the rest of The Beatles

 

The Beatles did not just break up; they had a messy divorce. Publicly, the band split in April 1970 when an increasingly frustrated Paul McCartney announced prior to the release of his solo album, McCartney, that the Beatles would never work together again. But in a foretaste of the legal disputes that would drag on for years - mostly over money and variously involving royalties, bootlegs, and internet downloading - the career of the 1960s troubadours was actually terminated in the law courts.

 

Irked by the management of the foul-mouthed American Allen Klein, McCartney sought to extricate himself from the Beatles on 31 December 1970 by filing a lawsuit against his fellow moptops, John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, at the High Court.

 

A judge agreed with his case and the bassist and co-songwriter was legally divided from the group. According to reports, John, George and Ringo subsequently threw bricks through the window of McCartney's home. All together now... All You Need Is Love...

 

9 1981: Beatles versus Apple (Round 1)

 

The Beatles' record label, Apple (whose logo is a halved Granny Smith) took on a new upstart company with the cheek to call itself Apple - Apple Computer (logo: a half-munched apple). After the baring of lawyers' teeth, Apple Computer agreed - without the need for a court case - to stay out of music and pay up something approaching £50,000. To what would probably be to the incredulity of the parties, the lesser-known company would become better known for music than The Beatles' organisation.

 

8 1979: Beatles versus EMI (Round 1)

 

Breaking up stopped the musicians but not the lawyers. In the first of five showdowns with EMI, the Fab Four chased the industry giant through the courts in the UK and the US through the 1980s, claiming that they had been routinely ripped off of royalties to the tune of millions of pounds. In 1984, the case reached London's High Court. Mr Justice Gibson ruled that EMI should have paid royalties on at least 85 per cent of net sales. In 1986, he ordered a court-supervised trawl through EMI's royalties records and again found for The Beatles.

 

7 1989: Beatles versus EMI (Round 2)

 

Ding Ding. But someone is throwing in the towel: EMI. After a decade of delay and legal argument, EMI settled the case on both sides of the Atlantic with its most famous artists. The resulting payout was "an eight-figure sum". But it was not the end of the wrangles between the musicians and the label, whose roster once featured the Sex Pistols and now includes Robbie Williams and Coldplay.

 

6 1991: Beatles vs EMI Round 3

 

A battle over control of The Beatles' back catalogue. The writers of "Paperback Writer" and "Yellow Submarine" issued legal action over EMI's plans to release a double box-set of the compilation, red and blue albums, on CD without their permission. Again, a High Court judge ruled in their favour and insisted they did have artistic control of their output. Pride satisfied, the Beatles agreed to the release.

 

5 1989: Beatles versus Apple (Round 2)

 

Worried about Apple Computer's expansion, the Liverpudlians took on the Californians in the courts. In a settlement in 1991, the computer geeks paid out $26m to the musicians. Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on "creative works whose principal content is music" while Apple Computer was allowed "goods and services... used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content". If only they had foreseen the internet...

 

4 1995: Beatles versus EMI Round 4

 

With McCartney's effort "Pipes of Peace" still ringing in the public's ears, it was back to M'Learned Friends to sort out another royalty dispute with the record company. Again the two sides settled with EMI digging its hand into its pocket. The result? A rise in the royalty rate and a payment of about $35m.

 

3 1998: Beatles versus Lingasong Music

 

In his last public appearance, George Harrison entered the witness box to halt the release of recordings of the band's early live appearances at the Star Club in Hamburg by Lingasong. The record label claimed that John Lennon had given permission for the band's performance in 1962 to be taped. Mr Justice Neuberger said Harrison had convinced him that Lingasong should be forced to stick by an injunction prohibiting it from selling the recording. He ruled that Lingasong would have to hand over the original Hamburg tapes, and pay both sides' costs.

 

2 2003: Beatles versus Apple Round 3

 

Apple Computer must have been worried when the musicians sued again. This time, though, the Californians won. The Beatles' Apple, managed by Neil Aspinall, left, complained that Apple had broken the 1991 voluntary agreement by launching iTunes, the world biggest music downloading store. By opening a music shop and showing the apple logo, Apple had overstepped the mark and entered the music business, claimed the other Apple. Justice Edward Mann, an iPod owning judge, ruled that distributing tracks online did not amount to making a musical product. The case could leave the band with a legal bill of between £3m and £5m. But the long and winding road of litigation is not over - the judge granted Apple's request to appeal the case. It has been listed at the Court of Appeal for 27 February 2007.

 

1 2005/06: The Beatles versus EMI (Round 5)

 

The Beatles claim EMI have been at it again - denying them royalties. In court papers lodged in London and New York in December 2005, Apple Records claimed that EMI owed McCartney and Starr and the relatives of Harrison and Lennon a whopping $30m. It is seeking backdated payments covering the band's entire output dating back to 1962, when the band signed for EMI's Parlophone label. Apple's tenacious chief executive, Neil Aspinall, said: "We have tried to reach a settlement through good faith negotiations and regret that our efforts have been in vain. Despite very clear provisions in our contracts, EMI persist in ignoring their obligations and duty to account fairly and with transparency." EMI said that there were sometimes "differences of opinion" with artists about what was due "especially when the contracts are large and complex". On 23 August, a US judge threw out an attempt by EMI to ditch part of the charge sheet. Money can't buy you love, but it can buy an excellent lawyer - in this case the music industry expert Nick Valner, of Eversheds.

 

And the legal case that wasn't... 2002 Yoko Ono versus Paul McCartney

 

Yoko Ono was said to be unhappy at McCartney's decision to reverse the credit "Lennon-McCartney" on Beatles songs. "It's merely pointing out who did the body of work on certain songs," Macca explained. Ono reportedly considered legal action; no papers were served.

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1223132.ece