British Invasion 2.0

My thoughts? Ignoring the commercialism - The Beatles material really needed a proper CD remaster. The '87 masters weren't really up to the job (although they're perfectly acceptable). What's funny is that this would've only have come about because of George and Giles Martin and the 'Love' soundtrack. Before they did the work on that, there was only one set of masters (!!!) and they had to back up the ENTIRE back catalogue onto modern formats. I believe that included most of the studio chatter as well.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar07/articles/beatles.htm
 
I'm actually rather excited about all the hype, because even though I'm too much of a teenager to be fully caught up in the nostalgia, I own a select few Beatles albums on an old crappy digital format, so the (probable) availability on iTunes will allow me to discover some of these songs for the first time.
 
While the band was amazing and so was their success, I must admit I find it sad that modern youg rock bands must still compete with this nostalgic, half a century old product.

Rock is a slow moving beast where nothing really changes. The result is what is now happening. Senior citizens and the dead getting revenue (again) that would be better off pushing the music forward.

Every time I see the Beatles or Led Zep mentioned on a web site I die just a little.
 
I understand what you mean to some degree, but if you realize how much those two bands contributed to music and the aspirations of future musicians, I think it's great that the interest is still there, or there for a new generation. My son who is forty, is buying the stereo box set, and his only interest in the Beatles until now was a copy of their 1's I gave to him. I think it is amazing that he wants their complete catalog. It also proves that good music will stand the test of time. And just maybe it says something about the garbage, my opinion, that is out there now. They spent a lot of time putting their sound together and their producer was the best around at the time. I realize that musical taste is subjective but their record sales over the past 40 years just reinforces their popularity and the great music they produced.
 
I understand what you mean to some degree, but if you realize how much those two bands contributed to music and the aspirations of future musicians, I think it's great that the interest is still there, or there for a new generation. My son who is forty, is buying the stereo box set, and his only interest in the Beatles until now was a copy of their 1's I gave to him. I think it is amazing that he wants their complete catalog. It also proves that good music will stand the test of time. And just maybe it says something about the garbage, my opinion, that is out there now. They spent a lot of time putting their sound together and their producer was the best around at the time. I realize that musical taste is subjective but their record sales over the past 40 years just reinforces their popularity and the great music they produced.

Yeah mate I know, it's just so old......

I have no problem with that. I mean I've read Tolstoy and Seneca. Listened to Louis Armstrong and Artie Shaw. But none of those artsts are in actual competition with the artists of today. All it shows to me is the incredibly limited scope rock music has been allowed to reach in the mainstream. There have been inroads, e.g. in the 70's with prog', but that was hauled back into place and made to conform. Rock music ultimately, at least to my mind, is the nulification of individuality. Nothing more than "product".

I play it though and appreciate it for what it is.

Still, I think it a tragedy.
 
Fair point, Wy Hung. Thanks to the increased control of record companies, rock has been moving in ever decreasing circles for a while now. Moving very slowly.

What The Beatles offer that many modern bands doesn't is outstanding melodies presented with imagination. Newer bands have the slickness, the energy, the power and the attitude but in most instances are not as strong as The Beatles in the other areas.

There's also the retro hype thing as well. When you have such a cult of personality in the media, celebrity trumps all. I expect that the quality writers whose manuscripts are ignored by publishing companies that fall over themselves to sign celebrity menoirs feel much the same as you do.
 
Yeah mate I know, it's just so old......

I have no problem with that. I mean I've read Tolstoy and Seneca. Listened to Louis Armstrong and Artie Shaw. But none of those artsts are in actual competition with the artists of today. All it shows to me is the incredibly limited scope rock music has been allowed to reach in the mainstream. There have been inroads, e.g. in the 70's with prog', but that was hauled back into place and made to conform. Rock music ultimately, at least to my mind, is the nulification of individuality. Nothing more than "product".

I play it though and appreciate it for what it is.

Still, I think it a tragedy.

Are they not in competition with artists of today? The competition is for the dollar spend of the consumer, and it is in this space the commercialism of the record industries reign supreme.
But that is not to say that a band or artist of any form doesnt have an outlet. These days, anyone with video camera and a computer has the same access to an audience as the commercial entities. No company will take a chance on a product unless there is a quid pro quo.
Eventually, what will happen is that "Rock" will be subsumed in the "Pop" genre, and another subculture will eventuate, and the cycle will continue.
 
Eventually, what will happen is that "Rock" will be subsumed in the "Pop" genre, and another subculture will eventuate, and the cycle will continue.


I agree. This is what I find a bit sad. That music today so closely resembles music of 40 years ago I feel is regressive. It is the same story with jazz. People want to move it forward but so many want to hold it back. The Ken Burns doco is a case in point.

Oh well.
 
Wy, I agree. I die a little whenever I see certain names arising (very often on this forum). That said, The Beatles to me are an exception. There's an attitude there and a spirit of experimentation that inspires me more than the music itself. If you view The Beatles as a experience of innovation (and other bands of that era, early Pink Floyd as well) and what they represented in terms of ideas rather than necessarily music, bands must compete with that.

Music itself is, as you say, very regressive. It irritates me as well - massively. But if we take enough of the spirit rather than the music verbatim, that will change.
 
Is this really regressive or just a temporary change in the popularity of a few groups??
 
Is this really regressive or just a temporary change in the popularity of a few groups??

When bands start imitating bands like, say, Led Zeppelin (Wolfmother, for instance) it is regressive. But nobody has really tried to copy The Beatles and certainly their attitude should perpetuate.
 
Well I guess my only suggestion would be, if you are having trouble competing with a band that is 40 years old, then maybe it is your music. Bye, Bye Miss American Pie...the day the music died. I guess it didn't die after all. the blues have been around forever and hasn't changed. Maybe real rock and roll hasn't changed either. Paul said they quit playing live because they couldn't hear themselves play due to all of the screaming. But when they did play, there were no light shows, fireworks, blood spitting etc. Just good music that still lives, and like I said before, it just might be a message to the rest of the music world. If you want to compete, put out a good product. The genre, The Oldies, will always be The Oldies, and there are still radio stations that play this music exclusively. I don't call it regression, I call it nostalgia. Just like those good old three ply Ludwigs. Who would want those regressive drums?? A new method of drum building must be better!!
 
When bands start imitating bands like, say, Led Zeppelin (Wolfmother, for instance) it is regressive. But nobody has really tried to copy The Beatles and certainly their attitude should perpetuate.


Oasis, anybody? Plus many others. Geez, I played with a few! :)

Having lived through it once, and then again on a few occasions, perhaps I am just sick of it.

Geriatric rock stars, who would ever have imagined it? ;-)

Imagine?
 
Back
Top