The Beatles

[QuasarVM]

Kryton wrote:

---

Well, the 3 or 4 times I saw it, I never really felt that way. It was like watching someone falling out of love...or, better put, coming to the realization that what they once had they can never quite re-attain.

It was the best of times for them and the worst of times. I doubt Brian Epstein would have even allowed the filming of it had he been alive at the time.

To me, it's painful to watch. I know...that's reality, but still wasn't very "entertaining"...

I prefer to watch The Beatles Anthology...if anyone here has not seen it, I recommend it!

[ITL]

Anthology is great, but doesn't go into enough detail about Revolver - this always happens in Beatles documentaries, The end of the live act and Lennon's "Jesus" controversy always get the focus for 1966 in these things.

I do like how Anthology shows performances of whole songs (live or otherwise) instead of cutting away, most of the time. The whole "Some Other Guy" at the Cavern. Yeah.



But I've always had a soft spot for Let It Be, as well. It's just so....real. The Beatles as fallible humans somehow managing to make transcendently wonderful music in spite of the mess they'd become.

[Allyn Gibson]

Norrin Radd wrote:

---

Some people say "Let it Be" is their worst album. I honestly think it's their best...or at least no worse than their other work.

I'm quite fond of Let It Be, the album. I love the title song (and I much prefer the album version to the single version; the album version has a more evocative Harrison guitar solo). "Two of Us" is one of my favorite Beatles songs, I really like "I Me Mine." "I Got A Feeling" and "Dig A Pony" are great fun. "Dig It" and "Maggie May" should have been dumped. "The Long and Winding Road" should have been good, but the Beatles never figured out what to do with it (and the released version is nothing more than a glorified demo with strings layered on top to smother out how poorly played it is). The sessions for the album were a bit of a misfire, but they produced some good work.

Let It Be... Naked isn't what I wanted from a rethought Let It Be. I wish we'd gotten an official release of the Glyn Johns mixes. (I have boots of his first attempt and his second attempt. They're flawed as hell, but it's what the album was supposed to be.)

[Kryton]

BTW, for anyone who hasn't already heard, "The Beatles: Rock Band" game is set for release this September.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/16080...september.html

The beauty is, they MUST have picked the release date with John in mind...it's 09/09/09. And what with his #9 obsession (Revolution 9, Number 9 Dream, born October 9th, Sean born October 9th), it makes perfect sense it was intentional.

[Hoser]

Kryton wrote:

---

BTW, for anyone who hasn't already heard, "The Beatles: Rock Band" game is set for release this September.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/16080...september.html

The beauty is, they MUST have picked the release date with John in mind...it's 09/09/09. And what with his #9 obsession (Revolution 9, Number 9 Dream, born October 9th, Sean born October 9th), it makes perfect sense it was intentional.

I think I may actually buy a Wii.

[CaptJimboJones]

Kryton wrote:

---

BTW, for anyone who hasn't already heard, "The Beatles: Rock Band" game is set for release this September.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/16080...september.html

The beauty is, they MUST have picked the release date with John in mind...it's 09/09/09. And what with his #9 obsession (Revolution 9, Number 9 Dream, born October 9th, Sean born October 9th), it makes perfect sense it was intentional.

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder if there is really much of a market for a Beatles version of "Rock Band?" I mean, I wouldn't imagine that the Beatles are really popular among the Rock Band/Guitar Hero crowd, who tend to gravitate toward heavy metal and hard rock.

I can see the Aerosmith and Metallica games being wildly popular. The Beatles? Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see a standalone Beatles game doing as well, particularly with people who already have Rock Band and/or Guitar hero. They should have just made the songs available as DLC for anyone who wanted them - I think they're overreaching with a standalone game.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe loads of 17-year-old gamers want to rock out on their Xbox 360s to "Yellow Submarine."

And yes, I know the average videogame player is something like 34 years old these days. Heck, I'm 38 and I play my 360 just about every single day, for at least a few minutes. But I'm guessing the average hardcore Beatles fan is in his 50s, which just isn't a particularly big demographic for video games.

[stoneroses]

CaptJimboJones wrote:

---

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder if there is really much of a market for a Beatles version of "Rock Band?" I mean, I wouldn't imagine that the Beatles are really popular among the Rock Band/Guitar Hero crowd, who tend to gravitate toward heavy metal and hard rock.

I can see the Aerosmith and Metallica games being wildly popular. The Beatles? Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see a standalone Beatles game doing as well, particularly with people who already have Rock Band and/or Guitar hero. They should have just made the songs available as DLC for anyone who wanted them - I think they're overreaching with a standalone game.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe loads of 17-year-old gamers want to rock out on their Xbox 360s to "Yellow Submarine."

And yes, I know the average videogame player is something like 34 years old these days. Heck, I'm 38 and I play my 360 just about every single day, for at least a few minutes. But I'm guessing the average hardcore Beatles fan is in his 50s, which just isn't a particularly big demographic for video games.

My boss who is a ex member of a punk band and a huge Beatles fan loves Rock Band.