| Author |
Topic: B eatle's Anthology |
Mark Metdker
From:
North Central Texas, USA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 7:32 am |
|
I got this 5 DVD set for Christmas. Saying it is great is a vast understatement. It is the most complete documentary of the band that I have ever seen. Numerous interviews with all the guys, which is great now that 2 of them are gone. Lots of film footage that I had never seen before of their early concerts. The Beatles is the group that gave me the desire to become a musician, and I bet a lot of you were affected in the same way. If you are a Beatle fan, especially early Beatles, you MUST get this. You won't regret it.
------------------
Zum U-12 w/True Tone pickup thru a Nashville 112
Strats thru a VHT Super 30
Band Pics
http://community.webshots.com/album/176544894AuXSmi
jonchristopherdavis.com
www.lonestarattitude.net
|
|
|
 |
Bill Hatcher
From:
Atlanta Ga. USA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 7:55 am
|
|
| What is a good price on this. I will have to have it. |
|
|
|
Mark Metdker
From:
North Central Texas, USA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 8:07 am
|
|
I got mine for $57.99 at Best Buy.
Here it is on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/... [This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 28 December 2005 at 03:10 PM.] |
|
|
|
Mike Winter
From:
Portland, OR
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 8:34 am
|
|
I taped it when it was on TV back in 1994(?). I have the DVD's as well. It's amazing. I put in the first one, and every time, I'm hooked, and end up watching the whole thing. I also have the book, which I got off of Ebay for a steal. Great reading, with TONS of rare pictures. They sure were special. 
------------------
Mike
------------------
Blue Moon Highway
(Country Music...and then some.)
www.bluemoonhighway.com
|
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 9:45 am
|
|
The Beatles, the most pretentious, overrated, overplayed group in history. If I never heard another Beatles song, and never had to play one again, I would not miss it at all. Sorry I can't participate in your joy, guys - I'm just sick of being beat over the head with them for the past 40 years.  Give me the Stones or the Eagles anyday.[This message was edited by David Doggett on 27 December 2005 at 09:46 AM.] |
|
|
|
Charles French
From:
Ms.
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 10:10 am
|
|
| hmm, can't agree bout the beatles, i like the stones alot buttt the eagles are just tooooo bubble gum for my liking. |
|
|
|
Tucker Jackson
From:
Portland, Oregon, USA
|
|
|
|
Andy Greatrix
From:
Edmonton Alberta
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 5:32 pm
|
|
| Hey Tucker! Don't forget Fabian. Now there was a soul singer! He didn't need good intonation, timing or good songs. He was beyond all that. [This message was edited by Andy Greatrix on 27 December 2005 at 05:34 PM.] |
|
|
|
Doug Beaumier
From:
Northampton, MA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 5:48 pm
|
|
The Beatles were the most influential musical act of the 20th century. The changed music forever. They also changed culture, art, dress, politics, society, etc, etc… Overrated? I don't think so. 300 years from now people will know who the Beatles were… and they will probably be playing Beatles music then!
I teach 50 guitar students a week. Most of them are teenagers. All of them know the Beatles classics. A few of them know some Stones songs. None of them ever heard of the Eagles. 
------------------
My Site - Instruction | My SteelTab
[This message was edited by Doug Beaumier on 27 December 2005 at 06:27 PM.] |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 7:16 pm
|
|
Nobody said they weren't popular. If you want to take your artistic preferences from the masses, then the Beatles are the ones, after Elvis. Most of the claims for their "innovation," however, are false or overstated. Their early music was derivative of American rock'n'roll, mostly Chuck Berry, and came at a time when many youngsters had forgotten or never heard the originals. Their later stuff was derivative of European classical music, or even American musicals, and again was made popular by massess of young people with little familiarity with the originals. If you grew up on American rock'n'roll from the beginning, and were familiar with classical music and musicals, their stuff sounded nice, but no better than the originals, and not all that innovative. They had their unique touch in blending the old and the new. But for every gem that has long since been turned into elevator music, they had many other songs that never would have been heard if they had come from an unknown group. Likewise, their psychedelic stuff - they had a big springboard for it, and so were instrumental in breaking it out, but they were not the firsts or the best with psychedelia.
Their so-called innovative sociopolitical messages were superficial watered-down versions of stuff that had been around a long time. To say they started the counterculture is completely false. The counterculture had roots as far back as the European Bohemians and the American beatniks of the '40s and '50s. The immediate ground from which the late '60s counterculture sprang were the beatnik/folkies of the early '60s. There was nothing in the Beatles' left-liberal nonviolent philosophy that hadn't been bouncing around campuses and coffee houses for decades. Again, however, the masses of young people who raised the Beatles to the status of culture gods were not familiar with what was old hat in Greenwich Village and Berkley.
The Beatles were of course among the top artists of their generation, and they did create some gems. But they can only be worshipped for their "innovation" by those who don't know their antecedents. I mentioned the Stones and the Eagles, because I simply always enjoyed their music more. That's the kind of personal preference one is free to indulge, if you were never swept off your feet by the mass hysteria and worship of everything Beatle. For me, the Beatles were okay, but I've heard as good or better before and since. I realize I'm in the minority in this view. But that's never bothered me. I don't mean to stop your worship; but I couldn't resist throwing in a dose of reality to balance things out a little. [This message was edited by David Doggett on 27 December 2005 at 07:20 PM.] |
|
|
|
John McGann
From:
Boston, Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 7:26 pm
|
|
Let's re-open the religion topic! Arf! Arf!
| Quote: |
| But they can only be worshipped for their "innovation" by those who don't know their antecedents. |
LOL! We are such a bunch of ignorant mofos![This message was edited by John McGann on 27 December 2005 at 07:27 PM.] |
|
|
|
Rick McDuffie
From:
Benson, North Carolina, USA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 7:45 pm
|
|
The Rolling Stones have the "distinction" of having played together for 40 years without ever sounding like anything more than a sloppy garage band. I recently heard a live version of "Tumbling Dice" that was really difficult to listen to. Of course, they're as "good" now as they ever were.
Everybody has antecedents- even the antecedents have antecedents. The mark of genius in an artist is when that person has the ability to take the best of the antecedents and to marry them together in a new, distinctive style. There's no question but that albums like Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road (my 3 favorites) were quantum leaps ahead for rock and roll.[This message was edited by Rick McDuffie on 27 December 2005 at 09:03 PM.] |
|
|
|
Doug Beaumier
From:
Northampton, MA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 9:10 pm
|
|
All New, Different, and Exciting music is derived from other forms of music. Great Innovators do not live in a vacuum. They build on what came before them. They assimilate ideas and styles and bring them to a worldwide audience in a new and dynamic way, ala Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, and… dare I say… Robert Randolph! eeeks! talk about assimilation of genres.
I haven’t listened to Beatles music in over 30 years, probably because it was the soundtrack of my life back in the 60’s and I’ve long since moved on in my musical interests. But I still say it’s music that shook the world and it will be a long time before any one band has such an impact on the world. |
|
|
|
Charles French
From:
Ms.
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 9:30 pm
|
|
| I just wish there was a "Moderator" in the house to cut that dang long URL out of the thread so I could read the post! |
|
|
|
Doug Beaumier
From:
Northampton, MA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 9:41 pm
|
|
| Charles, it must be the settings on your monitor. That url is split into two lines on my monitor and the post is the normal width... if that's what you're referring to. |
|
|
|
Doug Beaumier
From:
Northampton, MA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 9:47 pm
|
|
 [This message was edited by Doug Beaumier on 27 December 2005 at 10:05 PM.] |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 27 Dec 2005 10:14 pm
|
|
I have a complete Beatles boxed set,
and it was a revelation what I had forgotten about.
They were much stronger and more versatile than most remember.
And the wrote more "standards" than all but a few tinpan alley legends.
|
|
|
|
Chris Schlotzhauer
From:
Colleyville, Tx. USA
|
Posted 28 Dec 2005 2:01 am
|
|
| David Beatles vs Stones...You are on an island by yourself. To each his own opinion, but geesh. I agree with the comment about a sloppy garage band. Vocaly, musically, songwriting, charisma, are you high? |
|
|
|
Chris Forbes
From:
Beltsville, MD, USA
|
Posted 28 Dec 2005 3:23 am
|
|
| Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can even see. I'm sure people will still be arguing about whether they were just talented or had genius for years to come. |
|
|
|
Mark Metdker
From:
North Central Texas, USA
|
Posted 28 Dec 2005 5:44 am
|
|
If it weren't for the Beatles, there would have never been a Rolling Stones......or Eagles. The fact that you prefer the music of these other bands is understanable, it's just a matter of taste. But, as a thinking individual, which you obviously are, you must recognize and acknowledge the influence The Beatles have (yes, still have)on music and musicians. Can you say that the Stones "changed everything"....no. Can you say the Eagles "changed everything"......certainly not. Don't get me wrong, I'll acknowledge the contributions of these 2 bands you mentioned, but not in the same vein as the Beatles.
------------------
Zum U-12 w/True Tone pickup thru a Nashville 112
Strats thru a VHT Super 30
Band Pics
http://community.webshots.com/album/176544894AuXSmi
jonchristopherdavis.com
www.lonestarattitude.net
|
|
|
|
Terry Edwards
From:
Florida... livin' on spongecake...
|
Posted 28 Dec 2005 7:05 am
|
|
Give me an example of an antecedent to:
"I Am the Walrus"
Pure genius. Lyrically, musically, texturally.
Terry |
|
|
|
Terry Edwards
From:
Florida... livin' on spongecake...
|
Posted 28 Dec 2005 7:07 am
|
|
| Expert texpert choking smokers... |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 28 Dec 2005 7:15 am
|
|
Give me Ernest Tubb over the Beatles, anytime!  |
|
|
|
Mark Metdker
From:
North Central Texas, USA
|
|
|
|
Bill Hatcher
From:
Atlanta Ga. USA
|
Posted 28 Dec 2005 9:42 am
|
|
| The reasons why you have been "beat over the head" with their music for 40 years far outweighs any of the reasons you give why you should not have been. |
|
|
|
