The Associated Press reported today that 2.5 million Beatles albums were sold in the five day period beginning with the September 9th re-issue of the group's catalog in digitally remastered versions.
I'm not sure what to think about that. On the one hand, I adore the Beatles, as well I should, since I'm smack in the middle of the Baby Boomer demographic (born in 1956) and their music was the accompaniment to my childhood, my adolescence, and pretty much most of my life ever since. I don't call myself a rabid fan, but I have gone so far as to buy books on, for example, the origins of their song catalog and the day-to-day events surrounding the recording of "Let It Be."
So part of me should love the fact that a band who made its last recording 39 years ago is fulfilling everything we said about them at the time, namely that their music would last forever. And 40 or 50 years in internet time is pretty much forever.
On the other hand: pathetic.
Not that the Beatles music is pathetic. Or even that people like them so much these days. Like we said: their appeal lasts.
But part of me is sad that in this era of a million splintered tastes in pop music, with everyone tuned into their own playlist on their "personal stereo" (to use a phrase from the 80s), we can't agree on anything else.
Unless the offensive pap heard on "American Idol" and the "light rock, less talk" station played at my dentist's office represents the mainstream. In that case, give me the Beatles, please, digitally remastered, at top volume.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Martha Nichols
mypsyche
DktrShe
ambiacademic
Ersatz Reader
O'Really?
Salon.com
Comments
Sadly, though, there are people who really don't like The Beatles. I don't know if I trust those people. ;-)
(My husband, who is a mastering engineer, wasn't really keen on the idea of remastering The Beatles catalog. He thought it would end up being too loud. But, listening to the remastered Abbey Road recently, he said it was like listening to a whole new album. He heard things he never had before.)
After that, seemingly every male in my age cohort wanted to have a Beetle haircut, Beetle boots, and if memory serves, Beetle pants. Why anyone wanted to look like that was a mystery to me.
Then, a young friend convinced me to go to a Beetle movie, their first, I suppose. The theater was filled with girls, and whatever the Beetles did caused them to scream. Since the movie was about the Beetles, the screaming was pretty much constant.
Even at a young age it seemed to me that the Beetles were more a religious cult than a musical group.
Eventually I came to understand that they had some good songs. Well, Simon and Garfunkle had some good songs, as did James Taylor, Gordon Lightfoot, Joan Baez, and a lot of other people.
Today, some of their tunes are Ok for me, but most of them have been played to death on the radio. And a lot of them are, well, kind of boring. Now in my geezerhood I have come to appreciate progressive metal bands, and I'd much rather spend time with Porcupine Tree, Vanden Plas, Angra, or Opeth.
It's not that I don't like the Beetles, it's that I never understood why they became objects of worship. Any ideas?
I was born a bit late to participate in Beatlemania, and was actually much more of a Stones fan until college. It seems like a cliche to regard The Beatles and their music with reverence, but it seems to be a natural reaction for me.
(I suppose calling them The "Beetles" is your way of being contrary, eh?)
I remember going to see Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (the movie with the Bee Gees, I think) in the 70's sometime - I was 8 - and thinking, "this music is horrible.... except for that Aerosmith guy, he was pretty cool." I then located the original Beatles track of Come Together in my parent's LP collection and was again disappointed.
Each generation finds the Beatles and is awed all over again. That's the power of good music.
It is funny those who are of my generation only listen to the Beatles or Stones or the music they grew up with and discount all new music as not good have fulfilled their worst nightmare. They have become their parents.
I don't particularly WANT to like what everybody else is listening to today. I have a few of my own favorites (many of them Beatle-esque in a lot of ways, like Keane and The Fray), but there's so much about modern music I actively dislike, I keep going back to the classics.
There's nothing more classic than the hair-raising "na-na-na-nas" of Hey Jude.
I am pretty sick of all this re-mastering though. Damn it, how many times do I have to buy stuff? I have bought some supposedly re-mastered CDs that really didn't add much (and I listen on professional quality headphones). It's interesting that Jeanette's husband thinks these are worth the effort. Have to start saving up...
Haven't bought the remasters, but ruminating on which I MIGHT invest in.
Some how, my Hannah Montana fan daughter doesn't find Pink Floyd to be lame adult music.
Go figure.
They could burn the records but they couldn’t stop the music. Rock ‘n roll was visceral and erotic, and thus had power. It bristled with emotion and that was it’s appeal. Early Elvis and the Stones were the two leading lights of rock, and remain so in my estimation. The erotic power of that music is still a powerful magnet.
As a freshman in college (1962), I had an epiphany when I heard John Coltrane for the first time, and haven’t been the same since. I’ve been owned by jazz for 47 years. And so I sort of easily bypassed the Beatles phenomenon.
In Britain there is a tradition of what the Brits call “Beer Hall Music.” People gather in their pubs and sing along to recorded music. It is necessarily unchallenging music; nice sweet little ditties, really. It has to be simple enough for the least (musically) educated ear to appreciate and sing. This, I think, is the tradition from which the Beatles arose, since, with few exceptions, most of their songs are not rock n’ roll at all, but rather, sing-songy little ditties. It always lacked the power of which I write in the first two paragraphs.
To this day, I remain somewhat puzzled by the Beatles’ phenomenon. I think it was cultural rather than musical, since the music itself is rather artless and simple. I will credit them with some electronic innovation. But even in that they were overshadowed by Jimi Hendrix, and even by their own discovery, Ravi Shankar.
A record company executive once said of the Beatles that they had “saved rock n’ roll.” An awful lot of black R & B players must have asked themselves “from what?”
Even if one does not like the Beatles music, every group recording today owes a huge debt to them (and their producer, George Martin) for truly taking advantage of the stereo format. Up until then, artists and producers of rock music treated the both mono and stereo recording about the same.
In fact, “Pepper” so wore them out, they could not repeat the process with “Let It Be.” “Abbey Road” was an attempt to return to the former, uncomplicated days of mono recording. (“Abbey Road” was actually the last recording they made.)
I realize that other artists, like Pink Floyd, were also testing the studio, stereo format, but it was the Beatles who really made listeners of time wonder how the heck they made the music sound that way.
The curious passion people have for the Beatles is kind of like some other things people find zeal for. Harley Davidson riders have phrase that goes: "If I have to explain it, you just won't get it".
Although Harley Davidson fans and Beatle fans are mutually exclusive of one anther, I think that phrase fits Beatle fans quite well. Give them a good long listen. The new Remastered albums are the holy grail of Beatles music. Don't be denied.
But yes, the media and people in general love the bandwagon and that can be irritating and distract (as the music industry does) from letting new voices (like my band in fact!) come through.
For every artist I name that inspires me and broke MAJOR ground in approaches to recording or performing, there are plenty more: Pink Floyd, Yes, Hendrix, Radiohead, Grateful Dead, Zappa.
Cheers. M
Well there's a simple explanation for that. The Harley fans are all deaf from the ungodly racket of their 120 decibel wet-fart-sounding toys.
Mishima, you might consider reading "Shout" by Philip Norman. Even if you don't like the Beatles it's a good read, and I think it would answer your question far better than I ever could.
And if Philos and I can agree on something, peace in the middle east shouldn't be far behind.
Such is the power of The Fab Four.
Wouldn't want the Beatles haircuts or their clothes (especially not their Sergeant Pepper clothes!), but love those tunes!
Rated, yeah yeah yeah!
http://open.salon.com/blog/keeblerelves/2009/09/09/something_new_-_beatles_interactive_media
Thanks.
I have to admit, them hogs are disturbingly loud and startling when you have your windows down.
I know that my life has been deeply enriched by both. So I say, YES , to any effort to sustain or renew the music that we love, and I will always willing pay for a chance to buy it and immerse myself in it again.
My tastes run from the Beatles, to Led Zeppelin, to Barbra Streisand, to Faith No More, with Korn and Weezer and Elvis Costello and too many others to even mention. I love Broadway musical soundtracks right up there with System of a Down. For me it is all good, but nothing matches the pleasure of the Beatles.
Everyone always has choices as to what they listen to and what they purchase......and ain't life grand?
For me it is.
It was way before Nirvana
There was U2, and Blondie
and music still on MTV . . .
She rocked out to Wham!
Not a big Limp Bizkit fan.
Thought she'd get a hand
on a member of Duran Duran . . .