tongue-tied lightning Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/1...reut/index.html kinda cool to hear Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Sorry but that is extremely lame. The Beatles broke up when they did. It is over. Plus who gives this guy, a former bassits with The Late Show Band, the authority to put together any type of Beatles "album." This is just a gimmick to sell covers. The worst idea in history. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 uh, it's just a live show, not some big gimmick to sell records. they're not even recording an album, did you even read the article? yeah it sounds sorta dumb, but how is it any different than most cover bands? it's not like they're marketing this as The Beatles or that it's even remotely official. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Sorry but that is extremely lame. The Beatles broke up when they did. It is over. Plus who gives this guy, a former bassits with The Late Show Band, the authority to put together any type of Beatles "album." This is just a gimmick to sell covers. The worst idea in history.Wow. Overreact much? It's two live shows, not an album. Sounds like fun to me, and I'd go if I lived in New York. And yes, Lee plays with the CBS Orchestra (a.k.a. "The Late Show Band"), but that's just his steady job. His credits are extensive and impressive. I'd say he's as qualified as anyone to do this, and the other musicians involved are all top-notch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bedbug Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Man, they're really dropping the ball by not doing "Dear Boy" from Ram. I've always thought those backing vocals were done with Lennon in mind. If they can do songs of Imagine, they can do songs from Ram. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Is Chicago Is Not Chicago Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 i've seen one of their concerts. They are so dead on it's not even funny. Any band that can pull off a note per perfect note rendition of strawberry fields or even the quick drum edit from the recorded version of yer blues is more than ok in my book. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I can't even understand how would someone be interested to see that kind of show. I find that pathetic. The Beatles themselves would have never played exactly like on their records. That's the thing in music that everyone should understand: there's no perfection: there is just creativity and ideas. I would exchange any new artist's stuff with the most perfect Beatles imitations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 The Beatles themselves would have never played exactly like on their records.I've got news for you ... before the advent of overdubbing, that's exactly what they did. You're missing the point. This is an intellectual exercise as much as anything -- they're not attempting to recreate a Beatles live show, they're just speculating as to what a subsequent Beatles album might have sounded like. If that's "pathetic" to you, don't go. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 The Beatles themselves would have never played exactly like on their records. That's the thing in music that everyone should understand: there's no perfection: there is just creativity and ideas.Actually, the thing in music that everyone should understand is, if you like it, you like it. Why should you care if someone else wants to watch this concert? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Actually, the thing in music that everyone should understand is, if you like it, you like it. Why should you care if someone else wants to watch this concert? Everyone is free to watch this concert, as I'm free to put the blame on them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Everyone is free to watch this concert, as I'm free to put the blame on them.I can't even understand how would someone be interested to care whether such a concert happens. I find that pathetic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I can't even understand how would someone be interested to care whether such a concert happens. I find that pathetic. It's because you miss the point. Actually the best new Beatles out there are those who get their spirit without playing their music. In 1999, I found the best new Beatles album was Summerteeth. Beatles juke-boxes today are just OLD. I've got news for you ... before the advent of overdubbing, that's exactly what they did. No they didn't. Their live acts were different from their records. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fortuneinmyhead Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 this is great. i'd go see it in a heartbeat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 It's because you miss the point. Actually the best new Beatles out there are those who get their spirit without playing their music. In 1999, I found the best new Beatles album was Summerteeth. Beatles juke-boxes today are just OLD.No they didn't. Their live acts were different from their records.No, I don't miss the point. I disagree with you. I say if there's an audience for it, they should put on the concert and why should you care if they do? You say they shouldn't do it because it's pathetic, because it's not original. It's a tribute band, and a very good one. No more and no less. And there's nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 No they didn't. Their live acts were different from their records.Aside from the screams, not really -- they were pretty much note for note. And that's how the records had been recorded in the first place: live in the studio. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Aside from the screams, not really -- they were pretty much note for note. And that's how the records had been recorded in the first place: live in the studio. "note for note" doesn't mean it was the same, since the songs were pretty simple. The Beatles just didn't mind of doing their songs exactly like on their records, the beat was different, the sound was different, the singing was different. They were just playing it "live", often faster, without necessarily all the verses. All I keep from their live acts is energy, hooks and good ideas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 It's a tribute band, and a very good one. No more and no less. And there's nothing wrong with that. Except an awful amount of nostalgia. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Except an awful amount of nostalgia.I'm sorry nostalgic people piss you off. I'm also sorry that you seem to have a problem with people having fun in a way that doesn't affect you at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 "note for note" doesn't mean it was the same, since the songs were pretty simple. The Beatles just didn't mind of doing their songs exactly like on their records, the beat was different, the sound was different, the singing was different. They were just playing it "live", often faster, without necessarily all the verses. All I keep from their live acts is energy, hooks and good ideas.Whatever. I stand by my statement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Somnambulist Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You wouldn't criticize the New York Philharmonic for playing note for note recreations of Beethoven or Vivaldi, no, that's what the New York Philharmonic does. I've read a few things about the Fab Faux and this is how they feel they're approaching the Beatles canon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 This thread is lame and pathetic. Beatallica is the best thing going right now anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 [quote name='JUDE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You're pathetic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You wouldn't criticize the New York Philharmonic for playing note for note recreations of Beethoven or Vivaldi, no, that's what the New York Philharmonic does. I've read a few things about the Fab Faux and this is how they feel they're approaching the Beatles canon. There's no point between the Beatles and Beethoven. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.