::Beatles For Sale

by **Ram1** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:47 pm

Nah, I think it sucks, Bro. (Relatively speaking in Beatles' terms, OF COURSE!!) [:D]

by **theDingle** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:20 am

CHOKE-A-HOAX! [:0] [:D]

by **2 of 3** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:26 am

Sucks!?[:0]..I'm telling.[;)]

by **Ram1** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:55 am

I think it blows like Michael Jackson on a weekend at Neverland. (Relatively speaking in Beatles' terms, OF COURSE!!) [:D]

by **megs** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:48 pm

quote:Originally posted by Ram1
I think it blows like Michael Jackson on a weekend at Neverland. (Relatively speaking in Beatles' terms, OF COURSE!!) [:D]
CHOKE[:D]

by **theDingle** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:30 am

quote:Originally posted by theDingle
It was glad to be up to speed on what I'd missed, lol.It? It was glad? What am I saying? I'm starting to talk like Gollum, lol.

by **Steve-o** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:11 am

quote:Originally posted by theDingle
I'm starting to talk like Gollum, lol.[/font=Comic Sans MS][/b]
Or megs...[:D][}:)][:D]

by **theDingle** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:09 am

quote:Originally posted by Steve-o
Or megs...[:D][}:)][:D]
megs: "My precious, my giant bunnies filled with golden shiny stuffing, yes, we love you more than Frodo's stupit ring!" How about a date with Gollum, eh megs? Whotta babe! [:D]

Seriously though, Ram-bang-pow, or anybody: Isn't there a similarity or a connection between the Beatles playing these covers and the early 90s Seattle scene?

It was some of those guys that performed the soundtrack of BACKBEAT. When I got the soundtrack I was at first puzzled by that kind of production. Then I read an interview with Ringo where he said that he was consulted on the sound of the band in the movie, and he said, "DON'T try to sound like the Beatles, because even the Beatles didn't sound like the Beatles then."

The way the movie then captured their raw primitive sound seems to have been more authentic than not, more of a grungy sound. And the Hamburg Beatles were more of a cover-tunes act (and an outrageous noisy act) than a songwriting band. It gave some credibility, to me at least, to the grunge sound.

I always thought it was strange that as late as their last '66 tour, they were STILL playing these cover tunes instead of RUBBER SOUL/REVOLVER songs that were as easily reproducible on stage. What was it? Laziness, or still a love for the old grungy standards of the Hamburg days?

by **Steve-o** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:31 am

I think, especially with Revolver, that it would have been hard to reproduce the same sound live on some of the tunes (Eleanor Rigby--the only single, backed by Submarine, Got to Get You Into My Life, etc.) since they usually played the singles...plus the shows were about 20-30 minutes long. Strings and horns in those pre-synth days would have been cumbersome at best. But that's just my opinion. [:D] The technology not being present along with the fact that they couldn't even hear themselves had something to do with not doing the newer stuff.

by **theDingle** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:58 am

You're right about stuff like Eleanor Rigby, Steve-o, but I was thinking more along the lines of songs that rock out, like The Word, I'm Looking Through You, Dr. Robert, or even slower numbers like In My Life.

Great concert potential, but I forgot that they were shorter concerts that were driven by hits.

Still though, there seems to be a connection to me between the Hamburg Beatles and Seattle grunge.

::Beatles For Sale

Who is online