Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Beatles

Rate this topic


Whoisjohngalt
 Share

Recommended Posts

George Harrison wrote some of the most meaningful songs produced by the Beatles, as many harcore fans will recognize.

"Taxman" is a bitterly humorous examination of socialist society,

"Something" is to date my favorite love song, not only for the lyrics, but the heartwrenching guitar solo and fills,

"While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is the single greatest Beatles song ever recorded, in terms of the complexity of the melody and the wonderful message

While Paul was an essential contributor, musically, and John had an incredible poetic talent, Harrison was the most original and independant member of the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
The Beatles Remastered came out today. I listened to a few songs off of it on the radio (they played both the old and the new versions) , and it is soooo much better. It solves the biggest issue I had with many of their songs on my playlist (the quality of the recordings), and it's gonna completely change the experience of listening to the Beatles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles Remastered came out today. I listened to a few songs off of it on the radio (they played both the old and the new versions) , and it is soooo much better. It solves the biggest issue I had with many of their songs on my playlist (the quality of the recordings), and it's gonna completely change the experience of listening to the Beatles.

They played a portion of a song on PBS, and I was surprised by the sound. They also spoke about how the remastered versions will give scholars another way to analyze the music because it's supposed to be nearer to the sound the Beatles intended, but I wouldn't know much about that. I'm going to wait until the price drops a little or try and get a used box set on amazon, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of what they produced in the second era is awful. Things (I won't call them songs) like Revolution No. 9, and songs devoid of rational content like Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds (supposedly about visions on an acid trip) and I Am The Walrus. But it also includes songs like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, A Little Help From My Friends and so on.

Shows what you know about music. Revolution #9 was a musique concrete composition. Of course it wasn't a song. If it were both, it would be a contradiction of terms! Musique concrete is not devoid of "rational content," you simply do not understand it. If it weren't for musique concrete, developed by the masters of middle 20th century classical music, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, Edgar Varese, and Francis Dhomont, some of the most widely-recognized achievements in music and production would never have been realized. Just because it abandons the tradition of western compositional form doesn't mean it doesn't have a form, or that it lacks structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles Remastered came out today. I listened to a few songs off of it on the radio (they played both the old and the new versions) , and it is soooo much better. It solves the biggest issue I had with many of their songs on my playlist (the quality of the recordings), and it's gonna completely change the experience of listening to the Beatles.

Frankly, with the sound fidelity of radio broadcast mediums, it would not be possible to hear the difference between the various older remasters of the Beatles catalog and the new remasters that were put out recently... especially if they played the stereo remasters!

I've heard many of the mono and stereo remasters, and while they sound better, what you're writing about is nothing more than placebo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, with the sound fidelity of radio broadcast mediums, it would not be possible to hear the difference between the various older remasters of the Beatles catalog and the new remasters that were put out recently... especially if they played the stereo remasters!

I've heard many of the mono and stereo remasters, and while they sound better, what you're writing about is nothing more than placebo.

Would what you're saying still be true, even if you had digital radio? My ear for music is prety weak so I couldn't tell the difference, but I wonder if someone else could with the proper equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would what you're saying still be true, even if you had digital radio? My ear for music is prety weak so I couldn't tell the difference, but I wonder if someone else could with the proper equipment.

Yes, it would be.

Normal FM only broadcasts baseband audio - 30Hz-15kHz. Normal adult human hearing begins around 60Hz, but ends around 17kHz. The 15-17k frequency band produces essential audio information that greatly affects the perceived timbres of most musical instruments. It is especially important for brass, woodwinds, strings, and percussion.

But that's beside the fact, because you'd need to be literally camped out right next to the broadcasting tower to hear the full 30-15k spectrum it produces. As you go further and further from the broadcast tower, signal noise gets introduced at pretty high levels. If you're listening on a stereo, meaning two audio channels, you'll have an especially low signal-to-noise ratio.

Radio additionally compresses the living hell out of audio, so any positive dynamic processing you hear on an audio track would be void when listening through a radio receiver. Because of the relative cost of radio receivers, digital or otherwise, you also have to expect less-than-stellar audio reproduction components. The internal components will be Chinese-manufactured electronics not specifically-designed for audio playback, and the audio output components will be similarly low-quality.

I'm studying digital signal processing in college, and have had years of training, both academic and professional, in audio engineering, production, and mastering. My equipment, by most professional standards, is precise enough be utilized in professional mastering studios. Indeed, I've listened to the new remasters on this equipment, and the new Beatles mono remasters are brilliant. The stereo ones are OK too. But to think you can hear the intricacies of an audio master through a radio broadcast would be nothing more than fooling yourself.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the point of this new remastered release to listen personally on your own system, not the radio? Honestly I do not listen to much music via radio because the selection is poor and the quality is poor. The only exception for me is classical music because the music is not recorded at super high qualities and there is a great station around here.

That said, in my experience remastered versions are noticeably better and higher quality sound (ie higher bitrate) is much better. I can pick out higher quality rips of songs on my mp3 player over lower ones usually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, with the sound fidelity of radio broadcast mediums, it would not be possible to hear the difference between the various older remasters of the Beatles catalog and the new remasters that were put out recently... especially if they played the stereo remasters!

I've heard many of the mono and stereo remasters, and while they sound better, what you're writing about is nothing more than placebo.

By radio, I meant a Sirius satellite radio show, which I actually download in mp3 form (which may be better quality than their broadcast) from an online source (legally). It was better equalized, clearer, richer sounding. Most definitely not placebo.

Not sure which older remasters you mean, I never heard these secific songs: "While it seems like other artists remaster their entire catalog every several years, Capitol/EMI have barely touched the Beatles’ discography since 1987, with the exception of 2004’s The Capitol Albums, Vol. 1 box set, which compiled and remastered the band’s first four American releases in stereo and mono formats." (Rolling Stone)

RussK, I was hoping they'd sell individual songs, on Itunes. Or I think there are individual albums. I wouldn't pay 200+ dollars either.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the point of this new remastered release to listen personally on your own system, not the radio? Honestly I do not listen to much music via radio because the selection is poor and the quality is poor. The only exception for me is classical music because the music is not recorded at super high qualities and there is a great station around here.

That said, in my experience remastered versions are noticeably better and higher quality sound (ie higher bitrate) is much better. I can pick out higher quality rips of songs on my mp3 player over lower ones usually.

Yeah, radio isn't really a serious method of listening to music anymore. Hasn't been for years, sadly. However, you still run into the atypical station every once in a while that plays interesting music and caters itself to a slightly more intellectual audience.

And actually, classical music is typically the best-recorded music in the industry. It is an extremely painstaking process, and it takes a lot of time, configuring, and precise measurements, to faithfully record classical music. Luckily, on the radio, classical music stations have a pretty varied selection, with really knowledgeable deejays behind the microphone.

By radio, I meant a Sirius satellite radio show, which I actually download in mp3 form (which may be better quality than their broadcast) from an online source (legally). It was better equalized, clearer, richer sounding. Most definitely not placebo.

Not sure which older remasters you mean, I never heard these secific songs: "While it seems like other artists remaster their entire catalog every several years, Capitol/EMI have barely touched the Beatles’ discography since 1987, with the exception of 2004’s The Capitol Albums, Vol. 1 box set, which compiled and remastered the band’s first four American releases in stereo and mono formats." (Rolling Stone)

RussK, I was hoping they'd sell individual songs, on Itunes. Or I think there are individual albums. I wouldn't pay 200+ dollars either.

Sirius is indeed higher quality, but still not enough to be able to distinguish the quality of the masters.

Could you identify what specifically allowed the audio of the new masters to sound "better equalized" and "richer" sounding? Because I would disagree with "richness" - the 800-2k range was actually cut a bit for this release, which is where audible "richness" is held within the frequency spectrum. It's a good thing, too; it allowed Paul's basslines to come in much more clearly, and also made vocal harmonies sound more detailed.

Many people have made remasters of the Beatles catalog, but EMI has only touched it a few times. A lot of folks on the outer fringes have remastered the Beatles catalog to be cut for vinyl, though I'm not sure how many of those masters ever actually made it to the pressing stage.

They are really over rated.

I would agree with you here, actually. I love the Beatles, but even during their time period, there were other composers and performers doing just as, if not more, interesting things in terms of composition and production. In terms of the public's reception of the Beatles, if it weren't for their earlier material, which I find superficially simple and vile, they would have never been recognized for their later material (the good stuff).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving an awful racket a french-derived name does not make it any less of an awful racket.

You should just stop arguing this. You clearly have no formal musical education, because what you're saying contradicts very firmly-held beliefs regarding the progression of western music.

It's not a French-derived name - it's a French name, given by the inventor of the musical process, Pierre Schaeffer. Like all other western classical music that came before it, Musique Concrete is an accepted, legitimate form of classical music composition, which is intended to produce a narrative listening experience, a dynamically-flowing score, and a full-colored sound spectrum... like a symphony. It's not "noise" or an "awful racket" as you put it - just because you cannot hear the similarities between a piece scored for orchestra and a piece scored for tape machine doesn't mean it's not legitimate, beautiful art.

Dhomont's music is some of the most romantic music I've ever heard, and the same is the case for Luciano Berio's works. You haven't given a mere molecule of your brain to seriously enjoying and analyzing contemporary music, if you wish to continue this slanderous ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to make the thread a bit ... well, "fair and balanced" (so if you're a fan, don't read on!) I don't particularly like them. They have a few songs that have a little merit to them (such as Let It Be, although I cannot really figure out what they want to let be--or Yesterday, whose meaning is pretty clear, but not a part of its merit), but I wouldn't go as far as to call even those "good," let alone "great." Not to mention the fact that John Lennon was a damn Communist! I'd rather listen to Abba than the Beatles if I had to choose, and I'm not a fan of those guys either...

It's interesting to observe one's own taste in music change. If this thread had been started now, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have included that "merit" part, I simply would have said that the Beatles suck, period. And I would have expressed my bewilderment at all those posts praising them to high heavens.

Well, since many of those posters are still here: What do you guys like about the Beatles? Do you think their songs are good stuff qua art in the Objectivist/Romanticist sense, or are they simply pleasant to listen to, or do you find them energizing / inspiring / enchanting / ... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should just stop arguing this. You clearly have no formal musical education, because what you're saying contradicts very firmly-held beliefs regarding the progression of western music.

I wouldn't want to contradict beliefs concerning 20th century arts arising from the little dark age because....?

It's not a French-derived name - it's a French name, given by the inventor of the musical process, Pierre Schaeffer.

Ok. giving a French name to an awful racket doesn't make it any less of an awful racket.

It's not "noise" or an "awful racket" as you put it - just because you cannot hear the similarities between a piece scored for orchestra and a piece scored for tape machine doesn't mean it's not legitimate, beautiful art.

If it comes to that, abstract "art" and non-conceptual "art" are accepted, legitimate forms of "art." Just because you can't see the similarities between a well-crafted composition like Michael Angelo's frescoes and random splatters of bodily fluids and some paint on canvas, does not mean it's not legitimate, beautiful "art."

Revolution No. 9 is noise, not music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since many of those posters are still here: What do you guys like about the Beatles? Do you think their songs are good stuff qua art in the Objectivist/Romanticist sense, or are they simply pleasant to listen to, or do you find them energizing / inspiring / enchanting / ... ?

Much of the music could be called Romanticist. Remember that lyrics are not the only thing that can be romantic. The Beatles romanticized the power and passion of the human mind in many of their compositions, particularly those that featured larger ensembles than just the four of them. They put out an extremely varied song set, which ranged from bizarre, to happy, to sad, to organic, to synthesized, to inventive, and to plain. In their career, they touched upon language I would not agree with, philosophically, but I wouldn't doubt for a minute that just about each song they wrote embodied a characteristic of their metaphysical interpretations of reality, of humanity, and of personality, whether it be through their lyrics, through their compositions, or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it comes to that, abstract "art" and non-conceptual "art" are accepted, legitimate forms of "art." Just because you can't see the similarities between a well-crafted composition like Michael Angelo's frescoes and random splatters of bodily fluids and some paint on canvas, does not mean it's not legitimate, beautiful "art."

Revolution No. 9 is noise, not music.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Musique Concrete is not "abstract" or "non-conceptual" - you're the one that is non-conceptual. The concepts of musique concrete are easily recognized if one cares to listen, and the composition, structure, texture, and timing of musique concrete are no different than a piece of 19th-century classical music. The evidence is all there, right in front of you, but your archaic mind and your shallow non-acceptance of unique timbres doesn't allow you to hear it. Your claim would be amounted to: Musique Concrete is not music because it does not always feature purely western instruments.

Definition of music:

Music is an art form whose medium is sound. Common elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture.

Please help me understand what about any piece of musique concrete, let alone Revolution #9, isn't music. I could easily point out to you every single one of those "common elements" in any piece of Musique Concrete, within seconds - just like any other more typical symphonic piece. But clearly my 1.5 decades of intense classical musical training and my musical ear are just too "abstract" to understand your flawless "logic." Please inform me as to how the structured, pitched, dynamic, and rhythmic electronic musics of the past 60+ years is actually not music. Thanks.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...