Hey, I know! Let's put Groucho glasses on the Mona Lisa next! Yeah, dig it!!!

This is an unholy fiasco that triggers my gag reflex. Please, George Martin, no more!!!

Chumbawamba-1984 wrote:
Wizzuvv_oz wrote:
And also, as far as I can tell, wrong:

1. The first Beatles recordings do not go out of copyright in the UK until 2012 or 2013 (depending on who you ask, it looks like).

2. The "Love" album does not include any of the music from "Please Please Me", the Beatles' first record in 1963 (and we may presume the first one that will go out of copyright).

3. Producing a new record with remixed and remastered work from earlier albums does not affect the copyright status of the original work. The new record's copyright period begins in 2006, but the original records will still fall out of copyright in five years or so (unless Apple Records bullies Parliament into extending U.K. copyright law, which seems entirely possible).

Chumbawamba-1984 wrote:

Yes, but the sound quality and clarity of this album is fantastic. Plus, the way in which the songs are put together make them come alive in a whole new way, in my humble opinion. I thought the same thing initially, but I'm very pleased with this album.

shakitten wrote:

I guess you had to be there, but these mixes are actually digitally remastered from the original recordings by the Beatles' original producer (and his son)for the Cirque d'Soleil (sp?) show in Las Vegas at La Mirage. The show is awesome--with surround sound speaker i the seat and not a bad vantage point in the house. Even Paul and Ringo say they can't believe how much better the sound is on these new releases-- given the more advanced technology. And these tracks were all made with total permission by the widows and the living members of the band.

Maybe you need a new set of headphones...

the majority of votes are 9 or 10. Personally I just don't see the need for this project at all.

But I guess there are people who don't care for swiming, cycling or running but they like triathlons. Give me the originals. I'd rather hear two Beatles songs in a row than this.

coffee-eyes wrote:
And for me, a four for the same reason

shakitten wrote:

I so agree with this. creepy is the right word all around.

Chumbawamba-1984 wrote:interesting

eastcoast wrote:
The explanation is in a simple word: COPYRIGHT. The album went out just before most of the songs turned public. This simple commercial trick renewed the rights and royalties for another 20 years or so. It was worth spending days remixing the whole stuff in studio.

shakitten wrote:
Agreed.

Makes me feel like time travel is possible

coffee-eyes wrote:Ditto! I love The Beatles...grew up with The Beatles...Meet the Beatles was the very first LP I ever bought. But, these compilations leave me cold. They are pure commercialization and do nothing to enhence the original recordings. A CD that never should have been made.

It gets a 5 because I'm not liking the mix so much. Eh. Happier with the original versions.

The Brits overshadowed American R&R a long time ago. The Beatles broke the ice and their successors have hailed ever since. I have listened to this 10,000 times in my lifetime, I guess. If it still sounds this good it must be close to God.

That earns a 7.

I don't like the creepy remixes off this album. I like the straight originals...all the mixes sound distorted and cheezy.

Oh, thank God... it's the real one.

The local radio stations keep playing "the other" version of this song by Aerosmith. Nothing against Aerosmith or anything, but they really botched it.

After this I'm going to try a stage production of MacHamlet's Summers Nights Dream.

This sucks.

sans wrote:

LOL.
thanks for this one.

ontopic:
I'll mention this definitely too often: perfect music from a perfect band.

nothing less than a sharp 10!

Not only does this not work, it prompts me to dislike the originals more and more.

My 2 cents: This sounds gimmiky and oddly commercial. I keep expecting a credit card company logo to appear in front of trapeze artists in spandex - male ones in unitards, which is an image I can do without, thank you very much. I like the idea of hearing Beatles tunes in a fresh light, but this just aint werkin' fer me.

come together, please!

bokey wrote:Re the comment by oz.: Point well taken. All analogies/similes/metaphores are imperfect, and my description certainly had more than a whiff of that. We can remove the deification tone with this one: IMO, mashing two songs (especially really good ones like these two by the Beatles) seems like mashing Van Gogh's "Red Vineyard" together with "Starry Night". Then the Cirque du soleil stuff is like sticking an ad for TGI Fridays in the corner.

Wizzuvv_oz wrote:

John Lennon wouldn't give a rats ass except for his amusement over people deifying a particular mix over another.

I wish Bill would not play this, if only out of principle. A mash up of the Beatles is sort of blasphemous, in a way.

leathepea wrote:


Mr.Martin?

WHy not mess the songs, how else can we milk the fans for more money!

I agree with most of the criticisms of this album. I don't see the 'why' of it. Sorry. Just makes me reach for the originals.

ObeliskToucher wrote:
Hilarious that Cirque forced you to give it a "1". Makes The Beatles so very Celine Dion-ish, doesn't it? And that makes me cry baby cry

Barman wrote:

Agreed and like the others on this CD I can see no reason why it was even attempted.

Hands down the best Beatles album ever released! If you don't have this one, and you are a Beatles fan, you must run, don't walk to the store and buy it.