Log In
Register
11.10am
15 November 2013
Offline
I know they made some good poppy love songs from 63-65 but i think late 65 with the release of Rubber Soul they really got it together as far as cool album cover, songs developed more meaning, and they looked cool too.I always loved those square shades especailly the ones john wore.And i hate to say it but….I think they expanded getting a bigger male audience, and a few older people too..What do you think.
4.07pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online Its a very quick wave of the hand to say up to ’65 was poppy love songs as there is obvious development in the songwriting and studio recording with tracks like No Reply , Help !, Yesterday , I’m A Loser that moves away from the “i love you, you love me, oh oh oh, we’re happy” sentimentalities and feel. They looked cool in 1960 never mind in ’65 and there is no doubt Rubber Soul oozes sophistication and maturity but there were heavy signs of that far earlier, With The Beatles shows it in just in its own album cover which wasn’t 4 more grinning faces looking back at you.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.23pm
20 December 2010
Offline I think the Beatles were always trend setters throughout their career beginning with what they did prior to their success and through the 60’s. I think beginning with Rubber Soul they made a huge advancement but all their previous albums prior to this were well constructed and a head of it’s time. Album covers were beginning to be considered pieces of art and that started a whole new trend in itself.
The further one travels, the less one knows
5.51pm
15 November 2013
Offline Well in 1960 i think they looked like greasers not trend setters..Yes i never said they didnt write catchy tunes 63-65.I shouldve said by 65..capital let them do whatever they wanted.Yellow submarine. Ringo once said if we farted into the mike it would be a hit. Yes i prefer 1965 and up in thier music, while my brother who was born 1950 liked 66 and back…
7.44pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
breatle62 said
…I shouldve said by 65..capital let them do whatever they wanted…
Sorry, breatle62, but you should never say that! The Beatles were signed to Parlophone, a sub-division of EMI. Their day-to-day relationship was with them. Capitol was the North American arm of EMI, and had first refusal on distributing their recordings in America, which they didn’t take up until late-1963. Capitol had no say at all in what they did in the studio, and The Beatles had no respect for the way Capitol released their music – grudgingly giving up a few tracks here and there at EMI’s prodding so that Capitol could cobble together another release that they had nothing to do with. It was not until 1967, with Sgt. Pepper , that Capitol released an album in the way The Beatles wanted.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.01pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online mja6758 said
breatle62 said
…I shouldve said by 65..capital let them do whatever they wanted…
Sorry, breatle62, but you should never say that! The Beatles were signed to Parlophone, a sub-division of EMI. Their day-to-day relationship was with them. Capitol was the North American arm of EMI, and had first refusal on distributing their recordings in America, which they didn’t take up until late-1963. Capitol had no say at all in what they did in the studio, and The Beatles had no respect for the way Capitol released their music – grudgingly giving up a few tracks here and there at EMI’s prodding so that Capitol could cobble together another release that they had nothing to do with. It was not until 1967, with Sgt. Pepper , that Capitol released an album in the way The Beatles wanted.
And that was only because the Beatles insisted it be inserted into the contract with EMI before they resigned in ’67(?) (altho Capitol’s Pepper did omit the Inner Groove for some reason).
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.54pm
6 August 2013
Offline meanmistermustard said
mja6758 said
breatle62 said
…I shouldve said by 65..capital let them do whatever they wanted…
Sorry, breatle62, but you should never say that! The Beatles were signed to Parlophone, a sub-division of EMI. Their day-to-day relationship was with them. Capitol was the North American arm of EMI, and had first refusal on distributing their recordings in America, which they didn’t take up until late-1963. Capitol had no say at all in what they did in the studio, and The Beatles had no respect for the way Capitol released their music – grudgingly giving up a few tracks here and there at EMI’s prodding so that Capitol could cobble together another release that they had nothing to do with. It was not until 1967, with Sgt. Pepper , that Capitol released an album in the way The Beatles wanted.
And that was only because the Beatles insisted it be inserted into the contract with EMI before they resigned in ’67(?) (altho Capitol’s Pepper did omit the Inner Groove for some reason).
And even then Capitol wasn’t finished, as their hijinks with the Beatles continued after the breakup. Remember Rock ‘N’ Roll Music, with the ’50s-themed cover? John Lennon said the cover made the Fabs “look like Monkees rejects.” He even offered to design the cover for that album himself, and Capitol said no. And George Martin had to remix every single song for the album (well, he didn’t have to, but he did anyway) because he didn’t like how Capitol was going to transfer the twin-track mono tapes to stereo.
"There's no such thing as bad student... only bad teacher."
10.32pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online 
wetsroosa said
meanmistermustard said
mja6758 said
breatle62 said
…I shouldve said by 65..capital let them do whatever they wanted…
Sorry, breatle62, but you should never say that! The Beatles were signed to Parlophone, a sub-division of EMI. Their day-to-day relationship was with them. Capitol was the North American arm of EMI, and had first refusal on distributing their recordings in America, which they didn’t take up until late-1963. Capitol had no say at all in what they did in the studio, and The Beatles had no respect for the way Capitol released their music – grudgingly giving up a few tracks here and there at EMI’s prodding so that Capitol could cobble together another release that they had nothing to do with. It was not until 1967, with Sgt. Pepper , that Capitol released an album in the way The Beatles wanted.And that was only because the Beatles insisted it be inserted into the contract with EMI before they resigned in ’67(?) (altho Capitol’s Pepper did omit the Inner Groove for some reason).
And even then Capitol wasn’t finished, as their hijinks with the Beatles continued after the breakup. Remember Rock ‘N’ Roll Music, with the ’50s-themed cover? John Lennon said the cover made the Fabs “look like Monkees rejects.” He even offered to design the cover for that album himself, and Capitol said no. And George Martin had to remix every single song for the album (well, he didn’t have to, but he did anyway) because he didn’t like how Capitol was going to transfer the twin-track mono tapes to stereo.
This always got me wondering if John designed a cover and then they turned it down or if he never did at all (probably the former). It would be great if in someone’s collection it’s sitting there waiting for the world to see it.
As for the Rock And Roll Music LP, that was after the contract had run out and EMI were free to do as they chose with the back-catalogue, thats why there are 45 compilations out there on LP but not CD (some great, some not so). Thankfully the Martin ’76 mixes are not true remixes (ala the ’87 Help and Rubber Soul CD remixes) so everyone can take a deep breath and sigh that they don’t have to hunt down a crummy LP and suffer looking at its horrible cover.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
10.54pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline wetsroosa said
Remember Rock ‘N’ Roll Music … George Martin had to remix every single song for the album (well, he didn’t have to, but he did anyway) because he didn’t like how Capitol was going to transfer the twin-track mono tapes to stereo.
Though, of course, the irony in that case was that while Capitol gladly released Martin’s new mixes, EMI in the UK refused to touch them – pointing to The Beatles’ strict instructions that none of their original recordings were to be altered for reissue. The Martin mixes for the album weren’t released in the UK until two-volume budget label reissue in 1980. By which time EMI had heard lots about just how bad the original UK release sounded.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
11.00pm
20 December 2010
Offline There were only 5 songs remixed for the American release of ‘Rock n Roll Music’ and those songs were: ‘Boys ‘, ‘I Saw Her Standing There ‘, ‘I Wanna Be Your Man ‘, ‘Rollover Beethoven’ and ‘Twist And Shout ‘ These five songs were remixed and the channel switched from left and right. All the other songs released on this compilation were not remixed. In England, EMI used the British masters.
The further one travels, the less one knows
11.18pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Inner Light said
There were only 5 songs remixed for the American release of ‘Rock n Roll Music’ and those songs were: ‘Boys ‘, ‘I Saw Her Standing There ‘, ‘I Wanna Be Your Man ‘, ‘Rollover Beethoven’ and ‘Twist And Shout ‘ These five songs were remixed and the channel switched from left and right. All the other songs released on this compilation were not remixed. In England, EMI used the British masters.
While only five tracks were substantially remixed by Martin, every song was put through a filtering process by him, to remove things like tape hiss. So the Martin US mix of the album sounded substantially different to the UK one.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.53am
15 November 2013
Offline All im gonna add is someone in my family was a executive at capital for 20+yrs and it didnt all happen the way people think it did..lol
6.40am
17 January 2013
Offline breatle62 said
All im gonna add is someone in my family was a executive at capital for 20+yrs and it didnt all happen the way people think it did..lol
Oh please, DO enlighten us!
"Please don't bring your banjo back, I know where it's been.. I wasn't hardly gone a day, when it became the scene.. Banjos! Banjos! All the time, I can't forget that tune.. and if I ever see another banjo, I'm going out and buy a big balloon!"
2.35pm
16 August 2012
Offline To our Original Poster: As a newer member, you need to note that many of us here have been obsessive Beatle fans for years. While enthusiasm is always appreciated, you can’t just throw out random statements that wildly contradict 50+ years of thoroughly vetted information from every party originally involved.
E is for 'Ergent'.
8.09pm
15 November 2013
Offline As a new member it feels so good to be BULLIED by all the older members ….so they can stand up on thier soapbox and say hey i know everything thier is to know about the beatles, no they didnt make a bad song…ever, no this guy is lying, how could a member of his family ever work for that place…no you gents can have yer little website..but remember this, its 2013 not 1966….And thats just why i was reluctant to join any beatles website.I was giving my opinion, you guys acted like i was stating facts..And then you said im full of@#$%%^. Well that kind of treatment i dont need. goodby…
8.24pm
Members
18 March 2013
Offline ^ Well that escalated quickly…
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
8.57pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online
breatle62 said
As a new member it feels so good to be BULLIED by all the older members ….so they can stand up on thier soapbox and say hey i know everything thier is to know about the beatles, no they didnt make a bad song…ever, no this guy is lying, how could a member of his family ever work for that place…no you gents can have yer little website..but remember this, its 2013 not 1966….And thats just why i was reluctant to join any beatles website.I was giving my opinion, you guys acted like i was stating facts..And then you said im full of@#$%%^. Well that kind of treatment i dont need. goodby…
I really don’t think we were bullying anyone. So you make statements and we can’t reply? You said “capital let them do whatever they wanted”, well Capitol didn’t, so its clarified in a respectful manner. You then wrote “All im gonna add is someone in my family was a executive at capital for 20+yrs and it didnt all happen the way people think it did..lol” (which is not presented as an opinion) and people questioned what you wrote as it goes against what has been written over the last 35+ years. Instead of going in the huff back up your opinion, no one here knows everything and are looking to know more. If we did and weren’t we wouldnt be spending a fortune on ‘Tune In Deluxe’.
I’m sorry if you do feel bullied (a very strong statement to make), it was no one’s intention for that to happen.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.00pm
3 May 2012
Offline breatle62, we do respect your opinion – though it did seem like you were stating a fact rather than giving your point of view, at least here:
– but you in turn have to respect everybody else’s. Like SH said, what you are saying goes against a lot of what we believe to be true. So perhaps you can see why this reaction to your post has ocurred?
I’d also like to add that I think we replied in a respectful way, despite conflicting thought on the matter that’s arisen. I’m sorry you feel bullied, though. I’m sure that was nobody’s intention.
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
9.07pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Though obviously sad when a member feels bullied, I find it difficult to understand why – as I do not believe this conversation developed any differently to many others here.
A suggestion was put forward that a change occurred in The Beatles once Capitol allowed them more freedom in the studio. It was pointed out that Capitol had no influence or say on what they did in the studio. Then we had a digression into a discussion about The Beatles relationship with their American label.
In reply, breatle62, you commented that you had a relation who had worked for Capitol (something which I can’t see how either of the 2 responses to that question or doubt), and implied that the things you knew as a result contradicted parts of our discussion – and that you were laughing out loud as a result.
We are always happy to learn new things about The Beatles, even if it contradicts things we believe are set in stone. Just take a look at the excitement expressed here about the first instalment of Mark Lewisohn’s new biography. There is not a person here who doesn’t believe that they will not have challenged and changed what we thought we knew all the way through his telling of the story.
For instance, for months Lewisohn has been telling us that the story of their signing to Parlophone is very different to what we believe. He then backs up the statement with evidence. You will find that happening on a smaller scale all over this forum.
To just say, as you did, “…it didnt all happen the way people think it did…” and nothing more is always going be questioned, because people want to know more – which is one of the reasons we congregate here.
It is a shame you didn’t feel able to explain in greater depth the statement you made.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.57am
17 January 2013
Offline No one was bullying you. When you make a statement like that, be ready to back your s**t up. It seems like maybe you are leaving because you can’t back up anything you said. If you can’t, or if you aren’t supposed to say anything, then why did you even bring it up?
No one is forcing you to leave, but if you want to that is your choice.
"Please don't bring your banjo back, I know where it's been.. I wasn't hardly gone a day, when it became the scene.. Banjos! Banjos! All the time, I can't forget that tune.. and if I ever see another banjo, I'm going out and buy a big balloon!"
1 Guest(s)