(VOIDED PLEASE VOTE AGAIN) What is it that keeps your interest in The Beatles alive?

For topics that don't quite fit anywhere else...

What is it that keeps your interest in The Beatles alive?

Unreleased music (official or otherwise)
51
40%
Unreleased video (official or otherwise)
25
20%
Restorations, remixes, demixes and AI creations
22
17%
Limited, obscure, or out of print vinyl pressings
7
6%
New solo releases
6
5%
Books
5
4%
Merchandise
1
1%
Discussions
9
7%
 
Total votes: 126

User avatar
Rusty
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:31 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: (VOIDED PLEASE VOTE AGAIN) What is it that keeps your interest in The Beatles alive?

Post by Rusty »

I feel "AI" should be separated from "Restorations, remixes, demixes".
User avatar
Lord Reith
Posts: 4706
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 am
Location: BBC House
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 4087 times

Re: (VOIDED PLEASE VOTE AGAIN) What is it that keeps your interest in The Beatles alive?

Post by Lord Reith »

I'm not going to risk resetting it again by adding any more options. I think it now covers most scenarios. If you want to expound on your choice then just add it to your post.

Thanks for voting again. Interesting results.
Women there don't treat you mean, in Abilene
User avatar
Lord Reith
Posts: 4706
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:22 am
Location: BBC House
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 4087 times

Re: What is it that keeps your interest in The Beatles alive?

Post by Lord Reith »

zaval80 wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2024 12:11 pm
The obvious mistake you make is comparing others' stuff with The Beatles. Every artist chooses their own aesthetics, as with presentation, so more obviously with the sound. The rock hierarchy (Beatles, Stones, lesser mortals) exists not for nothing :) most others are bound to stay on the lower steps of the pyramid. And it's not that, as soon one starts to compare an artist's songs with each other, not with some other artist's ones, the understanding comes. Some artists even require WORK on the behalf of the listener. Like, I've had to listen to certain albums of certain artists (certain other things by whom I already liked) on constant repeat to get into them, but when I finally did, I understood what escaped me before. Some even became my absolute favorites, so I can only look back in amazement now, what was it that prevented me from getting them totally from the start.
Yes it is true that stuff can grow on you, but I still hear a lot of second and third rate stuff on albums by the greats. Whatever was the chemistry between John and Paul, it seriously upped their game. It's perhaps just that they were too insecure to submit a poor song in front of the other, that their egos would not allow it, and that is what kept the quality of their writing so high. They pretty much lost that when they went solo. If you're the only songwriter in a band, you can have bad days and get away with submitting stuff that is below your best simply because there is no-one else to say, "Well I've got THIS one.." and it turns out to be ten times better than yours. I think a lot of songwriters and bands are actually lazy and there is an attitude of "We've already got two really good songs on the album, the rest doesn't matter so much." Aside from Yellow Submarine, The Beatles never gave that impression. There is always the sense they are going for broke.
Women there don't treat you mean, in Abilene
Post Reply