Beatles Sell 2.25 Million albums in 5 days

[stevew2]

The proof is in the pudding,not the cum slop journey is,{this aint Journey forum, so fuck it.} All the beatles {even fuckin Ringo} had huge sucsess when they split up and went solo. Paul had hits with His ole lady and wings, John did to, till he was shot down {that really sucked} George did to{he got into that weird ass religoin bullshit, and even Ringo singing 'she sixteen and shit. They all made it after the band broke up. Journey could never do anything like that. That shows their talent and how good they were by themselves and when they got to gether they were awesome. They were pioneers the first,like Elvis. best band ever. spelling is what it is

[Don]

I like the Wings material more than most out of the solo and group efforts by the band, to tell you the truth.

[stevew2]

I like the Wings material more than most out of the solo and group efforts by the band, to tell you the truth.

Me to, He had a lot of hits, and still had the same players in the band for years.Paul had, and has his shit together,he damn near filled Stadiums out this year. He s still got it,and can still sing his ass off

[brywool]

He's STILL filling stadiums, not nearly filling them.
I downloaded a boot of him from the New York show a few months back. His voice was better on it than on the Wings tours of 76. Not as rough. Whatever he's doing is helping him. I THINK the fact that he's out there doing it every night is really helping him. To hear a guy that old crank out Helter Skelter is awesome. The guy has his shit together.

Speaking of Ringo, I'm not a drummer, or much of one, but I think Ringo (as a drummer) gets a bum rap. I think he did a lot of really cool stuff. I personally think he's leaps and bounds above Watts, who I never got. Watt's tempos are all over the place. Ringo, and Paul too actually, are pretty solid. Paul's a decent drummer as well.

[brywool]

Cuz they're the best fucking songwriters in history. Period. Their music is timeless. No other band can touch them. Period. The sales, literature, and media coverage dedicated to them bare that out. Nobody in entertainment ruled like these guys. It's a fact. Not Elvis, not Jackson, not The Boss, not the Stones, etc. Some may not like them, but without them, music would've taken a way different turn. Parents love em. Kids love em. It's as universal as one form of entertainment can be. Sure, there are those that hate them. Fine. But it's definitely on the tiny minority of things.

As for the new sales, the original CDs weren't mastered very well and peeps have been waiting for the remasters for a LONG time. I've got two (Help! and Revolver). I don't notice that much difference other than it's more compressed and the bass and drums are more to the fore. They SHOULD have put the mono and stereo on the same disc. That's my one gripe because there are some jewels in the mono stuff (Help! is a completely different vocal take than the stereo version and MUCH better, Paperback Writer's also got huge balls that the stereo one never had, etc.).

The Rockband thing looks cool. Do a search on Youtube for Beatles Opening Cinematic. It's really really cool and opens The Beatles Rockband. I have yet to get the game, not sure I will as I don't want all the drums, guitars and stuff around my house. I'm already tripping over a drumkit, 7 guitars, a PA, etc. I don't need more stuff.

I did just download a lot of the rockband tracks this evening. I know a lot of them have studio chatter and stuff. I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff.

Or, to put it as short as I can...

Because they rule.
[/img]

Way to go, Bry!!! I have all their work, including these remastered ones. I guess we dont need an explanation, do we? The answer has been and will always be, it's because they are 'The Beatles.' (case closed)

I have all their stuff including a lot of boot stuff. I haven't gotten all the remasters yet. Birthday and Christmas are "coming up" so my wife always beats my butt for buying everything when it comes out! I just think they're the greatest. Even Paul's solo stuff- got it all.His latest Fireman album is pretty interesting.

[Ehwmatt]

The proof is in the pudding,not the cum slop journey is,{this aint Journey forum, so fuck it.} All the beatles {even fuckin Ringo} had huge sucsess when they split up and went solo. Paul had hits with His ole lady and wings, John did to, till he was shot down {that really sucked} George did to{he got into that weird ass religoin bullshit, and even Ringo singing 'she sixteen and shit. They all made it after the band broke up. Journey could never do anything like that. That shows their talent and how good they were by themselves and when they got to gether they were awesome. They were pioneers the first,like Elvis. best band ever. spelling is what it is

That was a hell of a capsule synopsis

[brywool]

Do you know why they disbanded Jim? They were so good live, and so popular, they couldn't be heard over the fucking crowd noise. That's amazing.

That's total bullshit. While it's historically accurate that crowd noise was certainly incredible at their shows, it's also historically accurate that they never bothered to buy bigger amps. The Rolling Stones were decidedly better live. There's footage to prove the point. The Stones ruled rock n' roll's live setting for many, many years. The Beatles were nothing more than good/very good live.

And let's talk about influence. The Beatles always get named as the most influential band of all-time, but at the end of the day they were a generic "pop" band. The Stones were directly responsible for influencing The Yardbirds, The Who and The Kinks, because of their rock and blues roots.

Moreover, their producer George Martin was the secret behind their success. You think the 2 dopeheads, Lennon and McCartney, wrote all of the arrangements?!?! The vast majority of the modern instrumentation and arrangements came from Martin. Lennon and McCartney could produce a good/great melody, but it pretty much ended there.

This is so not true Dan. Until 65, the Beatles were great live. In 66, they just didn't want to do it any longer. No monitors at that time, so they couldn't hear themselves on stage and the stuff they were doing couldn't be produced well live cuz it was too complex for the live thing. As for bigger amps, they had the biggest amps at the time. Those Super Beatle Vox's were huge.

They quit touring because of all the pressure and how the press just was 'at' them all the time with all the Bigger than Christ stuff, then in Manilla, they unintentionally snubbed the first lady and had to get out of Manilla while being punched, robbed, and kicked. They'd had enough of it. John and George were mostly the ones that just couldn't do it anymore. Paul would've done it forever as he's proven these days. The Beatles, had been touring or performing live all the time since the late 50s. By 1966, they were tired of it. Think of 1965- 2 albums released, multiple singles, a movie, and I think 2 world tours. That's a hell of a lot of output for a year.

I don't know much about the Stones live. I saw them a few years ago and wasn't that impressed. As a vocalist, Mick is about as good as Ringo. As a front guy, he's great. Keef is a great guitarist and has a great sound. But in truth, the Stones tried to copy everything the Beatles ever did. They finally realized that was stupid and then moved more into their own. Also, let's not forget- JOHN AND PAUL wrote the Stones' first single. But listen to Their Majesty's Satanic Request album. It was their "Pepper" and except for She's a Rainbow and 2000 Lightyears from Home, the album blows.

As for George Martin- that might've been true in the VERY beginning. By the time of Rubber Soul, The Beatles were taking much more control of their own stuff. You make it sound like The Monkees. Not so. The Beatles were a very tight band that could play and sing great.

Also, regarding the drug comment- Um, Brian Jones was the biggest head of the 60s and the first to go. Mick did time for dope. Keef did time for dope. Lennon also was fined heavily for it as was George.... George being at a party at Keef's that got busted by the fuzz, yet getting out before they raided the place.

[Rockindeano]

And let's talk about influence. The Beatles always get named as the most influential band of all-time, but at the end of the day they were a generic "pop" band. The Stones were directly responsible for influencing The Yardbirds, The Who and The Kinks, because of their rock and blues roots.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with being a pop band is there? Journey is a pop band moreso than a rock act. Secondly, let's talk influence? SP, the "best singer ever" wrote the fucking Beatles into Captured by the Moment i]for Christs sake! - "The four who sang to Let it Be." Remember that? The Beatles have influence everyone in one way or another.

[Ehwmatt]

Do you know why they disbanded Jim? They were so good live, and so popular, they couldn't be heard over the fucking crowd noise. That's amazing.

That's total bullshit. While it's historically accurate that crowd noise was certainly incredible at their shows, it's also historically accurate that they never bothered to buy bigger amps. The Rolling Stones were decidedly better live. There's footage to prove the point. The Stones ruled rock n' roll's live setting for many, many years. The Beatles were nothing more than good/very good live.

And let's talk about influence. The Beatles always get named as the most influential band of all-time, but at the end of the day they were a generic "pop" band. The Stones were directly responsible for influencing The Yardbirds, The Who and The Kinks, because of their rock and blues roots.

Moreover, their producer George Martin was the secret behind their success. You think the 2 dopeheads, Lennon and McCartney, wrote all of the arrangements?!?! The vast majority of the modern instrumentation and arrangements came from Martin. Lennon and McCartney could produce a good/great melody, but it pretty much ended there.

This is so not true Dan. Until 65, the Beatles were great live. In 66, they just didn't want to do it any longer. No monitors at that time, so they couldn't hear themselves on stage and the stuff they were doing couldn't be produced well live cuz it was too complex for the live thing. As for bigger amps, they had the biggest amps at the time. Those Super Beatle Vox's were huge.

They quit touring because of all the pressure and how the press just was 'at' them all the time with all the Bigger than Christ stuff, then in Manilla, they unintentionally snubbed the first lady and had to get out of Manilla while being punched, robbed, and kicked. They'd had enough of it. John and George were mostly the ones that just couldn't do it anymore. Paul would've done it forever as he's proven these days. The Beatles, had been touring or performing live all the time since the late 50s. By 1966, they were tired of it. Think of 1965- 2 albums released, multiple singles, a movie, and I think 2 world tours. That's a hell of a lot of output for a year.

I don't know much about the Stones live. I saw them a few years ago and wasn't that impressed. As a vocalist, Mick is about as good as Ringo. As a front guy, he's great. Keef is a great guitarist and has a great sound. But in truth, the Stones tried to copy everything the Beatles ever did. They finally realized that was stupid and then moved more into their own. Also, let's not forget- JOHN AND PAUL wrote the Stones' first single. But listen to Their Majesty's Satanic Request album. It was their "Pepper" and except for She's a Rainbow and 2000 Lightyears from Home, the album blows.

As for George Martin- that might've been true in the VERY beginning. By the time of Rubber Soul, The Beatles were taking much more control of their own stuff. You make it sound like The Monkees. Not so. The Beatles were a very tight band that could play and sing great.

Yep, The Beatles own. Great point about the arrangements being too complex - synths with huge memory banks and samples weren't around back then to reproduce big, layered records live with any fidelity...

[Behshad]

[Rockindeano]

I should also add though that a big reason the Beatles were so damned good sounding was Phil Spector, hair notwithstanding. He has that "wall of sound" thing going on, that sounds amazing. Paul says as much when asked about him.

Here's some Beatles trivia.

Anyone know who the "5th Beatle" was supposed to have been?

[brywool]

and you'd be white trash?
What's yer point? What the Hell is with that kind of stuff?

[Arianddu]

Anyone know who the "5th Beatle" was supposed to have been?

Depends who you talk to as to whether it was Epstein, Sutcliff or Best.

[Behshad]

and you'd be white trash?
What's yer point? What the Hell is with that kind of stuff?

My opinion. You dont have to agree with me now, do you !?

[Rockindeano]

Anyone know who the "5th Beatle" was supposed to have been?

Depends who you talk to as to whether it was Epstein, Sutcliff or Best.

Not the answers I was looking for.

[brywool]

I should also add though that a big reason the Beatles were so damned good sounding was Phil Spector, hair notwithstanding. He has that "wall of sound" thing going on, that sounds amazing. Paul says as much when asked about him.

Here's some Beatles trivia.

Anyone know who the "5th Beatle" was supposed to have been?

Deano- this is incorrect. Phil Spector came in and 'cleaned up' the Let it Be album. Paul HATED what he did to the Long and Winding Road and Phil's involvement had a lot to do with the breakup, at least peripherally. Harrison and Lennon liked him enough to work with him on solo albums (all things must pass and Imagine), but Paul hated what he did to that album. So much that a few years ago "Let it Be Naked" came out because Paul wanted the version without Spector's production. Phil was only brought into Let it Be after the hours and hours of tapes were just too much for Martin or anyone else to face.
Those tapes were pretty bad and Phil did turn out a decent album from it, but mostly, the wall of sound wasn't there much. Lennon and Harrison brought Phil into salvage it, and they released it without consent from McCartney. Paul flipped when he heard all the strings and crap on "The Long and Winding Road". Phil only worked with that one record. The rest were produced by George Martin.

[brywool]

and you'd be white trash?
What's yer point? What the Hell is with that kind of stuff?

My opinion. You dont have to agree with me now, do you !?

True, I just don't get why it's cool to say that kind of stuff. Kinda like the Arnel eats dogs thing. Sorry- I know I'm probably making too much of it. Carry on.

More importantly, who am I to lecture. Sorry.

I get weird with Beatles stuff!

[Behshad]

and you'd be white trash?
What's yer point? What the Hell is with that kind of stuff?

My opinion. You dont have to agree with me now, do you !?

True, I just don't get why it's cool to say that kind of stuff. Kinda like the Arnel eats dogs thing. Sorry- I know I'm probably making too much of it. Carry on.

You are making too much of it ,,,,:P FYI, I grew up most my life in Europe, so I'd be a Eurotrash before white trash

I just dont get the fascination over Beatles,.,.,, people who listen to them and try to tell me that I dont know what Im talkin about usually have two reasons, when it comes to why they like Beatles,,,1) “They’re the greatest band in history.” or 2)“They defined music"
1)Im sorry but thats not enough reason to like their music. Maybe if I was around when they were huge, Id follow the crowd and became a fan or at least accept their music as good music, but its just something that always seemed dull to me,,,
2)people need to get some fresh air and listen to composition that ACTUALLY defined music, Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Handel, Corelli, Beethoven, Hayden, Strauss, Wagner

All those who claim that they love Beatles and their music, you hardly find any of the Beatles music in their iPod,,, so its the cool thing to say that you like Beatles, then Im not cool enough

[brywool]

All those who claim that they love Beatles and their music, you hardly find any of the Beatles music in their iPod,,, so its the cool thing to say that you like Beatles, then Im not cool enough

That's because you can't legally download it.
I have everything they've ever done on my ipod, car usb drive, cds, albums, 45s, and a few in my jukebox too. Many people do.

[Behshad]

All those who claim that they love Beatles and their music, you hardly find any of the Beatles music in their iPod,,, so its the cool thing to say that you like Beatles, then Im not cool enough

That's because you can't legally download it.
I have everything they've ever done on my ipod, car usb drive, cds, albums, 45s, and a few in my jukebox too. Many people do.

Im talkin about average nomal people who claim to like Beatles... youre a BeatlesFreak!

[brywool]

All those who claim that they love Beatles and their music, you hardly find any of the Beatles music in their iPod,,, so its the cool thing to say that you like Beatles, then Im not cool enough

That's because you can't legally download it.
I have everything they've ever done on my ipod, car usb drive, cds, albums, 45s, and a few in my jukebox too. Many people do.

Im talkin about average nomal people who claim to like Beatles... youre a BeatlesFreak!

this is true! however, do those same peeps have beethoven and mozart?

[Behshad]

All those who claim that they love Beatles and their music, you hardly find any of the Beatles music in their iPod,,, so its the cool thing to say that you like Beatles, then Im not cool enough

That's because you can't legally download it.
I have everything they've ever done on my ipod, car usb drive, cds, albums, 45s, and a few in my jukebox too. Many people do.

Im talkin about average nomal people who claim to like Beatles... youre a BeatlesFreak!

this is true! however, do those same peeps have beethoven and mozart?

where do you come with that arguement!??
did I say that those who claim to love beatles because they say Beatles redefined music, listen more to Mozart now??? youre one odd duck

[brywool]

All those who claim that they love Beatles and their music, you hardly find any of the Beatles music in their iPod,,, so its the cool thing to say that you like Beatles, then Im not cool enough

That's because you can't legally download it.
I have everything they've ever done on my ipod, car usb drive, cds, albums, 45s, and a few in my jukebox too. Many people do.

Im talkin about average nomal people who claim to like Beatles... youre a BeatlesFreak!

this is true! however, do those same peeps have beethoven and mozart?

where do you come with that arguement!??
did I say that those who claim to love beatles because they say Beatles redefined music, listen more to Mozart now??? youre one odd duck

we likes what we likes. Ain't no thing. I just don't get the "Beatles sucked" argument that peeps throw out sometimes.

[Don]

I should also add though that a big reason the Beatles were so damned good sounding was Phil Spector, hair notwithstanding. He has that "wall of sound" thing going on, that sounds amazing. Paul says as much when asked about him.

Here's some Beatles trivia.

Anyone know who the "5th Beatle" was supposed to have been?

Billy Preston

[Behshad]

I should also add though that a big reason the Beatles were so damned good sounding was Phil Spector, hair notwithstanding. He has that "wall of sound" thing going on, that sounds amazing. Paul says as much when asked about him.

Here's some Beatles trivia.

Anyone know who the "5th Beatle" was supposed to have been?

Billy Preston

Elton John

[Don]

I should also add though that a big reason the Beatles were so damned good sounding was Phil Spector, hair notwithstanding. He has that "wall of sound" thing going on, that sounds amazing. Paul says as much when asked about him.

Here's some Beatles trivia.

Anyone know who the "5th Beatle" was supposed to have been?

Billy Preston

Elton John

BILLY PRESTON - The fifth Beatle and also the only black Beatle.

[journeyrock]

I should also add though that a big reason the Beatles were so damned good sounding was Phil Spector, hair notwithstanding. He has that "wall of sound" thing going on, that sounds amazing. Paul says as much when asked about him.

Here's some Beatles trivia.

Anyone know who the "5th Beatle" was supposed to have been?

Eddie Murphy?

[brywool]

BILLY PRESTON - The fifth Beatle and also the only black Beatle.

Good guess. I guess "Charles Manson" isn't correct?

[journeyrock]

All those who claim that they love Beatles and their music, you hardly find any of the Beatles music in their iPod,,, so its the cool thing to say that you like Beatles, then Im not cool enough

That's because you can't legally download it.
I have everything they've ever done on my ipod, car usb drive, cds, albums, 45s, and a few in my jukebox too. Many people do.

Im talkin about average nomal people who claim to like Beatles... youre a BeatlesFreak!

does that put him in the same category as Perryloon?

[brywool]

Im talkin about average nomal people who claim to like Beatles... youre a BeatlesFreak!

does that put him in the same category as Perryloon?

Nah, because I don't go on and on about how cute they are, obsess about their hair, or constantly pine for a reunion and completely ignore the realities of the situation.


BeatlesFreak. Yes, I wear the tag proudly. Maybe I'M the fifth Beatle??? Is that right Deano??