The beatles were fucking fantastic!

[Tero]

save up your pennies, geezers, next year the redone Let It be movie will have fine video and sound. Unlike the released version, this one has all of John's bad bass notes

[Tero]

Dude has a simple way to play get back on acoustic for your campfire singalongs. At least he gets the G D punch in there


if you have electric you can get more easily up the neck...same G to D punch..the usual chuck Berry pinkie thing

[Tero]

I play music because of you! he stammers. And he knew the right people!


It was the Jeff Porcaro (toto) tribute

[Tero]

The most famous Beatles edit. George Martin had made two orchestral parts, and they had to be put one on top of the other. There was no scissors cut here, they had to run two tape machines and mixed live to a stereo mix. Other effects may have been added if there were tracks left.

[Tero]

Peter Jackson movie will miss a number of Beatles fans thst will be dead by the release date. The album to go with it was to come out in May.

[Tero]

Same
https://www.kshe95.com/real-rock-news/r ... -the-band/

[Tero]

Thousands and thousands of Beatles fans will be dead by the time anniversary disc and film come out:
Although fans were hoping for a spring release for the Beatles' upcoming Let It Be 50th anniversary project -- an inside source says the new releases won't be dropping until the fall. The original Let It Be album was released on May 8th, 1970 -- with the accompanying film premiering in New York City five days later. Most die-hards were under the impression the remixed album with bonus tracks -- along with Peter Jackson's new film culled from unreleased footage -- would be issued on one of the two anniversaries.

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

Was listening to While My Guitar Gently Weeps and wondered why Clapton didn't do more songs with them. He makes them actually a little bit good.

[Brian Peacock]

Helter-skelter.


That's all.

[Animavore]

Meh.

[Brian Peacock]

Your not playing it loud enough!

[Animavore]

It just sounds like The Beatles does Jimi to me (this is a problem I have with a lot of their songs, that they're just Beatle-fied versions of something else). I find the notion by some (and I know you didn't bring this up) that this was the first metal song to be yet another spurious fan claim that The Beatles invented music. You have to pretend so much other stuff didn't exist to make this claim work.


I was actually talking to a guitarist about guitar recently and The Beatles came up and I said I wasn't much of a fan and he said, "How can you claim to be a musician (I don't) if you don't like The Beatles?" Like music and musicians didn't exist before them. It's this hagiography of The Beatles by their fans I find to be the most off-putting part of the whole phenomena rather than the band themselves.

[Animavore]

My answer, which is the correct one of course, is that there's no first metal song for a similar reason there's no first human.

[Brian Peacock]

I think part of the problem for whipper-snappers like yourself is that you've grown up with them being ubiquitous, being a fixed part of the musical landscape. There was never a time before The Beatles for you, and so it's difficult to appreciate what a musical and a cultural phenomenon they were at the time - even if you know that historically, as it were. Songs like Helter-skelter, Tomorrow Never Knows, Revolution #9 were not ground-breaking in an absolute sense, but these more experimental, noisy, chaotic, unruly, tunes did appear as if from nowhere in pop-cultural sense - within that context of The Beatles phenomenon. They had six years, and the breadth and sheer variety of their musical output is something that hadn't really been seen before in popular music, nor since.

Having said all that, there's absolutely no obligation for anyone to like them or their music. It's all down to taste in the end isn't it...