sulky 6 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 UK Aftermath? Some of the old London CDs (including Aftermath) apparently do sound better than the current Stones remasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Amazon has an exclusive Rolling Stones remastered box set, and all the reviews say the sound quality is worse than the previous ones.So who wants to persuade me to pay the $180 to get this Stereo box set?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 UK Aftermath? Some of the old London CDs (including Aftermath) apparently do sound better than the current Stones remasters.Yeah, the UK one with 'Mother's Little Helper' instead of 'Paint It Black'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sulky 6 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 That amazon exclusive set is of the Post-ABKCO Stones catalog I think. $180 is a lot of dinero. Do you already have some of the Beatles work on CD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,330 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 When it comes to pop music, The Beatles invented everything. Led Zeppelin wouldn't exist without The Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 When it comes to pop music, The Beatles invented everything. Led Zeppelin wouldn't exist without The Beatles.Led Zeppelin and The Beatles are two different worlds. If you said Led Zeppelin wouldn't exist without Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters, I'd agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,330 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I'm sure the fellas of Lep Zeppelin saw the light when they first heard The Beatles. That goes for all the bands of the seventies. That's why I said, Led Zeppelin wouldn't exist without The Beatles. Led Zeppelin did not invent anything The Beatles hadn't invented before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,336 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 So who wants to persuade me to pay the $180 to get this Stereo box set??Clearly you just need to raise your poker stakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Amazon has an exclusive Rolling Stones remastered box set, and all the reviews say the sound quality is worse than the previous ones.So who wants to persuade me to pay the $180 to get this Stereo box set??or you can *cough* the old and the new ones via *cough* and compare before buying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I'm sure the fellas of Lep Zeppelin saw the light when they first heard The Beatles. That goes for all the bands of the seventies. That's why I said, Led Zeppelin wouldn't exist without The Beatles. Led Zeppelin did not invent anything The Beatles hadn't invented before.You're just making ridiculous assumptions. I didn't claim Led Zep invented anything (well okay, they invented prog-blues) but the fact is that Led Zep came from the the harsher blues, and from the Yardbirds (who Jimmy Page played for) who got their start at the same time as the Beatles. If anyone big on the pop scene influenced Zeppelin, it's Elvis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,330 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I'm sure the fellas of Lep Zeppelin saw the light when they first heard The Beatles. That goes for all the bands of the seventies. That's why I said, Led Zeppelin wouldn't exist without The Beatles. Led Zeppelin did not invent anything The Beatles hadn't invented before.You're just making ridiculous assumptions. I didn't claim Led Zep invented anything (well okay, they invented prog-blues) but the fact is that Led Zep came from the the harsher blues, and from the Yardbirds (who Jimmy Page played for) who got their start at the same time as the Beatles. If anyone big on the pop scene influenced Zeppelin, it's Elvis.Then why was it a group of boys instead of one guy with grease in his hair? Aha!Their music might've been influenced by Elvis and blues music but their tendency to be adventurous with their music and take it to the next level comes from The Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,330 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Damnit, I knew I gave Zeppelin too much credit when I said they were adventurous with their music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Alex it really sounds like you're just making things up.$180 is a lot of dinero. Do you already have some of the Beatles work on CD?I only have Magical Mystery Tour, 1962-1966 2CD, and 1967-1970 2CD. These are all really old ones that my Dad had and I imported them into my iTunes. I really want the set, but like you said, $180 is a lot of money. Although it's a pretty good deal for 17 discs. I'm also reluctant because I just spent $115 on the complete Led Zeppelin catalogue.Clearly you just need to raise your poker stakes Maybe when I'm older and can afford playing $20+ buy ins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 That's pretty good. The Mono sets are running like $50 more than the Stereo sets, and it has less music. I don't get that.Yeah, I wish they would have at least thrown in the ones that were originally in stereo instead of omitting them just for the sake of keeping everything mono. That said, the mono mixes are where its at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,330 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Alex it really sounds like you're just making things up.Oh? What do you mean? Don't you agree that The Beatles paved the way for later bands? Or did they paved the way for all later bands except for Led Zeppelin? If you going to accuse me of something, you better tell me what it is exactly you are accusing me of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I mean The Beatles didn't heavily influence EVERY band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 what Alex is getting at is that first the Beatles came, and then there was music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,191 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 The stereo remasters use the original mixes except for Help! and Rubber Soul which have George Martin's 1987 digital remixes (the Mono box have the original stereo mixes for these two in addition to the mono of course).I don't quite get this whole business. The originals had stereo mixes? Then why release them in mono now?I luckily managed to nab a Mono box at the store in town at a reasonable price woot!The place also had some Rolling Stones SACDs weird as I thought they'd been OOP - so grabbed a couple of those as well.OOP? That would be a shame... I'm still missing some of those.I bought a copy of the remastered After-Math and was very disappointed - the mix is very echoey and sounds terrible compared to the original.That's odd. The SACDs I have (I only know the CDDA layers) sound find and clearly better than the earlier CD releases (of other Stones albums at least; I have no album in both versions).Amazon has an exclusive Rolling Stones remastered box set, and all the reviews say the sound quality is worse than the previous ones.The old ABKCO releases or the recent CD remasters including Stick Fingers (yay!) and even A Bigger Bang (is there any point at all in remastering this after only a few years?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,330 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 what Alex is getting at is that first the Beatles came, and then there was music. That's right! The Beatles are the blueprint for every pop band we know from the late sixties on. The Beatles were simple guys next door who fusioned all music styles together, a recipe still copied in pop music to this very day. In fact, they invented pop music. The bands themselves (Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, Radiohead, Rush, ELO, you name it) have no problem with acknowledging that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego 21 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 The stereo remasters use the original mixes except for Help! and Rubber Soul which have George Martin's 1987 digital remixes (the Mono box have the original stereo mixes for these two in addition to the mono of course).I don't quite get this whole business. The originals had stereo mixes? Then why release them in mono now?A lot of fans prefer the mono mixes, since at the early 60s stereo was just starting, the stereo mixes were really an afterthought, in fact The Beatles weren't present at the time to do the stereo mixes (they were when they did the mono mixes), so you could say that the mono mixes are the way The Beatles wanted their music to sound. Also, since it was the beginning of stereo, the first albums have the very hard, "instruments on one channel, vocals on the other" mixes which a lot of people dislike. In some songs there are also different solos, slightly different vocals, fade outs and some of the stereo mixes even have mistakes, like Please Please Me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 They didn't invent pop music, that's ludicrous.I'm not arguing the Beatles were very influential, I'm just saying that the bands you're describing didn't immediately start bands because of the Beatles. Zeppelin, The Stones, these guys didn't see the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and think 'wow, we should do that.' Did they pave the way? As part of the British Invasion, sure. And yes, mainstream rock bands owe a lot to the Beatles. It's like saying every other punk band wouldn't exist without The Sex Pistols.In any case, quality of music isn't dependent on influence which seemed to be the connotation of the original comment. Correct me if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego 21 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Don't know much about Zeppelin, but the Stones is a bad example, their first top 20 hit was a Lennon-McCartney song and Decca signed them trying to make up for passing on The Beatles after a suggestion from George Martin, not to mention that Satanic Majesties Request is a Sgt. Pepper rip-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Don't know much about Zeppelin, but the Stones is a bad example, their first top 20 hit was a Lennon-McCartney song and Decca signed them trying to make up for passing on The Beatles after a suggestion from George Martin, not to mention that Satanic Majesties Request is a Sgt. Pepper rip-off.I'm not denying that, but that's not my point. Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that the success of the Beatles instantly caused the forming of the Stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I'm with Charlie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,330 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 They didn't invent pop music, that's ludicrous.Ludicrous? How? As in "they had no part in the pop music we know today"? I'm sorry, but it is your denial that strikes me as ludicrous. Not only was their music extremely influential, they proved to a lot of young people you could pick up a guitar, write your own songs, play it with some mates in some cellar and make it big as a band. I'm not arguing the Beatles were very influential, I'm just saying that the bands you're describing didn't immediately start bands because of the Beatles. Eh, yes, they did. That's why I mentioned them. How strange of you to claim that bands who cite The Beatles as their influence weren't influenced by them at all. Saying those bands are lying is something I would call ludicrous.In any case, quality of music isn't dependent on influence which seemed to be the connotation of the original comment. Correct me if I'm wrong.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you just can't have it that The Beatles had such a major influence on pop music.I'm not denying that, but that's not my point. Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that the success of the Beatles instantly caused the forming of the Stones.Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 They didn't invent pop music, that's ludicrous.Ludicrous? How? As in "they had no part in the pop music we know today"? I'm sorry, but it is your denial that strikes me as ludicrous. Not only was their music extremely influential, they proved to a lot of young people you could pick up a guitar, write your own songs, play it with some mates in some cellar and make it big as a band.Yes, but pop music EXISTED BEFORE the Beatles. This is what I'm saying. Did they cause a lot of people to create bands? Yes. George Lucas caused a lot of people to make special effects movies, but he didn't invent those. I'm not arguing the Beatles were very influential, I'm just saying that the bands you're describing didn't immediately start bands because of the Beatles. Eh, yes, they did. That's why I mentioned them. How strange of you to claim that bands who cite The Beatles as their influence weren't influenced by them at all. Saying those bands are lying is something I would call ludicrous.Okay, quote me where Led Zeppelin say that The Beatles are a direct influence on them.In any case, quality of music isn't dependent on influence which seemed to be the connotation of the original comment. Correct me if I'm wrong.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you just can have it that The Beatles had such a major influence on pop music.That makes no sense, at least in the context of my original sentence. I have no idea what you're trying to say, but the point I'm making is - to use another film analogy - is that Roger Corman may have been a big influence on Scorsese, but the latter's quality is far higher than the former's.In any case, this is where I'm coming from. Yes, the Beatles were influential. No, I don't think they're the Bees Knees and I like Zeppelin and the Stones a lot more. No, I don't really care what you think anymore as I know I'm in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,330 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Yes, but pop music EXISTED BEFORE the Beatles. This is what I'm saying. Did they cause a lot of people to create bands? Yes. George Lucas caused a lot of people to make special effects movies, but he didn't invent those.They invented the pop music we know today, which is different than pop music before The Beatles.Okay, quote me where Led Zeppelin say that The Beatles are a direct influence on them.You said none of my above mentioned bands started to play music because of The Beatles. For the moment I don't have a Led Zeppelin quote. But they started with their band when The Beatles were at their creative peak. Without the success of The Beatles, there would be no Zeppelin. Without the success of Star Wars, there would be no Alien. The success of The Beatles led to a lot of young people picking up an instrument and form a band. If they can do it, so can we. That's also something The Beatles stood for. Being influenced doesn't mean your music has to sound like the band or person that influenced you. Anyway, even though Zeppelin sounds different, I hear similarities in the way both bands fusion every thinkable music style into a new style.That makes no sense, at least in the context of my original sentence. I have no idea what you're trying to say, but the point I'm making is - to use another film analogy - is that Roger Corman may have been a big influence on Scorsese, but the latter's quality is far higher than the former's.In any case, this is where I'm coming from. Yes, the Beatles were influential. No, I don't think they're the Bees Knees and I like Zeppelin and the Stones a lot more. No, I don't really care what you think anymore as I know I'm in the minority.On the one hand, you admit The Beatles were indeed influential, but on the other hand, I feel you try to belittle their influence on pop music. Sometimes you do that by saying none of the bands I mentioned started playing music immediately because of The Beatles. On other occasions you demand direct influences or it's no influence at all. All this sounds like a man who doesn't like The Beatles in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego 21 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 The influence of The Beatles is inescapable, that is a fact. Like I said, I'm not very familiar with Zeppelin, but, for example, if any Zeppelin album has printed lyrics, that's the influence of The Beatles, as Sgt. Pepper was the first album to have printed lyrics. While the influence may not be direct, like I mentioned, Beatles influence is pretty much inescapable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 JWfan members commenting on pop music is like children commenting on stock exchange.Alex, I felt your comment above was right on the money. To credit The Beatles as the originators of pop music as we now know it is really stretching it too much. Certainly The Beatles were HIGHLY influential, but they were part of a group of artists that were - as much as The Beatles - breaking away from the established conventions. Never underestimate the influence Bob Dylan or even Frank Zappa had on music that was rapidly changing in the mid 60's. Lennon and McCartney listened to the revolutionary personal, introspective works of Dylan. And surely Dylan listened to Sgt. Pepper afterwards. It was a generation inspiring each other, creating new standards and new laws for pop/rock. Where did it begin? Not with The Beatles solely that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 If The Beatles are the reason why Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera (sp), and Fergie are making shitty pop music today, then shame on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego 21 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I'd say Michael Jackson is the reason for those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sulky 6 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I only have Magical Mystery Tour, 1962-1966 2CD, and 1967-1970 2CD. The box would be a worthwhile upgrade I think. Seeing as the sucker just dropped today, I reckon even better deals can be had later on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Yeah I'm planning on getting it by the end of the year. I just don't want to be spending so much money without an income. I'll start working soon though, and all will be well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 i woke up today want the Mono Box BADLY...but just dont have the money right now. Oh why oh why does it have to be limited?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego 21 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 They're making more according to Amazon, in fact Amazon got more in stock today, so it may last a bit more time. Don't believe the 10 000 unit rumors, they're not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 thats a slight relief. i worry about the day in the future where i regret not having money today to buy them lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie 45 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Anyone else read all the stuff on the Beatles (and Lady Gaga) being Illuminati puppets? Is it just a coincidence the greatest band in the world would be brainwashing us, or is their greatness part of the brainwashing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Do you want to know, what it is...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,336 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hey, I have a question I'm hoping some Beatles fan here is willing to help me out with.I'm not a big Beatles fan, but want to give them a fair chance. I've heard a bunch of songs my whole life of course, and I don't dislike them, but I've never purposely downloaded or bought any of their music. But, I want to listen to their entire catalog all the way through, and the Stereo Box Set seems like a great way to do it.... with one problem... it's not chronological.Can somebody break down the two "Past Masters" discs and tell me which tracks to listen to in between which albums to hear everything in the right order? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hey Jay, want to order me one too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,336 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Speaking of ordering, where did you get the Zeppelin set for $115? I might have to get that. i've been following it on amazon, and the lowest it ever gets is $180 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Amazon is selling it for $180, but on the Marketplace other places are selling it for a lot less. I ordered it from VinylSoundsBetter. The price keeps going down a penny at a time, them and -ImportCDs- are battling it out for the lowest price. CLICK TO SEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Brausam 214 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I'd pay that for the Led Zeppelin box, maybe after I get some birthday cash in November.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,336 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Ooooh thanks Koray, that looks almost too good to pass up. Especially since I don't own a single Zeppelin CD (just have mp3s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego 21 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hey, I have a question I'm hoping some Beatles fan here is willing to help me out with.I'm not a big Beatles fan, but want to give them a fair chance. I've heard a bunch of songs my whole life of course, and I don't dislike them, but I've never purposely downloaded or bought any of their music. But, I want to listen to their entire catalog all the way through, and the Stereo Box Set seems like a great way to do it.... with one problem... it's not chronological.Can somebody break down the two "Past Masters" discs and tell me which tracks to listen to in between which albums to hear everything in the right order? Thanks!Ok, if you want to go chronologically:1. Please, Please Me LP2. Single From Me To You / Thank You Girl (Past Masters Disc 1, Tracks 2 & 3)3. Single She Loves You / I'll Get You (PM D1, T 4 & 5)4. With The Beatles LP5. Single I Want To Hold Your Hand / This Boy (PM D1, T 6 & 7)6. Long Tall Sally EP (PM D1, T 10-13)7. A Hard Day's Night LP8. Single I Feel Fine / She's A Woman (PM D1, T 14 & 15)9. Beatles For Sale LP10. Bad Boy, Song recorded for US album Beatles 6, a mix of Beatles For Sale and the Forthcoming Help, not released in the UK (PM D1, T 16)11. Help! LP12. Yes It Is, B-Side from Ticket To Ride Single (PM D1, T 17)13. I'm Down, B-Side from Help! Single (PM D1, T18)With Help! is becomes a bit complicated, since the singles were released before the album, so if you go by release order you should listen to the B-sides first, but since the A-sides are on the album and they all were recorded in the same sessions, I recomended that order.Anyway that's Past Masters Disc 1, I'll do Disc 2 later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Ooooh thanks Koray, that looks almost too good to pass up. Especially since I don't own a single Zeppelin CD (just have mp3s)Zep albums are usually cheap at Walmart, about $10 or less apiece. That's where I picked up Coda, Presence, and Zoso. And fortunately, all their studio albums plus the BBC Sessions and the audio from How the West Was Won fit onto a single CD-R at 128. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,336 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks Diego, that's perfect! See, I just wish they had included each of those songs on the same CD at the end of each LP presentation, instead of stuffing them all on a separate discs. That's what I've seen a lot of artists do in box sets - put all the b-sides, 1-offs, soundtrack songs, remixes, whatever else from each "era" on that album's disc. And they had plenty of room for it, with all these albums being so shortWojo, yea, but the sound quality in the LP replica box is different than the ones available in stores otherwise (my mp3s come from my brother's purchase of the earlier Complete Box Set) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Yeah the LP Replica set includes the most recent remasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,336 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Yes I am curious to hear them to compare to the earlier box set versions. I've heard good things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now