[QUOTE] What's a flute? [/QUOTE] Midi instrument #74.
<Rant mode> Actually I don't think the Beatles are worth all the adulation that everyone gives them. OK - so they wrote some good tunes. Big deal. So did a lot of other 60's musicians who were far more ground-breaking. And no - I don't buy into the "Beatles created the pop market" malarkey either. </RM> Phil.
The Cure covered it yeaaaaaaaars ago and I'm sure they weren't the only ones. Remixing isn't always a bad thing, you know. Massive Attack's remix of Godless by the Dandy Warhols 0wns.
Oh, bollockybollockyfuckpigs. I was going to add a rider to my comment, in a similar (but I must admit, less ranty) vein - but I couldn't really be arsed at the time. I don't rate the Beatles much either: yes, some of their tunes were good, some even stand the test of time - but it certainly ain't my kind of music on the whole(1) (even if I do have a much more eclectic taste in music than you(2)). The point that irritated me was that someone purporting to be a (wannabe) musician should be so incredibly ignorant as to be apparently unaware of the existence of (probably) the most popular band of their time - which was only ten years previous to the incident in question. And no, fwiw I don't think that The Beatles "created the pop market" which was happening anyway. They were victims of their own success and Beatlemania, both of which were largely out of their control. Whether you like them or not ... when I was at school, you had to fall into one of the several fanbases available: Beatles _or_ Stones Floyd _or_ Zeppelin Sunderland _or_ Newcastle (Hartlepool fans got filled in by both fraternities, just to keep it fair) It was so black and white in those days - or red and white iyswim. You were a hippy or a rocker. Pop was a passing frippery and recognised as such; which is just as well, given the speed that it changed from teenypop to punk, then there were the New Romantics and electropoppers. You knew where you were with Floyd, like. Or Zeppelin - or even Queen, for the Johnnycomelatelys. 1. I do rather like George Harrison's solo stuff, mind. 2. I prefer the Rutles, on the whole.
Hmm. I occassionallly have this argument with people. For my money, even tho I don't "love" much of their material, I think they were easily the most musically significant band ever. They we in at the start of the revolution in popular music (and culture), writing simple but catchy pop tunes (which turn out to be beautifully constructed), and at the end of the decade were producing concept album material, advancing recording techniques massively, and writing *about* the huge social changes going on around them. While other musicians did some of this stuff, none did all of it, or carried such a huge audience with them. But, I still prefer the Stones to listen to
So no-one should be allowed to put a noisy end can on a bike either? <Manufacturer>[1] didn't intend it to be that way, else they'd supply it with it fitted, or at least alongside. If the music they were making wasn't selling then they wouldn't be making it. [1] minus a few exceptions, I know Aprilia and Triumph offer loud pipes.
Well, I can agree with that I suppose, I just object to mucking around with someone else's recording.
I don't equate the two, although I can see your point. I suppose, if I look at it completely objectively, I object to people whose musical style I dislike making money out of someone who I do like, even though the original artist will be getting a slice of the pie. I can be pretty intolerant at times, I will admit, and of the most petty things. I never claimed to be perfect. True. People also buy scooters, can you believe it?
The Older Gentleman wibbled like a little girl.... My all time favourite song is a cover version, so I guess I'm biased -- Lozzo ZZR1100D, GPZ500S, CB250RS x3. BOTAFOT#57/70a, BOTAFOF#57, two#49, MIB#22, TCP#7, BONY#9, ANORAK#9, DIAABTCOD#14, UKRMT5BB, IBW#013, MIRTTH#15a/16, BotToS#8, GP#2, SBS#10, SH#3, DFV#14, KoBV#3, HYPO#1. Url for ukrm newbies : http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html www.mjkleathers.com
Bollocks. The way a recording sounds is as much down to the producer as the musicians/artists and in that context a remixer is simply a producer. Often the sound is *more* due to the producer than the musicians.
That's not what I meant. I mean what is put on the recording, not the way in which it is done. A "trance mix" of DSOTM has more on it than what PF recorded, regardless of the monkey at the desk.
Umm. No, I was suggesting any fuckers that played around with DSOTM should suffer a slow and agonizing death. i.e. modifying it to make it more 'current' should be a capital offence. To be a little more plain, I'm rather partial to DSOTM, WYWH and Animals and could do without talentless fucks screwing them up for me.
One of the supplier reps at work had the misfortune to send a corporate christmas card around about 5 years ago showing two kids naked from the shoulders up, the card was entitled "the joy of christmas". Naturally, we branded the supplier rep as a pervert and have continued to make 'tasteful' jokes on this subject for the last few years; "Lee took a young boy for a walk into a dark wood. The boy said "it's awfully dark, mister, I'm scared. Lee replied "You're scared? How do you think I feel, I'm the one that's got to walk out of here on my own" etc. etc. etc.
