Why. Does. This. Exist.
Yes, I know that I left off a question mark. It was rhetorical. Folks, Love is a bad, bad idea as an album. I’m sure that it works just fine as the backing track of the overpriced Cirque du Soleil show of the same name. You know, with people contorting their bodies during “Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite” and the obligatory sequence where a guy flies around on wires during, I dunno, “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” or some bullshit, but as an album? It’s no fun whatsoever and it has no fucking reason to exist, period.
Beatles producer George Martin and his son Giles - who we can only assume worked very closely with the Beatles while, you know, being unborn - have put together an 80-minute soundscape of remixed and retooled Beatles songs because no other Beatle product had been released in 2006, I guess. Here’s my top five problems with this release:
1. Almost half of the songs are incomplete. This means that you won’t be going to individual tracks very often unless you really have a hankering to hear, say, a remixed version of “Back In The U.S.S.R.” that lasts under two minutes.
2. Some songs are smooshed together in a way that makes you realize just how interchangable The Beatles could be. If you don’t believe me, dig the mash-up of “Drive My Car/The Word/What You’re Doing”. It’s pretty amazing that a whole bunch of songs that sounded identical to each other somehow lit the world on fire back in the early sixties, before people had learned the word ‘redundant’, apparently.
3. A completely backwards version of “Sun King” called - wait for it - “Gnik Nus”. That isn’t remixing, that’s just filling space to satisfy a contractual obligation.
4. There’s a mashup of Geogre Harrison’s sitar clunker “Within You Without You” and the psychedleic masterpiece “Tomorrow Never Knows” that favors the former. Need I say more?
5. Out of thirty-six songs, there are exactly six pieces culled from prior to the much-praised Revolver album. Um, yeah. Because all those singles that turned the world on it’s ear and led to the revolutionary Ed Sullivan performance and Beatlemania as we know it? Yeah, all those songs were bullshit, apparently. The real magic was in “Octopus’s Garden”, according to this compilation. Let’s not forget that way back in the sixties, most considered The Beatles to be on a downward slide after Sgt. Pepper. Thanks to revisionist history, most people now think that Let It Be beats the pants off of all those huge hit singles that changed everyone’s life pre-1966.
The ire I have for this release is beyond measure. You’ll probably never listen to it more than once, and that’s only if you have eighty minutes to set aside to hear incomplete Beatles songs that don’t work at all in this setting. The worst part is that some poor sap will be looking for a Beatles compilation in a record store (remember those?) and they’ll look at the tracklisting thinking they’ve found the most bitchin’ Beatles compilation ever produced. They’ll bring it home, play it, get disappointed and weep over the eighteen dollars that they blew on a worthless piece of plastic that shouldn’t exist.
In case anyone involved with The Beatles is reading this, I’d just like you to know that thanks to this release I will never, ever, ever spend another dime on Beatles material as long as I live. If I do, I’ll buy it on eBay so that you don’t see one thin dime of my money. I don’t care what you release, it will never be tempting enough to make me look past or forget this travesty of rhinocerous feces.
And to think, I never thought anything could be worse than the 1979 film Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, starring Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees. Fuck. That thing is a million times better than this putrid heap of dogsnot. As a matter of fact, let’s watch the trailer for it, keeping in mind that it’s better than what George and Giles Martin have done to some of the most important music of our time. And… roll it!
Danny | 23-Nov-06 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
Question for the above writer: are you old enough for the original Beatles releases to have been new when you were at least, say, 8 or 10 years old in 1964? If the answer is no, that you’re not that old, then you really are the fucking idiot you come across as. If you are at least that old, then you’re even more of a fucking idiot for (for example) not even mentioning the brilliant remastering all the music received on this album. That all by itself is worth many times the price… there is no comparison to be made whatever with the originals… this is just what it is, and it’s no rip at all… it’s a joyride of a listen, especially if you’re in on the references. Lighten the fuck up, schmuck.
Marc | 23-Nov-06 at 10:56 pm | Permalink
Oh, thanks for showing me the high road! Here I was thinking that I liked The Beatles, but it turns out that I’m only a fan of their mastering job. Oh man, it’s a good thing you saved me! Otherwise I might have judged the release on the quality and integrity of the music, not to mention the motives behind it which surely weren’t just dollar signs.
My age doesn’t matter - this is simply a catalog that shouldn’t be fucked with. The edits are annoying, the sonic manipulations could have been done by most home DJ’s with a laptop and membership to a warez bittorrent site. It took a deaf producer and a whole bunch of people that *refuse* to give the entire catalog the sparkling remastering job you’re so fond of, but had no problem letting the music be deconstructed for no good reason other than to get eighteen more dollars out of you for songs you already own? Yeah, sure… I’m the ’shmuck’ that doesn’t get it. They could give us a DVD of Let It Be, an official album full of the christmas singles, or even an album full of true live performances in front of audiences between 1964-1966, but instead… we get a new version of “Octopus’s Garden” set to the backing track of “Good Night”. They’re milking you like a cow and you’re just happy to have your nipples touched, Danny.
As, I said… I’m sure that the album makes a great backing tape for contortionists, but it is a horrid listen on it’s own that neither statisfies, nor shows the Beatles in any redeemable new light… except to possibly show just how out of touch the owners of the estate are.
It’s okay not to like something by your favorite group when they’re just ripping you off. You know that, right? For example, all of those Monkees fans that disliked “Pool It!” aren’t bad fans that don’t ‘get it’, they just don’t like shitty albums. See the difference?
But, yes, in Danny’s defense, the remastering job is superb, so please. Spend a twenty-dollar bill to hear stuff that sounded fine on vinyl finally sound decent on CD after, oh, twenty years! Enourage them to further rip us off with substandard production! Yay!
Peculiar | 24-Nov-06 at 8:44 am | Permalink
I consider myself a die hard beatles fan, although I like maby sorts of music. Right now I am
listening to Paul Gilbert’s latest work, “Get out of my Yard”. Superb. And yes, I also love
The Beatles. I am a Beatles collector, as a matter of fact.
I have the CD and about to get the DVD-A (have not paid a penny though). Do I like it? Well,
I guess as a backgroung music for a great but overpriced Cirque du Soleil show must be real
cool. As a record, No, I don’t like it that much. I think their original sound was great. No
need for remixes.
I wouyld rather go for cover versions. I love the “Butchering The Beatles” album. Now, that
is the hell of a tribute. How about the bootleg by the band “Yellow Matter Custard”, with
Paul Gilbert, Mike Portnoy, Neal Morse and Matt Bisonnette? That is LOVE!!
Leave the beatles work in peace. They split up in 1969 (officially in 1970) and it was a smart
move. Thay had done their job. And what a job they did. As for “Love”, has close to no value
for me. This comes from a guy who owns (adding CDs and DVDs) close to 1,300 discs of
beatles material.
A simply wonderful CD! | 25-Nov-06 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
Hello,
I have to say that any CD that evokes this varied of response is doing its job well! Its a lovely CD and the remixing and retooling is fantastic. It hasn’t been since I got a copy of their rooftop session in London that I felt this connected with the Fab. Its very tastefully done and made me actually sit and listen to the entire CD from start to finish. And I’ve done that a number of times. Its even made me consider flying to Las Vegas to catch the Cirque show. I highly, highly recommend this disc. If nothing else, for the sheer purity of the sound…like it was recorded yesterday….
Brian | 25-Nov-06 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
GET. OVER.YOURSELF. Did you listen to the 5.1 DVDA of this? Those incomplete songs are complete -(with the exception of Hey Jude and I Want to Hold Your Hand). This sounds STUNNING. It’s not meant to be a greatest hits album. It IS fun and it sounds amazing - the true stereo version of I AM THE WALRUS is worth the cost alone. This has set the wheels in motion to REVAMP the entire catalog which is now still sadly 1988 technology. The current CD’s out there SOUND LIKE SHIT, with the exception of ONE and YELLOW SUBMARINE SONGTRACK which are 24 bit HDCD. I, for one, will be first in line the buy the 5.1 versions of EVERYTHING THEY DECIDE TO PUT OUT in ANY SHAPE OR FORM. You can SAVE YOUR MONEY and listen to your tinny 1988 crap CD’s. I know you’re not old enough to own the original vinyl albums. (British versions only)
PS. you don’t want a DVD of LET IT BE. It’s awful and depressing. Let’s watch John in his catatonic heroin haze. Not fun. The only good part is the rooftop concert and the 3 ballads done afterwards in the basement. It’s not out for a reason - and before you comment on it, LET IT BE…….NAKED wasn’t necessary. That’s just Paul having his way………..finally.
Marc | 26-Nov-06 at 2:23 am | Permalink
Brian… I own all the vinyl versions you speak of and have for sometime. Don’t give me any crap about ‘1988′ sound quality. No one bitched about the Beatles sound quality back when they had infiltrated the entire top 5, you know?
Seriously man, stop talking before you embarass yourself.
PS: Don’t tell me what I want and don’t want. It’s fine to disagree with me, but it’s wrong to assume that your opinion is the only valid one.
Giles | 12-Dec-06 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
Wow, this really pissed you off Marc.. good! There’s nothing worse than spending three years of your life working on something and provoking no thoughts at all.. We’re all deeply proud of this CD and at now point have ever tried to rip people off. Let’s face it, no ones making you buy anything, and I guarantee that more time,art, thought and effort went into this than most albums released this year. I’m pleased you hate it though, nothing worth than ambivilence.. hope you like something else in the future and perhaps write something positive
Marc | 12-Dec-06 at 7:52 pm | Permalink
Hahaha. Great usage of grammar and spelling, “Giles”. To whoever actually wrote this comment… nice job. I imagine Giles Martin to be as defensive about utter crap as you painted him to be. Hopefully he’s just as uneducated, as I won’t be able to blame him as much for the pile of crap we know as “Love”. It’d be like having Rain Man make a Beatles mash-up… sure, it’d suck, but it’s not like he knows any better.
Chris | 12-Dec-06 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
Listen, I haven’t heard the album, but Marc… that Rain Man analogy might be the funniest thing I’ve read in a very long time. Kudos.
A simply wonderful CD! | 12-Dec-06 at 8:46 pm | Permalink
Okay, so, maybe its not the real Giles Martin above, but whoever wrote that is correct. Ambivilence is the gray area that is easily forgotten, if ever noticed. It remains under everyones’ radar and we don’t care. I’m still amazed at the Love CD, after hearing it for weeks now. And check out http://www.youtube.com and see the premier (or maybe the second show?) of Cirque du soliel’s “Love” and see Paul, Ringo, Olivia and Yoko, all together. And see the tension too. Search for it under something like “Beatles 2006 Reunion.”
Murph | 17-Dec-06 at 3:23 pm | Permalink
Marc, I’m confused, are you a fan? You seem to be taking some heavy shots at the Beatles music here—calling the Beatles music “redundant.” I would say “ingenuously thematic”—-I never connected “Drive My Car/The Word/What You’re Doing” until I heard it on this soundtrack. By the way, it is a soundtrack, not a greatest hits, so your query about lack of material from pre-1966 misses the point entirely. Also your comment that “sonic manipulations could have been done by most home DJ’s” is ridiculous—-the original master tapes were picked apart and elements barely audible (or not present) on the original songs were used—-how about Billy Preston’s organ at the end of “Mr. Kite” or that guitar solo on “Lady Madonna” presumably from “Hey Bulldog”??—exhilarating!!!
I do agree with your point about future music fans mistaking this for a greatest hits and I think there should be a subtitle mentioning Cirque on future reissues.
But all this talk about rip-off’s is such bullshit—-15 to 20 bucks is not much to spend these days, esp. when you can use the internet to research and sample (at the local library if you don’t have a computer) or take a listen at the “record” store. I’m happy that everyone connected to the Beatles was involved with this and likes it. I’m happy that there’s something out there getting attention that could be a jumping-off point for new Beatles fans.
Marc | 17-Dec-06 at 11:55 pm | Permalink
Murph… I’m a Beatles fan. But just because I’m a fan doesn’t mean I have to like everything released under that brand name. I’m a bigger fan of the pre-Sgt. Pepper material, but at times it *was* redundant. Considering the pace they were forced to keep up, it’s understandable, but it’s still true. And seriously, if you’re blown away by how easily certain guitar parts fit into totally different songs, I’m not sure *how* you can miss the issue of redundancy.
Overall, if “Love” is the product of three years of hard work, I’m interested to know what they did with the rest of the two years and fifty-one weeks that they billed EMI for. As an album, it doesn’t hold up for me. Sure, there’s interesting stuff on it, but if I’m holding something with the Beatles name on it, I want it to be more than just ‘interesting’, you know?
I think “Love (aka “We’re Out Of Outtakes So Let’s Just Reuse Songs People Already Own And Call It New”) is a rip-off. If you don’t agree, fine. Buy six or seven copies and have them bronzed, whatever you want to do. Just don’t give me crap for disliking a release that really isn’t built upon a very impressive idea, not to mention one that loses nearly all intended meaning in it’s execution.
Murph | 18-Dec-06 at 3:17 am | Permalink
“Redundant” just isn’t the right word to use about a band that covered a wider range of styles, with more finesse than any other band and in a shorter period of time.
You do realize that pitch correction was used to blend some of the tracks, eh? The bass line to “Taxman” is similar to the bass line in “Rain.” The rhythm of “Penny Lane” and “With a Little Help from My Friends” is similar. Yet, in each case, neither is a re-hash. I think there are cases—– side 2 of “A Hard Days Night” and side 2 of “Abbey Road”—-where their music is ingenuously unified (“The End” ties in with “You Never Give Me Your Money”) —– similar chords and structures were used, not in a redundant way, but in the manner of genius classical composer. Just an opinion, no more or less valuable than yours. By the way, “Octopus’s Garden” is a great fucking song! (Don’t worry, I’m done—-I’ll need my own website for the last word.)
Marc | 18-Dec-06 at 4:21 am | Permalink
Murph, I totally respect where you’re coming from, please don’t get me wrong.
I’m actually somewhat schooled in the art of audio production, and I do know that they dicked with some of the material to make it fit together, sure. The fact that all they needed was a bit of pitch-shifting or speed correction to lay the songs over top of each other just, well.. it doesn’t add any weight to your argument. Go ahead and look up that webpage on Google where you can hear two Nickelback songs laid over each other. People gave them holy hell for it, and the Beatles shouldn’t get any special treatment over having a few interchangable riffs.
I like when things are unified, why wouldn’t I? But there’s a fine line between unification and redundancy, and the fab four toed the latter line more often than people want to admit. It’s not like that’ll ever become popular opinion or anything, it’s just a blemish that almost any artist finds impossible to avoid, let alone four guys that had to churn out as many records, singles and tours as the Beatles were expected to do in their early days.
Kevin | 19-Dec-06 at 9:58 am | Permalink
Now talk about redundancy. You guys are doing with your comments. EVERY band is redundant. God, Aerosmith and AC/DC have been turning out the same album over and over for 25 years. Given the short period of time The Beatles had to write and record during any year, given it was generally the same two people writing the songs, given the pressure they were under to release hits - you’re going to get similat son ideas, similar bass lines, similar guitar riffs. Its only natural, How many Dylan songs sound alike - or Springsteen? The issue is interchangability is just stupid. EVERY band is like that in its short or long history. As for mixing and matching, I think it’s quite inventive and someone else was correct, you HAVE to hear the 5.1 Surround mix of this album to really appreciate what they’ve done here. I don’t believe for a second that George and Giles Martin did anything to dupe the public. It was labor of love for both of them and I hope they give Giles the task of remastering the entire catalog sometime in the future. The seperation and clarity of these remixes is astounding compared to the vinyl and CD releases. It’s much more “in the room” quality than before. As a fan since 1977 I can say this is an interesting piece of work. I’d still love to see more remastered DVD releases like “Help!” and “Shea Stadium” and some old vinyls finally released on CD like “Live at the Hollywood Bowl” but the bigs at EMI and Apple seem to be out of touch with what the real fans want. You can’t look at this as a new Beatles release. This was created as a soundtrack for a “Cirque So Lame” show and should be listened to in that context. Comparing it to an official Beatles album is not non-sequator. It’s not intended to be compared in that light. The “Love” album is meant to be heard as a stand alone entitiy.
Chris | 19-Dec-06 at 11:39 am | Permalink
I’m sort of a spectator in this whole debate, here, but Kevin, I will say that while Marc and others have called The Beatles “redundant,” they have gone out of their way to say that it’s not necessarily a bad thing, and that it’s unavoidable to a certain extent. Which is exactly what you said, as well. So, please, even the Beatles haters out there understand why there’s some “redundancy” going on. Can we stop arguing about something that we all agree on?
I’ll let others who enjoy The Beatles more than I do take it from here.
Marc | 19-Dec-06 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
Kevin, I’ve already addressed most of the issues you’ve brought up.
I will say that if I’m not supposed to look at “Love” as an official Beatles record… maybe they shouldn’t have released it as such. Just sayin’.
paul whitlock | 28-Dec-06 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
Am I missing something with this disc? When I put the DVD into my player all I got alon with the audio was a static yellow screen with the Beatles ‘Love’ cover graphics on it.
Why have I paid extra for a second (DVD) disc which is identical to the audio CD except for this static screen??
Das Bastard | 29-Dec-06 at 2:39 am | Permalink
Paul,
The DVD is where you get the 5.1 version from!
Also, the irony of it all. Looking at the bottom of this page, the “Ads by Goooooooooooogle” are for “Love by Cirque Du Soleil” and “Beatles”!! HAHAHAHA! They may change, but that’s what’s there now!
NGE-E^-:|
paul whitlock | 29-Dec-06 at 7:57 am | Permalink
Well whoopy-doo!
If I knew what 5.1 meant I might be impressed; but I’m just an average guy with a DVD player and TV linked through a good audio amp to give a decent stereo sound. I naively thought that DVDs, ( that would be Digital VIDEO Discs), had moving pictures on them as well as sound. Apparently not.
O.K., I live and learn.
AMoore | 30-Dec-06 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
Well, considering the Beatles released so much material and it did not sound the same till it was remastered, I think that’s genius. I mean, you can see an artist paint the same subject matter repeatedly and not actually repeat him/her self. Look at Frida Kahlo’s work, or Picasso, or even Da Vinci. Or read any great author’s work. ‘Redundant, but still masterful.
Marc | 31-Dec-06 at 2:29 am | Permalink
Seriously guys, I get it. You like the Beatles and can’t stand for anyone saying that there might be a blemish or two in their catalog. You’ve made your points clear. You want redundant? How about these comments? I mean, really. You people are zealots.
InstaHippo » Beatles Mash Up | 01-May-08 at 5:21 am | Permalink
[...] Almost half of the songs are incomplete. This means that you won’t be going to individual tracks very often unless you really have a hankering to hear, say, a remixed version of “Back In The U[.]S[.]S.R.” that lasts under two minutes.3 [...]