my take on the Beatles game

[tackhead311]

I never have been a Beatles fan. I believe this is passed down from my family. I do like George Harrison though he is pretty awesome. In where i grew up the only time your heard them was WCBS the oldies station WNEW the classic rock station. Soon as they would come on i would change the channel. My parents when they where together were extreme hippies. They got there records from a radio station friend in most cases before something came out. They had Led Zep 1 6 months before the American release. They passed on to me there love for music from the 60s and gave me a love based on the Blues. In fact my Dad in later years was a chef at a the Stanhope House where he go to meet all the blues legends from Homesick James to Johnny Winters. They passed on to me there knowledge of music the Canned Heats ,Savoy Brown, Sly and the Family Stone,Jimi,Doors,Jefferson Airplane.Ten Years After,Santana,etc etc. From there story's of the of growing up at that time they never thought the Beatles where a big deal compared to all the music they were into. They did get all there records and my mom was at Shea for the 16 minute concert they put on .In her word she was disappointed and never gave them much thought after that. So when i was born all babies want what there parents got. My parents where always playing records with many weird looking Ty died people running around. I guess to keep me quiet they gave me records to play with. The records they gave me were not the creams ,strawberry alarm clock ,muddy waters etc etc it was all there Beatles records and 45s lol. So at the ripe old age of 3 i owned all of the Beatles records man did i love coloring on them. so i have listened to them and frankly they do not do a thing for me.

Now to the game. The game Is beautiful ill give it that . 45 songs might not be enough but for its 45 songs to much. I was really impressed by the bass charts thru out the game. Peeps are complainig the game is to easy i dont see it. It is the Beatles and i think some of the charts are kinda hard for Beatles. All the imagery if you are a Beatles fan is amazing but for me its beyond distracting. the note highway looks like a guitar hero high way and when i launch into Beatlemania i cant see it . it is worse then the stupid effect from the soundgarden black hole sun solo where i get blinded from the strobe effect. i don't like the fact i have to play as a Beatles . i think the leader-boards are a mess but i do like the instant update aspect. i miss the star dings. i tried on 2 occasions now to plow thru the game i cannot theres to much stuff that i don't care about. i like my music games simple.then to not like the music its a real chore for me . no fills no effects cause it will hurt there image please lol. they already have there legacy. so yes i don't buy into the genius of a band that got famous for holding hands ,sleeping like a log,and sitting on a cornflake.trophy system is pure amazing ill give it that. the virtual Beatle are scarey looking. before i hear about all the detail they got all i seen them do is bounce up and down and look crosseyed . they change there clothe but they still lny bounce up and down unless there sitting in the studio. poor george looks like something from the hobbit most of the time.

So if you love the them ill give the game a 10 if you dont ill give it a 4.

[funkdiggity]

Sept 11, 2009 10:38:11 GMT -5 tackhead311 said:

Peeps are complainig the game is to easy i dont see it. It is the Beatles and i think some of the charts are kinda hard for Beatles.......so yes i don't buy into the genius of a band that got famous for holding hands ,sleeping like a log,and sitting on a cornflake......the virtual Beatle are scarey looking. before i hear about all the detail they got all i seen them do is bounce up and down and look crosseyed . they change there clothe but they still lny bounce up and down unless there sitting in the studio. poor george looks like something from the hobbit most of the time.

Wow, given the way you've been ranting about "NSYNC of the 60s" this is a way more reasonable review than I thought it would be lol. Just a few questions/points

1) How did you listen to and enjoy all that music from the 60s that's so clearly inspired by mid to late period Beatles and not actually enjoy the Beatles themselves?

2) The difficulty feels about right to me. Paul Mcartney's widely considered an accomplished bass player. I've known quite a few actual musicians who thought Ringo was a better drummer than he gets credit for (certainly playing drums with as much restraint as he did and still sounding good is harder than most people realize), and if John and George weren't that special, you're still playing two, sometimes three, guitar parts at once, and that's always going to inflate the difficulty a bit.

3) As far as the detail of the Beatles, its not WHAT they're doing that's impressive, its HOW they're doing it. The level of detail and expression on character faces, and the way even tiny movements like bouncing look realistic is a huge improvement over past HMX titles.

4) You like to point out that the Beatles were a pop band (which I don't really aggree with: rock'n'roll as a genre sounds poppy today in 2009 but it wasn't poppy back in 1963), and that's part of why you don't like them. But the Stones, the Who, the Kinks, and lots of others started out looking the same way and playing the same kind of rock'n'roll type songs. I guess you can criticize all these guys for doing that, but it makes more sense to me to recognize the huge role the British Invasion bands played in allowing rock music to eventually look, act, and sound more adult and diverse.

[tackhead311]

true true but the beatles where never the front runners of the genre there early music was inspired by the 50s style that was already there. They happened to be very charismatic and 4 very good looking boys that where super markatable. When they started making there harder stuff in 66 and 67 the San Franssico scene was already inplace. They just moved with the trends and again where marketable. Who would you rather have your kids idolizing John Paul George and Ringo or Jimi, Janis, Jerry,Mick and Jim. They where pop music to the fullest extent like a dave clark 5 , beach boys ,animals and hermans hermits.. I view the Beatles the same way i do Micheal Jackson. i have nothing but tremdous respect for what they did and should be adored by the people who like them i am not a fan of either but respect there place in music history. I am sorry my dude in rock band sings along,jumps around,shreds on his knees and stage dives. the Beatle folk stand around and bounce up down and look crosseyed. oooo look a man with a pipe , a girl cyring at shea ooo cool but not why i play music games lol.

[tackhead311]

yes the the stone did look like that but the beatles wanted to hold your hand while the stones want to shove pills down your moms throat !

[funkdiggity]

I think maybe you're judging the music/band images by today's standards. Which isn't really accurate. We tend to think of the Beatles as these squeaky clean harmless guys because you can sing along with their songs and their music gets played on oldies stations or whatever. But that's not really who they were. When they weren't talking about being better than Jesus, they talked about how organized western religion doesn't work and you should try non western philosophies/religions. They were taking all sorts of drugs (even before discovering marijuana they were popping legendary amounts of pills, and there's no need to even mention lsd), and then encouraging people to experiment with the stuff on their own. And let's not forget the epic amounts of groupie sex. I think if I was a parent in the 60s I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near those guys lol. People think the Beatles are harmless today because they've had almost half a century to get used to the music, and they're too lazy to think about what some of the songs actually mean.

Im not sure what your point is about the San Francisco music scene. Just because the beatles didn't invent the music (which I don't think anyone familiar with the music/period would claim anyway) doesn't mean they weren't innovative, or that scores of other bands weren't borrowing, and outright stealing, their ideas. There certainly have been enough bands and artists who have admitted to doing as much, including some of the ones you mentioned above.

Im not going to have the "who's-the-bigger-bad-asses-the-beatles-or-the-stones" debate with you, because I think it'll get very ridiculous very quickly lol. And it misses my point, which was that all the Invasion bands started out looking and sounding a certain way, largely because that's what you had to do to get a record deal at the time. They were all initially marketed to screaming teenagers, the Stones included. You can't really criticize one band for doing what was done at the time without criticizing all of them.

[tackhead311]

idk man i understand the Beatles where freaks behind the scenes the munkees were as well,ever try to watch Head? but the persona put forth by them was squeaky clean as lets say the beach boys. but behind the scene of the beach boys you had the drummer giving Charles Manson room and board and the pet sound guy going completely insane ! i really dont think Jimi Hendrix was borrowing anything from the Beatles nor Santana or the Doors or Janis Joplin or the Dead. my dad said when he saw the Beatles on ed Sullivan with his family the whole family watched including my grandfather. who then stated oo what nice boys. when the stones did Sullivan my grandfather punished my dad for making him watch devils music. sure the Beatles said they where bigger then god and went to a ashram somewhere they got ripped off a little. there manager was a freaking genius that kept there press amazing and there image pristine . only the Beatles could smoke a hash pipe and old ladies coo oo there so cute! i really don't think the height asbury crowd was really influenced by them at all. i have never listened to savoy brown and goo hmm thats a Beatles riff or idea. I am judging by what my dad grew up with in the 60s how influenced my start in listining to music. He has never told me once to go listen to a beatles track. The beatles where the not first expermenting with groupies and drug abuse either and encourging people to try it. Jerry Lee lewis ,Chuck Berry,Ray Charles,Johnny Cash and heck go back to Mozart lol. Mozart was a freak! I totally agree with the british invasions borrowed heavily from the ground work laid down by the beatles but i am not really a fan of that music either. I like the Kinks a little, heck i cant stand the who but i ask wheres is there beatle influence ok maybe they wore some suits but i dont think they sound alike at all ok ill give you octupus garden and boris the spider. i chalk this up to we agree to diasagree .
if im going to listen to a love me do or a hold your hand type of music sorry funk im going little farther back getting me some johnny b goode, twist, rock around the clock, la bamba, i walk the line and peggy sue. i am pretty sure the 50s guys were wearing matching ties and suits as well. what they where good at thanks probally thanks to there manager was promation . every decade seems to have music style thats gets big and one band gets all the credit in the world in my example lets do the 90s and grunge. Nirvana created grunge like everyone believes ? the tads , the melvins,and screaming trees get over looked. The beatles did that 2 timmes lol imo they where the early beatles that took the one hit wonder music of the 50s and exploded it. then with the music getting darker and heavier they turn out sgt peppers and you know kudos to there marketing and management and there awarness that its ok to change with the times. if george martin lived and they stayed togather im am positive they could of did it a 3rd time.

[funkdiggity]

Perhaps the reason you don't hear the Beatles influence in other music is because you're not as familiar with them as you seem to think lol. Sgt Pepper's is many things, but dark is not one of them. Its probably one of the most colorful, vibrant, and celebratory albums of the 60s. For that matter I can't think of very much Beatles music at all that I would describe as dark or heavy. Helter Skelter, obviously. Maybe a few other tracks off the white album. And She's So Heavy? I'm probably missing some songs, but regardless its a short list. Especially in light of how much material they put out. Saying the Beatles saw rock music getting darker and capitalized on doesn't make alot of sense. Saying they did it with Sgt. Pepper is just impossible.

Likewise, saying they didn't have an influence on the San Francisco Sound, and therefore didn't affect later 60's/70's music at all is also kind of pushing it, dude. There's a whole strain of British psychadelica happening at the same time that the Beatles were at ground zero for. I don't think its hard to see where the British and Haight crowds were exchanging musical ideas back and forth.

I don't think anyone claims the Beatles "blew up the one hit wonder 50s sound." For one thing, that already happened, back in the 50s. For another, rock and roll/rockabilly was not a genre of one hit wonders. Elvis, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison, Jerry Lewis, Chuck Berry, all those guys put out song after song. They were internationally known artists. Just because people 60 years after the fact only remember Carl Perkins for Blue Suede Shoes doesn't mean he wrote one awesome song and then called it a day lol.

Early Beatles material gets the nod for lots of things. Wearing a suit and tie isn't one of them. Inventive harmonies is. Seriously, read up on the music theory behind their harmonies and chord changes. Those guys broke quite a bit of ground on those early recordings.

Another thing the older stuff gets credit for is the energy. If you can listen to John Lennon actually blowing his vocal chords out on Twist And Shout and not see that that's just as rock and roll as Oh Boy then I don't know what to tell you ;D

As far as their press goes, again, I think you're confusing the way they're seen now with the way they were seen back in the day. All that stuff I mentioned didn't happen behind the scenes like you seem to think. It happened out in the open, and was talked about, and debated freely. True for a while old ladies who saw them on TV loved them. Then Lennon ran his mouth about Jesus and all those same old ladies were burning Beatles albums at bonfires with their local church groups. Those guys were constantly baiting controversy. Just because for 15 minutes in 1963 they were cute and cuddly doesn't mean they stayed that way forever and that squares always loved them no matter what. By the time Revolver/Rubber Soul came around, they were just as much a part of the counter culture as the rest of the dirty hippies lol. This isn't really something that can be credibly denied.

I'd say the same thing about the Beach Boys for that matter. The Manson thing and Brian Wilson's weirdness weren't hidden from public view, it was happening and publicly dissected at the same time that their music started going off in different directions. We think of them a certain way now because of how much time has passed, and because of songs like Good Vibrations or whatever. But writing them off as just a bunch of Herman's Hermits type pop stars really ignores a lot of what happened with those guys, and ignores how people saw them at the time.

I understand your parents were around at the time, and basing your opinions off what they said is fair enough. But there's plenty of other people who were also around at the time (including some artists you've mentioned through out this conversation), who would respectfully disaggree with your parents. As well as decades of musicians, writers, critics, and historians who have written extensively about the Beatles. And of course the music itself ;D

[bigfish]

Wow, i can't believe i just sat and read all that!

Anyway thought i would chime in from a 3rd perspective. I know almost nothing about the beatles, or music history. I often can't name a song by title, or tell you what album it was on, even though i know all the words. But I am a big fan of just listening to music in general.

As a fan of music who never gave a second thought to the beatles or their popularity, I was surprised at how many of these songs I knew. And i mean really really knew.... like could sing along in perfect pitch and lyrics without even looking at the screen. They have been a huge part of pop culture for 40 years, and even if you didn't know it was them, you were probably enjoying many of their songs regardless. some prime examples....

Twist and Shout - Who hasn't seen the parade sequence from Ferris Bueller's Day Off about a million times? This is one I could sing blindfolded. I'm sure i didn't know it was the beatles back when i saw this movie in the theatre.

Helter Skelter - I'm more familiar with the Motley Crue cover, but this is also a throwback to my childhood, sitting on a streetcorner and blaring the Shout at the Devil cassette through my boombox. But trust me when i tall you that the game generally frowns on singing this in the vocal stylings of Vince Neil.

Drive My Car - Beep Beep MMMM Beep Beep Yeah! The intro to every radio traffic update in every major city i have ever lived in, and I had no idea this was a beatles song! I figured it was just a standard audio clip created for traffic updates.

Anything from the Sgt Pepper movie, including Come Together, Get Back, Here Comes The Sun, I Want You, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.... etc. I loved this movie as a kid just because it was colorful and quirky, and if you asked me the day after i saw that movie for the first time who sang all those songs I probably would have said Alice Cooper, Aerosmith and the BeeGees! But all those songs are still stuck in my head today.

There are so many other songs on here that i am intimately familiar with, but couldn't even tell you why or how. I can belt out Don't Let Me Down flawlessly like i've been doing it for years, but can't remember actually ever listening to it before.

Then there is the list of tracks I know I have never heard before, but are instant favorites. Hearing them for the first time 30+ years after their creation and they are still relevant and enjoyable.... that is definitely saying something.
I Am The Walrus, Hey Bulldog, Dig A Pony, Octopus's Garden are tracks that come immediately to mind.

I guess what I am saying is that I am a Beatles fan and never really knew it. Many others out there might be too. If you are on the fence, or not sure... it's definitely worth a try.

The only advice i can give to Tack is to try and focus on the gameplay and not the flash and presentation if you don't like it. It really is just filler in the long run. The charts are really quite good, arguably some of the best ever seen in music gaming. Also, try and unlearn what your parents have taught you. As a youth I remember my parents promoting the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, The Tooth Fairy, and the notion that if i kept playing with my bellybutton my ass would fall off. None of which have proven to be true.

[tackhead311]

sorry darker as in heavier sound. st peppers is a different breed then hold your hand. i will never assume the beatles dark if i did i might like them.i tottally used the wrong word there. . darker was a poor choice in word. harmonies ok the beatkes where fantastic at them but again first to use them? they never heard of doo wop and just came up with the harmonies idea all on there own?pleny of one hit wonders in the 50s man doing the same style before the beatles . palisades park ,sh boom,chantilly lace,come and go with me,shake rattle and roll,love potion #9,sea cruise,cryin in the chapel,a teenager in love etc etc ....

older people may off known what was going with the beachboys but the 60s was a much easier time to shield people from news. jesus we where winning at vietnam most of the decade lol.young people got all there stuff from pop mags and i sure there werent poster of dennis and manson in there. i agree they influenced alot but im pretty sure not most of the stuff i listen to,in fact im sure some off the stuff down right reblels against them. but all the music i do enjoy borrows heavily from 2 places the blues and the 50s. i cant stand 70s music.so maybe i am missing there scope there. ok twist and shout great song but didnt we already have a few twists song by then. they didnt even write the song lol. they recorded the most popular version crapping all over the isley brothers version lol..amazing yes trend setting no. i think the beatle where wonderful pop music for there time that made people feel good in a very turbulent time.then they got very creative popped drugs wrote deeper music sure. i still dont think of them as trendsetters which olny one of the reasons i dont like them. most the music my family liked rebeled against the war which england was not a part off. england had there own issues .so i dont think the beatles where inspiring the anti war music as music as the anti war music was inspiring them. perhaps this may be a chicken and egg argument.2nd reason i cant not stomach there music it boring to me with alot of stufff i dont care about. i dont care about all the songs they did early holding hand ,ps i love you, driving cars.i dont care about all the songs they did later for that matter. ill admit they have 10 songs i enjoy and thats because those songs where covered. you know i hate u2 but dam there helter skelter is tight.
im done with this we agree to disagree!

[greyghost88]

you say goodbye and I say hello,

ok so here is my short version looks great plays great awesome songs as far as is it harder hard to say some of the drum songs are those fast quick pace songs which I totally suck at, watching ms. ghost on vox she says its easier

iam just courious how the harmonies work with the vox I think thats the neatest part and the little green od note on drums fucks me up everytime, I do hate that before the song starts i can hit the drum pads and no sound I do this on every song to make sure all pads still work.

I give it a 8 of 10 coo coo caa choo Iam the walrus

[funkdiggity]

I think you're confusing being innovative and trendsetting with inventing something. They aren't necessarily the same. No one's claiming the Beatles invented harmonies, or anything else for that matter. I'm not sure why you're spending so much time pointing out that they didn't invent stuff. That's a given lol. What they did was innovate, and that's significant because other people took those innovations and applied them to their own music, even though other artists/bands/whoever may have gotten there first. Its hard to find a doo wop influence in subsequent rock vocals. But its extremely easy to find a Beatles one in modern music and in the music of their contemporaries.

Re: Crapping all over the Isley version of Twist And Shout. Fa rill? Hating on them for recording their own version of a widely covered standard? That's the whole point of standards. You take a well known song and try to put your own spin on it. It was an extremely common practice at the time. The Isley's didn't write it either. They did the same thing the Beatles did: arranged and recorded a standard. I think at this point you're just hating ;D



you took my point wrong im saying there twist and shout theres still people today that think they wrote the song. i love the isleys brothers and i like there version better.
trendsetting is far from the beatles scope. ill agree they take a idea and pretty wickedly pwn it if you like them. they got stupid famous off music that was out there. when the music changed the where smart enough to change you didnt see dave clark 5 trying to get all hippeified. hermans hermits i am henry the 8th i am was down right silly by 1968 standards lol. the point im saying im trying to make is i dont like the beatles lol. my reasons are i am one the few that dont believe there trendsetting , or innovative or talented muscians execpt george. great song writers hands down but they also dont write songs i like. bob dylan same deal dude is a amazing song writer but if im forced to listen to him im running away god i hate dylan sound live .
if i going to listen to early beatles i rather listen to the 50s acts give me buddy holly over them any day. i use sgt peppers as the changing of the gaurd cause supoosedly paul is dead and that was the roots for all there crazy stuff. so if i am going to listen to that give all the greats that played at monterrary pop ,isle of wight and woodstock. marketing marketing and more marketing that was amazing. rember the 60s no internet no cnn olny uncle walter telling the news. gossip news was not rampant as it was. parents saw them on ed a saw the cute boys they where. so even though the beatles changed musically and freakier 14 yeards had there parents getting them beatles record based on that ed sullivan crap. shee same thing with elvis people where oblivous to what was behind the scenes! they gave elvis a badge lol!

[funkdiggity]

Wow dude, you weren't kidding, you deleted like half my post lol.

We're talking about the same decade, right? The sixties? Not the middle ages? Because they had tv, they had newspapers and magazines, telephones, etc. Worldwide instant communication/broadcasting was both possible and common in the 60s. There's books and books full of interviews the Beatles did with legitimate journalists (stuff adults and some young people would have read) and rock rags (stuff young people, and some older adults would have read) alike, throughout their career. These interviews detail their changing ideas about music, culture, politics, religion, drugs, sex, all that stuff. The fact that they were no longer as cuddly and cute as they first appeared on Sullivan was well known. Your notion about the mad marketing genius of Brian Epstein covering everything up just doesn't float in light of actual, verifiable facts. The same goes for the Beach Boys Manson stuff. The Manson trial was one of the biggest trials of the 20th century. Saying a connection between a notorious serial killer and a notoriously crazy rock star wouldn't be remarked upon by just about EVERYBODY is tough to believe. Human beings just aren't wired to overlook something that weird lol.

I guess you're right, I don't understand your post about Twist and Shout at all lol. Who cares what people who are too lazy to look at songwriting credits think about anything? Why is that a reason to hate on a version of a song which you admitted a couple of posts ago was actually very good? Why would you hate on the Beatles for that to begin with? It certainly isn't their fault people are too lazy to read lol.

As I've said repeatedly, what you're saying about Sgt. Pepper's is just impossible. Whether you want to call it heavy, dark, changing of the guard, capitalizing on trends, whatever, the point you're making really doesn't parse with the Beatles later music, and applying the argument to Sgt Pepper's just makes my brain hurt ;D I know you listened to this back in the day as a kid, but have you listened to it since then? What trend were they capitalizing on with When I'm 64?

I mean, even forgetting the music, just looking at their development chronologically, Sgt Pepper's doesn't work for you the way you want it to. Their music and attitudes started changing as early as Help, and by Rubber Soul/Revolver they'd pretty much left behind all the stuff you hate about their earlier work for good lol. The "new" Beatles were old news by the time Sgt. Pepper's was made. Doesn't it make more sense to say that rather than cashing in on trends, that maybe after seeing a little bit of the world and meeting other thinkers and creative types from different places and different cultures, that they just grew up a little? And that that was reflected in their music? That sort of thing is fairly common. Its like the rock star version of a college kid spending his summer back packing across Europe lol.

I dunno, you're certainly free to like or dislike the Beatles, or Dylan, or anybody else. I'm not trying to tell you who's music you should or shouldn't enjoy. I'm just pointing out that some of your reasoning for doing so is confusing, to say the least.

[tackhead311]

for real you think the 60s had great media coverage that people knew the scope of everything ? where the news was a half hour and you far more stuff to cover like a war , civil unrest and draft dodgers. not to mention 5 channels there was no cable. im sure in the boondocks tv didnt even reach some people.

[tackhead311]

ok i can enjoy the beatlesnow lol

[luxe]

Tack those are awesome ;D