Now And Then By The Beatles.

[steved32]

Symbolically significant.  Technological archaeology amazing!

 

Musically...pretty ordinary, though.

[cressida]

Too slow and repetitive for me,  but still my favourite band.

[HeHasRisen]

Its a load of garbage. Nobody would give it the time of day if it wasnt the Beatles.

[echo beach]

1 hour ago, HeHasRisen said:

Its a load of garbage. Nobody would give it the time of day if it wasnt the Beatles.

Trouble is HHR it is the Beatles and you for one have given it the time of day by simply listening to it!

 

echo.

[Jim Hardie]

12 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Because previously,  the technology didn't exist,  to clean up extraneous noise on John's original track so that they could record along with it.

There was, in the background,  people talking and a TV set playing,  which needed removing.

 

My point was simply that it’s such a poor song that at the time it never got beyond a demo tape.

[HeHasRisen]

20 minutes ago, echo beach said:

Trouble is HHR it is the Beatles and you for one have given it the time of day by simply listening to it!

 

echo.

It was on the radio, I didn't seek it out.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jim Hardie said:

My point was simply that it’s such a poor song that at the time it never got beyond a demo tape.

Fine if you don't like it,  and I don't rate it much either,  but I do appreciate the technology which has enabled it.

As a musician,  I didn't rate The Beatles highly in the 60's and I had friends who I considered to be far better.

My personal view was that 95% of their work was mediocre with the other 5% being  good,  to very very good.

 

[Top4719]

7 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Fine if you don't like it,  and I don't rate it much either,  but I do appreciate the technology which has enabled it.

As a musician,  I didn't rate The Beatles highly in the 60's and I had friends who I considered to be far better.

My personal view was that 95% of their work was mediocre with the other 5% being  good,  to very very good.

 

The quality of songs made by The Beatles in a relatively short 7 year period is unsurpassed by anyone, 95% mediocre my arris.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Top4719 said:

The quality of songs made by The Beatles in a relatively short 7 year period is unsurpassed by anyone, 95% mediocre my arris.

That's not a fact.  that's your personal opinion in the same way mine is and you are of course, welcome to it.

[echo beach]

On 03/11/2023 at 15:28, Organgrinder said:

Fine if you don't like it,  and I don't rate it much either,  but I do appreciate the technology which has enabled it.

As a musician,  I didn't rate The Beatles highly in the 60's and I had friends who I considered to be far better.

My personal view was that 95% of their work was mediocre with the other 5% being  good,  to very very good.

 

Then it’s a good job millions of other people on this planet don’t have the same opinion as you Organgrinder as evidenced by the groups continued popularity 53 years after they went their own ways.

 

echo.