Unreleased Beatles track: Y'all ready for this?

chuen Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:04 AM EST

http://www.ilikebuy.com
good air max shoes

luxury watch Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM EST

It's good! rolex watch?
luxury watch?

numes with an s Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 05:40 AM EST

i find it hard to argue with that

Vische Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 05:28 AM EST

I'm just posting this for my mate Numes, so that when he gets on his high horse because I haven't referenced his comment, I'll refer him to this and he'll look a bit of a dick.

numes with an s Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 07:36 PM EST

i'm just posting this comment to check if my mate numez with a z ever reads my email recommendations

LARK Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 06:35 PM EST

ELVIS WAS A FAT NARC.....HE WAS ONLY GOOD AT THE START THEN HE WENT TO VAGAS AND BECAME WAYNE NEWTON

sgt pepper Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:17 PM EST

Can't wait to hear it let us the fans be the judge if it's good or bad.Even if it's bad what the heck can't be any worst then Revolution #9.

kent Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 03:23 AM EST

sally in chicago needs her big massive titties milked..the beatles broke up almost 40 years ago and look at all the people still arguing over them..further proof that the beatles are a band that will live on forever and out live everyone on this board...paul mccartneys the best bass player in the world

P Thrillington Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 05:21 PM EST

If it does get released, in what format would it be released in?

CD single?
Download only?
As part of a CD with other tracks on it?

Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia all have to approve before it gets released.

Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 02:25 PM EST

hi

will Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:30 PM EST

im not joking either lots of people like younge boys so its not that weird

will Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:29 PM EST

so whats wrong with that?

jordyn Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:28 PM EST

will likes anal from elvis

jordyn Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:25 PM EST

will touches little boys haha

jordyn Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:24 PM EST

will has no friends

padma Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:27 PM EST

I'm sorry to say this is probably not a great performance piece but rather Sir Paul's need to replace the money paid out to Heather Mills from his estate after his children begged him not to marry that woman!

anon Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:37 PM EST

Will- Ninny ? lol ok ! are you eruo all of the sudden , and your the one that was demeaning the European influence . Saying they should have stayed out of the American rock scene all together . Let's hear your music I bet you stray far from genius , and sound just as mono tone as Elvis did .

Jetson Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 05:07 PM EST

OMG. The Beatles were writing songs with non-western harmonies and using Stockhausen avant electronics. They were able to fuse that with pop music. Elvis was interpeting other people music. Will do you understand what the Beatles did compared to Elvis. The Beatles were musicians.

I like the Beatles is that they opened ears as they opened their own minds, they were the quintessential concept group who became more sophisticated as they became more successful. IMHO, Revolution #9 is a brilliant piece precisely because it came from a group of artists who could make accessible music, but understood the more esoteric aspects of modern music. This, for me, is the same as my enjoyment of Picasso, who made simple but effective use of the modern art language after proving that he could paint complex and detailed work.

brett Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:46 PM EST

Will: so you give no credence to Leonard Bernstein but you cite William F. Buckley to make your points? Buckley was a movement conservative writer who founded the Weekly Standard, not some music critic. Why would you give him any credence at all? Also, Modernrocker is right. The only reason Elvis has more gold singles is because his recording career was far longer than the Beatles'. Also, the Beatles' album sales trump Elvis. When you put together album sales and single sales, the Beatles are the best-selling act in the rock era (we don't know about people like Jolson), and Elvis is third. That is simply an indisputable fact. Also, it was Helter Skelter that inspired Manson's murder spree, not Piggies, so you got that piece of history wrong. Also, since you refuse to reveal your songs to us, I'm curious to read some of your reviews as a music critic. Which publication(s) do you write for? I would be interested to read some of your stuff.

Tyler Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:37 PM EST

All subsequent rock musicians wrestle with the Beatles' influence, whether they base their entire career on the sound of one Beatles song ("I Want To Hold Your Hand" --> The Knack, "Rain" --> The Church, "I Am the Walrus" --> The Electric Light Orchestra, and so on and so forth), try to take the Beatles innovations "farther" (Yes, ELP, prog rock in general), or lament they can never match up to the Beatles' achievement Kurt Cobain said this).

Once the Beatles hit the scene Elvis was replaced. Sorry to break it to you. But he was unable to create a "Strwaberry Fields" or "Day In the Life" He didn't have the musical inspiration to break beyond the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, lyrical and aural/sonic patterns.

Oh yeah the Beatles were voted the Greatest Rock Musicians by a panel of musicians in 2004.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:25 PM EST

Tyler: You do love to compare apples to oranges! Noted author / editor William F. Buckley said "Elvis Presley had the most beautiful singing voice of any human being on Earth." No one has ever even suggested anything even remotely similar about any of the 4 "Beatles." Elvis Presely was a singer, not a songwriter. His instrument was his voice & his interpretive genius. Len Bernstein may have lauded the Beatles songwriting abilities but if he made the statement you claim, then he was woefully short-sighted in his appraisal. All anyone has to do is review: “Why Don't We Do It In The Road,” “Octopus’s Garden,” “Wild Honey Pie,” “The Word,” “Good Night,” & “Dig A Pony,” “Piggies,” “Yellow Submarine,” “Taxman,” & “Savoy Truffle,” to realize that Bernstein’s comment, if made, was probably the result of his rampant drug use & alcoholism as chronicled in Joan Peyser’s 1987 biographical expose. Given his drug-fueled episodes, I wouldn’t put much stock in Bernstein’s appraisal.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:09 PM EST

Sam: Is "Swank" your surname or merely a "given" name? Because I can't see even a diehard Bogart fan naming their kid "Sam," if his last name is truly "Swank." I'm sorry, but I just wouldn't lay that on someone unless I had a trenchcoat already picked out for him.
I receive royalties for a number of songs, but to reveal their titles would be to expose my songwriter identity which I prefer to keep private. Although often urged by professional songwriters of note (including Sammy Cahn, before his passing) to pursue a full-time career as a professional songwriter, I have not. As I seldom take the time to record & release songs, I prefer to keep this aspect of my life part-time & private. Like my friend, Merle Haggard, I have a backlog of several hundred songs I've written but never released. Perhaps sometime in the future I will go back to these. Meanwhile, I have other more pressing matters to attend to. I do appreciate the royalties, but choose not to focus on this.

Tyler Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:47 PM EST

Leonard Bernstein classical musician called the Beatles the best songwriters of the 20th century. While Elvis could not write or play his own music. What is your defense?

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:45 PM EST

Tyler, et al: You are fudging stats, again. In his time, Al Jolson was a bigger act than Elvis & the Beatles combined, but you won't find his name on your 21st century record list. You have to apply the stats during their active period - apples to apples - & factor singles along with album sales to have an honest register of sales & popularity. Elvis ran 1954-77, the Beatles, 1957-1970 (after which they released solo projects, most of them dreadful.) Using this more accurate criteria, Elvis Presley decimates the "Fab Four." Not surprisingly. Face it, these guys could barely sing. Rich Starkey? Please! Lennon? Whooo! Harrison? Pretty iffy. McCartney? The best of the bunch voically, but no Elvis Presley by far. So they invent marketing ploys: "The Beatles," "Ringo," "The Walrus," "The White Album." Brits! Gary Glitter, Billy Fury, Billy Idol, Elvis Costello, The Sex Pistols - It's all marketing hype to disguise mediocre talent. And now, "Carnival of Light." BFD.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:31 PM EST

MR89: “More than one Elvis?” Please! Declan MacManus a.k.a “Elvis Costello” is closer to being Lou Costello than Elvis Presley. The name he used while recording “Pills and Soap” comes closest to describing his true identity: “The Imposter.” There is but one Elvis . Your disinformation is rampant, and you confuse complexity with good music. Intricacy does not infer greatness. It might be intellectually interesting, but still sound like crap – which a lot of the Beatles records do. “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road,” “Octopus’s Garden,” “Wild Honey Pie,” “The Word,” “Good Night,” & “Dig A Pony,” are pretty worthless, while the notable aspect of their song “Piggies” is that it became the inspiration for Charles Manson’s murder spree. The Beatles are, I repeat again, poor singers, mediocre musicians, and grossly overrated.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 03:26 PM EST

"Flagging Comment spam?" Try: "Censorship." How about permitting me to defend my views against the onslaught of Beatlemaniacs?

Tyler Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:42 PM EST

Soundscan Record Sales in Americasoundscan total (albums) 1991-2006

Artists in Bold are UK/Irish

(1) - (1) - 1 - Garth Brooks - 66.031m

(2) - (2) - 2 - The Beatles - 53.701m

(5) - (3) - 3 - Mariah Carey - 49.606m
(4) - (4) - 4 - Celine Dion - 48.395m
(3) - (5) - 5 - Metallica - 47.870m

These Top 5 seem to be well clear of the rest for a few years yet.

(6) - (6) - 6 - George Strait - 37.871m
(8) - (9) - 7 - Alan Jackson - 34.393m
(11) - (11) - 8 - Tim McGraw - 34.045m
(10) - (10) - 9 - Pink Floyd - 33.394m
(7) - (7) - 10 - Shania Twain - 33.291m
(9) - (8) - 11 - Kenny G - 32.676m
(15) - (12) - 12 - Eminem - 32.471m
(14) - (14) - 13 - U2 - 31.358m
(12) - (13) - 14 - Backstreet Boys - 30.400m

(13) - (16) - 15 - 2Pac - 29.132m
(17) - (17) - 16 - Pearl Jam - 29.026m
(16) - (15) - 17 - Britney Spears - 28.484m
(19) - (19) - 18 - Aerosmith - 28.168m
(22) - (22) - 19 - Elvis Presley - 28.073m

Now stand in the corner Will

Tyler Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:36 PM EST

Rock music would be produced by Phil Spector types and we might hearing fot the next "My Boyfried Is Back" I thoght that was funny but true.

No Beatles Rubber Soul=No Pet Sounds. Without the Beatles we would be looking for the next "Clam Bake" instead of the next Revolver or the next "Strawberry Fields Forever".

The Beatles broke up in 1970 and their first true single was "Love Me Do" in 1962.

Sam Swank Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:36 PM EST

Will, where might we hear your song? And I agree that "Swank" is pretentious, I get that a lot. It is however my given name. I'd love to hear your song. How about posting the title and steering us toward it? Afraid of being judged harshly?

jordyn Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:32 PM EST

the beatles are only overated in the opinion of people who dont like their music. any one who truly listens to the music knows they are great. and evn if ur a critic or whatever it doesnt mean u have a better ear for good music than anyone else. elvis was harder to understand than bob dylan and was also drugged out as well.. if u dont remember thats how he died.

Modernrocker79 Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:26 PM EST

Oh no not another one who is making excuses. The Beatles were a recoding band from mid 1962 to 1970. The Beatles broke up in 1970 that counts for seven and half years. Elvis was recording between 1954-1977. The Beatles counted 20 number one songs in seven years and 14 number one albums in seven years. Elvis had 17 number one songs and eight number one albums in 24 years in America. According to RIAA the Beatles the sales are.

The Beatles 170 million albums sold
Elvis 118 albums sold

The Beatles also topped Billboard The Beatles do top Billboard’s all-time Hot 100 artists, followed by Madonna, Elton John, Elvis Presley, Stevie Wonder, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and the Rolling Stones. Billboard.com is breaking out some of the other chart achievements (the list of most No. 1 singles by an act is topped by the Beatles) on its Web site.

Sounds like sour grapes Elvis fans

Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:32 PM EST

ModernRocker89:“The Beatles together for 7 years?” Wrong. Lennon & McCartney began performing together in 1957. Harrison joined within a year. They disbanded in 1970. Collectively they lasted 14 years before continuing as solo performers for another decade at least. Thus collective crap like “Yellow Submarine,” “Taxman,” & “Savoy Truffle,” became solo tracks like “Back Off Boogalo.” Your 7 years” is actually 24, you revisionist. Further correction: the Beatles had 47 Top 40 hits; Elvis, 114. Plus, as you know, RIAA figures are woefully flawed being largely based on album sales, while Presley’s output was mostly 45 singles. RIAA does not certify sales under 500k units. Presley had numerous albums & singles that sold hundreds of thousands each, which collectively add up to millions of sales. Moreover, RIAA stats require record companies to pay & request an audit to certify sales. During Elvis’ life, RCA submitted few of Elvis’ recordings for RIAA certification. Your claims are bogus.

Modern Rocker89 Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM EST

Oh Will get this The Beatles were naturally gifted, came up with melodies, rhythms, harmonies, chords to fit their ideas, and played what made sense to them in terms of what they were trying to accomplish. When experts marvel at how a song can contains passages in 4/4, 3/4, 5/4, etc., and "strange" modes like the mixolydian, it's all after the fact. I don't think they were aware of any of this and just went with what felt right.

Have you ever seen a note-for-note transcription of a Jimi Hendrix solo? It's like, who could possibly think of this? Well, he didn't. He just played, and someone else later figured out how to put it on paper and took note of its significance in terms of music theory.

I think this stands in strong contrast to Beethoven. When he was deaf, he could hear all this music in his head, and I think he must have had not only an incredible "inner ear" but also complete mastery of what he was doing musically.

Modern Rocker89 Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM EST

If you type Beatles on Google you get 68 million. If you type Elvis you get 65 million. One thing there is more than one Elvis, you have Elvis Costello also and others. So the Beatles are more popular.

When it comes to record sales the Beatles sold one billion records by the 1980s. According to the RIAA the Beatles are America's highest selling recording artist of all times. Elvis is third. Remember the Beatles were a recording artist for seven years. Will you are acting like a troll because the Beatles are getting a lot of attention.

The Beatles used tape loops that was influenced by avant composers on "Tomorrow Never Knows" in 1966.

Robert Adams Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:07 AM EST

There are certainly about 20 or 30 more Beatles outtakes that I would rather see released than Carnival Of Light. As far as all the arguing about The Beatles being great or not - this like arguing about ice cream flavors. If you like it, great. If not, fine. The Beatles are my chocolate. You're welcome to like them or hate them. My mind is made up.

ModernRocker89 Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:26 AM EST

The Beatles made the Elvis types in music extinct in rock and roll. The Beatls have more number one hits than Elvis in his own country. The Beatles were around for only seven years. That one must hurt. If you want to see how influential the Beatles just check this list out. It more than double Elvis or anyone else.

www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles

SpaceCat85 Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 08:42 AM EST

I also have a strong feeling that this will be a bunch of random silly noises ("number 9, number 9, number 9...").

Oh, and to add to the list of loony experimental `60s albums that still got released (albeit on an indie label), here's a couple by the Red Krayola:
-The Parable of Arable Land
-God Bless the Red Krayola and All Those Who Sail in Her

Lots of early tape looping, found sounds, etc. And the second album there in particular is going to make for some hard listening if you aren't a big fan of bands like Deerhoof.

Faust is from the early `70s, but they're pretty out-there as well...and they could actually play stuff that was way crazier from a technical standpoint than the Beatles' post-1966 stuff *in concert*, just half a decade later, despite lots of tape-looping and other studio effects being on their albums. Not that I'm slamming the Beatles in general, but I never really bought into that excuse for them never playing live again.

Charles Thompson Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 08:17 AM EST

"and the few good bands of today... Simple Plan, Cold play"

Someone obviously doesn't listen to any recent music. The "few" good bands!? Please...

Also, Will, you have been making reading this message board a lot of fun. "wah, how can he talk bad about the Beatles. Wah." Good stuff.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:46 AM EST

Stats: Climb down from your high horse you elitist posturing soi-disant humanitarian. Listen, Ghandi, you made an asinine claim & was called on it so don't try to take the high road in compensation for your low level of reasoning. The musical world is NOT divided "pre-&-post Beatles” except in your obsessive "Fab Four" fanatical mind. Indeed, the claim has been made by more esteemed musical and cultural critics than you, that the contemporary music world is divided pre-Elvis & post-Elvis. And decades ago, so too was it said, pre-&-post Jolson, Crosby, Sinatra, Glenn Miller, etc. The Beatles did some fine work, but alas, like Dylan & Springsteen, are overrated. Period. Accept it.

statistics Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:14 AM EST

Hurting people hurt the saying goes. I guess you must be hurting pretty bad Will. No need for the name calling and hate.
You are right and everybody else is wrong. What else do you want? Do you want to be more righ? Well here it is you are right. Maybe someday you will be happy instead of just being right.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:04 AM EST

That’s right, “Stats” – like your pal, Abaum, compare cultural figures of centuries past with those of the 20th century. Construct completely asinine analogies to try and bolster your mongoloid line of reasoning. But Apples-to-apples, among popular music’s recording artists of the late 1950s-through-1970s when the Beatles & Elvis Presley competed with each other for mastery of the airwaves & record sales - i.e., a legitimate measurement of popularity - Elvis Presley was a vastly more popular musical talent than the Beatles by a margin exceeding 3-to-1. You can go stuff your hauteur about the Beatles being superior artists. The voice is a also a musical instrument & try as they might, the Beatles could never hope to come close to Elvis Presley’s vocal artistry & interpretive genius as a singer. Lennon, Harrison & Starr pretty much sucked, vocally, & McCartney was only passable.

Mr.Kite Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 05:59 AM EST

Monterey.....what a wonderful time. John brought the party. Jimi broke the mold. Forget the Maharishi...merely a cash cow.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 05:45 AM EST

W: Racist?! You're a complete ass! There is nothing I have said that is even remotely racist, you moron. Moreover, you're the pontificating one, demeaning Presley for not having been a songwriter. I'm a published songwriter and I don't look down on him, you arrogant toad. I recognize his interpretive genius. My point was that popularity is shown in record sales and on this score Elvis Presley demolished your cherished & highly-overrated Beatles. And the composers & lyricists I listed are only "obscure" to you because your cultural depth is that of a Petri dish. Talk about getting a life! Try reading a book sometime, Bozo. The Beatles were a mediocre lot, period. Ringo Starr? Please!

statistics Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 05:22 AM EST

How may albums have Mozart or Beethoven sold. I guess Madonna outsold both of them. But can you compare the Fith of Beethoven to Material Girl? Homey don't think so.
MacDonalds has over a billion served but do they really serve a good meal? Answer that question!
Music history will always be before the Beatles and after the Beatles.

brett Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:10 AM EST

Will, you don't have to explain yourself. I'm just wondering where you can get your stuff. I'm truly curious.

Mr. Kite Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:32 AM EST

Ah, Yoko and all that Helter Skelter...Number Nine and bed peace. We need Carnival of Light Johnny. Please Please Me lads. We are ready now. Sweet Loretta Fat she thought she was a cleaner but she was a frying pan(giggles). Silly Yanks couldn't even handle a butcher cover ya know! Good job lads.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:34 AM EST

Will, you are coming accross as a complete goof and a racist to boot. Reading comments by people like you makes me die a little.

So Beatles are overrrated, eh? And your idol, Elvis - he sang mostly cover songs right? Covers - as in OTHER PEOPLE'S MUSIC? Well, not that it makes Elvis any less of an artist but comparisons based on chart performance are never going to fly amongst music affictionados.

It is all too easy to go snooty by quoting obscure acts and terming them superior to popular acts which are critically and commercially lauded. SInce no one has heard of your favorites, you can act all holier than thou. Please get a life and stop evaluating people based on their origin.

BeatleBum Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:27 AM EST

Well,...I LOVE the Beatles. And I love experimentation in music as well. I am probably one of the few people I know who enjoys listening to early Cabaret Voltaire while doing the dishes. BUT! And I know this will sound a tad harsh: I know this 14 minute Beatle experiment will stink like day old kippers. Great writers of pop songs. Definitly took pop where no band had gone before. But when it comes to their experimental stuff,...I can really do without it. I'll probably give it a cursory listen out of curiousity. I just feel bad for people who will buy it thinking they're gonna hear a bouncy little ditty or something. I'm sure it was fun for them at the time though!

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:18 AM EST

Brett:
I do not claim to be a musical genius, only a professional songwriter and performer - a fact. I won Song of the Year from a reputable major songwriters association, have an agent, a professional contract, and a number of cuts on CDs and broadcast media internationally. I have performed variously in nightclubs, on radio and television, and at concerts and live events. I have not pursued this as my chief livelihood, which is, as an entertainment critic and editor. All this does is provide me a reasonable measure of professional justification to render an opinion as to the merits of other songwriters and performers. And I have done so. The Beatles are, in my professional and personal opinion, overrated. It's that simple. Live with it.

brett Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:03 AM EST

Hey Will, why don't you show us where we can get your songs? I'd love to be able to unleash your genius to my friends.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:47 AM EST

John: And you top the stupidity meter. Google searches are the quintessential measure? Hello! Try top 40 hits. Presley had TRIPLE the top 40 hits of the Beatles & out-performed them in terms of #1 hits in their own country. Wolf: My answer: Al Jolson - possibly the greatest entertainer of all time – a human dynamo whose on-stage force would throw you back in your seat and burnish you with the brilliance of his light. Anon: My tastes are hardly so aged or provincial, you ninny. I know of many artists in Eastern Europe, for example, who make Lennon & McCartney’s modest tunes appear by comparison, feeble & febrile. Last American: you’re wrong. As a professional songwriter I have a number of album cuts and am content to receive my BMI royalty checks. “Professor69:” you are such a pathetic wimp. I hardly need the services of Noah Webster or others to articulate my opinions. Sorry if you find standard English unduly rudite and too taxing for your faculties. Your problem, not mine.

Will Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:09 AM EST

Tyler89: No one CAN "sing like Elvis anymore." Archconservative social critic Wm F. Buckley once wrote, "Presley brought an excitement to singing, in part because rock 'n' roll was greeted as his invention, but for other reasons not so widely reflected on. Elvis Presley had the most beautiful singing voice of any human being on Earth" - an opinion hard to dispute. I acknowledge the compositional complexities & multi-ethnic influences of many of the later Lennon-McCartney pieces, but complexity does not necessarily make for great music or even good pop songs. Great songs? Yip Harburg's "Over the Rainbow" was voted Song of the 20th Century & his Wizard of Oz was rated the greatest lyrics of all time by critic Mick La Salle: "We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of oz/We hear he is a wiz of a wiz if ever a wiz there was/If ever if ever a wiz there was/The wizard of oz/Is one because/Because because because because because/Because of the wonderful things he does./We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz."

anon Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:47 PM EST

Tyler - Touche ! good one .

Tyler Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:35 PM EST

This is for the idot who said The Beatles lose a google off:

152,000,000 for Michael jackson- 125,000,000 about Michael being a child molester

108,000,000 for madonna- 50,000,000 for being a over hyped performer who can't sing

93,000,000 for britney spears- 75,000,000 for being white trash

56,300,000 for 50 cent.- 20,000,000 for being metioned on Dr. Dre or Eminem sites

41,000,000 for marie carey- 20,000,000 for being crazy and really hot.

The Beatles are the best ever no matter what google says!

jb Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:10 PM EST

HEY JOHN: The Beatles don't compare to more recent artist's (at google searches)

23,400,000 for the beatles

152,000,000 for Michael jackson

108,000,000 for madonna

93,000,000 for britney spears

56,300,000 for 50 cent.

41,000,000 for marie carey

the beatles lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anon Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:57 PM EST

Will- Music aside it sounds like you need to get some whispering eye , and lay down the mental dictionary . You obviously are upset that creation , and experimentation beyond the American Repertoire would cause a note to be sung too high and break that 1000$ crystal glass you sip your aged wine out of that is as old as you are .

Vince Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:56 PM EST

I laugh in Will's general direction. Thanks

wbs Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:45 PM EST

this track is supposed to be some john cage-like track full of dissonant noises.. probably wont be very good, considering that the beatles are good songwriters, but not great musicians. i think i can safely say that i *can* wait to hear it... indefinitely, in fact.

Zoe Jean Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM EST

Oh hell, the thrill is gone...I can wait, for years more.

John Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:55 PM EST

Google Search Tom Jones and get an irrelevant 5,200,000

wolf Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:54 PM EST

lb - Not to detract, but I wouldn't call advertising prominence any sort of signal for the Beatles' greatness. All classic rock is huge in ads right now, likely because boomers control the largest amount of money in America, and ads are playing a sentimental note to attract buyers. The Beatles especially because more people in that most powerful demographic recognize them

NEVADA Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:53 PM EST

I'm wondering how many of the critics on here have ever been up to the Sierra-Nevada mountains, put 9" speakers about 30 feet apart and a Beetles tape in the 8 track, dropped acid and let them take you awaaaay!

John Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:53 PM EST

Influence meter:
Google search "The Beatles": 24,300,000
Google Search "Elvis Presley":22,100,000

Chalk one up for The Beatles.

EmperorWatcher Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:51 PM EST

Good Golly! People love d the Beatles because of their music.. period! The lyrics touched us, the music and production was often inspired or just plain fun. Analyzing it before you've even heard the stuff is like describing the taste of pickles before you've ever had one. Authors of articles like this and the writers of subsequent comments somehow seem deluded into thinking this is a realm where they're going to earn a Pulitzer Prize for journalism. It really simply boils down to the author's final sentence: "Of course, all that blather aside, I can't wait to hear the damn thing. You?"

lb Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:51 PM EST

The true test of The Beatles? Almost every ad has their music now. Look at the visuals in advertising--in case you're too young to know, 50% of the visual in advertising are due to The Beatles and their movies and album covers. No one did it before. The Beatles invented, yes I-N-V-E-N-T-E-D, it all. Every popular rock song on the radio owes something to The Beatles. And, Paul is a marketing genius. I was there, and there was nothing before The Beatles. There was music, but it was not the modern age rock and roll. The Beatles invented it. You can't listen to a rock song today without something they invented. Just the way it is..

wolf Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:50 PM EST

Will - Since you have already named the Beatles as over rated, and Tom Jones as tragically underrated, who would you deem appropriately rated?

John Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:49 PM EST

Music by it's nature is almost completely subjective. What moves one may not move another. Saying the beatles were the best is like saying the Giants are the best football team ever. I may think so but there will be scores who disagree. It's my opinion. Nothing Will or anyopne says will change your mind, and if you dont like useless drivel then ask the web site to incorporate an "Ignore Poster" option to filter it out.

LastAmerican Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:41 PM EST

I guess Will cant get a record deal.

Will Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:33 PM EST

Uh, Earth to Porter: Elvis IS dead. But so too, 50% of the Beatles and of those remaining, no one’s much betting on the musical creativity of the drummer. So, yes, Paul McCartney (“the cute one,” the girls used to squeal) is still alive, aging, sagging, somewhat forlorn and wondering for several years now, “will you still need me, will you still feed me like back in ’64?” Well, the answer to “Sir Paul,” is “no.” The band broke up. The catalog was sold to Michael Jackson. The U.S. government dispatched John. George distinguished himself with the Travelling Wilburys but alas, passed on. Ringo is passé, & “the cute one” suffered some really ugly losses. We DO appreciate his remarkable creativity, but, look, ”Carnival of Light” will still leave him a little light in the pocket, post-alimony. And that’s what this is about. It’s marketing. Not music.

Will Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:14 PM EST

Kelli: Up you meds, girl. Collectively, the Beatles couldn't hold a single note of a Tom Jones vocal, let alone a Presley performance. The Beatles began as dippy-looking mop-haired teeny-bopper pop idols, regrettable and forgettable. Later, dropping acid, smoking dope, and envisioning themselves as more popular than Christ, they began to fantasize themselves as Creators, experimenting musically to produce a large amount of crap and a few really good songs – which is what anyone might well expect from musicians who after all, collaborated daily for almost a decade. But again, folks – HIGHLY OVERRATED.

Dave Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:11 PM EST

Doesn't anyone get it? I love Paul's music. It really amazes me how many catchy pop and rock tunes come out of one person's mind. Sure, there are a few duds among it all, but who hasn't had those? Anyway, besides being a gifted musician, Paul is also a shrewd businessman. Announce the Beatles breakup just before you release your first solo album? Announce the possible release of an experimental Beatles recording a week before you release an experimental album under the no-longer-anonymous pseudonym The Fireman? Paul knows what he's doing. He's trying to get some crossover publicity to push his new album.

BEATLES RULE Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:56 PM EST

I think this will be great. I'm very excited about it as most people are. It doesnt matter how many years ago it was, their music is the best ever.

agee Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:44 PM EST

Well, don't you know that it's the fool
Who plays it cool
By making his world
A little bit
Colder

Maybe we got some cool people in these here comments.

Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:35 PM EST

couchgrouch all the other artists you mentioned did their fair share of pop songs and long-winded overblown stuff too. "Horse Latitudes" anyone?

The Reverend Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:28 PM EST

This will not be a memorable pop tune, which was a Beatles specialty. The pity is that what we really need in terms of historical documentation of (arguably) the most influential group of musicians in the 20th century remains unavailable. I refer, of course, to a DVD (or Blu-Ray) release of the film "Let It Be" which should include additional footage not included in the theatrical release. Why release this bizarre and likely unmemorable dithering when a true cultural document remains buried? It doesn't make sense. I will listen to John and Paul chanting city names if I must, but I'd rather watch a document of the creative process--fights and all--at work. Amen.

Tyler89 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:20 PM EST

Some of you people need to go and read a book or listen to what the Beatles were doing compared to what the Stones were doing. "Helter Skelter" is one of the most influential hard rock songs. The Stones never rocked that hard.

Roger McGuinn on the Beatles

"I thought it was natural to put the Beatles' beat and the energy of the Beatles into folk music. And in fact, I heard folk chord changes in the Beatles' music when I listened to their early stuff like 'She Loves You' and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand.' I could hear the passing chords that we always use in folk music: the G-Em-Am-B kind of stuff. So I really think the Beatles invented folk-rock."

Tyler89 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:16 PM EST

John and the Beatles were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. Everybody else thought they were for the teeny boppers, that they were gonna pass right away. But it was obvious to me that they had staying power: I knew they were pointing in the direction where music had to go."

(Bob Dylan)

rob Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:09 PM EST

Will is awesome!

Porter Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:04 PM EST

Elvis is dead, long live the Beatles.

Beatles suck Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:01 PM EST

I totally agree with Will on all his comments!!!!

Kelli Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:54 PM EST

Tom Jones. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Will, quit listening to music as a critic and start hearing it as a creature with a soul and an imagination.

TheProfessor69 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:50 PM EST

Will, Will ... how long did it take you to look up all those words on your Mirriam-Webster site...you have so smoothly proved that you are indeed nothing but a "cyber bully" and again I say, crawl back into your hole.

Robert Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:50 PM EST

Thumbs up to Tyler

couchgrouch Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:48 PM EST

no band today will touch songs like Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Hey Jude and In My Life or revolutionary recordings like Strawberry Fields Forever. that said, Carnival of Light will just be pretentious crap like Revolution #9. The Stones, The Who, Dylan and others like The Doors and Zep are more relevant today because they played rock n roll(not sappy pop) and their subject matter was way more ballsy. no one wants to sound like Lawrence Welk(When I'm 64) or bubblegum(most pre-66 songs). further, most bands record material they can play live. The Beatles were a weak live band and so retreated to the studio. sure A Day In the Life is a great production but sung with just guitar/vocal it'd be lousy. it needs what George Martin and Geoff Emerick did for it. today's audience wants to rock, they don't wanna hear mush like Good Day Sunshine and Maxwell's Silver Hammer. that's why Sympathy For the Devil and Won't Get Fooled Again have more relevance today.

Robert Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:48 PM EST

Come on Will, you have to be kidding. I agree, I want to hold your hand is what it is... not great... so were lots of Elvis songs. From Rubber Soul on... that's the Beatles

Tyler89 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:47 PM EST

Will are you musical novice. No one sings like Elvis anymore. Everyone wants to write songs like the Beatles.

Day in the Life", "I am the Walrus", "Within You, Without You",
"Strawberry Fields"... not really blues tunes, are they (Doh?). They
were able to draw from diverse sources, like Indian classical music
(Within You uses a raga-like form that contains both major and minor
thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and
dorian modalities). Lennon used forms similar to Tibetan chants.
McCartney and Lennon were both versed in the same types of cadential
cycles that had evolved from Dixieland and Tin Pan Alley, the pop
music of the previous era (and also a primary underpinning for jazz).
And they invented many new forms in between.

IOW, while most other bands of that era were still working within
simple I-IV-vi-V frameworks, the Beatles had assimilated musical
forms, languages and rhythms from around the world. They built their
ow

Robert Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:44 PM EST

Thx Professor. This is where I leave. Paul died in 1965 and Elvis, I'm sure is still alive. It's simple to me. The Beatles influenced the world more than any other musicians. In second position, the blues musicians of the 30's and 40's. And third.... the inventors of the tam-tam's in early Africa.
Enjoy the new release by The Beatles.

Will Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:39 PM EST

To: Professor of the Polymorphous Perverse – if you can come up for air long enough to return oxygen to your addled brain you might realize that the contributions of the 4 Scouse louses, beginning with “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” and moving on through the dreary 3-chord treacle of 1963-64-65 is pretty dreadful. I don’t discount their later contributions, but my point is simply that they are overrated. And if emulation confers greatness, if mimicry infers mastery by the original, then hands down, Elvis Presley must be regarded as the greatest musical genius of the 20th century. McCartney and Lennon wrote a number of good songs, but much like a playwright who sees his words on paper come to life through the artistry of a great actor, Presley’s interpretive genius surpassed the author’s original contribution. But an ethnic snob like you doubtless regards anyone with a Southern accent as a hayseed. Think? If you ever had an original thought it no doubt died of loneliness long ago.

Tyler89 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:37 PM EST

Will have you heard "Tomorrow Never Knows" a very early Art-Rock Song. It makes use of pre-recorded samples as a musical backdrop with a upfront bass 'n'drum sound. You hear that in much of Modern Music. A major influence on various genres in Modern Music. You know the Beatles were a big influence on Progressive Rock.

Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:36 PM EST

Paul or Faul which Paul made the recording? As far as I know Paul died in 1966.

liz Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:34 PM EST

Right on, Professor....

Liz Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:32 PM EST

Will.....everyone is entitled to an opinion...but we all have one mind, and I ask:..have you lost yours? What happened???? Perhaps you were born in the late 80"s...??????

TheProfessor69 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:29 PM EST

Will is what is called a "cyber bully" ...he gets his kicks by talking s*it and trying to make people mad, when he actually is pounding his p*d while we get angry. Crawl back into your hole .

Liz Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:26 PM EST

It is just do simple..no other band in the world did and continues to caprivate as these guys did....the magic will be dispersed into the universe for another 4o years to come.I am only too glad to have been lucky enough to experience the true genius of these 4 men...together and solo. I cannot wait to hear the song....it'll be an honor .

Robert Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:24 PM EST

right on, Taylor.
I really don't get you Will.
Are you just pulling people's legs or do you really believe what you are saying.

brett Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:22 PM EST

Will: Tom Jones?! I'm amazed he's not beneath your obviously refined and superior cultural sensibility. You just shot a hole into your credibility with that comment.

Robert Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:20 PM EST

Oh yeah.. great writing by Elvis... duh.King of rock... yes, great entertainer, yes. Musician, not. Lyrisist, not.

Will Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:20 PM EST

To Swank:
Better Kant than cant; better a Merlot than mere low taste (as in the moniker “swank,” i.e., “extremely pretentious,”)

Tyler89 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:17 PM EST

Without the Beatles, Rock Music in 1965 would have been produced by Phil Spector and would be singing follow-ups to My Boyfriend's Back. Think about that. Without the Beatles British Rock there would have been no Kinks, The Rolling Stones instead you would have had Cliff Richard and Elvis wannabees.

Plus Elvis never wrote his songs He has no influence in modern music and never made an album as good as Revolver

TheProfessor69 Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:14 PM EST

Will, any of you who do not like the Beatles...read a book and see and imagine what it would be like if they never came along. You stupid A**hats, hayseeds, unreal...the lack of knowledge of certain generations. Please ...really read and just think for a second, if you can.