Slashdot Mirror
While My Guitar Gently Beeps
theodp writes "As the world prepares to meet the Beatles all over again on 9-9-9, the NY Times Magazine takes a look at the making of The Beatles: Rock Band, and asks a Fab Four tribute band to take the game for a test drive. (Not surprisingly, they fare well.) 'As huge as Guitar Hero and Rock Band have been over the past few years,' says Harmonix Music Systems co-founder Alex Rigopulos, 'I still think we're on the shy side of the chasm because the Beatles have a reach and power that transcends any other band.' The Beatles: Rock Band follows the group's career from Liverpool to the concert on the roof of Apple Corps in London in 1969 (trailer). The first half of the game recreates famous live performances; the second half weaves psychedelic dreamscapes around animations of the Beatles recording in Studio Two. 45 songs deemed the most fun to play, rather than the band's most iconic numbers, come with the game."
I find that quote particularly poignant when compared to this quote:
So, people can feel as if they possess or own the song - but Apple Corp, the owners of the Beatles' music (including McCarney), can't tolerate the thought of anyone getting ambitious and wanting to actually do something creative with it, like recombine elements of the Beatles' work into something new! This is a thin and watery form of ownership indeed.
I believe that trying to 'make a quick buck' from the work of others is unethical. But creatively extending someone else's work is art.
As a composer/songwriter myself, I must ask: How do you intend to differentiate between these 2? Who should be the judge of that?
You have a right to your opinion, but I disagree with you and with others who seem to be vehemently opposed to the idea of there being any regulation of copyright. I'll never understand why it's perceived that wanting to protect something I've created from being used either in a way that I don't agree with, or in a way that someone else gets to benefit from is so wrong. Why on earth should I have to be cool with the idea of someone re-packaging or re-interpreting something I've done artistically? If I choose to allow that to happen, that's one thing. But, to assume that I should be forced to do so is a little one sided, in my opinion.
Oh you bet it was a rebellion (at least in the part that I grew up in). Judging from what I got to hear from my parents, it was a revolution in music. And culture.
Everything had to be "British". My dad used to have a scarf he was really proud of because it was "original English". You have to see, the people that grew up with the Beatles were born around the end of WW2, to parents who, at least in central Europe, were born into a culture that had a heavy nationalist and dictatorial background. Not only Germany had its Nazis, you know, similar fascist regimes were common from Italy to Hungaria to Austria and even Switzerland was leaning towards the political right during those times. Now the kids listen to this music coming from abroad, either from a former (middle Europe) or a current (eastern Europe) enemy, a music that sounds strange, that makes people gyrate and wiggle worse than those sounds that were already "banned" during their youth because it drives the young people nuts. Not to mention those long hairs!
Not to mention that the very idea of some young guys from Britain creating a band and having huge success gave birth to a lot more bands all over Europe. My dad was in a band (and, bluntly, if you knew him today... I mean, if you look up 'square' in a dictionary you find him there as the role model), and a lot of young people picked up guitars, drums and other instruments just because of the Beatles and because some of their songs are easy to play (and some ain't... especially some of their later songs are completely insane to play) and yet they were a big success. That wasn't possible with the sounds of the 40s and 50s where you needed a big orchestra or great players and singers if you wanted success, it was four people and some fairly affordable instruments, as well as (let's be honest here) not too stellar voices. It's one of those "anyone could do" things.
That's the revolution of the Beatles. Not so much that they wrote some, admittedly, fairly easy and easy to listen songs. That they inspired people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I like how people enjoy bashing Activision for "selling out" and doing band-specific games, but the truth is, Harmonix's designers sold their -souls- just for a contract.
Fact: The Beatles: Rock Band DLC will not be playable on any other Rock Band titles, and normal Rock Band songs will not be playable on Rock Band: The Beatles because of technical reasons associated with the "dream sequences" and three-part harmonies. Bull - both issues are minor, trivial things that would take a good programmer a day or two to work around. The real reason is that Harmonix sold out to Apple Corps, who would never have signed on were it possible for The Beatles to sing non-TB songs, or for non-TB bands (in Rock Band or Rock Band 2) to sing TB songs.
Fact: The Beatles: Rock Band will no longer have a usable whammy bar. Certainly, the user will still be able to pump up Star Power or whatever it's called in RB using the whammy bar, but it won't affect the audio at all. Why would they change a simple gameplay mechanic like that? More soul-selling. Apple Corps would have freaked if people were able to change the way The Beatles' songs sound.
Fact: The Beatles: Rock Band will no longer have a "drum fill" mechanic as we know it; instead, the user will have to hit all the notes in a pre-tracked drum line in order to activate Overdrive. So, it differs from normal gameplay... how, exactly? Again, more soul-selling, for the same reason: If users were able to trigger arbitrary drum samples, Apple Corps would have flipped out.
So, who's more evil? The company that signs on bands for profit, or the one that's so desperate to sign a band on for profit that they'll sell their own design principles to get it?
Sources for the above three fundamental changes to the Rock Band series are at the Wikipedia page for The Beatles: Rock Band.