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."

Comments

Paranoid about control

[andi75]

From the article:

> Apple's preoccupation with security meant that the high-quality audio "stems" he created never left Abbey Road.
> If the separated parts leaked out, every amateur D.J. would start lacing mixes with unauthorized Beatles samples.
> Instead, Martin created low-fidelity copies imprinted with static for the Harmonix team to take back to the States -- in their carry-on luggage.

And why would that be such a terribly bad thing? It's exactly this kind of gone-out-of-control control-thinking that makes me respect the idea of copyright less and less. 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.

On a unrelated note: Has someone already managed to rip the individual tracks off the Guitar Hero / Rock Band games? I assume they're not just simply there as .wav files on the CD :-)

Re:Paranoid about control

[daid303]

For the Guitar Hero and Rock Band songs, look on the FretsOnFire user forums. Or on your favorite torrent site (search for FretsOnFire).

Re:Paranoid about control

[sapphire wyvern]

I find that quote particularly poignant when compared to this quote:

McCartney sees the game as âoea natural, modern extensionâ of what the Beatles did in the â(TM)60s, only now people can feel as if âoethey possess or own the song, that theyâ(TM)ve been in it.â

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.

Re:Paranoid about control

[Opportunist]

The ironic part is that this thinking is exactly what copyright was supposed to combat. Before the days of copyright, playwriters had bodyguards for the scripts they passed out to their actors because they feared if they took it home it could be copied. Opera composers went out of their way to make sure their new libretti were not heard before the big premiere (there's stories of opera singers practicing on boats on the sea so nobody could hear them).

And now we're there again. Content creators going to lenths and putting people through hardships as if copyright didn't exist. Forcing performers and audience alike to jump through hoops and swallow poor quality in an attempt to protect their precious works.

Why again did we have copyright in the first place?

Re:Paranoid about control

[Critical Facilities]

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.

Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring

[mcvos]

Compare it to the other music from the '60s. Especially their later albums pretty much wrote the book on psychedelic rock and albums as more than just a collection of loose hits, yet they somehow managed to never leave the mainstream. Very diverse music. They did a lot more than just Let It Be and Yesterday.

Beatles and their drug use

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says that: "In many respects, Martin and the Harmonix developers obsessed over creating an accurate portrayal of the Beatles. (They were never without teacups in the studio!)". So, do we get to see Lennon take LSD and trip during the recordings ? According do a interview (http://taz4158.tripod.com/johnint.html): "It went on for years, I must have had a thousand trips. Literally a thousand, or a couple of hundred? A thousand - I used to just eat it all the time." Probably not. Not a good idea to let the youth of the nations know that their heroes ate LSD like candy back in the days.

Re:Beatles and their drug use

[ragefan]

"See I think drugs have done some good things for us. If you don't think drugs have done good things for us then do me a favor. Go home tonight and take all of your records,tapes and all your CD's and burn them. Because, you know all those musicians who made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal fucking high on drugs, man."

- Bill Hicks

Big news...

[goodmanj]

The most newsworthy part of this article from a Slashdot perspective isn't that Rock Band Beatles is coming out. We already knew that.

It's that the New York TImes, the old grey lady, published a *nine page* video game review.

Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring

[Opportunist]

Because they were the first.

Yes, today that's easy listening. At least some of their songs, if not most, are mainstream vanilla pop. But that was new back then. They created a style that wasn't heard before, that was new and rebellious, their music, their style, their everything. You have to understand that in those days, even this rather tame beat was rebellious and quite suitable to drive your parents nuts. More than Marilyn Manson could today.

Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring

[dunkelfalke]

It's not, really. Sgt. Pepper was recorded about the same time as the first Pink Floyd album - the Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Both were THE psychedelic rock albums at that time.

Re:Not exactly

[quantumplacet]

Ummm, I hate the Beatles and even i know you're completely wrong. While My Guitar Gently Weeps was on the White Album, which I'm fairly certain was a Beatles album not a George Harrison album. He did write it, and Clapton did play lead guitar on the studio version, but it was still a Beatles song.

Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring

[dontPanik]

Yes, today that's easy listening. At least some of their songs, if not most, are mainstream vanilla pop. But that was new back then. They created a style that wasn't heard before, that was new and rebellious, their music, their style, their everything. You have to understand that in those days, even this rather tame beat was rebellious and quite suitable to drive your parents nuts. More than Marilyn Manson could today.

This reminds me of how I was talking with a friend about Black Sabbath. My dad came in the room and said, "Man, Black Sabbath, back in my day those guys were OUT THERE. My teachers said their music would rot your brain". And it made me laugh because I could totally see their music being totally strange back when they first started, but now their music is the norm because everyone is influenced by them.

Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring

[Torodung]

Yeah, um... have you seen the cover of "Meet the Beatles?" They were whitebread brits with novel mop-top haircuts, comparable to the Jonas Brothers in marketing and social impact, though clearly superior in talent.

Christ. The Doctor had the same haircut! They were utterly mainstream.

They didn't get rebellious until they were assured of their wealth in perpetuity, round Rubber Soul. Then they rapidly train wrecked after a few albums because they couldn't get along.

And none of it is worthy of much lasting artistic impact. It ain't Mozart. They were ever following, rarely leading. Like Microsoft, they scooped up whatever was being innovated and killed with their marketing muscle.

They were most certainly not ever "the first," any more than Microsoft was "the first" to bring the GUI, the web browser, or SQL.

--
Toro

Re:Licensing costs

[Bakkster]

Harmonix has never shied away from picking the deeper cuts from a discography, rather than just the most popular hits. That said, this game is still chock full of #1 singles, as well as the b-sides. So, what about those songs do you think makes them more expensive to license?

Makes perfect sense to me to go by the fun factor rather than chart position or sales. "Love Me Do" was their first #1 hit in the US, but the melody is all harmonica. Similarly with "Elanor Rigby" and violin. Put the most fun songs on the disk, then release most of the rest of the discography as DLC to allow everyone to pick and choose their favorite of the others.