9/09/09. The day the music came alive again. Well, that’s at least what Apple, EMI, Sony/ ATV, and Harmonix wanted us to believe.
The world would be getting one of the most anticipated and hyped up games of all-time, Beatles: Rock Band, exposing a new generation to arguably the greatest band of all-time. Moms and dads would pick up plastic instruments and jam to “Happiness is a Warm Gun” with their wide-eyed kids. Finally, videogames as entertainment would bring families together in the living room, crossing the generation gap.
For hardcore Beatles fans, 9/09/09 represented the availability of the holy grail of Beatles recordings, the remastered stereo and mono mixes completed at Abbey Road studios, officially approved by Paul, Ringo, and the estates of John and George.
The stereo box set, with an average price of about $200, would clearly appeal to the bulk of Beatles fans. In the stereo box set you’d effectively get the Beatles complete works. The mono box set, originally produced in a limited run for approximately $240, would appeal to the audiophiles and hardcore Beatles fans who wanted the original ten albums remastered in mono as they were originally recorded. Then there is the group of Beatles fanatics that needed both box sets.
On release day, Beatles fans were faced with two box sets each with a price tag of $200+ and Beatles: Rock Band, priced anywhere from $50 (just the game) to $250 (premium bundle). With tough decisions comes sacrifice.
The Beatles: Rock Band sold approximately 595,000 copies in September, while analysts had predicted sales of over 1M during the month. In the major music markets of North America, Japan and the UK, more than 2.25 million copies of The Beatles’ remastered albums were purchased during the first five days of release.
While music gaming sales have been down in 2009, it’s only logical to assume that the Beatles remastered albums cut into the sales of Beatles: Rock Band. How many fans had approximately $300 lying around to purchase the stereo (or mono) box and just the game (no instruments)? If you didn’t have the peripherals already, the cheapest option was around $150, just to play. Any way you look at it, the cost of being a Beatles fan was at an all-time high. Sacrifices must be made.
If the Beatles did cut into their own sales, did it still make financial sense? Possibly. One could easily argue that the added buzz (and saved marketing costs) of a synched launch helped raise the overall revenue, whether that revenue came from a videogame or just the music.
I dunno, man. The other thing to consider is the size of demographic convergence. I think the Beatles don't have the cultural relevance they used to, especially among the age group that typically buys videogames.
The farther we get from the '60s, the less interesting the Beatles become, especially now that modern rock has more or less departed from their original style, because that style has become a cliche due to its ubiquity. (If anything, the majority of indie is a Pink Floyd derivative, if you're nice about it.) If you're under 30, you kinda nod your head when people call the Beatles the best band ever – because you're supposed to – and then go listen to something recorded by someone whose experience with the Beatles is second-hand at best.
Then again, the older I get, the more I like the Stones and the less I like the Beatles.
Are you kidding? There were stores that only carried 2 or 3 MONO boxes on the 9-9-09
release date? What kind of appriaciation to the fans is that? It was only last week that I won an ebay auction to get the MONO box,It was worth it.
The stereo was a rip off. It was like they did'nt put the effort into remastering…it sounds no diffrent then the '87 release!
Its easy to come to your conclusion if you are getting away from The Beatles to the Stones. I'm not going to say its happening in great numbers, but there are enough teens today who have an unexplainable mania toward The Beatles. My daughter, 16, has classmates at her high school who are obsessed over anything Beatles. My friend's husband, in Illinois, knows several girls at the high school where he works who are diehard Beatle fans–to the point of crying over them. It is unexplainable how they can actually affect members of generations who never experienced the original live mania when The Beatles were together. That in itself is phenomenal.
Various yearly events and fests across the US, Canada, England, Australia and I'm sure Europe and South America dedicated solely to the Beatles. Every single age group attends these events–not just boomers. Every age group attends Paul McCartney's concerts–and I need not mention how fast his tickets sell out. The excitement he generates is awe-inspiring. You should have seen the streets around the Ed Sullivan theater when he appeared on David Letterman this past summer. Traffic was stopped. Believe it or not, many young guitarist whet their musical appetites fretting out Beatles tunes. Put it this way, The Beatles' 8 magic tentacles have reached 40 years into now managing to touch many more than the likes of Sinatra did the boomer generation.
I beg to disagree, but Indie is derivative of punk and folk. Pink Floyd was “progressive rock,” (which the Beatles along with The Who, Led Zepplin, Yes, Moody Blues, Jethro Tull… opened the door for on FM radio). Punk was the “new wave” in the 70's. It striped away the over production back to raw rebellion. The original “first” wave, from which punk took its blueprint–guitars, bass and drums, came from 60's British Invasion bands. This blueprint of 4 or five young men playing instruments and jumping around on stage came from The Beatles who gave it unmitigated appeal. After them, everyone wanted to be them. The Indie and Emo groups of today incorporate Punk’s anger and rawness, but they stand on the stage hoping to create what the Beatles & Dylan created. Nothing to do with Pink Floyd productions. The ghost of the Beatles stands behind every wannabe performer right now as we speak–even if they hate or don't know who the Beatles are. This is what keeps The Beatles relevant.
Personally, I think they cut into their own sales by not having enough merchandise available on the day of the release.
The PS3 guitars for Rock Band are getting harder to find, the Stero Box was pretty much sold out in the first 24 hours and I still, to this day, haven't recieved – let alone SEEN – a mono box set…
I'm sure a lot of people would probably have purchased one (or both) of the two boxed sets but will now end up going with a few stand-alone cds instead.
Personally, I think they cut into their own sales by not having enough merchandise available on the day of the release.
The PS3 guitars for Rock Band are getting harder to find, the Stero Box was pretty much sold out in the first 24 hours and I still, to this day, haven't recieved – let alone SEEN – a mono box set…
I'm sure a lot of people would probably have purchased one (or both) of the two boxed sets but will now end up going with a few stand-alone cds instead.
Maybe it's different in the US, but a common complaint among UK music critics for the last fifteen years is that current UK bands are too directly influenced by the Beatles. Check out this feature from Paul Morley:
http://www.guardian.co.uk//music/video/2009/sep…
He's an old punk from the NME of the late 1970s, and has the usual punk's love/hate relationship with the Beatles, i.e. he has decided to hate them analytically, yet honestly loves most of their songs, so in his editorial piece he can only make a half-hearted attempt to question their importance (he suggests that we should give the credit for the Beatles to our wider culture, because it needed the Beatles to appear, and hence they did – an argument that could be applied to any cultural phenomenon, equally unconvincingly).
He speaks to a long-time uber-alternative band, Cornershop, and you see him grinning diplomatically to hide his mortification when they say they love the Beatles and regard them as a huge influence. He then interviews a guy from a much younger band, who it transpires also worships the Beatles. As they used to say, “It's like punk never happened!”
Can I suggest that Paul has cloth ears if he thinks the stereo remasters sound like the 1987 cds? The new remasters are fantastic, way way better!
I personally think the Rock Band packages were overpriced, especially the instruments. Perhaps they should've released the remastered CDs first and then the game later, perhaps nearer christmas. I have the game and it's great but I think there are not enough songs on it. It's also a bit cheeky to have to pay more than a usual digital album download for additional abums. A bit of a rip-off.
The stereo was a rip off? Wow! You obviously are seriously losing your hearing!
Everytime I listen to the stereo versions something new pops up.
Everything from the kick drum to acoustic guitars, to the smallest nuance of instruments and vocals are out there in your face now.
Give your head a shake or get some hearing aids.
Think about how often re-releases or remasters sell at the clip the 9/9/09 CD's did. It's mighty incredible if you put it into perspective for a a band that's about 50 years old. So we should just marvel at it.
it's funny…We we will only be able to tell when new Yellow Submarine comes out whether they truly conquered the kids again. My kids are in elementary and theres a battle between the Beatles and the Black Eyed Peas for best band. I thinks its great. The Stones are great but their remasters were totally overshadowed I think by the Beatles. When you see Mick at the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame gig…It's interesting to see.
I agree that the Stereo remasters sound fantastic for most of the albums. If they sound like the '87 releases, I'd have to assume you're listening on a boombox.
On some of the earlier albums, the mono remasters sound significantly better. It's a shame they didn't realize earlier that they would need more than the originally planned 10k mono boxes. I found my mono box last month as a few new shipments have arrived.
Comparing the Stones and Beatles will always be an ongoing battle, but how many sub-par albums did the Stones release over their career? 8? 9? Maybe more?
I agree that the Stereo remasters sound fantastic for most of the albums. If they sound like the '87 releases, I'd have to assume you're listening on a boombox.
On some of the earlier albums, the mono remasters sound significantly better. It's a shame they didn't realize earlier that they would need more than the originally planned 10k mono boxes. I found my mono box last month as a few new shipments have arrived.
Comparing the Stones and Beatles will always be an ongoing battle, but how many sub-par albums did the Stones release over their career? 8? 9? Maybe more?