Repeats The Beatles

[yeahwho]

Chuck Klosterman Repeats The Beatles (http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles,32560/).

What a great read about the Fab Fours recent re-release re-mastered and re-appearance for a whole new generation. I thoroughly enjoyed every word. This guy is funny and dead on. Best rock journalism/review I think I've read in the past decade.

Like most people, I was initially confused by EMI’s decision to release remastered versions of all 13 albums by the Liverpool pop group Beatles, a 1960s band so obscure that their music is not even available on iTunes. The entire proposition seems like a boondoggle. I mean, who is interested in old music? And who would want to listen to anything so inconveniently delivered on massive four-inch metal discs with sharp, dangerous edges? The answer: no one.

[RobMoney$]

They should have released "Collectors Editions" of each album, wrapped in a shiny new box, perhaps with a lenticular cover.
I hear kids are paying up to $100 a pop for decades old albums being marketed like this.

I know, CRAZY, right?

[rirv]

It mostly seems like a slightly superior incarnation of The Rolling Stones’ Their Satanic Majesties Request, a record that (ironically) came out seven months after this one. Pop archivists might be intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalogue—it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones?
^

[RobMoney$]

and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970.


Yeah. That one line stuck with me after reading it.
Please tell me that was also meant to be as facetious as the rest of the piece.

[Kid Presentable]

Being a noob and buying this boxset is the equivalent of buying encyclopedias for my children. Good times. (y)

[yeahwho]

Yeah. That one line stuck with me after reading it.
Please tell me that was also meant to be as facetious as the rest of the piece.

It was funny. I wouldn't try and dissect this other than a very complimentary and funny read. The guy is actually funny, he has a sense of humor and it flowed fantastically.

right after the disturbing quip: and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970.

the very next sentence states; But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones?

Get It? Funny. The guy is a funny guy who pokes fun at Beatles.