While My Guitar Gently Beeps 140
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."
The Killer App (Score:2)
This could be the app that makes casual- and party-gamers splurge on a console for themselves. I suspect the console chosen would be whatever they played the game on at a friend's house.
Great summary! (Score:2)
This summary almost tempts me to buying this game, as well as whatever console I'd need to play it on. I'm not a fan of consoles or gaming gadgets usually, but a psychedelic Beatles trip is something I'd sign on for.
Re: (Score:2)
Paranoid about control (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Paranoid about control (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
can't tolerate the thought of anyone getting ambitious and wanting to actually do something lucrative with it, like recombine elements of the Beatles' work into something new!
Fixed that for you. I see nothing wrong with wanting to protect their asset. If someone else wants to be creative, fine...let them go ahead and write some amazing music that transcends generations and then release it all for free, that's their choice. Just don't project their particular views onto others.
Re:Paranoid about control (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Return copyright to 20 or 40 years, and I believe people would be a lot more respectful of it.
That's extremely naive of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why again did we have copyright in the first place?
Duh. So that when those mechanisms fail, they can sue you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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....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.
What's ironic? Your point seems to be that before the existence of copyrights, artists would sometimes protect their work with literal brute force. You then go on to imply that modern artists are somehow acting unreasonably by utilizing the copyright method for protecting their work (as if this is worse or equivalent to the body guards). Furthermore, you imply that people are having to endure "hardships" and are being asked to "jump through hoops" to access the art produced, which seems just ridiculous
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's unfair to imply that any artist should be forced to allow his work to be used by anyone at any time in whatever way they deem necessary including ways that profit the person(s) doing the re-interpreting/re-imagining of the art.
If the music should be in the public domain, as the early works of the Beatles should be by now, then it's totally fair that the artist should be "forced" to "allow" his work to be used in any way imaginable.
If the artist wanted to control his work forever, he should have kept it in a little trunk in his attic.
Re: (Score:2)
If the music should be in the public domain, as the early works of the Beatles should be by now,
OK, so why should they be in the public domain by now? Doesn't the law state otherwise? And even if the works were in the public domain, how does that get you access to the master tapes?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what did the law state when the early works of Beatles were created?
The (theoretical) idea of a long copyright period is to encourage creativity. But what's the point of extending the copyright of that which has already been created? Extending periods retroactively will only stifle creativity, since creative reuse is hindered - while what has already been created is already there. From that point of view, both Disney movies and early Beatles songs should be in the public domain by now.
Re: (Score:2)
The (theoretical) idea of a long copyright period is to encourage creativity. But what's the point of extending the copyright of that which has already been created? Extending periods retroactively will only stifle creativity, since creative reuse is hindered
Wouldn't stifling reuse actually stimulate creativity? After all, it means people have to actually come up with new ideas, rather than simply recycling the old.
From that point of view, both Disney movies and early Beatles songs should be in the public domain by now.
Right. So this is just your opinion, with nothing based on the actual laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't stifling reuse actually stimulate creativity? After all, it means people have to actually come up with new ideas, rather than simply recycling the old.
You haven't by any chance created any art yourself, have you? And if you have, was it really ex nihilio - or were you by any chance inspired by anyone else? It is with art as it is with science, you build upon that which has come before you. Sometimes you are inspired, and borrow (such as both Beatles and Disney did a lot of), and sometimes you react. But indifference is never the source of great art.
From that point of view, both Disney movies and early Beatles songs should be in the public domain by now.
Right. So this is just your opinion, with nothing based on the actual laws.
You know that I'm not the person you originally responded to, right?
Anyway, SydShamino used the word 'should
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for arguing my position so eloquently
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't by any chance created any art yourself, have you? And if you have, was it really ex nihilio - or were you by any chance inspired by anyone else?
I certainly have. And yes, I take inspiration from other sources. But that's very different from outright reusing something. By the way, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I was just playing devil's advocate, because this "copyright stifles creativity" canard is repeated ad nauseam around here, without any thought going into it. I'd like to see any evidence that this is true. We live in an age of prevalent copyright, yet creativity is everywhere. From what I've observed, the most creative work tends to come
Re: (Score:2)
especially when the reasons you claim for making the changes contain logical fallacies.
Hang on a minute. I never argued for the extension of copyright. And where did I make a logical fallacy? Me pointing out what the current situation is, is not the same as me arguing for the current situation.
This was the general 'you' of people arguing for extension of copyright, and not the personal you to whom I respond. I apologize for the lack of clarity.
Still, the general argument made for copyright extension is that it encourages creativity. While making it retroactive only encourages people to live on old accomplishments, instead of making new creations. Indeed, the current copyright terms are so generous that prolonging them even longer will under no circumstances benefit the creator. Thus, any argument
Re: (Score:2)
Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is not under copyright, so you could use it for a favicon or stick it on a t-shirt if you wanted. I wouldn't recommend trying to trademark it, as it's a little too well-known to make your brand distinctive, but if you decide to attempt it no one will bring a copyright infringement suit to stop you.
"Catcher in the Rye" was published in 1951, so it's very much still under copyright protection.
The argument isn't that it's different for music; the argument is that extensions to the copyrig
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Copyright is intended to encourage creative works. I'm sure that if the Beatles knew that someone was just going to remix their music 40 years later, they never would have bothered to record it. And who would have bought it when they could just wait 40 years for some DJ to remix it?
Re:Paranoid about control (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
"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."
Guess what? It's not up to you, Individual Artist, and never was, and never will be. Whether you are "cool" or "not cool" with it is entirely beside the point. Good artists borrow; great artists steal. It's cliched because it's the absol
Re: (Score:2)
Trent Reznor wasn't cool with Johnny Cash performing Hurt. Doesn't matter now, does it?
No, it really doesn't. Not since Cash is dead. Other artists playing the song at Cash's tribute concert was taking it a little too far however. Of course, I always thought that turning a cover into a single was a pretty lame thing for any musician to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly all of the tracks on the four Rick Rubin produced albums were covers, usually of material by much younger artists - that was pretty much the point of them. I'm not sure where the idea that Reznor wasn't cool with it comes from, as far as I can tell he had some reservations at first, but changed his mind when he heard it, especially when he saw the video.
Re: (Score:2)
Shakespeare? You're holding up Shakespeare as a bastion of originality?
You do know that almost all his plays are based on works by other authors, right? His artistry was in the interpretation, not in the ideas.
Mart
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with the authorship controversy. Even a cursory look at the history behind his works shows that Shakespeare's plots and characters come wholesale out of the popular literature of the time.
If you are an ignoramus, why would you be so proud as to show it in public?
Mart
Re: (Score:2)
This is just the example that pops to mind because I saw a production of it over the weekend. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Comedy_of_Errors#Sources [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself.
You have no inherent right to it once it's out in the open. You have no right to forbid people to sing your song (very badly and out of tune and very loud) in their car or in the shower. You have no right to forbid other musicians to play your songs in their garage.
If someone else thinks your music is good enough to be re-interpreted, you should be *proud*. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Also, it will serve t
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself.
Should we apply that same logic to everyone? How about scientists? Philosophers? Spiritual Leaders? Teachers? Writers?...get it yet? Choosing to share an idea/composition/story with others is not the same thing as allowing others to claim it as their own and use it for their own intents.
You have no right to forbid people to sing your song (very badly and out of tune and very loud) in their car or in the shower. You have no right to forbid other musicians to play your songs in their garage. If someone else thinks your music is good enough to be re-interpreted, you should be *proud*. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Also, it will serve to *increase* the popularity of the original material.
That's not what I'm suggesting in this particular case. Someone playing a cover version of a tune or singing a song along at a party (or something like that) is one thing. It's quite another thing to take actual copies of something and pass them off as one's own in an attempt to profit off of someone else's work. To use the (admittedly crude) example I used in a comment above, apply this same principle to whatever it is that you do for a living. Imagine several other people in your office decide they're going to report some hours on their timecard that you worked....and then they get paid for them as well, even though they weren't there the same hours you were. You probably wouldn't be a fan of that, I'd imagine. So why should it be that in the case of someone writing music (or for that matter creating any art) that it be measured any differently? Can I just change a few of the names in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and then sell the book as my own? No? Why not? Because it's plagiarism, plain and simple, and I'm saying that I think this type of situation isn't any different than feeling entitled to any other art form.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's quite another thing to take actual copies of something and pass them off as one's own
I don't know where you read into my sentences that I ever suggested that should be possible. It's downright ridiculous.
The original author should always be compensated. And of course if the derivative work is making money, the original author should be compensated, but not excessively.
A famous (and ridiculous) example of copyright gone wrong: The Verve's song: "Bitter Sweet Symphony" [wikipedia.org]. It's a twisted world where a
Re: (Score:2)
> The original author should always be compensated.
Sorry, I didn't use the preview button. That should read 'credited', not 'compensated'.
Compensation is not in all cases required (especially if e.g. the remix doesn't make any sizable profit or is given away for free).
Re: (Score:2)
>> If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself.
> Should we apply that same logic to everyone? How about scientists?
Scientist know the value of the work of others especially well. Just look at the number of citations in every research paper. Few are trying to pass off the research of others as their own (if you do, you'll ruin your reputation pretty quickly). And everyone on them knows: "If I've seen farther then others, it was because I was standing on the
Re: (Score:2)
Legally speaking, there is a huge difference between covering someone else's song and using the actual audio of their performance. An artist cannot prevent their own song from being covered, hence this [umontreal.ca].
The issue isn't singing someone else's song, as that has a long, long tradition and is not prevented legally. The question is whether you should be able to take the Beatles master tapes, muck around with them, and release the result without either their permission or paying them.
Re: (Score:2)
But creatively extending someone else's work is art.
Sure, but you aren't automatically entitled to multi-track master recordings in an uncompressed format. Why shouldn't the owners restrict access to the master recordings if they see fit? Should a photographer give you the original RAW files of your wedding photos, when you only paid for an album of prints?
Re: (Score:2)
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 :-)
Well, not directly from the disc.
I just used an audio-in recorder directly from the TV. I've been using Rock Band to figure out some guitar solos. It has a practice mode where you can slow a song enough to figure it out note for note. It's a pretty awesome tool for a guitar player, but I imagine drums are even easier with the t
Kudos on the title... (Score:3, Funny)
Beatles and their drug use (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need to see that they were permanently on drugs, you can pretty much hear it in lots of their songs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the reference in that one?
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is a bit more obvious (kaleidoscope eyes?).
Re:Beatles and their drug use (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Not a good idea to let the youth of the nations know that their heroes ate LSD like candy back in the days.
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why not?
Big news... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Well, "nine page" in a newspaper is only - no wait, that is a pretty gianormous review. Good call on that. Although the NYT is doing a good job of establishing itself as the best source of original tech news and reporting. Keep an eye out, almost every day, every day the NYT has at least one article featured on slashdot's primary page. Expect more, in depth technology reviews (for the items that warrant it, at least). Beatles on Rock Band (or whatever the othe3r one is called) is a pretty big deal, cultu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm counting online pages. Who reads the New York Times on *paper*, anyway? Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
And why is it a big deal culturally? Would it have been a big deal if they hadn't had to make a whole game just for the beatles and just been DLC?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love the way Neil Young and Bob Dylan are finally cool again; it's like the world gave them each a 20 - year sentence for 'Trans' and 'Slow Train Coming', but now we're prepared to forgive and forget on the condition they never do anything like that again.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's that the New York TImes, the old grey lady, published a *nine page* video game review.
Well, "nine page" in a newspaper is only
I'm sick of these articles needlessly spread over multiple pages to generate ad revenue. Anyone have a link to the print version?
Licensing costs (Score:2)
45 songs deemed the most fun to play, rather than the band's most iconic numbers, come with the game.
Translation: We chose the 45 songs that would cost us the least amount to license. After all, it's not like we've shied away from including difficult tracks before.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said fun != difficult? I'd say it was the other way around. Besides, if you're playing on easy/normal it's never going to get difficult no matter what song you're playing, unless you have no rhythm at all and just try to hit the notes as they pass the bottom of the screen as if you're playing some kind of space invaders game..
Obviously there is a point where making it overly difficult just gets stupid though and detracts from the fun. There's a particular pattern of finger movements in Dream Theater's C
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I found a new appreciation for songs like the Smashing Pumpkin's Cherub rock because they were included in Guitar Hero.
Re:Licensing costs (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes perfect sense to me to go by the fun factor rather than chart position or sales.
Oh, I agree. I'm simply being cynical and ascribing to cheapness what is likely better explained as prudence.
Not exactly (Score:1)
Re:Not exactly (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Fuck the Beatles (Score:1)
I want
a) Rolling Stones
b) Deep Purple (You Fool No-one, Burn,
My Woman From Tokyo)
Is it really so hard?
Yes, but you have taste, most of this lot don't. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right (Score:2)
Screw Rock Band: The Beatles (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Can't wait to hit those mad (Score:2)
drum beats....
Ringo, The luckiest man on the planet, ever.
Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Except Piper was a really weak album with cheesy production values and frankly, doesnt have the replay value of Sgt Peppers. I dont think Floyd really got their groove on until much, much later. Perhaps until they lost Barrett and released Dark Side of The Moon. YMMV.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a fan of Syd's works either but I personally like a number of earlier Floyd's songs like Careful with that axe, Eugene, Echoes (IMHO a masterpiece) or Atom Heart Mother.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think Floyd really got their groove on until much, much later. Perhaps until they lost Barrett and released Dark Side of The Moon.
There's quite a bit of time between losing Barrett and releasing Dark Side of the Moon, and they did some great stuff in that time.
Recently I discovered I completely disagree with Pink Floyd on what their best albums are. I'm a big fan of Atom Heart Mother and Ummagumma, but they consider them "stumbling around in the dark". On the other hand, I'm a bit tired of Dark Side of the Moon, whereas to them it's when everything fell into place.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, nothing beats Animals. ;)
Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring (Score:5, Informative)
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 incredibly boring (Score:2)
I'm not sure the Beatles were ever considered rebellious, (except perhaps in the American Mid-West). Certainly in the UK they were seen as the clean-cut, parent-friendly option, especially when set against the Rolling Stones. This was played up by both camps at the time, as it was seen as driving sales and popularity.
Personally I never really liked The Beatles music, although I can appreciate the influence they had on many bands who followed. I wouldn't call them 'Easy Listening', as to my mind that implies
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 Germa
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the videos of thousands of teenage girls screaming and throwing themselves at the stage? It isn't the music that's risque, it's the culture that comes with it. Regardless of what the Beatles themselves were doing, eventually you're just selling sex hysteria to the masses.
If it weren't for the chastity rings, you'd see all kinds of parents freaking out over the Jonas Brothers just because of the way their daughters behave. You could even argue (South park obviously did) that the Jonas Brothe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
KISS being banned from playing in Germany (because the SS of their name was styled like the SS in, well, SS) still makes me giggle.
But hey, such were the times. In 20 years people will go "meh" over the antics of Marilyn Manson and whatever other "shock rockers" we may have today.
Re: (Score:2)
In 20 years people will go "meh" over the antics of Marilyn Manson and whatever other "shock rockers" we may have today.
In 20 years? Nobody has ever responded to Marilyn Manson with anything but "meh." Is there anyone on the planet who Manson has actually shocked? [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Manson managed to stir up quite a bit of controversy early in his career. Admittedly, it was mainly from religious wackos, but then again, when isn't it? Nowadays he's pretty pathetic however. I don't even think he's made a tolerable album since Holy Wood, let alone a "shocking" one.
Re:I find beatles music increidbly boring (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
"...though clearly superior in talent."
hmmm.. maybe.
They where the first boy band. Meaning how they where marketed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a difference in audience, not a difference in willingness to innovate or shock. If Microsoft had a teenaged audience for its OS, they would be releasing Windows Butcher Edition in a heartbeat.
You remember what happened when Lennon said they were the "biggest thing... since Christ?" White bread America set their shit on fire.
The Beatles always had to be careful about what they could get away with, and they rarely pushed the envelope.
The Doors or the Stones they weren't.
--
Toro
Re: (Score:2)
They where the biggest, not the first. Unless you mean the first market boy band.
The were rebellious only in the safest possible way. Being barely edgy so they attracted teens, but didn't scare their parents.
Elvis, Doors, Stones, all drove parents a lot more nutty then the Beatles did.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Rhythm games have zero tactical depth, so they shouldn't really be called games.
Actually, when to use star power involves tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
None of what you say... 'tactical depth', 'real time decision making'... have anything to do with whether something is a game. Only what type of a game it is.
You c
Re: (Score:2)
"Rhythm games have zero tactical depth, so they shouldn't really be called games."
False.
"score with no thought at all."
False, again.
Maybe you should play the gane? maybe do some head to head stuff before opening your yap? If you aren't interested, fine but quite making a jackass out of your self by saying things that aren't true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By cracky, you may be on to something there. You find something "fun" or "not fun". Perhaps if game companies produced a wide range of games, so that they would have a broader base of games that people find "fun", they would sell more games overall.
Why, it will be revolutionary! Imagine, not all games would be Rock Band! You might have games based upon the American version of football, or simulations of science-fiction warfare against alien races, or dare I hope... games wherein a stocky Italian water and s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps xkcd will explain better than me: http://xkcd.com/359/ [xkcd.com]
Also, your description of how to play is somewhat inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Tons of people go to see live shows, when they like the studio versions of the songs.
Why? There's more noise, the sound is much worse, the volume is usually not enjoyable, you have to deal with other annoying people, seating is horrible, etc.... why would people go to see their favorite songs butchered in this manner? Do you get it, or is that equally obtuse to you?
If you can answer that question, you'll have your answer of why games like Rock Band are entertaining. It's an immersive way to experience yo
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing it to simon is an uninspired straw man because it intentionally ignores the music aspect which is the whole point. You could use the same logic and claim that playing music is just pushing buttons to a metronome.
Exactly. It's far more music than game that makes it enjoyable. That said, Rock Band focuses more on the music aspect while Guitar Hero is focused more on the game and competitive aspects.
Alternatively, one could claim that they didn't understand the fun in games with shooting other people. I mean, maybe if I were really drunk with some friends, but I don't think you could 'play' that. Besides, every new game is the same, just with different guns, things to shoot, and places to do it in.
I just don't ge
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. Why do people just press buttons to make a pixelated sky move around when they could fly a real plane!?
I don't get it. Why do people press buttons in a certain order to make a virtual person through a football when they could go play in the park!?
I don't get it. Why do people move a plastic wheel around to move a fake car around a track when they could take their own car to a racetrack!?
Re: (Score:2)
All while you anonymously try to push are buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
"It is like the developers don't bother making the game look good because people are interested in the songs only."
It's a different kind of immersion. Instead of getting you immersed in the world the developer is creating, the developer is aiding you in immersing yourself in the performance you are creating. Too many visuals would distract from that. All the player needs is that Klax-looking interface to let you know what to press and when and a guitar controller. They bring the rest of the environment
Re: (Score:2)
Their number one priority is minimizing control latency and jitter. Where music is concerned, even a 15ms discrepency is noticable by the human mind. Since it's all about the gameplay (if not, they'd just make animated music videos), sometimes the graphics will need to be scaled back so that gameplay doesn't suffer at the expense of (unnecessary) bump-mapping and HDR.
That said, while the new games tend to suffer from the same common shading issues that are common on their host consoles, I think it's quit