logo Sign In

Star Wars, The Beatles, and the desecration of our cultural heritage

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link

Hello everyone,

I'm so glad that this site exists, and that there are others who feel the way I do about the O-OT and film preservation. I've been lurking and making a few replys here the past few months, but this is my first real post of substance.
It may seem rather off topic, and I apologize for the length, but I actually think it's a subject very relevant to Star Wars and our cause. It concerns the recorded output of the Beatles, and how their recordings have been treated in the digital age...

Whether or not you care for their music, The Beatles are undeniably one of the most influential and creative bands ever. They changed the course of popular music in much the same way that George Lucas and the OT had a profound influence on cinema. What non-fans or casual listeners don't often realize, is that the Beatles were particulary innovative and forward thinking in the use of studio technology. They were the first band to sit behind the mixing console, and after a few years of recording they gained complete creative control over the engineering of their albums, and proceeded to break practically every rule.
Just as the experience of the OT is about much more than just the story and dialouge, the music of the Beatles is about much more than the songwriting and lyrics. Instrumentation, recording techniques, effects processing, editing, and especially mixing were all creative elements to which the band paid close attention during most of their recording career, and which factor in significantly to the artistry and emotional effect of thier music.

So where am I going with all this? Well, I'm drawing a parallel between the original master tapes of the Beatles and the original theatrical cuts of the OT. They are absolutely equivalent. Sure, the O-OT has multiple "authentic" versions (70mm, 35mm, pre-ANH, etc), but likewise the Beatles made at least two different "official" mixes (mono and stereo) of each of their songs. Each set of works also exists in a tangible analog form which has probably already been backed up digitally, but which remains largely inaccesible. And both have been seriousley f**ked with in recent years.

The saga of the Beatles catalogue in recent years is remarkably similar to the special edition/2004 dvd fiasco....

--the respective hardcore fans and amateur historians know that the OT theatrical cuts/Beatles original mixes are the truest and best representation of the artists original vision, and have great cultural/historical significance.

--these original versions are available to most people in vastly inferior formats. OT fans can find VHS copies fairly easily, and Beatles fans can hear a good deal (but hardly all) of the original mixes on CDs that haven't been upgraded since 1987(seriousley, the last time they properly remastered the albums for CD was 1987!) More dedicated fans own higher quality, but less practical media: laserdiscs of the OT, and mint condition Beatles vinyl.

--the O-OT and the Beatles original albums are being replaced with revisionist products in the name of "upgrading", and most buyers haven't a clue. We all know about the 1997 SEs and the abhorrent 2004 DVDs. WEll, as far as Beatles releases, the initial CD issues in the 80s left many things to be desired, although they at least released the original stereo mixes of about half the catalogue.
But the last 5 years have been gloomy for purists: a completely remixed Yellow Submarine soundtrack (sounds punchy and "new", but takes creative liberties), The Beatles "1" collection (excessive use of noise reduction and sloppy remixing to the point of incoherency at times), Let It Be Naked (more stifling use of noise reduction, use of different takes and new edits being passed off as "the beatles original vision"), and new 5.1 surround mixes for the Anthology DVDs (interesting, but it's kind of like adapting ANH to a circle-vision theatre). Meanwhile, the original mixes, and for that matter the original catalogue, that is the 13 albums recorded by the Beatles, have recieved no attention. EMI, the record label that owns the Beatles recordings, has a horrible track record which would indicate that any future remastering of the original mixes will be botched.

and...

--George Lucas has gone nuts and has lost his creative edge. He's surrounded by yes-men. Two of the Beatles are dead, their original producer has lost most of his hearing, and Paul and Ringo are in no condition to make artistic decisions about music they helped to record 30-40 years ago. The Beatles recordings are largely in the hands of young EMI staff now. Enter the fans...

This is where it gets interesting and even more relevant to originaltrilogy.com. I frequent a site called bootlegzone.com. Although members there discuss unreleased and rare recordings, a large part of the forum is dedicated to the aquisition and preservation of the original Beatles mixes. There are several "bootlegers" who have obtained mint condition, high-grade vinyl copies of the entire catalogue, and then made meticulous transfers to the digital medium using high-end equipment. For the cost of postage and blank CDs you can easlily obtain these transfers. The sound quality blows away anything that EMI has officialy issued on CD, and more importantly the original mixes are preserved in a medium that's easy and inexpensive to copy and distribute. Sound familiar, O-OT DVD owners?


Sorry for such a long post, but I guess if you read the whole thing, you find it interesting. I'm terribly sorry to all the OT-ers who aren't Beatles fans, but I think the paralells here are revealing. I find it very interesting, and encouraging, that when the "big guys" fail to preserve or make available an important work of art, there are average Joe fans ready to step in. Technology has made this a lot easier and more effective of course. It's just sad that such important cultural milestones get treated like sh*t. Does anyone know of any other "grass roots" preservation projects like this, or important artists/works that have gotten seriousley stiffed in a similar manner?




"For Star Wars to return to its roots it must be based more on emotion than explanation."  -- J.J. Abrams

Author
Time
Post link
I think you are on to a good point that mirrors the opinions of most people on this forum.

We arent just whining about our preference. The decisions made about the version that people see, or hear in the case of your topic, for the first time are very relevant culturally and artistically.

Good thoughts, welcome to the boards, and keeping posting.

Long live the o-OT and long live the Beatles original recordings!
"You don't own space, so stop actin' like you do."
Author
Time
Post link
I know what you mean... Well, as long as there are fans, there will be unpleased fans...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Wow! To think that a post comapring the beatles to star wars would be what finally got me to sign up. First let me say that I totally disagree with you on the subject matter. As a majoy beatles fan I of course would also like to see the albums reissued with newly remastered sound, but I completely disagree with you on your comments on the later albums. I can't really speak for the remastering of the Yellow Submarine album, seeing as I don't own the reissue, only the 1987 original cd-version. (and LP of course) But when it comes to Let it be: naked, that is the way the album should have been! The noise-reduction on it is done so wonderfully, that you can now even hear the little riffs George does on One after 909. It's just truly magnificent. Personally I think it's amazing how much de-Spectorizing it would bring it to a level where you can stand to listen to it. Let it be used to be my least favourite Beatles album, just because of the way Phil Spector totally raped both the idea and sound of the album. With Let i be: naked it was suddenly my favourite album, and continues to be, pushing Abbey Road to a good second. One could of course argue that using different takes is stupid, but having heard most of the Let it be recording sessions through bootleg, I find the newly selected takes to be vastly superior to the ones Phil chose. If you want the original cut, however, it is available as a bootleg. Just look for Glys Johns second edition Get Back. But be warned, Let it be: naked is better. At least in my opinion.
Author
Time
Post link
Orusaka,
I enjoy Let It Be Naked too, to a degree, but I prefer the Get Back bootleg. I understand it's simply a matter of personal preference. Just to clarify, noise reduction, particulary NoNoise, is not needed, nor is it really intended, to make things sound clearer (as in hearing more detail in a guitar riff). It's generally used in the hopes of making things sounds cleaner, as in getting rid of tape hiss. Very similar to the use of edge enhancement on DVDs. Problem is, when you get rid of tape hiss you also lose other high frequencies that make up the ambience of the original recording. LIBN just sounds too sterile to me.
But what really bothers me is that it was marketed as the "Beatles original cut", when it's nothing of the sort.

Again along the lines of the SE and Lucas's refusal to release the OT....these new mixes and experiments would be easier to digest and would be of more interest to fans if the original mixes of the original albums were properly released first.

"For Star Wars to return to its roots it must be based more on emotion than explanation."  -- J.J. Abrams

Author
Time
Post link
I know that you use noise-reduction to remove tape noise. I was implying that a lot of George's riffs couldn't be heard properly beacuse of the tape noise. I agree that the Get Back bootleg is fantastic, but I prefer Let it be: naked simply because of the incredible superiority in sound. But you have to love Save the last dance for me on the bootleg, though.

I can to a certain degree agree with with you on the marketing of the album as the band's original cut. Of course this couldn't be so, seeing as the band never made a cut. They could of course publish Glys Johns version, but I'm really happy with naked. As long as we agree that the Phil Spector version is utter rubbish, and impossible to listen to, I'm happy.
Author
Time
Post link
Very good point! Not only are the albums in need of remastering, but there needs to be some coherence in the process too: for example, why is Rubber Soul, a fairly straight-forward/acoustic album, mixed in digital while Revolver, a more experimental one, is mixed mono? I would suggest keeping an unaltered, well-preserved original version available for researchers, historians and die-hard fans, while trying to adapt as faithfully as possible, on the other hand, the classic works to the new media and technology that keep appearing. And that goes for SW too!
Author
Time
Post link
I absolutely agree with scruffy. A sonic overhaul of the entire Beatles catalog is long overdue. But, like you, I fear it will be botched by remix engineers who want to "dazzle" and add all manner of new-fangled technical wizardry where none is needed (as Lucas has done with his CGI orgies). The original tracks (and films) speak for themselves. They could be refurbished in a way that maintains their integrity, but sadly that doesn't seem like it'll ever happen.
Greedo's Revenge:

http://home.earthlink.net/~strawberry9/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/greedo_glasses.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
I don't know how many of you have seen Empire of Dreams (Ithink it was EoD), as many of you obviously didn't buys the dvd's, but there is a segment where lucas speaks of anakin's fall and the reasoning behind it. Anakin was afraid of and refused to adapt to change which led to the darkside. I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure this is a veiled jab at you guys and all the unnecessary grief you've given him over the past few years.

As far as the Beatles comparison goes, I agree Let it Be naked is better, although it wasn't a great album to begin with, I think Lennon once refered to it as a piece of sh*t. I also remember Lennon saying shortly before his death that he'd like to re-mix or possibly re-do both "tomorrow never knows" and "strawberry fields forever," as the finished product was not what he heard in his head.

In either case, Intellectual property belongs to the owner and is not completed until the artist says its completed. period.

God, I hate it when people use ridiculous pop culture quotes as their signature and then have the audacity to cite their source- as if we don't already know
Author
Time
Post link
He wanted to re-record Strawberry Fields Forever?! Hard to imagine...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Great analogy!
I made a similar but less tangible analogy in my first post on this board imagining that Jimmy Page decides to add a hip hop drum beat to Stairway to Heaven and refuses to acknowledge the original version. Star Wars is like a song to true fans. A song we used to know by heart.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: scruffy_looking
More dedicated fans own higher quality, but less practical media: laserdiscs of the OT, and mint condition Beatles vinyl.


I am lucky to be one such fan to have several vinyl copies of Beatles albums. Dunno that they're necessarily the quality that they would want for transfer, but they work well for me and these albums (along with my original Pink Floyd "The Wall") are the primary reasons I still hold on to my turntable.

The rest of your post is very insightful, Scruff. I really enjoyed reading it and may check out that other site you mention.

Welcome aboard and hope to hear more good things from you.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: rogue_apologist
In either case, Intellectual property belongs to the owner and is not completed until the artist says its completed. period.

I hate it when people use the word intellectual property without fully understanding it. Intellectual property is a legal fiction; it is not 'property' in the same sense that a house, a book or a CD is property. It is a bundle of rights that are given to a piece of art or an invention or a process, and like any other bundle, can be split into moral rights and legal rights. Moral rights are what the artist retains (unless he signs them away, at which point they become irretrievable) and legal rights are things like licencing and sale of the artwork. I will state yet again that Lucas is lucky because he retained both sets of rights (since he owns Lucasfilm). Moral rights are not afforded the same protection in the US that they are in other jurisdictions, so it was imperative that he retain those rights if he ever wanted to manipulate or have any control over the Star Wars films. An artist may not think a film is completed, but if it has been sold to a studio, then that artist has to abide by what the studio says, since it is the legal owner of the film. For examples I point to Brazil, 54, The Magnificent Ambersons or any other film with a checkered history.

One more time, Lucas enjoys a unique position, one even more powerful than final cut.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
hmm... well, as a full time law clerk who deals with these documents every day and as a part-time law student, I feel I have a pretty strong grasp of what Intellectual property is and how it is applied. I shall only state the facts.

A) George Lucas owns the copyright to the Star Wars franchise.

B) George Lucas is the CEO of Lucasfilm Ltd. LFL owns the rights to the cuts of the films that were released between 1977-1983.

C) If, for instance, Universal or whoever owned the rights to those films, then Lucas (as copyright holder) would still be able to have his SE's because said SE's would be a new product and not the original '77-'83 cuts.

D) To Clarify, the Special Editions are recognized under US law (17 U.S.C. section 101) as a "Derivative Work," and completely separate from the '77-'83 cuts.

Since this is a SW/Beatles thread, a suitable comparison would be when Paul McCartney released "Give My Regards to Broad Street" album in 1984. The album had several re-workings of Beatles songs like 'For No One,' among others. Macca did not have to pay EMI/Capitol anything to release those songs as they were not the original recordings made by the Beatles in the 1960's. He might have had to pay Michael Jackson or whoever had the controlling share of Northern Songs Ltd. at the time, but he didn't have to pay EMI/Capitol a dime.

That being said, I would refer your forthcoming questions to Section 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976.



God, I hate it when people use ridiculous pop culture quotes as their signature and then have the audacity to cite their source- as if we don't already know
Author
Time
Post link
As a full time law clerk, you should know better than to make such a gross oversimplification of IP. As a law student in my final year, I certainly did. While it is rare that a studio would deny a director in this day and age the opportunity to revisit and revise his film (pumps up the DVD revenues), prior to the video age allow him to attempt any modification would be (at the very least) unusual. As to your point in (c), if GL had sold the films to Universal, he would have to get permission from Uni to use the substantial parts of the films that would be duplicated in his SEs, or work out a distribution deal with Uni to avoid the headache. Universal would be the owners of the copyright unless it was a distribution licence, as was the case with GL's arrangement with Fox. I refer you to s. 201 of the Act in question, which refers to transfers of copyright, as well as works made for hire, which is the usual arrangement in filmmaking.

As to s. 106, I fail to see your point. We have already established that Lucas owns all copyrights pertaining to Star Wars. What exactly are you getting at?

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Ok Gundark, lets see if we work this out.

Although our disagreement is rooted in a "what if" situation, I stand by my original position and here's why:

A) You stated that despite an artist's interpretation of "when" a product was completed, if it was sold to a studio then the artist would have to abide by it's decision. Apart from the obvious dilemma of who gets to decide when a work is "completed," my point was that even if this were the case, then GL would still retain the legal right to release the SE's with or without Universal's approval. This is my reasoning, as outlined in 17 U.S.C. 201 under the heading "Contributions to Collective Works" it states:

"Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution."......

Now, before you assault me with the rest of the statute, which states that yes, a copyright holder does have control over contributions, revisions etc. I would ask you to realize that if this case were being litigated, then attorneys for Lucas would almost certainly argue that the SE's do not represent a "revision," "contribution" or otherwise. They would argue that the SE's would represent "Completion" of said films (and this is my view as well). Given that Lucas has made many, many statements over the past 25 years with regard to the technical, financial and industrial problems that plagued the films, this leads me to believe that GL's attorneys would have a strong argument in favor of never having completed his films. This is far from a "gross oversimplification" in my view.

But again this all goes back to the question of who has the right to determine when a film is completed.

With respect to "moral rights," I don't understand why you brought this up as it is not applicable to motion pictures in the US and thus, totally irrelevant to the present debate.

On a personal note, I don't understand why so many people have a problem with this, artists should have the right to alter their work. The assertion that works of art belong to the people is too communistic for my tastes.
God, I hate it when people use ridiculous pop culture quotes as their signature and then have the audacity to cite their source- as if we don't already know
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: rogue_apologist
On a personal note, I don't understand why so many people have a problem with this, artists should have the right to alter their work. The assertion that works of art belong to the people is too communistic for my tastes.


Rogue, we've stated several times that we don't have a problem with him retooling his films. They are his to retool (I don't believe "finish" is the correct term because you do not release an "unfinished" film in theaters) and I honor that right. However, we being his fans, have the right to possess copies of what we recognize as the "finished" versions, the versions we saw in theaters in '77, '80, and '83 and kept watching over and over on TV and VHS until 1997. Play with them to your heart's content, Georgie; but just give us what we have become accustomed to as the complete versions. Whether you like it or not, these "incomplete" versions have become a big part of the public consciousness and I feel they should be available. As do many others.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
hypothetical.. What if the versions originally released were the exact same thing as the 2004 versions? Would you still have a problem with the recently released dvd's?

help me out, I'm trying to understand if it is the specific changes to the OT you don't like or if it is change in general that bothers you.

If you don't like the specific changes, thats fair enough (I personally didn't care for the audio changes on the Jaws dvd), but to not like change in general precludes the possibility that something really good may come from it.
God, I hate it when people use ridiculous pop culture quotes as their signature and then have the audacity to cite their source- as if we don't already know
Author
Time
Post link
If what you're saying is, the 2004 DVDs are the home version of what was released at the theaters than I have no problem with them. I'm not adverse to change. I like seeing deleted footage put back in movies so long as it is footage that was created during the original filming process of the movie. For example, putting the Spider Walk back in The Exorcist made that movie infinitely creepier to me and I love it. But that was a scene Friedkin originally filmed but cut it out for whatever reason. The SE of The Abyss with the added 20 minutes or the Director's Cut of Dances With Wolves with the additional 45 minutes - 1 hour of footage are far superior to the theatrical releases. But in both instances, again, they are replacing original footage to the flow of the movie. If Lucas were to release a version of Star Wars with originally cut footage reinserted (all the Biggs scenes and others), I would have no problem with it. I've seen the Biggs scenes and like them.

But also note that in all these instances, a theatrical version of the film is also available on DVD. The Abyss set has both versions, Dances With Wolves was originally available in another 3 hour DVD cut, The Version You've Never Seen of The Exorcist is the second DVD release of the film. But Star Wars is ONLY available in the Super SE version.

That and I hate the changes as I've seen them online and elsewhere. Han Shoots First DAMMIT!
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: rogue_apologist
hypothetical.. What if the versions originally released were the exact same thing as the 2004 versions? Would you still have a problem with the recently released dvd's?

help me out, I'm trying to understand if it is the specific changes to the OT you don't like or if it is change in general that bothers you.

If you don't like the specific changes, thats fair enough (I personally didn't care for the audio changes on the Jaws dvd), but to not like change in general precludes the possibility that something really good may come from it.


If the versions orignally released were exactly the same as the 2004 DVDs, the fact is, I don't know what I'd do. I don't know if SW would have had the same impact on me or on pop culture in general as it did in 77, 80 and 83. That psychological conundrum aside, as Bossk said, the number of films in which both the original version and the SE (or director's cut, or whatever you want to call it) are available on DVD far outnumbers those in which only one version is available, that being the director's cut. Given the choice, I would prefer to have both. It is not only insulting to fans of the original work, but insulting to those actors and craftspersons who made contributions to the work and rightfully won awards for the groundbreaking work that was done on the films @ the time, to only release one version and claim that , as far as you're concerned, the older versions no longer exist.

So, as a recap:
Do I think GL has the right to change his work? Yes, I do.
Does it really matter if I like it? No.
Do I stand by my original statement that the only reason GL can get away with this is because he owns all copyrights as pertaining to SW? Yes, and the evidence backs me up. Just ask David Lynch, Orson Welles (RIP), David Fincher, Ridley Scott (don't get me started on Blade Runner), or any other director who has had a film ripped away from him and manipulated without his consent.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.