|
Post by vectisfabber on May 31, 2011 9:07:04 GMT -5
The list for Round 2 is shown below. We have lost the following 7 entries, with 1 vote each:
Reel Music (I discounted JSD and coachbk for not giving a reason - "Pretty cheesy" is a bit too vague, coach!) The Beatles Second album The Beatles Story (I discounted my own vote - executive decision otherwise it would look as if I was favouring my own choices) A Collection Of Beatles Oldies Rock 'n' Roll Music Rock 'n' Roll music - budget edition Past Masters
I discounted Sousette's vote for Love Songs and Joey's vote for Ballads due to inadequate reasons. Honestly! How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Please make your selections from below, WITH REASONS! If it is the same reason as before, please cut and paste (or, better still, rewrite) so that I don't have to dive back into past threads.
Please Please Me With The Beatles (and Meet The Beatles US) A Hard Day’s Night (UK) A Hard Day’s Night (US) Beatles For Sale Something New Beatles 65 Help! The Early Beatles Beatles VI Rubber Soul Yesterday... And Today Revolver Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Magical Mystery Tour The Beatles Yellow Submarine Abbey Road Hey Jude (The Beatles Again) Let It Be From Then To You (UK) From Then To You (US) 1962-66 1967-70 Live At The Hollywood Bowl Love Songs Rarities (UK) – also trade dress for The Beatles Collection Rarities (US) The Beatles Ballads The Beatles Box (World Records box set) 20 Greatest Hits Live At The BBC Anthology 1 Anthology 2 Anthology 3 Yellow Submarine Songtrack 1 Let It Be... Naked Love Remastered (trade dress)
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on May 31, 2011 9:29:12 GMT -5
Okay. Kick out Revolver. I love Klaus and fine as his effort is ... it just doesn't jump off the shelves.... In my book this is equal to the very lame Help! cover.... Actually having written that my vote is Help! to be chucked first and if I don't vote next time - I might not be able to tune in for some reason - knock off Revolver.
Nine
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 31, 2011 11:33:20 GMT -5
Seriously vectis? Many of our reasons weren't good enough so our votes weren't counted. I said: Reel MusicReason: Look at it, it just plain sucks! Done by a 5th grader somewhere. Makes Rock -N- Roll Music look like Warhol! Shoddy to the max! I thought it shoddy. How much more elaborate must we get?!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 31, 2011 13:12:02 GMT -5
I'm looking for essays! Well, maybe not essays, but a bit more than single word critical adjusctives. Also, as far as that first round was concerned, I was looking for ways of getting as many titles out as possible in the first wave and you played into my hot sweaty little hands by giving me a reason to discount two of the votes which would have made Reel Music the single exit otherwise Boo hoo hah hah ha!! (my version of mad genius laugh).
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 31, 2011 13:13:19 GMT -5
Incidentally, anyone got any idea what an adjusctive is?
|
|
|
Post by scousette on May 31, 2011 13:28:29 GMT -5
LOVE SONGS
The ugly faux-leather cover. The disgusting use of a perfectly fine, moody photo of the Fabs to decorate a treacly, sugary collection of "luv" songs. These two crimes against cover art defile the genre and give rise to my one and only vote. I am hoping it will be enough to eliminate the entry once and for all.
Herr Vectis, did I pass the audition?
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on May 31, 2011 15:09:16 GMT -5
I didn't just put in a title and move on. I said "I'll go with the BEATLES BALLADS; I think I have only held it in my hands once and was not impressed with the artwork at all."
This IS my reason--unimpressive artwork that makes the Beatles look bad. Not good enough? Your call as to whether to count it, but that's my explanation.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by glenn1966 on May 31, 2011 15:26:55 GMT -5
Let It Be...Naked
The four beatles in negative/reverse form either look:
1 ) scary or 2) unrecognizable. The world's greatest group should appear to be neither on their own CD cover.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 31, 2011 16:13:17 GMT -5
Folks, here are the remaining album covers left after the highly subjective and controversial vote counting scheme by Herr Vectis! Please Please Me With The Beatles (and Meet The Beatles US) A Hard Day’s Night (UK) A Hard Day’s Night (US) Beatles For Sale Something New Beatles 65 Help! or The Early Beatles Beatles VI Rubber Soul or Yesterday... And Today Revolver Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Magical Mystery Tour The Beatles Yellow Submarine Abbey Road Hey Jude (The Beatles Again) Let It Be From Then To You (UK) From Then To You (US) 1962-66 1967-70 Live At The Hollywood Bowl Love Songs Rarities (UK) – also trade dress for The Beatles Collection Rarities (US) The Beatles Ballads The Beatles Box (World Records box set) 20 Greatest Hits Live At The BBC Anthology 1 Anthology 2 Anthology 3 Yellow Submarine Songtrack 1 Let It Be... Naked Love Remastered (trade dress) or
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 31, 2011 16:36:32 GMT -5
I vote The Beatles Rarities-U.K. version. Reason: No images of the band, not even illustrations, and the lettering does not have the distinctive drop down "T" on Beatles. The Remastered Trade Dress for stereo and mono in black and white have a classic look, cool image of the Apple logo and the classic lettering for The Beatles like we saw on Ringo's bass drum. Those look classic and inviting. U.K. Rarities has none of that and the song titles listed at the bottom are busy looking and cluttered. Nothing makes me want to grab that album from the shelf. It is not stately and rather than promote the excitement of the music contained inside, it seems to be overly academic and thus suggests boredom. Not what The Beatles were about! The American Rarities is much more interesting although it has the almost hidden, ghost-like image of John hanging on the edge of the shadows. The American Rarities was released in March 1980 and the cover photo was rather creepy in light of John's subsequent murder. While the U.S. Rarities cover is thus interesting, no such luck with the U.K. Rarities cover from 1978. It is hard for me to vote against Love Songs cover as that album got me through a broken heart and the Ballads' cover is kind of cool, surreal late 1960's art.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 31, 2011 17:04:17 GMT -5
Thanks for tweaking the covers to eliminate the eliminatees, John, especially after I failed you on the Round 1 audition (you passed the Round 2 audition, Scousette!). Joey - bloody lawyers, always arguing!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 31, 2011 17:35:35 GMT -5
Thanks for tweaking the covers to eliminate the eliminatees, John, especially after I failed you on the Round 1 audition (you passed the Round 2 audition, Scousette!). Joey - bloody lawyers, always arguing! LOL! When I do a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, I always run it past the retirement fund administrator for its pre-approval before I have the Parties and opposing counsel sign it and submit it to the Court for the Judge's signature. Too many times I've seen first and second supplemented QDRO orders because the Administrator wouldn't approve it for some technical reason. I suggest that all posters P.M. Vectis first with their intended post here to get his pre-approval, his decree that the post is "Tally-worthy!" While your at it, hit him up for a loan request, seek love advice, etc. ;D You know I love you vectis, not like the way I love Pattie Boyd or Tony Hicks, but in an old friend kind of way!
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on May 31, 2011 18:36:56 GMT -5
I suggest that all posters P.M. Vectis first with their intended post here to get his pre-approval, his decree that the post is "Tally-worthy!" While your at it, hit him up for a loan request, seek love advice, etc. ;D You know I love you vectis, not like the way I love Pattie Boyd or Tony Hicks, but in an old friend kind of way! Or, you can do what I'm going to do--post what I like, and if it doesn't pass muster again, stop posting... JcS
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 31, 2011 18:42:47 GMT -5
Love Songs
Who did they think they were kidding with Paul's head size inflated and Ringo's dutifully smaller? Showed where the money was at that time.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on May 31, 2011 20:43:46 GMT -5
U.K. Beatles Rarities for the reasons JSD so eloquently gave. I couldn't have put it better, so I won't. ;D In other words, "what he said"! Is that good enough, vectis, or do you want me to regurgitate JSD's excellent points?
|
|
|
Post by scousette on May 31, 2011 21:46:15 GMT -5
Vectis, if you don't flunk Winston I'll never post another Jane Asher pic again.
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Jun 1, 2011 3:50:11 GMT -5
Honestly. There is still so much dross to choose from I feel like a kid in a candy store! This tourney is a great illustration of how poorly the greatest band in the world were served by the incompetents and dullards at both EMI and Capitol.
Just for the moment I am going to put the mind-numbingly boring, unimaginative, cut-and-paste Capitol monstrosities to one side and focus on the simply awful 'From then to you' (UK).
I mean, just look at the thing! The person in the EMI artwork department who hatched the idea of four decapitated heads set against a vomit-inducing beige background with lettering derived from a five-year-old child's stencil set wants thrashing severely with a wet plimsoll.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 1, 2011 4:51:33 GMT -5
I wanted to discourage "It's shoddy" in favour of "the artwork displays a lack of effort and is, any any case, not representative of anything The Beatles actually stood for", coupled with which I took the opportunity in Round 1 to play with my rules in order to ditch a chunk of titles which meant, perhaps, taking a stronger line in some cases than I might otherwise have done. I wasn't knocking anyone or putting them down. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it's all this.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 1, 2011 4:56:59 GMT -5
And winston has given me a real problem here. On the one hand, he has put some effort in: his offering has more to it than simply, "Rubbish." On the other hand, he hasn't actually said anything more than "What he said", only with a lot more words. I'll have a think about this, as well as inviting winston to offer a bit more original input.
I also offer Woolie's post as an example of the imaginative use of invective I am hoping to foster here.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 1, 2011 8:10:55 GMT -5
OK, I know some of you folks have probably been glad I've been away, because of candid posts like this one. But I just have to say... Wow, how ridiculous. I just found this Survivor and from what I've read it feels like being in the presence of a dictator. Vectis, how dare you say that someone's reason or explanation isn't quite effective enough to suit you, or whatever? A person has a friggin' right to simply say "this cover just doesn't appeal to me", and that's THAT. Not everything always needs to be detailed with so extensive an "explanation". Sometimes there may indeed be one ("I don't like that there is no imagination and The Beatles themselves are not featured here...") but what if it's a photo or something that just simply isn't appealing? Sometimes it's not much more involved than that. Maybe some honest answers just aren't "original". Is this a freakin' class project or what?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 1, 2011 8:49:24 GMT -5
Sigh. You're welcome to play, Joe, more than welcome. I would love you to, I really would (and welcome back, by the way).
I would also hope that you have read enough of my posts by now to know that my tongue, most of the time, is fairly firmly in my cheek and, if I am playing dictator, then the "playing" bit is at least as important as "dictator" - I'm trying as hard as I can to convey this to people in the way I am saying what I say here (I'm also keen on trying to explain why I am hoping to get people to say a bit moe than "I don't like it," "It's crap," "It's shoddy.").
As I say, you're welcome to play. And I would love you to stay and play in this GAME.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 1, 2011 8:50:46 GMT -5
By the way, excellent post - fits right in with the spirit of fuller and more detailed elucidation which I am going for here! Yours is going right up on the classroom wall! 10 out of 10 for effort!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 1, 2011 9:36:19 GMT -5
Sigh. You're welcome to play, Joe, more than welcome. I would love you to, I really would (and welcome back, by the way). I would also hope that you have read enough of my posts by now to know that my tongue, most of the time, is fairly firmly in my cheek and, if I am playing dictator, then the "playing" bit is at least as important as "dictator" - I'm trying as hard as I can to convey this to people in the way I am saying what I say here (I'm also keen on trying to explain why I am hoping to get people to say a bit moe than "I don't like it," "It's crap," "It's shoddy."). As I say, you're welcome to play. And I would love you to stay and play in this GAME. I admit to being stunned that my Round 1 vote was not counted but I do see the value of eliminating several bad covers that first Round least we be at it for two months. I also am not taking it for granted that my vote this Round will be counted! ;D
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 1, 2011 9:42:50 GMT -5
Honestly. There is still so much dross to choose from I feel like a kid in a candy store! This tourney is a great illustration of how poorly the greatest band in the world were served by the incompetents and dullards at both EMI and Capitol. Just for the moment I am going to put the mind-numbingly boring, unimaginative, cut-and-paste Capitol monstrosities to one side and focus on the simply awful 'From then to you' (UK). I mean, just look at the thing! The person in the EMI artwork department who hatched the idea of four decapitated heads set against a vomit-inducing beige background with lettering derived from a five-year-old child's stencil set wants thrashing severely with a wet plimsoll. My sights will soon be on this one, Woolie. The only defense I can give of it is that it is so retro for 1970 as to be almost cool! I thinks the surviving folks at The U.K. Beatles Fan Club by 1970 were fed up with the scruffy, often unkempt looking Beatles, the fact that the four hated each other by then and probably never communicated with the Fan Club like they did early on and the overall demise in morale of all things Beatles. The Fan Club was trying to invoke a happier time with retro photos of smiling Beatles with clean hair! Having said that, it looks homemade.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 1, 2011 9:44:00 GMT -5
I admit to being stunned that my Round 1 vote was not counted Another failure on my part - I was hoping for "shocked and stunned."
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 1, 2011 9:46:18 GMT -5
I admit to being stunned that my Round 1 vote was not counted Another failure on my part - I was hoping for "shocked and stunned." LOL, better than "shocked and awed!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 1, 2011 12:53:27 GMT -5
I thinks the surviving folks at The U.K. Beatles Fan Club by 1970 were fed up with the scruffy, often unkempt looking Beatles, the fact that the four hated each other by then and probably never communicated with the Fan Club like they did early on and the overall demise in morale of all things Beatles. The Fan Club was trying to invoke a happier time with retro photos of smiling Beatles with clean hair! Having said that, it looks homemade. It simply reproduces the sleeve of the 1963 fan club 7" 45 in the middle of a 12" sleeve.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 1, 2011 14:33:09 GMT -5
I thinks the surviving folks at The U.K. Beatles Fan Club by 1970 were fed up with the scruffy, often unkempt looking Beatles, the fact that the four hated each other by then and probably never communicated with the Fan Club like they did early on and the overall demise in morale of all things Beatles. The Fan Club was trying to invoke a happier time with retro photos of smiling Beatles with clean hair! Having said that, it looks homemade. It simply reproduces the sleeve of the 1963 fan club 7" 45 in the middle of a 12" sleeve. So there does seem to be some apathy or disgust involved, just dash off the first cover on this comp Christmas album. The American cover is actually cool. I take it that the title, From Then To You was original to the 1970 comp, meaning the 1963 Christmas message sleeve wouldn't have that printed on it?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 1, 2011 15:24:45 GMT -5
(I'm also keen on trying to explain why I am hoping to get people to say a bit moe than "I don't like it," "It's crap," "It's shoddy."). As I say, you're welcome to play. And I would love you to stay and play in this GAME. Well, at least saying "it's shoddy" IS a descriptive reason. Of these covers, I think the UK version of RARITIES is the worst -- too plain, just words with no photos or artwork... and not even the classic "BeaTles" logo (as JSD said too).
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 1, 2011 15:25:06 GMT -5
Yes, From Then To You was the title of the compilation - a bit of thought went into it! The sleeve, I agree, is dismal, whereas the US version is pretty good. If they were going to use one of the Fan Club record sleeves, ANY of them would have been better than the '63 one!
|
|