The McCartney Years dvd coming up

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by peerke, Aug 15, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    The whole "McCartney/Lennon" debate was/is silly anyway, considering the "Please Please Me" album has the credits that way (even on the CD). And it was really annoying that when Paul did it in 2002, a bunch of people cried foul with comments about Paul would only do that after John wasn't around to say anything about it; the "Wings Over America" album had the same credits back in 1976, and I don't recall Lennon ever publicly saying anything about that one way or the other.

    I was always puzzled about all the debate over the switching of the names, because some people would imply that there could be some sort of legal recourse taken if/when that happened, and in most cases I don't think there would. As long as all the names on a song are credited (and properly paid royalties), I don't think it matters what order the names are in from a legal standpoint (unless, I suppose, a songwriting team signed an agreement about the order of the names; and even then, they wouldn't be able to control the order of the names when other parties used songs they wrote). I've seen other songs with differing order of writers, especially when there are like 3, 4, 5 or more names listed. In fact, I'm not even sure the songwriters would have to named (or be named properly) on the actual product as long as they are properly paid royalties.
     
  2. Yup.

    According to the BBC,

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5950929

    And according to a blog, attributing a story to Reuters,

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/12/19/121458.php

     
  3. Wogew

    Wogew Member of The People's Front of Judea

    Location:
    Oslo,Norway,Europe
    Those were some of my points when I wrote an article on that subject, back when it was a news item. My article was published in Daytrippin' Magazine, and is available (illustrated) on the web here.
     
  4. 905

    905 Senior Member

    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Well, Lennon and McCartney does sound better. :)
     
  5. MarkTheShark

    MarkTheShark Senior Member

    I always found the songwriter credits on The Chipmunks Sing The Beatles Hits interesting:

    Side One
    All My Loving (Lennon/McCartney)
    Do You Want To Know A Secret (McCartney/Lennon)
    She Loves You (Lennon/McCartney)
    From Me To You (Lennon/McCartney)
    Love Me Do (McCartney/Lennon)
    Twist And Shout (Russell/Medley)

    Side Two
    A Hard Day's Night (Lennon/McCartney)
    P.S. I Love You (McCartney/Lennon)
    I Saw Her Standing There (McCartney/Lennon)
    Can't Buy Me Love (Lennon/McCartney)
    Please, Please Me (Lennon/McCartney)
    I Want To Hold Your Hand (Lennon/McCartney)

    Kind of odd...I would have thought "Please, Please Me" (sic) would have been credited "McCartney/Lennon" too...at least the album's not called The Chipmunks Sing The Beattles Hits.
     
  6. paolo

    paolo Senior Member

    Can we somehow get this thread back to the McCartney Years DVD and not a subset of the Macca forum?

    Thanks
     
  7. Claudio Dirani

    Claudio Dirani A Fly On Apple's Wall

    Location:
    São Paulo, Brazil
    I'd say our ears got accostumed to hear Lennon/McCartney.
     
  8. Gloi

    Gloi Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lancashire,England
    Does anyone know for sure yet when the Band on The Run film with the Beatles in it was made? I've been trying to find out since I got the DVD.
     
  9. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    :agree: If they'd been called "McCartney/Lennon" for 45 years, "Lennon/McCartney" would sound weird. Just like "Richards/Jagger" would sound normal if they'd gone that way.

    The whole "L/M" or "M/L" thing has to have been one of the more idiotic Beatle "controversies" in recent years. It's silly that Paul worries about it, and it's silly if Yoko worries about keeping it the same. It's silly that the press pounces on it, and it's silly that I'm writing about it! :help:
     
  10. Wogew

    Wogew Member of The People's Front of Judea

    Location:
    Oslo,Norway,Europe
    It has a 1972 Copyright credit on the DVD, but it's probably 1974.
     
  11. Claudio Dirani

    Claudio Dirani A Fly On Apple's Wall

    Location:
    São Paulo, Brazil
    :righton: :righton:

    It isn't silly...it isn't silly, it isn't silly at alllllllllllll!
     
  12. Claudio Dirani

    Claudio Dirani A Fly On Apple's Wall

    Location:
    São Paulo, Brazil
    72? Sort of weird!
     
  13. SoundAdvice

    SoundAdvice Senior Member

    Location:
    Vancouver
    Doesn't PRINCE also have some serious songs, or "hits" that have been ignored live?

    Dylan ignores some strange songs. "Hurricane" hasn't been done in over 30 years and he's barely touched any of the Wilburies material.

    SA
     
  14. Mike the Fish

    Mike the Fish Señor Member

    Location:
    England
    Has anybody else mentioned getting a drop out on the Band on The Run video? I got two, but at least one of them may have gone when I used the analogue input.
     
  15. cb70

    cb70 Senior Member

  16. Claudio Dirani

    Claudio Dirani A Fly On Apple's Wall

    Location:
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Thanks for posting. I can't find his new comments, though I honestly haven't detected the missing parts on the vids yet. Anyway, I have had lots of fun watching disc 3 these days. So cool.
     
  17. mark f.

    mark f. Senior Member

    Why did you stop watching?

    Anyway, I really like the set a lot, especially the mixes and the 5.1 but I agree that the director is missing the point. He's arguing that they improved the picture when they didn't. Sort of seems silly for him to even be replying at all.

    I don't blame the fans for the frustration over the screen image but it's not a huge issue for me. As I said I really like the set and any missing parts of the image don't detract from my overall enjoyment.
     
  18. mark f.

    mark f. Senior Member

    Claudio - click the link and scroll through. His name is "DC" for Dick Caruthers. His reponses actually make me more angry. He'd be better off just letting the issues be purist complaints. Hate to say it but he comes off as an hack who should have been kept far away from the project as possible. I don't know a thing about DVD production but doesn't this sound stupid:

    "But this is no faux widescreen. These are all 1920 x 1080 new versions, downconverted to SD for DVD encoding."

    If the original image was full screen then the new one certain is not "real." Correct?

    Then there is this in response to complaints about song omissions, probably not even in his control:

    "On another point, the perceived 'omissions' were also made partly for reasons of size and structure but also since a "complete" McCartney would score points only for being just that, and we had a far greater opportunity here to present fans and fence-sitters alike with a meticulously structured package that offers the viewer BOTH the videos chronologically AND in playlists arranged by Paul as he would a gig setlist to take you on a journey, AND with his commentaries as yet another third order in which to travel through this unparalleled body of work."

    First of all the "perceived" omissions are not "perceived" they are actual omissions. He reasons that the added extras are basically icing on the cake but they are, to me, not that big of a deal. You can't tell me that half of a rare clip makes up for a major track omission.

    So like I said, I'm thrilled with the set but DC hasn't helped sell it at all.
     
  19. I think what he is saying is that they didn't simply impose a matte over the existing 4:3 video, but instead went back to the original negative (which itself could have been matted or cropped for 4:3, but judging from the results, I doubt it) and re-framed into 16x9 from the negative and did so on a scene-by-scene basis, making decisions as to what and how much to include in the frame.

    I would have preferred they would not have done this (the director, producer, and whoever else at MPL, heck, McCartney himself), but people, this was a marketing decision. The general public doesn't want to see full frame video on their widescreen HDTV's. They'd probably return the discs because they don't like black bars on the sides of their images. They probably don't comprehend that they are missing some of the image--nor do they care.

    If MPL would have released this in 4:3, they probably would have seen some bad press written about it, aborting possible purchases, in addition to the inevitable customer returns.

    I wish they would have given us the option to watch full frame. That would have satisfied everybody.
     
  20. mark f.

    mark f. Senior Member

    I'm sure you're right that it was a marketing decision. All the more reason for the "director" to stay off of message boards.
     
  21. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    I'm not sure if this is what he's trying to say, but I can say with as much certainty as one could without having actually watched the "restoration" process that they did not go back to any negatives when compiling this set. Anything shot on videotape (which is a fair hunk of the footage used) wouldn't have any negative to go back to. But more importantly, the quality of the footage on the set suggests that they used video masters for everything including material shot on film. If they had original film elements and made HD transfers of that material, the films of things like "Wonderful Christmastime" wouldn't look so dire. The "Wonderful Christmastime" film actually looks noticeably *worse* than copies fans have had for years, even just taping it off of VH1 Classic when they show it during the holidays.

    It is clear from the screencaps that were posted on Amazon that they didn't simply put a matte over the 4:3 frame and let it fly. They did adjust up or down at various points. But I would guess that the *vast* majority of people (and certainly myself) complaining about this cropping aren't complaining specifically that the material was matted with the cropping being done equally at the top and bottom. They are complaining because of the cropping in general, regardless of whether that cropping was panned up or down at various points. The total amount of cropped information remains the same throughout.

    I agree that the material was made into "widescreen" because of marketing. Apparently, to the masses, "widescreen" means the same thing as "remastered" or "restored."

    However, I disagree with the idea that, if the videos had been included in their proper 4:3 aspect ratios, that there would have been a bunch of HDTV owners returning the discs because they don't understand why the material is pillarboxed. Would these HDTV owners return theatrical films on DVD that are 2.40:1 ratio because there are black bars at the top and bottom?

    Plenty of people, probably the majority of people, still have 4:3 displays. That fact, coupled with the fact that a good hunk of HDTV owners know enough about their displays and DVD's that they understand that some material is 4:3 and some is widescreen, would indicate to me that very few people would have been actively complaining or returning the set due to 4:3 aspect ratio. Most TV shows put on DVD are 4:3, as are all sorts of other video material, including bonus features for widescreen films, and so on.

    I can't envision that they would have had any bad press if the material had been 4:3. I'm trying to recall if I've ever read a review of a DVD that criticized the release for using 4:3 aspect ratio when that was the original, appropriate aspect ratio.

    If this release had been an HD release, I could imagine a smattering of complaints about pillarboxing (similar to what I saw on reviews of the HD-DVD release of "Star Trek"), but even HD enthusiasts understand OAR enough to not complain too much about 4:3 when it's the OAR.

    So I completely realize why the material was turned into "widescreen." It may have been to entice additional sales (although I doubt even that really worked; I can't imaging McCartney fans or much of any fan boycotting a release for being 4:3; if they did that for all releases, they wouldn't be able to own a good hunk of DVD's out there), but I don't think it was done to avoid some huge rush of returns and bad reviews. On the contrary, I think there has been a lot more negative reviewing and comments from fans (albeit largely and unfortunately inconsequential as it usually is) because of this cropping issue.
     
  22. Claudio Dirani

    Claudio Dirani A Fly On Apple's Wall

    Location:
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Thank you, Mark.
    I also think he should not have answered to the complaints.
     
  23. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    It's also worth noting that over at the "Home Theater Forum", there was/is a thread about the set discussing the set and the comments posted at Amazon, and I noticed some comments there saying that they would not purchase the set because of the cropping. So I'm not prepared to rule out the possibility that, at the end of the day, they may have actually lost a small amount of potential sales because of the cropping.
     
  24. Claudio Dirani

    Claudio Dirani A Fly On Apple's Wall

    Location:
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Folks, I think this is a bit daft. Okay, not perfect DVDs. But if you enjoy Paul McCartney would you give up buying the set because of technical details?

    EDIT: in my opinion, this is the same of cursing the Anthology DVDs because the music clips are incomplete.
     
  25. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    I actually think that, while it's generally a pitfall for people working on releases to start debating fans on the internet, which can become a never-ending vicious cycle regardless of who is right or wrong, the one thing I would commend this guy on is for coming out and actually conversing in a sense with fans about the set. The problem is that his comments suggest, to me, such a poor understanding of the basic technical details involved with aspect ratios and whatnot, that I feel like I know more about the topic. I certainly feel like I shouldn't know more about that stuff than people working on the releases!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine