You absolutely did. Go back and read your own post. The inference is that if you like Get Back as is, you're just not watching closely enough. Not caring. The criticisms aren't valid if a remix is approached with extreme bias, which, in the case of all the Beatles stuff, is undoubtedly true for some fans.
I absolutely did not. What I said is that people who are critical of things like how Get Back looks care deeply about them. Alas, there are more than enough unbiased criticisms that those don't really matter.
Being on the various forums for the past 2 years, I've read so many stupid arguments and various awful attempts at humour. His post surpassed it all
I think I said it many threads ago and I am going to repeat it: quality of presentation =! quality of the work. Sgt Pepper is equally beautiful no matter if you are listening to a 3rd generation compact cassette or a master tape. Citizen Kane is equally good both from criterion 4K Blu-ray and TV VHS taping. Same goes with get back, except the quality right now isn't the matter of the limits of technology used to present it but rather the idiotic decision of the restoration man.
The problem with that article is the writer undermines his point by using a bunch of debatable or partially true facts he believes are facts as examples of facts.
And it was just as absurd many threads ago as it is now. If you don’t think presentation can enhance visceral appreciation for a work of art, to each his own. But if you think this is a universal truth, you’re smoking banana peels.
I don’t know. I thought some of the Beatles’ BBC recordings were musically uninteresting until 1989 when higher sound quality versions of the exact same performances appeared, allowing me to hear musical nuances previously buried in sonic mud. Visually, the Ed Sullivan Shows and Shea Stadium performance demanded a critical reassessment once I was able to see them in professionally restored quality rather than subpar VHS dubs. Presentation can make a huge difference in how we all perceive the quality of the work. You can display the Mona Lisa in a museum but if it’s behind glass that’s reflecting light, or if it’s in a room lit only by fluorescent bulbs, you’re not going to fully appreciate the work.
I meant that a bad quality presentation won't make you appreciate it less, which is a case with Get Back
But it could. I've not seen "Get Back" yet - been waiting for the BDs - but if the presentation looks bad, it'll become a distraction. Same with the audio. I guess they didn't botch the sound, but if the audio came with obvious problems, it'd mar my enjoyment. I get your core point and agree that the actual film is the most important thing, but I don't agree that bad quality doesn't impact enjoyment.
I did find it pretty distracting at times when the audio and video were clearly not synchronized. Same with the way the audio was split/extracted sometimes.
Here's a pretty good review of the Get Back blu ray. 'The Beatles: Get Back' Blu-Ray Review - A Staggering Look At An Unparalleled Moment In Music
Which was a deliberate choice so we could get to hear more songs. There is a message about that at the start. I approved of that
I like how it says high definition. If I were to resize it to 1024x576 it wouldn't make a single difference for 90% of the scenes
You really have been a huge confrontational grump, lately. Give yourself a shake. Nobody's appreciating your input with that attitude.
Who died and elected you spokesperson for the masses? Not me. Speak for yourself. I'm loving this debate. Highly entertaining.
Not surprising considering the source of those comments. The humor was apparently too subtle for you to grasp and went over your head.
Rephrasing it doesn’t change it. As much as a good presentation can enhance the visceral appreciation of a work of art, a bad presentation can detract from the visceral appreciation. Maybe you would enjoy the Mona Lisa just the same in bad lighting and behind cheap glass, but I wouldn’t. It doesn’t mean it still isn’t a masterpiece. But some of what makes it a masterpiece would be lost - or at least attenuated - and the emotional rush would be sinfully diminished.
I think the point that gets missed, and obviously it's because this is the very subject of the thread...is that we got something we never thought we were going to get, and people are treating it like looking a gift horse in the mouth. The work was approved by people who had a real stake in it, and there are those with exacting tastes, who are not satisfied because the work, while every effort was exerted by people who had quite a pedigree in doing it, wasn't enough for you. The fact that it didn't come up to your standards is out of your hands, and always was. Just like the existence of CD in the face of the "cold, cold digital"-vs.-"warm, warm analog" days of uber-fans being taught how to resent the format. And most people will be satisfied that it exists at all, despite the strident efforts to criticize it. Mom, Dad and all the kids who have Disney+ on their television will go, "Ooooh, Beatles!", and that will be their sum total of approval. Peter Jackson has done his best efforts to put the doomed Get Back project into a fairer light so more people can see the rooftop performance, not see Yoko as the antichrist, and view an unsatisfying album-to-performance project in closer detail than most casual fans and consumers had access to before. For people who don't haunt web boards like this in desperate search of all their prayers being answered by those who have more of a real stake in The Beatles than the uber-fan does, there is reason for celebration. And all the caterwauling to the contrary, will not pi** on their Wheaties. If anything, it will probably, eventually cause enough conflict for maybe Dani or Giles' grandkids to consider revisiting it sometime in the future, again...after everything else has been dealt with at least once, and we can finally have "Carnival of Light" in ATMOS on our holographic iPhones first. Meanwhile, if ya want your grain back...you can always watch what you did get, through your wife's panty hose until that blessed day when the universe is finally set aright once more. You're welcome. And no, I will not be entertaining any further replies to engender further thread drift or bicker fests. These are my relevant and valid positions in context of this issue as I see them, and would be grateful if you just considered respecting my opinion as you would any other member of this board, without hauling out torches to burn me at the stake for having them.
Which is why it is being discussed here. Just like any number of countless other releases/reissues that people have felt missed the mark in one way or another.
Sorry, but this is a whole bunch of rationalizing. If you think it looks fine to you, more power to you. But frankly, you seem unable to accept that people can have rational reasons for criticizing the treatment of the footage. As a consequence, your case against the criticism has been - and continues to be - myopically weak.
