Favorite Beatles Album

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

30 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Excellent, seen the Stones before?

 

john and Paul sang backup on We Love You

 

 

Nope. First time. I'm super pumped. I literally cried when I opened the gift. 

 

Mick and Keith also sang on "All You Need Is Love." and Mick sang backup on "Baby, You're A Rich Man."

 

There's a book I read called "Beatles Vs Stones." Basically the whole book is how they really weren't rivals in each other's eyes, so much as the media portrayed them that way. 

[row_33]

8 minutes ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Nope. First time. I'm super pumped. I literally cried when I opened the gift. 

 

Mick and Keith also sang on "All You Need Is Love." and Mick sang backup on "Baby, You're A Rich Man."

 

There's a book I read called "Beatles Vs Stones." Basically the whole book is how they really weren't rivals in each other's eyes, so much as the media portrayed them that way. 

 

Stones copied the Beatles for awhile but soon surpassed them after the White Album

 

Beatles after that couldn’t compete with the Mick Taylor Era

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

Some hypotheticals I've thought about. First one. John lives. Do John, Paul, George and Ringo, all get back together at the same time? If so, do they record new material? Do they do a one off world tour and rake in the cash, then go their separate ways? 

 

Another hypothetical. Brian Epstein lives. Do the Beatles stay together longer because they can focus on music, having Brian take care of the business end of things? When, if ever, do they start doing live concerts and tours again? 

 

I think I asked this before, but John leaves the band. Paul, George, and Ringo decide to keep going on. Do they replace John with Clapton, or someone who's well known? Hold auditions? Do they look for someone that sounds just like John, or go a completely different direction?

Edited February 6, 2019 by The Real Buffalo Joe

[Greybeard]

4 hours ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Some hypotheticals I've thought about. First one. John lives. Do John, Paul, George and Ringo, all get back together at the same time? If so, do they record new material? Do they do a one off world tour and rake in the cash, then go their separate ways? 

 

Another hypothetical. Brian Epstein lives. Do the Beatles stay together longer because they can focus on music, having Brian take care of the business end of things? When, if ever, do they start doing live concerts and tours again? 

 

I think I asked this before, but John leaves the band. Paul, George, and Ringo decide to keep going on. Do they replace John with Clapton, or someone who's well known? Hold auditions? Do they look for someone that sounds just like John, or go a completely different direction?

       First one, yes they get all back together.  Yes, they do new material.  World tour?  Ask Row.   I don't know how the individuals felt about touring.  Maybe if people listened instead of screamed, yes.

 

      Second, Epstein brought his own issues.  I don't think it mattered.  See above on touring.

 

     When one of them went, they were done.  They were burned out at the time as a group.

 

     This is a lot like speculating on who the Bills will draft, but you never get a solution.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

7 minutes ago, Greybeard said:

       First one, yes they get all back together.  Yes, they do new material.  World tour?  Ask Row.   I don't know how the individuals felt about touring.  Maybe if people listened instead of screamed, yes.

 

      Second, Epstein brought his own issues.  I don't think it mattered.  See above on touring.

 

     When one of them went, they were done.  They were burned out at the time as a group.

 

     This is a lot like speculating on who the Bills will draft, but you never get a solution.

At this point, their audience has matured from just being pubescent girls. Not to mention technology changed so they could do more of their intricate stuff from Sgt Pepper/MMT, etc. that would have never have been able to be done live when the albums first came out. 

[row_33]

The reality is they got together, after a lot of bad vibes went down with the White Album, to rehearse in January 1969 for new material and possible small concerts, and it wasn’t a good time at all. The Let It Be film is probably the best they could scrape together of the sessions and that is sooooo dismal. 

 

It apoears Paul was always up for touring, John was dead set against it and George was fed up with it all by that point. George probably had more solid material than the others combined at this point.

 

I like to think that if he lived that John would read about the gates hauled in for other oldies acts in the 90s and gladly go on the road again. 

 

Just some thoughts, good comments, keep it going...

 

 

 

 

[T&C]

I was reading today that Peter Jackson is doing a remake of the Let It Be movie... from what I read the entire rooftop concert will be shown, not just the 26 minutes or so we've seen... something like 53 minutes. Read this on my phone so I don't have a link nor the time right now to find it. 

[Rico]

8 hours ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Some hypotheticals I've thought about. First one. John lives. Do John, Paul, George and Ringo, all get back together at the same time? If so, do they record new material? Do they do a one off world tour and rake in the cash, then go their separate ways? 

 

Another hypothetical. Brian Epstein lives. Do the Beatles stay together longer because they can focus on music, having Brian take care of the business end of things? When, if ever, do they start doing live concerts and tours again? 

 

I think I asked this before, but John leaves the band. Paul, George, and Ringo decide to keep going on. Do they replace John with Clapton, or someone who's well known? Hold auditions? Do they look for someone that sounds just like John, or go a completely different direction?

Don't see it happening. Macca would've first had to suck it up and formerly apologize to the others for breaking up the band,. Probably also would've had to dump Linda.

[Augie]

12 hours ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

So I've made it clear here that I'm a bigger Stones fan than The Beatles. Still absolutely love The Beatles, but I'm a bigger Stones fan. So for Christmas, my whole family pooled together and bought me field seats for the Stones concert in April. My wife told me there was some sort of VIP package involved. Not a meet and greet, but commemorative poster and book or something like that, she didn't really remember. 

 

So I went online to see what it was. The official website for NRG Stadium (Texans) had a disclaimer on there stating "Paul McCartney will not be performing at this show." Now, as we know, Paul McCartney, in his 60 or so years in the music industry, has never been a member of the Rolling Stones, so I had no reason to suspect that he was playing. But now I'm suspicious. Was this originally planned as a double headline tour/show? Is Paul a surprise special guest (fingers crossed)? 

 

Maybe Elvis or Jim Morrison are filling in? Sounds like a great show!!! 

 

 

.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Augie

[row_33]

58 minutes ago, T&C said:

I was reading today that Peter Jackson is doing a remake of the Let It Be movie... from what I read the entire rooftop concert will be shown, not just the 26 minutes or so we've seen... something like 53 minutes. Read this on my phone so I don't have a link nor the time right now to find it. 

 

At the top of the page is a post on Jackson releasing new material

 

this could be good

 

but.....  they were just noodling around for most of the sessions and they honestly weren’t great musicians and they didnt like each other

 

more rooftop concert footage would be welcome

 

 

The blurb crowed about the album and the title song winnng an Oscar, not about the footage that was deemed too wasteful or morbid to put into the movie.

 

There is tons of bootleg audio material to listen to already, see if that tickles your fancy...  

 

[Gugny]

7 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

At the top of the page is a post on Jackson releasing new material

 

this could be good

 

but.....  they were just noodling around for most of the sessions and they honestly weren’t great musicians and they didnt like each other

 

more rooftop concert footage would be welcome

 

 

The blurb crowed about the album and the title song winnng an Oscar, not about the footage that was deemed too wasteful or morbid to put into the movie.

 

There is tons of bootleg audio material to listen to already, see if that tickles your fancy...  

 

 

I'm interested to know why you say they weren't great musicians.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

I'm interested to know why you say they weren't great musicians.

 

Give me the list of the 60s guitar gods, is George honestly on it? 

 

I could go on.....

 

 

 

 

 

[row_33]

The End is about the limit of their abilities for soloing

 

Put on Led Zep I for what their contemporaries took for granted at the same time

 

They crafted a dozen of the top 50 pop songs of the 20th century, my favourite group ever, the whole was better than the sum of the parts 

Edited February 7, 2019 by row_33

[Gugny]

25 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Give me the list of the 60s guitar gods, is George honestly on it? 

 

I could go on.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

So a guitarist is either Jimi Hendrix or CC Deville?  No in between?

 

And Macca was/is a great bassist.  Jaco Pastorius?  No.  But he's a great bass player.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

So a guitarist is either Jimi Hendrix or CC Deville?  No in between?

 

And Macca was/is a great bassist.  Jaco Pastorius?  No.  But he's a great bass player.

 

Giving up the road and relying on studio pyrotechnics didn't help personal improvement, they didn't show any instrumental growth in the 70s, a very stubborn resistance to all going around them (they must have been told this every day...)

 

I put the rhythm section of The Beatles near the top, completely my humble opinion, they never slid off the road no matter how bendable they got, came close a few times, and maybe that was a jest... as a lefty myself, i can think those two lefties put enough quirkiness and intuition into it to be among the best.

 

I'm a big fan of the group, but they weren't masters of their instruments compared to their contemporaries and have been TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY by the last 40 years of technique, but they crafted amazing songs and harmonies and were fully sufficient for their required levels of competence, and NOBODY has come close to a  consistent body of work like them overall.  Very very little filler in their albums (to their fans)... the Stones have serious filler on albums up to Mick Taylor leaving....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by row_33

[Greybeard]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

Give me the list of the 60s guitar gods, is George honestly on it? 

 

I could go on.....

 

 

 

 

 

     I think the saying " perception is reality" works good here.    So people think George isn't on it, so that makes him not great.  He is obviously great enough to pull off the songs he played on with and without the Beatles.   That would seem, at least in my mind, to make him great enough.

    So really what makes a "guitar god."    Speed? Interpretation?  Originality?  This guitar god thing is about like saying what your opinion of what the greatest song is.

 

 BTW, I was writing this as you were posting your above post.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Greybeard

[row_33]

2 hours ago, Greybeard said:

     I think the saying " perception is reality" works good here.    So people think George isn't on it, so that makes him not great.  He is obviously great enough to pull off the songs he played on with and without the Beatles.   That would seem, at least in my mind, to make him great enough.

    So really what makes a "guitar god."    Speed? Interpretation?  Originality?  This guitar god thing is about like saying what your opinion of what the greatest song is.

 

 BTW, I was writing this as you were posting your above post.

 

Nothing knocks The Beatles collaborations off my pedestal, individually it's getting dicey....

 

John's voice is a top 3 in pop music for me, wish he carried his "Money" sound a little longer... actually it's #1...

 

 

 

 

 

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

Songwriting, Lennon/McCartney are #1. The only other duo that would come close, are Elton John and Bernie Taupin, but I still feel they come just shy. 

 

John's Rhythm guitar playing is actually quite underrated for what it is.

 

Paul's bass playing was nothing to write home about, but definitely evolved and got better as time went on. 

 

George is no Hendrix, but as @Gugny pointed out, he's no CC Deville either. (That made me laugh right out loud.) I'd probably put him somewhere in the top 20-25 though. 

 

Ringo held his own. From what I understand about drums, which honestly isn't much, Ringo was a smarter drummer than he gets credit for. He had trouble with executing what was in his head.

 

Vocals, the whole group is good. Ringo is the weakest link, and he's could definitly hold his own on those country tunes. Their voices sounded great together, especially on their early records.  

[row_33]

I have my private views, a bit more kinder, but have found a ton of opposition to my public moderate views....  way too hyping them apparently

 

[Rico]

On 2/7/2019 at 9:32 AM, row_33 said:

 

Giving up the road and relying on studio pyrotechnics didn't help personal improvement, they didn't show any instrumental growth in the 70s, a very stubborn resistance to all going around them (they must have been told this every day...)

 

I put the rhythm section of The Beatles near the top, completely my humble opinion, they never slid off the road no matter how bendable they got, came close a few times, and maybe that was a jest... as a lefty myself, i can think those two lefties put enough quirkiness and intuition into it to be among the best.

 

I'm a big fan of the group, but they weren't masters of their instruments compared to their contemporaries and have been TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY by the last 40 years of technique, but they crafted amazing songs and harmonies and were fully sufficient for their required levels of competence, and NOBODY has come close to a  consistent body of work like them overall.  Very very little filler in their albums (to their fans)... the Stones have serious filler on albums up to Mick Taylor leaving....

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think the Beatles made an album as great as Exile on Main Street or Sticky Fingers. Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, and Let It Bleed are debatable.