Favorite Beatles Album

[Gugny]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

They weren’t a live act at the time, their recordings were studio tricks with tons of overdubbing and actions that couldn’t be replicated live.

 

John has no interest in stadium concerts, he looked with horror when Paul suggested stadiums during the Let It Be sessions.

 

They had run their course, they made half an album in Abbey Road bailed out by George’s donations 

 

it it was a good trip but the dream was long over....

 

 

 

 

I'll respectfully disagree.  I know their albums had tons of overdubbing, but they were also songs that could have easily been played live.  Your disdain for Abbey Road is well documented in this thread.  Again - I'll disagree. It was a great album and not just because of two George songs.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

I'll respectfully disagree.  I know their albums had tons of overdubbing, but they were also songs that could have easily been played live.  Your disdain for Abbey Road is well documented in this thread.  Again - I'll disagree. It was a great album and not just because of two George songs.

 

Come Together and George’s 2 gems are masterpieces 

 

sorry, Maxwells SH and Octopus’s Garden and that total filler on the end of side one (which inspired Spinal Tap’s Jazz Odyssey) is below par stuff. And the medley was trying to get out of so much wasted studio time.

 

so now your fantasy is they would have played Woodstock?  They were in a bad way at that time, not a hope they could have gotten it together and played there. They were long blown off the rock scene by Santana and Hendrix a dozen other acts.

 

the dream was long over and now my friend you just have to carry on....

 

 

 

 

[Reed83HOF]

Another album after Abbey Road was being discussed

 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/sep/11/the-beatles-break-up-mark-lewisohn-abbey-road-hornsey-road

 

“It’s a revelation,” Lewisohn says. “The books have always told us that they knew Abbey Road was their last album and they wanted to go out on an artistic high. But no – they’re discussing the next album. And you think that John is the one who wanted to break them up but, when you hear this, he isn’t. Doesn’t that rewrite pretty much everything we thought we knew?”

 

Lewisohn turns the tape back on, and we hear John suggesting that each of them should bring in songs as candidates for the single. He also proposes a new formula for assembling their next album: four songs apiece from Paul, George and himself, and two from Ringo – “If he wants them.” John refers to “the Lennon-and-McCartney myth”, clearly indicating that the authorship of their songs, hitherto presented to the public as a sacrosanct partnership, should at last be individually credited.

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Reed83HOF

[row_33]

By 1969 they were wiped away by competitive musicians, George was barely a passable lead guitar for the late 60s and forever after.

 

They couldn’t jam like every other band of importance, all they did that year was dick around for a few minutes on Wake Up Little Susie.

 

They were finished, gave us a heck of a catalogue to enjoy and fun Macca concerts till today.

 

 

 

 

[Gugny]

7 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

Come Together and George’s 2 gems are masterpieces 

 

sorry, Maxwells SH and Octopus’s Garden and that total filler on the end of side one (which inspired Spinal Tap’s Jazz Odyssey) is below par stuff. And the medley was trying to get out of so much wasted studio time.

 

so now your fantasy is they would have played Woodstock?  They were in a bad way at that time, not a hope they could have gotten it together and played there. They were long blown off the rock scene by Santana and Hendrix a dozen other acts.

 

the dream was long over and now my friend you just have to carry on....

 

 

 

 

 

I've never known you to be a word-twister, but you're twisting words.  My sentiment was simple.  "Would have been great at Woodstock."  The context was "they'd have been great in concert as they were all in their prime."

 

There's no fantasy there.  They were not "long blown off the rock scene."  It was 1969, for Christ's sakes.  They would have been great at Woodstock.  They likely would have stolen the entire 3 days.

 

And, again - I respect your opinion re: Abbey Road, but I love it front-to-back and always will.  I know what I'm listening to.  I know there are cheesy songs on it.  Don't give one half of one *****.  Still love it!

[Rico]

13 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

They weren’t a live act at the time, their recordings were studio tricks with tons of overdubbing and actions that couldn’t be replicated live.

 

John has no interest in stadium concerts, he looked with horror when Paul suggested stadiums during the Let It Be sessions.

 

They had run their course, they made half an album in Abbey Road bailed out by George’s donations 

 

it it was a good trip but the dream was long over....

 

 

 

They also knew that they could never ever touch the Stones magnificent 1969 tour, so staying off the road was the smartest move for their legacy.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Rico

[row_33]

On 9/12/2019 at 12:32 PM, Rico said:

They also knew that they could never ever touch the Stones magnificent 1969 tour, so staying off the road was the smartest move for their legacy.

Huge fan of the Beatles, and the Kinks, and the Beach Boys, 3 acts that ruled through 1967 and thereabouts

 

all 3 kind of got out of touch with the pop/rock scene after late 1968. the Kinks and BBs psychotically so, listened to Friends or the Village PS lately? 

 

for George to have no interest in learning how to play a decent solo guitar line like his Brit friends, whom he was hanging around with, was sad, he wasn't laying in bed for years, with a sandbox under his Steinway in Los Angeles

 

Stones had the all-time king of rhythm guitar hooks, Keith, and his 100% untouchable coolness, to get them through anything, his intro to Can't You Hear Me Knocking was house money for the next 100 years, along with the legend of his composing the hook to "B-word"

 

(***** but Charlie is so underrated considering his blending in with Keith perfectly all those years...)

 

and their product from BB to EoMS is full masterpiece for this genre of music, almost better than anything The Beatles did, but i can never go there...

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by row_33

[row_33]

The Beatles could take the stage after a 20 minute jam off of this? maybe out of nostalgia and sentimentality, they might have been booed or laughed off the stage in 1969.

 

 

 

 

or after seconds 22 to 40 of this? in 1970? let along the pyrotechnics and stage show....

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by row_33

[Rico]

On 9/13/2019 at 1:05 PM, row_33 said:

Huge fan of the Beatles, and the Kinks, and the Beach Boys, 3 acts that ruled through 1967 and thereabouts

 

all 3 kind of got out of touch with the pop/rock scene after late 1968. the Kinks and BBs psychotically so, listened to Friends or the Village PS lately? 

 

for George to have no interest in learning how to play a decent solo guitar line like his Brit friends, whom he was hanging around with, was sad, he wasn't laying in bed for years, with a sandbox under his Steinway in Los Angeles

 

Stones had the all-time king of rhythm guitar hooks, Keith, and his 100% untouchable coolness, to get them through anything, his intro to Can't You Hear Me Knocking was house money for the next 100 years, along with the legend of his composing the hook to "B-word"

 

(***** but Charlie is so underrated considering his blending in with Keith perfectly all those years...)

 

and their product from BB to EoMS is full masterpiece for this genre of music, almost better than anything The Beatles did, but i can never go there...

 

 

Not a Beach Boys fan, other than the hits. I can appreciate what people love about something like Pet Sounds, but it’s nothing I really want to listen to.

 

As for the Kinks, I don’t like them as much as I used to. Even then, I would never play VGPS, much preferred Something Else & FtF.

 

My big 3 of the 60’s (and really all-time) is still Beatles, Stones, and Dylan. Everyone else, even Jimi, is far below looking up at them.

[Ralonzo]

How'd I miss this thread?

To me, I give a slight nod to Rubber Soul as it has some tracks that haven't been killed to death ("Wait", "Run For Your Life"), but mostly it's the album that establishes rock music as a form of expression as valid as any other art.

 

Revolver and Sgt Pepper continue down that road, although the tracks start to suffer from John's ennui/laziness/bad drugs instead of being the alpha d*ck who's a rock star just so he can take your girl. Thanks for nothing, Dylan. (Side note: I laugh at the argument that Dylan > Lennon... maybe if you don't count singing, songwriting, or playing guitar & harmonica).

 

Thought Pepper's was overrated musically, yes it establishes "concept album" yadda yadda but the songs didn't seem as strong since Lennon mostly had pissed off to the country and couldn't be bothered. Maybe he was still mourning McCartney's death  In any event Paul (or Faul) starts to drive the bus, and it's still better than anything else out there but not the same as John's zenith and Paul competing against that. Left to his own devices he was just gonna write show tunes instead of stuff that would become immortal. Lennon's pinnacle as a songwriter was as good as there's ever been, through Rubber Soul. I had deeply underrated him based on his solo output and an initial infatuation (as we all had) with the post-touring Beatles output which is "classic rockish" and more in vogue on AOR.

So Rubber Soul, Revolver, A Hard Day's Night, Help!, Abbey Road. That's my top tier.

 

The pre-Rubber Soul material gets underrated since it's that which lays the essential groundwork for everything rock was yet to become, so it still sounds more current/relevant, but the earlier stuff, working within the confinements of music industry strictures, absolutely maximized what could be achieved. The band itself was tight, lean, "savage young Beatles" as you might marquee on a Tony Sheridan album. I mean, check the harmonies on "Ask My Why" or "There's A Place" (the first track laid down on The Most Important Day In Music History (TM), February 11, 1963). The fire of "I Saw Her Standing There" or "Slow Down." They actually were as good as the hype, even all this time later. The output from 1963-1966 and the impact on the music industry, and ultimately society, that has been and will never be duplicated. If anything The Beatles are underrated in the current year.

[Ralonzo]

On 8/30/2018 at 3:19 PM, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Just found out yesterday there's a bootleg of a cocaine fueled jam session from '74 with John, Paul, Nilson, Bobby Keys (Stones sax player), ans Stevie effin Wonder. Went home and looked it up. Kinda disappointing actually. Still cool to listen to. But its just a bunch of guys screwing around. Not sure how I didn't know about it until just now.

Harry Nilsson was basically a human incarnation of The Hangover trilogy.

 

On 6/19/2018 at 10:14 AM, row_33 said:

Macca's perfect leaven-like fit in harmony when his pals take the lead on a song is something that cannot be duplicated.

McCartney was like the Rich Little of rock and roll. To make the harmony work he could sound like anything at any time. Even Yoko.

 

On 6/18/2018 at 12:17 PM, row_33 said:

it has to say something about us to rave on about Animals all these years later....  ?

Raving and drooling, as it were.

 

On 6/17/2018 at 5:10 PM, Gugny said:

There are some Beatles songs that I don't like a lot.  But Revolution #9 is the only one that I will say "sucks."  Waste of time/space on an otherwise fantastic album.

Paul and John couldn't give those minutes to George for my favorite Esher track

[T&C]

9 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

How'd I miss this thread?

To me, I give a slight nod to Rubber Soul as it has some tracks that haven't been killed to death ("Wait", "Run For Your Life"), but mostly it's the album that establishes rock music as a form of expression as valid as any other art.

 

Revolver and Sgt Pepper continue down that road, although the tracks start to suffer from John's ennui/laziness/bad drugs instead of being the alpha d*ck who's a rock star just so he can take your girl. Thanks for nothing, Dylan. (Side note: I laugh at the argument that Dylan > Lennon... maybe if you don't count singing, songwriting, or playing guitar & harmonica).

 

Thought Pepper's was overrated musically, yes it establishes "concept album" yadda yadda but the songs didn't seem as strong since Lennon mostly had pissed off to the country and couldn't be bothered. Maybe he was still mourning McCartney's death  In any event Paul (or Faul) starts to drive the bus, and it's still better than anything else out there but not the same as John's zenith and Paul competing against that. Left to his own devices he was just gonna write show tunes instead of stuff that would become immortal. Lennon's pinnacle as a songwriter was as good as there's ever been, through Rubber Soul. I had deeply underrated him based on his solo output and an initial infatuation (as we all had) with the post-touring Beatles output which is "classic rockish" and more in vogue on AOR.

So Rubber Soul, Revolver, A Hard Day's Night, Help!, Abbey Road. That's my top tier.

 

The pre-Rubber Soul material gets underrated since it's that which lays the essential groundwork for everything rock was yet to become, so it still sounds more current/relevant, but the earlier stuff, working within the confinements of music industry strictures, absolutely maximized what could be achieved. The band itself was tight, lean, "savage young Beatles" as you might marquee on a Tony Sheridan album. I mean, check the harmonies on "Ask My Why" or "There's A Place" (the first track laid down on The Most Important Day In Music History (TM), February 11, 1963). The fire of "I Saw Her Standing There" or "Slow Down." They actually were as good as the hype, even all this time later. The output from 1963-1966 and the impact on the music industry, and ultimately society, that has been and will never be duplicated. If anything The Beatles are underrated in the current year.

Is this cut and pasted without any kind of reference?

[Ralonzo]

1 hour ago, T&C said:

Is this cut and pasted without any kind of reference?

 

Not sure I understand? I was sad I missed this thread last year and saw it float up this morning and wanted to jump on in, just stream of consciousness while responding to the Poll. I only got thru about 14 pages before kickoff tho' ? so I better get back to it after properly basking in the 2-0 (or 6-0 ?) start to 2019...

 

P.S. This might be a little over the top obsessive, but I'd been on a kick where I was knocking out either left or right channel and listening to the stereo mixes. Stereo being so young at the time, there wasn't much thought to balance, they'd throw rhythm on one channel and leads on another or something like that, but it strips things back and sometimes you catch some slop or misses. They were human after all, and being pressed to a superhuman output of material. It's less of a slog than going through the raw studio tapes.

 

For instance, try it with the remix of "Wait". Left channel is the backing for the track, bass and drums, really solid. Right channel gives John and Paul's harmony (brilliant!) and what I assume is George's lead with the wah during the chorus and naked through the bridge, a little rough!  I guess that's why George gets dumped on as a technician? But it's fascinating in it's way to hear the different "parts," although some things, once heard, you can't unhear like on "I'm Looking Through You" so proceed with caution...

 

More B.S. Quiz:

 

At this point 50 years ago: the entire Beatles canonical catalog had been recorded to tape... except for one song: what was it?

 

Extreme B.S. Q&A:

 

What solo output by a Beatle would you like to have heard done by the band, assuming there's an alternate universe and they didn't break up?

Edited September 16, 2019 by Ralonzo
P.S. for T.C., and more P.S. for more B.S.

[T&C]

Have 3 copies of MMT and 4 copies of SPLHCB in mono... way different listen than the stereo versions. I really need to unload some of these, getting too old to stash things away. 

 

I have always liked the mono versions of most any late 60's group... Cream, BB&THC, etc. Actually found Spirit's 1st lp in mono once.

[Ralonzo]

On 2/7/2019 at 9:43 AM, 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.

Sounds to me like George is the Josh Allen of guitar, whatever your notion was before hearing/seeing only becomes reinforced ?

 

On 1/18/2019 at 10:13 AM, row_33 said:

Yoko will get to sing at all their funerals

 

just because..,

She can't hurt you anymore...

 

2 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

P.S. This might be a little over the top obsessive, but I'd been on a kick where I was knocking out either left or right channel and listening to the stereo mixes. Stereo being so young at the time, there wasn't much thought to balance, they'd throw rhythm on one channel and leads on another or something like that, but it strips things back and sometimes you catch some slop or misses.

And upon catching up on the thread I see this has been covered. Here I thought I was at least a Beatles black belt but guys like @row_33 are 7th Dan masters of the one-inch punch. ?

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Ralonzo
I'm not worthy

[row_33]

Thanks Ralonzo, good responses to keep it going, need more fans that have a lot to say about them.

 

Worst songs?

 

Misery and It's Only Love come to mind immediately, along with a few others predicated on Macca's childish entitlement, but he gave more than could be asked to keep them together the last few years, okay, Hello Goodbye is one of them...

 

Rev 9 was a pop homage to the way it was going in "classical music", the rub was that Macca was the one really interested in exploring the day's art and music and cultural scene, so John and Yoko upstaged him

 

Yoko's mentor's grand release in 1969... that was the way it was... in the name of high culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 9/15/2019 at 8:27 AM, Rico said:

Not a Beach Boys fan, other than the hits. I can appreciate what people love about something like Pet Sounds, but it’s nothing I really want to listen to.

 

As for the Kinks, I don’t like them as much as I used to. Even then, I would never play VGPS, much preferred Something Else & FtF.

 

My big 3 of the 60’s (and really all-time) is still Beatles, Stones, and Dylan. Everyone else, even Jimi, is far below looking up at them.

 

 

i had some Brian Wilson years, so i can appreciate the post-Pet Sounds albums, i wouldn't inflict them on friends or children.

 

Agreed with Beatles and Stones, for #3.... wish i could put Dylan there, Cream gets the bronze medal

 

I can push Led Zeppelin and Grateful Dead into the 70s, although a lot was released in the 60s.

 

 

 

[Rico]

6 hours ago, row_33 said:

Thanks Ralonzo, good responses to keep it going, need more fans that have a lot to say about them.

 

Worst songs?

 

Misery and It's Only Love come to mind immediately, along with a few others predicated on Macca's childish entitlement, but he gave more than could be asked to keep them together the last few years, okay, Hello Goodbye is one of them...

 

Rev 9 was a pop homage to the way it was going in "classical music", the rub was that Macca was the one really interested in exploring the day's art and music and cultural scene, so John and Yoko upstaged him

 

Yoko's mentor's grand release in 1969... that was the way it was... in the name of high culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i had some Brian Wilson years, so i can appreciate the post-Pet Sounds albums, i wouldn't inflict them on friends or children.

 

Agreed with Beatles and Stones, for #3.... wish i could put Dylan there, Cream gets the bronze medal

 

I can push Led Zeppelin and Grateful Dead into the 70s, although a lot was released in the 60s.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say Dylan is my #3 though, I would say it's a 3-way tie for #1.

 

Cream live was just a monster, never play the studio stuff though.

 

For my 70's, I would add Neil, LZ, and the Dead to the Stones and Dylan (in his peak years only)

[T&C]

A Beatles fountain?

 

[row_33]

a millenial co-worker had no idea who that is for that iconic photo....  

 

 

 

[The Dean]

Back in the 90's someone mentioned Paul McCartney in front of an intern. Her response was, "Isn't that the guy from Wings?"  Well, she wasn't wrong. But sheesh.