Favorite Beatles Album

[Max Fischer]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

Oh, I have to respectfully disagree, on this one.  The Jimi Hendrix Experience was stacked with talent.  Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell were two of the best at their respective instruments.

 

I think even Who, Stones and Beatles fans would agree that those bands lacked all-around talent.

 

None of those bands had a top-tier guitarist.  Ringo was a "good," drummer, as was Watts.  Bill Wyman was a very good bassist, but not "one of the best."

 

They made their sounds together, which is what made them such awesome bands.  But the Experience (and the Band of Gypsies, for that matter), were not just Hendrix's backup musicians; they were masters at their crafts.

 

Agree on the Jimi Hendrix Experience, I could listen to Redding and Mitchell all day.  

 

Not so sure about other comments, though.  The Who were super tight group, no weak links, so I'm not sure who you mean.  Entwistle was a superior bassist ("lead" guitarist of the band), Daltrey one of the greatest lead signers, Keith Moon was a magician and Townsend created some of the most iconic rifts.  

 

Same for the Beatles. I'll agree that none were a Top 5 on their instruments, but all were superior in their own right.  Personally, I get a little worked up when Ringo doesn't get his due. The guy revolutionize the rock drummer, so many innovation and methods that are now taken for granted. A great influence on many greats after him. It's hard to ever envision anyone taking his place. 

 

Rolling Stones - I do agree about the entire band to a point but that may have more to do with their longevity and turnover.  Wyman was good but could have been substituted for any number of bassists.  

 

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

 

Agree on the Jimi Hendrix Experience, I could listen to Redding and Mitchell all day.  

 

Not so sure about other comments, though.  The Who were super tight group, no weak links, so I'm not sure who you mean.  Entwistle was a superior bassist ("lead" guitarist of the band), Daltrey one of the greatest lead signers, Keith Moon was a magician and Townsend created some of the most iconic rifts.  

 

Same for the Beatles. I'll agree that none were a Top 5 on their instruments, but all were superior in their own right.  Personally, I get a little worked up when Ringo doesn't get his due. The guy revolutionize the rock drummer, so many innovation and methods that are now taken for granted. A great influence on many greats after him. It's hard to ever envision anyone taking his place. 

 

Rolling Stones - I do agree about the entire band to a point but that may have more to do with their longevity and turnover.  Wyman was good but could have been substituted for any number of bassists.  

 

 

I think Ringo was a good drummer, but he wasn't anything close to a Keith Moon.  I do agree that Ringo was influential and I could never seem him being replaced, either.  I actually think McCartney is a PHENOMENAL bassist, as was Entwistle.

 

And if we're keeping this to Stones, Beatles and Who (for this discussion), I think lead vocals for all three bands were incredible.

 

I think the reason the discussion has gone into this direction was the comment about Hendrix being a "solo" artist.  It's clear we're in agreement with regard to the validity and significance of the Experience.

[coloradobillsfan]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

I wouldn't consider anyone weak.  But I don't think Pete Townsend is an elite guitarist by any stretch.

 

Wow you have a serious standard to live up to!  Even putting the guitar to the side, he penned the lyrics to pretty much all their songs which puts him into elite songwriter category in my book.  He wrote a massive amount of hits for The Who.  

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, coloradobillsfan said:

 

Wow you have a serious standard to live up to!  Even putting the guitar to the side, he penned the lyrics to pretty much all their songs which puts him into elite songwriter category in my book.  He wrote a massive amount of hits for The Who.  

 

Oh, I'm not talking about songwriting.  Not at all.

 

I'm strictly talking about guitar.  If given 10 minutes, I think I could list 100 better guitarists.  That doesn't mean they're bigger rock stars or had more influence.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

Hypothetical. If back in 69, when John left the band, or Paul first (I've heard conflicting stories about who quit first.) If when that person left, and the rest of the band kept trucking with a replacement, would we still have a band called The Beatles today? What direction would it have gone in? Would the group have eventually gotten back together? I know it's a whole bunch of "What ifs" but I think about it often. 

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

Hypothetical. If back in 69, when John left the band, or Paul first (I've heard conflicting stories about who quit first.) If when that person left, and the rest of the band kept trucking with a replacement, would we still have a band called The Beatles today? What direction would it have gone in? Would the group have eventually gotten back together? I know it's a whole bunch of "What ifs" but I think about it often. 

 

This was Jeff Lynne's vision when he formed ELO.  ELO was his "what if."

[coloradobillsfan]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

Oh, I'm not talking about songwriting.  Not at all.

 

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

I think the reason the discussion has gone into this direction was the comment about Hendrix being a "solo" artist.  It's clear we're in agreement with regard to the validity and significance of the Experience.

 

You mentioned a 'lack of overall talent' in the band, I believe talent includes songwriting - that's the only reason I got on the defensive.  

 

Whether or not the Experience counts in the ever-subjective 'best rock band' category is probably a discussion in itself

 

[Gugny]

13 minutes ago, coloradobillsfan said:

 

You mentioned a 'lack of overall talent' in the band, I believe talent includes songwriting - that's the only reason I got on the defensive.  

 

Whether or not the Experience counts in the ever-subjective 'best rock band' category is probably a discussion in itself

 

 

I thought the context of the discussion was mastery of their respective instruments, so it could have easily been my misunderstanding.  Either way, no big deal.

 

And I wouldn't put The Jimi Hendrix Experience in the "best rock band" discussion.  Honestly, it's my opinion that The Stones, The Who and the Beatles are the only three that would qualify.

 

But if we do want to talk "overall talent," which would include songwriting, I'd have to give the edge to the Beatles over the Who and the Stones.  The Beatles had three solid songwriters, who were also each solid vocalists.

 

An earlier post quoted Keith Richards saying that McCartney conceded that the Stones had more talent than the Beatles.  I'd like to know if McCartney corroborated that.

[T&C]

19 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Oh, I'm not talking about songwriting.  Not at all.

 

I'm strictly talking about guitar.  If given 10 minutes, I think I could list 100 better guitarists.  That doesn't mean they're bigger rock stars or had more influence.

Better doesn't exactly mean better imo. Its the style of the band... I mean, Robert Fripp is a great guitar player but he wouldn't have worked well in the Who vision  just like Townsend wouldn't have worked well in the King Crimson vision.

 

I personally think Frank Zappa is the greatest rock guitarist ever but everyone has theirs I suppose.

 

Back in the 60's I would put Mick Avery Way ahead of Ringo as far as drumming is concerned with the British invasion bands. Baker too. But, its all about what was needed for a particular style and sound.

[Gugny]

15 minutes ago, T&C said:

Better doesn't exactly mean better imo. Its the style of the band... I mean, Robert Fripp is a great guitar player but he wouldn't have worked well in the Who vision  just like Townsend wouldn't have worked well in the King Crimson vision.

 

I personally think Frank Zappa is the greatest rock guitarist ever but everyone has theirs I suppose.

 

Back in the 60's I would put Mick Avery Way ahead of Ringo as far as drumming is concerned with the British invasion bands. Baker too. But, its all about what was needed for a particular style and sound.

 

Excellent points and totally agreed.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

16 minutes ago, Gugny said:

An earlier post quoted Keith Richards saying that McCartney conceded that the Stones had more talent than the Beatles.  I'd like to know if McCartney corroborated that.

He conceded that The Stones were better musicians, and Keith conceded that The Beatles were better vocalists. Beatles blow the Stones out of the water when it comes to songwriting. I'm more of a Stones fan myself, but anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. 

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

He conceded that The Stones were better musicians, and Keith conceded that The Beatles were better vocalists. Beatles blow the Stones out of the water when it comes to songwriting. I'm more of a Stones fan myself, but anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. 

 

That's just it.  It's laughable, to me, to say the Stones were better musicians than the Beatles; and more laughable that McCartney would say it.  I believe that it was in the book.  I just can't believe it's true.

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

The combination of musical talent and songwriting is why Rush is the greatest rock band ever.  Geddy Lee #1 bassist.  Neil Peart #1 drummer.  Alex Lifeson probably top 10 but underrated.

Edited June 18, 2018 by JÂy RÛßeÒ

[Gugny]

Just now, JÂy RÛßeÒ said:

The combination of musical talent and songwriting is why Rush is the greatest rock band ever.

 

I mean ... they're okay.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

Watts is much more talented than Ringo, especially his time with The Beatles. He got much better after the breakup. You can't really hear it in Stones songs, because their all so simple, but if you look up some of his solo stuff he does a lot of jazz and you can hear it. 

I'll give you that McCartney is a better bassist than Wymann. 

 

Brian Jones is better than George, but I don't think either of his replacements are. 

Keith is in a league of his own.

 

All four Beatles are better vocalists than Mick.

Lennon/McCartney is lightyears ahead of Jagger/Richards in songwriting.

 

Stones had a better stage show, but they also had the advantage of a singer that wasn't tied to an instrument at a time where cordless mics were a thing. Although Paul solo shows seem to give them a run for their money, at least from what I've seen on TV/DVDs. 

[T&C]

23 minutes ago, JÂy RÛßeÒ said:

The combination of musical talent and songwriting is why Rush is the greatest rock band ever.  Geddy Lee #1 bassist.  Neil Peart #1 drummer.  Alex Lifeson probably top 10 but underrated.

Good band for sure, my first concert ever... at the Aud, but no to everything you said about them.

[Gugny]

25 minutes ago, JÂy RÛßeÒ said:

The combination of musical talent and songwriting is why Rush is the greatest rock band ever.  Geddy Lee #1 bassist.  Neil Peart #1 drummer.  Alex Lifeson probably top 10 but underrated.

 

On a serious note, pound-for-pound, they are definitely one of the most talented rock bands, ever.

 

And I totally agree that Lifeson is underrated. 

 

Rush is easily one of my favorite bands of all time.  Taking my son to the R40 show turned out to be one of the best concert decisions I've ever made.

[Rico]

Big difference between studio and live. Live, Jimi didn’t lose a thing with the Band of Gypsys over the  Experience. All his bands needed was Jimi and other competent players. Live, Bill Wyman made the Stones swing. His absence was and is most glaring from the bland Vegas Stones lineup. Live, Entwistle and Moon were just monsters. It’s not about being technically proficient,  not at all.

[DrDawkinstein]

Started out thinking I had it down to Revolver or Rubber Soul, but after taking a closer look at all of the albums, it's Abbey Road.

[FappyTheClown]

Straight Outta Compton.