Favorite Beatles Album

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

5 minutes ago, FappyTheClown said:

Straight Outta Compton. 

Not a Beatles Album. That was the Monkees. People confuse the two.

[Chef Jim]

On 6/17/2018 at 2:21 PM, The Poojer said:

It's like picking your favorite kid.  That said I went with Abbey Road

 

Funny name for a kid. 

[Buftex]

6 hours ago, Rico said:

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.

Thank you.  Technical proficiency and great rock and roll do not go hand in hand.  

[Buftex]

8 hours 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. 

I love the Beatles and the Stones, though I give the Stones a slight nod.  The Beatles advantage as songwriters comes, in part from the fact that they started writing earlier, and their history as a band was very short, in comparison to the Stones.  They are very different kinds of bands.  I won't argue that Jagger-Richards are better songwriters than Lennon-McCartney, but I would argue that Lennon-McCartney never wrote anything as inspired as "Gimmie Shelter" or "Monkey Man".  I'd put the Stones output from Beggars Banquet- Goat Head Soup up against the Beatles best.  

[T&C]

2 hours ago, Buftex said:

I love the Beatles and the Stones, though I give the Stones a slight nod.  The Beatles advantage as songwriters comes, in part from the fact that they started writing earlier, and their history as a band was very short, in comparison to the Stones.  They are very different kinds of bands.  I won't argue that Jagger-Richards are better songwriters than Lennon-McCartney, but I would argue that Lennon-McCartney never wrote anything as inspired as "Gimmie Shelter" or "Monkey Man".  I'd put the Stones output from Beggars Banquet- Goat Head Soup up against the Beatles best.  

This. They are,as are most great groups. Still, something like Ruby Tuesday is similar imo. Kinks had "similar" stuff too.

[US Egg]

As far as the greatest pop music band debate goes, the Beatles stand alone at the top.

[row_33]

Speaking of She Said She Said, Peter Fonda talks about it during a great one hour podcast with Gilbert Gottfried this week, recommended if one has an interest in Peter’s work, which should be the case for many on here.

 

 

[Rico]

3 hours ago, I am the egg man said:

As far as the greatest pop music band debate goes, the Beatles stand alone at the top.

Agreed.

The Beatles (especially thanks to Macca) are more pop than rock. The Stones are the greatest rock band ever. It’s all good.

[row_33]

3 hours ago, Rico said:

Agreed.

The Beatles (especially thanks to Macca) are more pop than rock. The Stones are the greatest rock band ever. It’s all good.

 

Yup. 

 

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

 

and Keith's screech in background vocals is cherished, as is Jerry Garcia's voice

 

 

[Rico]

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

Yup. 

 

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

 

and Keith's screech in background vocals is cherished, as is Jerry Garcia's voice

 

 

Most would say Macca is the best singer of the 3. He’s got by far the most melodic and prettiest voice, but live, he couldn’t touch the raw emotion and feeling that Jerry had. Once again, it’s not about being technically proficient.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, Rico said:

Most would say Macca is the best singer of the 3. He’s got by far the most melodic and prettiest voice, but live, he couldn’t touch the raw emotion and feeling that Jerry had. Once again, it’s not about being technically proficient.

 

John spoke to me the most, then George, but much respect for Paul's stuff as well.

 

 

[Gugny]

35 minutes ago, Rico said:

Most would say Macca is the best singer of the 3. He’s got by far the most melodic and prettiest voice, but live, he couldn’t touch the raw emotion and feeling that Jerry had. Once again, it’s not about being technically proficient.

 

I don't know.  I saw McCartney a few years back and cried during four different songs.

[Rico]

39 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I don't know.  I saw McCartney a few years back and cried during four different songs.

That’s cool. The only time Jerry made me cry was the day he died, hate to say it but I pretty much took him for granted before that.

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, Rico said:

That’s cool. The only time Jerry made me cry was the day he died, hate to say it but I pretty much took him for granted before that.

 

Jerry Garcia/the Dead .... I've never gotten into either, but I have profound respect for their talent.

 

A close friend of mine is a true Dead Head.  I've listened to some stuff at his house - including an album of pre-Dead Jerry stuff.  It was fantastic.  Just not my gig.

[Misterbluesky]

On 6/17/2018 at 9:01 PM, Greybeard said:

     Here are two links that should be enjoyed by anyone who likes the Beatles.   The first below is an instructor going over some guitar techniques.   Not sure it is for everyone but if you ever played or tried to play a guitar,  you should find it enjoyable.

 

The second link is a composer who goes over some of the unique writing techniques they employed.   I was never a big fan of I am the Walrus, but after watching this I find it a most interesting song.   

    They are both rather long but worth it.   If you only watch one I might guess you should watch the second one.  Enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

JL did a lot of acid to get Walrus done..it's one of my favorites that he gifted to us.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

2 hours ago, Rico said:

Most would say Macca is the best singer of the 3. He’s got by far the most melodic and prettiest voice, but live, he couldn’t touch the raw emotion and feeling that Jerry had. Once again, it’s not about being technically proficient.

 

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

I don't know.  I saw McCartney a few years back and cried during four different songs.

The Beatles live in concert, sounded terrible at many concerts, by their own admission. You can't really blame them. Technology back then just wasn't built to play giant stadiums yet. That, coupled with the sounds of screaming teenage girls, the fact that most of their truly "emotional" songs, save for Yesterday and a few others, weren't recorded until after they quit touring. So going strictly by his time with the Beatles, that's true. 

 

That being said, what McCartney has done live since then, including playing his old Beatles songs, are amazing. Can't say I know from experience (yet), but I own a few of the concert CDs and DVDs and can attest to what @Gugny is saying.

 

 

[Rico]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

Jerry Garcia/the Dead .... I've never gotten into either, but I have profound respect for their talent.

 

A close friend of mine is a true Dead Head.  I've listened to some stuff at his house - including an album of pre-Dead Jerry stuff.  It was fantastic.  Just not my gig.

Totally understandable. I had seen them a bunch of times (anyone else at the great Dead/Stones lost weekend in 1981) and liked them (more so him, didn’t like Weir) but it really didn’t click for me until after he passed. I’ve definitely played their shows way more than anyone else over the past 20+ years. I even like the Bob songs and Donna Jean now.

5 minutes ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said:

 

The Beatles live in concert, sounded terrible at many concerts, by their own admission. You can't really blame them. Technology back then just wasn't built to play giant stadiums yet. That, coupled with the sounds of screaming teenage girls, the fact that most of their truly "emotional" songs, save for Yesterday and a few others, weren't recorded until after they quit touring. So going strictly by his time with the Beatles, that's true. 

 

That being said, what McCartney has done live since then, including playing his old Beatles songs, are amazing. Can't say I know from experience (yet), but I own a few of the concert CDs and DVDs and can attest to what @Gugny is saying.

 

 

That’s fair about the Beatles years. It would’ve been interesting to see them get back together for a tour in 76 instead of Wings Over America. No doubt they were red hot playing clubs before they hit it big. 

 

I’ve only seen Macca once, in Philly 2007. I thought the show was very good but not great, very professional but not very spontaneous at all (ie. you’ve seen one show or listened to one boot of a show, you’ve seen or heard them all.) Same is true of the Vegas Stones over the past 30 years, it just is what it is.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

That’s fair about the Beatles years. It would’ve been interesting to see them get back together for a tour in 76 instead of Wings Over America. No doubt they were red hot playing clubs before they hit it big. 

They were playing 3-4 shows a day. From lunchtime till closing time. They were so hopped up on speed and caffeine, that the show was insane. They played everything from 40s-early 50s standards, rock and roll, Motown, originals. I'd love to have seen them in those days. 

 

1 hour ago, Rico said:

 

I’ve only seen Macca once, in Philly 2007. I thought the show was very good but not great, very professional but not very spontaneous at all (ie. you’ve seen one show or listened to one boot of a show, you’ve seen or heard them all.) Same is true of the Vegas Stones over the past 30 years, it just is what it is.

My dad and I were talking about this the other day. It all depends on the artist, and what the average concertgoer wants to see/hear. Someone going to see a blues/jazz band, or a jam band like The Dead, want to hear extended solos, twists on original songs, songs off a new album, or just something they don't recognize. Same goes for artists known as "virtuoso" for lack of a better term on their insturment, such as Clapton, Hendrix, Rush, etc.

On the other hand, an artist like McCartney, the average concert goer wants songs they can sing along to. Paul's newer material is great. He's still the same songwriter he was back in the 60s. But 75% of the audience isn't familiar with much of his non Beatles works outside the few hits he had with Wings. Couple that with the number of signature, must play songs he has in his career, it doesn't leave much room for spontaneity. 

[Buftex]

The Stones took a little longer to come into their own.  Early on (pre-beggars Banquet) they were a rawer version of the Beatles, to some degree...  but when they reached their artistic peak (68-73) the Stones were as much about the music, the groove, than they were about tradional pop songwriting. John and Paul wrote some of the greatest pop songs in the history of pop music, but they never wrote anything as soulful, as say, "Tumbling Dice".  The Stones were english boys, but their vision was much more in American black music than in English pop.  Like I said, love them both (and the Kinks and the Who), but my personal tastes lean a little more where the Stones went.  Of course the Stones have been a lot longer, and cosequently, put out more marginal (some say bad) records than the Beatles, so their legacy is a bit more tarnished.  Just imagine if the Beatles had stuck around...what would people have thought had McCartney brought "Ebony and Ivory" to the Beatles?

[Gugny]

8 minutes ago, Buftex said:

The Stones took a little longer to come into their own.  Early on (pre-beggars Banquet) they were a rawer version of the Beatles, to some degree...  but when they reached their artistic peak (68-73) the Stones were as much about the music, the groove, than they were about tradional pop songwriting. John and Paul wrote some of the greatest pop songs in the history of pop music, but they never wrote anything as soulful, as say, "Tumbling Dice".  The Stones were english boys, but their vision was much more in American black music than in English pop.  Like I said, love them both (and the Kinks and the Who), but my personal tastes lean a little more where the Stones went.  Of course the Stones have been a lot longer, and cosequently, put out more marginal (some say bad) records than the Beatles, so their legacy is a bit more tarnished.  Just imagine if the Beatles had stuck around...what would people have thought had McCartney brought "Ebony and Ivory" to the Beatles?

 

Great point and question.

 

I cringe to think what the next Zeppelin album would have sounded like after In Through the Out Door.

 

Or the next Police album after Synchronicity.

 

Look at the crap that U2 and Rush pumped out by staying in the game too long (sorry, Jay).  I loved U2 up to Joshua Tree and Rush up to Moving Pictures.

 

The Beatles hung up their cleats at the perfect time.  They made their mark and they went out on top - much like the Police.  Ironically, when the Police played Shea Stadium, that's when Sting knew it was time.  They'd reached the pinnacle (a bar set by the Beatles) and he knew Synchronicity was their last hurrah.