The Eternal Beatles Discussion Thread

This seems more like a poll than a discussion.

My favorite three are

The White Album
Revolver (British)
Help (British)

------------------
These chicks know how to party! - MoJo JoJo

It's still early. Besides, I doubt this will be moved into the Polls area. The Music section is kinda dead. Otherwise how else is this thread still hanging around in the Music area:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/000558.html

Moving on, The Beatles' self-titled 1968 double-album aka The White Album will be their finest moment...a perfect blend of the Fab Four's individual influences, perfect melodies and at the same time, a somewhat sad portrait of a band splitting apart.

I remember reading that George Martin thought the album would be better as a single record. Good thing the band thought otherwise. I really can't think of anything that should be cut out. Even the filler-like material ("Wild Honey Pie," "Long Long Long," "Martha My Dear," "I Will," etc.) seems to nicely fit within in the context of the album.

------------------
Have you ever noticed anyone driving slower than you is an idiot? And anyone driving faster than you is a maniac!! - George Carlin

ICQ: 55259446 (or just search for "John Shaft"...can you dig?)

My top three would be:

Rubber Soul
The White Album
Abbey Road

Boy, does this music age well!!

wow - this should be an excellent thread.

i just got done recording a nice, incredibly clean first uk pressing of sgt. pepper's (mono)onto dat last night (to be transferred to cd tonight).

i love that album and listen to it often.

i would add to my list:

the white album
revolver
rubber soul

those are my favourites, but i do listen to them all, often.

a

ps. i would also add that i am really into the mono mixes, for what it's worth.

------------------
visit neverville

Cool, I've been reading about the mono mix for Pepper recently and have wanted to hear it. I have an old cassette somewhere for the White album in mono, and I've heard that the Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour mono mixes are well worth listening to as well.

I would love to own a CD-Rburner because I love making mix tapes from my CD library (I just passed the 1800 mark with the purchase of the Zombies box set). I am compiling a proposed box set celebrating the year 1967. I have a few more CDs to buy before I can start.

My favorite Beatles songs tend to not be the ones played on the radio much (Yes It Is, Every Little Thing, It's Only Love, I'll Be Back, Flying, Happiness is a Warm Gun, etc.)

------------------
These chicks know how to party! - MoJo JoJo

I must say, I never understood the appeal of the White Album. It's experimental, but the experiments aren't particularly musical, just, I dunno, annoying. Sgt Pepper, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, and Magical Myster Tour are the only albums I actually listen to.

I think that the Beatles are heralded more for their influence and their role in rock 'n' roll history than on musical merits. I'm 23 years old, so I think I listen to them with objective ears. I have no nostalgia.

With that, I do like the Beatles and have tremendous respect for what they did. If nothing else, they had guts. I can't stand their earlier stuff; it's more relevant because of its history. I mean, really, is there anything interesting in "I Wanna Hold Your Hand?" Their late stuff also doesn't hold my interest. When Lennon and McCartney were not working together as much, the magic was lost. Their peak, though, was fantastic. I'll never get sick of Revolver.

The only thing the Beatles lack in, for me, is style. They're too "nice" and friendly. That's just a matter of taste, though. I like stuff that kicks me harder in the ass.

Kevin Leanord,
I don't get that comment about the prog rock thread? Are you a prog basher? Just curious.

Mike,

Ha, I got you beat! I'm 20 years old and never get tired of listening to the Beatles albums.

In response to your question: Larry said the thread felt like a Poll more than a Music thread. I was simply pointing out the prog-rock thread because that is a Poll question if there ever was one and yet still remains in the Music area. That's all.

(And yes, I really don't like prog-rock. If people want to listen to King Crimson, Curved Air, Yes, old-school Genesis, etc., then more power to them. I just never really got into it. But I wasn't trying to bash the genre by linking that thread.)

Well, "Helter Skelter" and "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" kicked my ass pretty hard when I heard them for the first time.

Larry,

What a small world. I just recently purchased the Zombies box set too! Such a great, underrated group.

By the way, I've heard the mono mix of The White Album is vastly different to its stereo counterpart. Is this true? To my ears, there usually isn't much of a difference between mono and stereo, but I've read that the The White Album mono mix has additional instruments you can hear, a more aggressive sound and even additional lyrics! Is this true?

------------------
Have you ever noticed anyone driving slower than you is an idiot? And anyone driving faster than you is a maniac!! - George Carlin

ICQ: 55259446 (or just search for "John Shaft"...can you dig?)

ah, yes - the zombies are quite nice as well..

as for the mono mixes of the beatles tracks, they are the only mixes the beatles themselves were involved in. the stereo mixes were done after the fact and did not involve the beatles at all.

this changed with the white album and later efforts, which were recorded in stereo and then later remixed in mono by the beatles by special request (demanded by the fans, more like it).

the mono mixes have always had their fans, and they are different.

i do not own the white album yet, it will cost me a good us$400 or so to track one down that i would be happy with. i will have one soon, though, as i am itching to hear it.

sgt. pepper's is different. the most noticable differences are:

lucy in the sky with diamonds - john's voice has more effect on it, bass seems much more in the mix

getting better - the hook vocal harmonies have been mixed a little differently

fixing a hole - more bass, some of paul's vocals seem to be from slightly different takes

within you without you - biggest difference on the album for any of the tracks, the end has been slightly extended and ends with a group of people laughing and applauding

when i'm sixty-four - seems slightly less sped up, making paul's chipmunk voice a little easier to listen to

it has been mentioned that george martin greatly preferred the mono version of the album, having read that some time ago, it took me a long time to find a copy in the condition i needed to record at home.

revolver also has some cool changes.. i can detail that later sometime.

as much as i didn't like their earlier, cover/pop material before, i have to say that i do enjoy going back and listening to it now. it is fun stuff, for me at least.

and the experimental/musique concrete moments of revolution 9 in the white album are incredible for me. right up my street.

my favourite track being happiness is a warm gun..

ah.. the beatles!

a

------------------
visit neverville

I think it's much more interesting to discuss favorite Beatles songs rather than albums, so here I go...

I generally prefer the less-heard songs as well, likely because, in not over-exposing myself to them, I am able to retain a sense of freshness with each listen.

I would mention:

*I Should Have Known Better* Probably my favorite Beatles tune. Whenever I hear it I picture the scene from the film A Hard Day's Night in which they sing it. Awesome vocals and driving harp from John.

*Here, There, & Everywhere* Their most beautiful melody, and among their most beautiful lyrics ("I want her everywhere, and if she's beside me I know I need never care...")

*Oh, Darling* What ass-kicking vocals!

*She's Leaving Home* A song of depth that is a heart-breaker. I've just recently come to appreciate it.

*A Hard Day's Night* Just hearing that opening (G7) chord can send chills down my spine (this is a nostalgia entry).

*If I Fell* Remember Diane Keaton crying, singing this song in the bathtub in the film "Shoot the Moon"?

*I Will* A gorgeous love song.

*In My Life* Over-played but underrated.

*Sexy Sadie* More great Lennon vocals.

*Across the Universe* Another underrated gem I've only recently 'discovered'.

...and the inevitable list of songs I could do without ever hearing again: Good Day Sunshine, Yellow Submarine, Octopus's Garden, A Taste of Honey, Baby You're a Rich Man, Got To Get You Into My Life, Birthday, & Don't Pass Me By.

Comments?

Jon




------------------
"This one goes to eleven." (Nigel Tufnel)

Kevin, sorry I misunderstood your post about the prog thread. I tend to get defensive of prog because most people seem so intent on tearing it down. Not liking it is one thing, I just don't understand why it's as maligned as it is. Again, sorry about that.


Well, let me ammend my previous statement: it's not that the Beatles lack style, it's more like they lack a, I dunno, kick. They're a bit too happy for me most of the time.

As a teenager growing up with the Beatles was a treat indeed. I consider the 60's the most influential decade of the century. The Beatles set the tone so to speak for a new direction in music. A most exciting period to see it & listen to it. My favorite tunes are the more early Beatles tunes She Loves You, Bad Boy, Boys, Dizzy Miss Lizzy, Misery, I Want to Hold Your Hand etc. But I love all their music to be honest. People will be listening to Beatle tunes probably forever. Their music is timeless! They are also probably the most collectable artists of all besides Elvis.
Al

Sorry, but the best three Beatle's albums have got to be:

Sgt Pepper's
Abbey Road
Revolver

Sgt Pepper's was the touchstone of excellence for years until critics, because they've got to be perverse as part of their job contracts, decided it was 'indulgent'. Strange how ever since they spend their time protesting why Sgt Pepper's isn't the best album.

The Beatles are unquestionably the biggest single influence in pop music. You don't have to like them, but in pop history they are fantastically important. It is difficult to appreciate now, but they were almost single-handedly responsible for getting people to take pop music seriously rather than as a fashion accessory. Sure, people like Bob Dylan had attracted intellectual attention, but that was for his lyrics, and followed in the long line of the press patronising folk singers. Sergeant Pepper was the watershed. Revolver arguably has better-constructed tunes, but it's Pepper which as a unit is more memorable. Abbey Road is in many ways a repeat of the Pepper concept, only with far better melodies.

Personally, whilst I hugely admire the Beatles, and have everything they released (plus a lot of the sort of unofficial recordings we're not allowed to mention on this forum) I like to listen to e.g. Pet Shop Boys, Abba and Kraftwerk even more. I think their melodies are far catchier and there is often less filler on their albums. I agree 100 per cent with George Martin that the White Album should have been clipped to a single LP. The reason it wasn't was because of the internal feuds within the group, so everybody's contributions had to go on. However, there's also a lot of filler on their other albums as well. One of the great joys of the Beatles on CD is that it's easy to skip tracks.

Pepper mono - Gotta disagree with choices for "most different" tracks. The last 4 tracks on the lp are the most varied. Rita has almost all the vocal sound effects (grunts and heavy breathing) mixed out at the end, and the piano is much louder in this section. Also the final shout of "Leave It!" is much louder and up front. Good Morning Good Morning has an extended ending (longer fade before the sound effects) - and the sound effects come in at different times. The "blend" into Peppers reprise is also edited differently. The Reprise has extra drum beats at the beginning, and at the end Paul is yelling maniacally, which is all but mixed out of the stereo. The "blend" into A Day in the Life is different as well. the mono has the heavy breathing after the line "dragged a comb across my head" edited out (or at least buried in the mix).

The White album has some differences, but the most famous one is Helter Sketlter which runs about a minute shorter in mono. The section where the first fade (in stereo) is from a different part of the same take on the mono, and the song does not fade back in. Background vocals are WAY louder to. The mono has no "blisters on my fingers" at the end.

Although I have to give an edge to the White album just because there's more music there, there's no way in hell I could list just three.

Just a few comments.


You're a sick puppy. Actually it's my favorite too, I'm just surprised it's anyone else's fav.


Could you give me a quick definition of progressive rock? It must not be what I think it is, cause if it were, prog rock fans would be all over I am the Walrus and other Beatle songs.


Please listen to Yer Blues. It hardly lacks kick, and the lyrics are far from happy.

------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

Anyone have a clue if the Beatles Anthology will 'ever' be released on DVD???? I haven't seen it since it was on TV years ago. What a money maker it would be.

No

I went into a whole thing about it in this thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/000558.html

It has never been clearly "defined," but I guess this one can do for now:
Progressive rock: Rock music that incorporates non-rock musical styles and technically skilled musicianship to create complex, "serious" music.

I assure you, this definition is inadequate.

That being said, most prog musicians and fans love the Beatles. Many credit the Beatles as being one of the creators of the genre. Yes, one of the premier prog bands of all time, covered a Beatles song on their first album. Those Beatles songs with strings (Strawberry Fields and such) could be considered prog, or art-rock. Early attempts to create "serious" rock music involved adding orchestra sounds to the music (Moody Blues, for example).


Ok, everyone keeps telling me Yer Blues are an example of the Beatles "kicking ass" or whatever. Fine, but that's one song. Their general attitude is one focused on melodic, uplifting sing-songs. That's just their "thing." Everyone has their emotional approach: the Stones were sleazy, Floyd were artsy, the Dead were stoned hippies, etc.

I consider those to be mostly overgeneralizing. The Stones had lots of happy music, both lyrically and musically.

The following are just some of the Beatles songs with darker lyrics:

A Day in the Life (suicide, etc.)
Don't Bother Me
For No One
Happiness is a Warm Gun
Hey Bulldog
I am the Walrus
I Dont' Want to Spoil the Party
I'll Cry Instead
I'm a Loser
I'm So Tired
Misery
Norwegian Wood (all about an extramarital affair)
Piggies (one of the first uses of 'damn' on a mainstream lp)
Revolution
Run for Your Life
She's Leaving Home
The Ballad of John & Yoko
Think for Yourself
What Goes On?
Yer Blues
You Can't Do That
You Never Give Me Your Money

The following are among the ones that aren't exactly soft rock:

Helter Skelter
Hey Bulldog
I Feel Fine (first feedback on record)
Long Tall Sally
Revolution
Tomorrow Never Knows
Yer Blues
Back in the U.S.S.R.
Bad Boy
Come Together
Happiness is a Warm Gun

and lots of others

------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

Overall, I miss the diversity a band like The Beatles brought into a single unit. With every album they took a step that had people shaking their heads for a few weeks, until everyone caught on. Needless to say - back in '64 when everyone was gearing up for the next batch of "yeah, yeah, yeah", they offered up "For Sale" kicking it off with "No Reply". Lyrically they moved on from Holding Hands and musically they began to work in a more "folk music" style.

Just when we thought we had them pegged - they offered Revolver which gave us a harder sound, yet put it alongside some of their most easy going, yet finely crafted pop songs yet.

Just when we thought the studio experimentation would never stop - they went back to the roots with the white album. Abbey Road was the swansong and neatly tied the whole thing up.

The remarkable thing was - through 14 original albums, they were always respected. They did it all - hard, soft, serious, humorous, even downright goofy. And only recently do people begin to criticize them. There are very few modern popular acts that have the diversity they did (quick: name three). Oddly enough, those that do either suffer from poor sales or are labeled eccentric (like Elvis Costello), or else their fan base criticizes them for selling out - just for TRYING (like Metallica).

------------------

Hmm, Alex asked who are the three bands that have the diversity:

--Wilco (and word is that they have made more changes with their as-yet unreleased new album--of course I don't know if they qualify as being popular)
--R.E.M. (probably been more "experimental" in the last ten years or so)
--U2 (signature sound but have certainly tried different styles)

How many did I get right? I'd say Radiohead would fit in that group, but they in some ways seem too obvious. Oh, and Beck would qualify on his own.

(And have any of you heard Guided By Voices? Certainly British Invasion influenced, but a very wide range of stuff.)

------------------
Read my reviews at www.dvdmon.com

Most recent reviews: WarGames , Open Your Eyes , Waiting for Guffman , Maelstrom , Diary of a Chambermaid: The Criterion Collection

Most recent column: Panning P&S


[Edited last by Mark Pfeiffer on September 01, 2001 at 09:21 PM]

Many of them, myself included, are.

------------------
Andrew Hamm's new album Strange Education is available now!

A lot of Beatles-related stories have been popping up lately--some of it news we dreaded--so I'd figured now would be as good a time as any to revive this thread.

I've got two questions:
1) Beatles For Sale. For some reason, this is always considered a "weak" or "lesser" album. Can somebody explain to me why? It contains one of the group's best-loved songs ("Eight Days a Week") and the opening 1-2-3 punch of "No Reply," "I'm a Loser" and "Baby's In Black" still knocks me out no matter how many times I listen to it. A wonderful underrated album. Just curious for your thoughts on this, if any.

2) Somebody posted an article about the upcoming I Am Sam soundtrack, which features nothing but Beatles covers. The tracklisting is:

1. Two of Us - Aimee Mann & Michael Penn
2. Blackbird - Sarah McLachlan
3. Across the Universe - Rufus Wainright
4. I'm Looking Through You - The Wallflowers
5. You've Got to Hide Your Love Away - Eddie Vedder
6. Strawberry Fields - Ben Harper
7. Mother Nature's Son - Sheryl Crow
8. Golden Slumbers - Ben Folds
9. I'm Only Sleeping - The Vines
10. Don't Let Me Down - Stereophonics
11. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds - The Black Crowes
12. Julia - Chocolate Genius
13. We Can Work It Out - Heather Nova
14. Help - Howie Day
15. Nowhere Man - Paul Westerberg
16. Revolution - Grandaddy
17. Let It Be - Nick Cave

I was skeptical of this soundtrack initially, but after viewing the group of musicians they've rounded up, I am now quite curious. The Vines, Paul Westerberg, Sarah McLachlan, Nick Cave and the Mann/Penn duet look the most interesting.

Anybody have any thoughts on this soundtrack, or the subject of Beatles covers in general? I mean, the majority of Fab Four covers suck very badly (William Shatner's "Nowhere Man"...shudder), but believe it or not, there are some great reinterpetations out there. Hell, I've got a couple of CD's full of 'em!

Hey Great Resurrection!!

Well I can try. Comparitvely, I'd have to agree with BFS being the weakest of all the Beatles studio releases from PPM to Let it Be -- not including MMT or Yellow Submarine.

Even George Martin has acknowledged that BFS was somewhat lacking saying, "Beatles for Sale doesn't appeal to me much anymore, it's not one of their most memorable ones. They picked it up again after that." - A Day In The Life pp.100

Only eight of the fourteen tracks on BFS are originals. After the breakthrough of AHDN, this was somewhat disappointing. I do however feel that Lennon's work on BFS -- in what he called his "Dylan" period -- is very good. John started to write more introspective songs like "No Reply", "I'm a Loser", and "Baby's In Black". "Eight days a week" is a catchy tune as well and in fact was slated to be the single from the record until John came up with the superior "I Feel Fine".

Remember that the boys were touring virtually non-stop at this point, and the fact that they even had enough time to write 8 songs is amazing.

The best track from the record is "I Feel Fine" IMO, but as a whole, BFS would have to be the weakest of the studio albums. Let's face it, some record has to be last on the list, and I feel that this one is it. What about you?

Incidentally, I've heard the Sarah McLachlan version of Blackbird and it's just breathtakingly beautiful

As a unit, the were great...but solo, they were revealed to be the mediocre, boring, duds they really were when they were a band. Only we were all tooooo Cool to say anything about it, lest it be taken as blasphemous. It's in the Bible, almost.

Not one of them had a consistently good album in them, nor did they produce a consistent and coherent body of work to be proud of. Very spotty for guys so talented. They only sold their solo music on the basis of their overblown reputation.

They got a free ride, and they continue to get one.

It was very sad to find out, but I really feel it's true, and it wasn't until the advent of the CD and the perspective of Time, that this could be evidenced.

The Sex Pistols were right...a bunch of Old Farts !

I don't get it... by "unit," you mean the Beatles, right? So the band was great, but they were boring duds as a band? What are you even trying to say?




Oh yeah, I'm gonna take my music criticism from guys that can't even play three crummy power chords correctly. The Sex Pistols whole act was based on slamming other musicians. Rock critics with poorly tuned guitars.

Yes, I also don't like the Beatles members' solo stuff. This just tells us that they had the proper group dynamic and excellent creative relationship that bands have. Wereas most bands are really the creative vision of one person, the Beatles' center was in the songwriting partnership of Lennon and McCartney.

Lots of bands are defined by the Group as Whole rather than One Guy: King's X, Rush, Pearljam (when they were good, before Vedder took over), Metallica, etc.

MikeAW,

Suffice to say that I feel that your take on things is a little inane.

Just so we know where you're coming from...

Here's a quote from MikeAW from another thread...

Ok, so now that we know what we're dealing with.

Hmm first of all, were they "great" or were they "boring, duds"? You can't seem to make up your mind here and it's only your first sentence.

Secondly, you are indeed out of your mind if you think that the solo albums were "mediocre".

Yea, hmmm.
McCartney
Imagine
All Things Must Pass
Yea not a one...and that's just 3 of the first 4 released. Again, why call them "great", or "talented" then? if they never produced anything "consistent" or "coherent" (do you even know the definition of this word?) then how could they be "great" and "talented"?

If you can't even present a cogent argument within which you are not contradicting yourself, it is impossible for us to take any of your rantings seriously.

What is more likely is that you have some sort of ulterior motive or you think it's "cool" to bash something that's popular and well regarded. That of course is your right, but when your specious argument is presented as it is above with absolutely no backing nor salient points to validate your spurious assertions, then please forgive us if we choose to take appropriate action...that is, dismiss it as trolling.

Good Day.

I just picked up BFS while browsing in Costco's over the holidays. I always liked it, although it was called Beatles 65' back then. "I Feel Fine" was great but got way too much airplay.

I agree Kevin, even though these were negative songs, I always enjoyed listening to "No Reply," "I'm a Loser" and "Baby's In Black".

MikeAW: I was about 10 when the Beatles hit our shores, so I grew up with and enjoyed them quite a bit. I have an older brother who grew up with the music of the 50's and never quite bought into the whole Beatles thing. I guess people kind of meld with what's hot when they are growing up. Surely you must realize the influence they had on music during and after their run. Actually, it went way, way beyond music. If you ever watched "It's A Wonderful Life" think of it this way... We would all be living in Pottersville if it weren't for the Beatles.

As far as their work after the end, there is great material but Harrison was the only one with something to prove as a writer. His work ATMP, is thought of by some, as the best post Beatles work of them all. He did a re-master before he died, check it out.

Ricp, as Mike previous to your post felt, as a band it
"worked", solo it didn't "work" for them.

As to your comments about "why did you call them "great", they were "great" in the sense they did produce good music, and pushed the art form forward.

As to your comments about they "were...'great' or were they 'boring, duds'? As they were approved by Ed Sullivan and The Establishment, so they were deemed approved by the status quo as fit for consumption by our Parents, whereas, the Rolling Stones were the complete antithesis of what the Beatles were all about, and marketed that way. Looking at their musical background and what THEY listened to growing up in their respective homes and in the bomb shelters...it was the music of the day...vaudeville, crooners, music hall and Skiffle. It wasn't until they were older, that they got ahold of those 78's from the US and learned to Rock! Paul's father was a dance band leader. Enough said ?

I understand that I have committed a Mortal Sin, to besmerch the name of The Beatles...but it was this mindless worship that even turned them all off. What's up with that ?

PS....I don't care what you think about what I say.Feel better ?