The Eternal Beatles Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Mark Pfeiffer]

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]

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

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.

Many of them, myself included, are.
------------------
Andrew Hamm's new album Link Removed is available now!

 

[Kevin Leonard]

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.

 

[Kevin Leonard]

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!

 

[RicP]

Hey Great Resurrection!!

Beatles For Sale. For some reason, this is always considered a "weak" or "lesser" album. Can somebody explain to me why

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

 

[MikeAW]

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 !

 

[Mike Broadman]

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

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.

 

[RicP]

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...

Quote:

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.

 

[John Tillman]

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.

 

[MikeAW]

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 ?

 

[Philip Hamm]

Mike, what's with the thread fart?

Are you a musician? Have you ever studied music? Do you have any comprehension of the melodic and harmonic genius that is Lennon & McCartney?

Have you ever heard the following albums:

George Harrison: All Things Must Pass

John Lennon: Plastic Ono Band

Paul McCartney & Wings: Band On The Run

 

[MikeAW]

"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." John

Hmmmm interesting turn in the thread here...but I'm sure that it wouldn't have been as vapid a music culture without the Beatles. Your comment does give me a chill, thinking that we could have been beset with a Dave Clark Five World. Now that would be something to worry about !!! At least Dave Clark knew his destiny lay in real estate..and the World was spared !

There were other, more powerful forces afoot, even bigger that the Beatles, that they themselves were influenced by.

I'm sure we all know who and what they were....US R & B, to name just one. It might have taken a little longer, but we still would have gotten there, is my point. And there was NOTHING, even no Beatles, to hold that back !

 

[RicP]

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 ?

Enough said indeed. Thanks for clearing up the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[MikeAW]

"Who wrote ths Stones first hit single?" RicP

Technically, their first hit single release was in the UK...

"Come On" by Chuck Berry bw. "I Want To Be Loved" by Wilie Dixon...but I'm guessing you don't mean this at all, do you ?

Sorry to disappoint, but "I Wanna Be Your Man" by Lennon/

McCartney bw. "Stoned" by Nanker Phelge, was their second UK official single...and their second single release ever, anywhere, and not until some six months later than "Come On".

Between the "Come On" and "I Wanna Be Your Man" UK singles, there were three compilation releases and one EP release.

"I Wanna Be Your Man" was on the "Ready, Steady, Go" UK compilation album....that's right, with "Come On".

Now "I Wanna Be Your Man" bw. "Stoned" was released as a promo only in the US around the same time as the official UK release of "Come On", but ONLY as a promo, in a limited pressing of 500...not as an official release for consumers.

Their first US official single release, of ANYTHING, wasn't until March '64 and that was "Not Fade Away" by Petty & Hardin bw. "I Wanna Be Your Man" Lennon/McCartney.

Don't tell me...all of this means nothing to your question, right ?

If you need any more help, just ask me.

GEeeeeesch !

 

[MikeAW]

On another subject...interesting thing about how some bands are "guy" groups and some are "girl" groups, regarding appeal...the Beatles have a really strong, almost fanatically so, "guy" following.

Hence, when one invokes the words "Yoko Ono" in just a hushed whisper anywhere, in the middle of a desert...it hits the "guy" fans like a Thunderbolt, and the sound of one hand clapping is overcome by a thunderous uproar likened to a hydrogen bomb.

"Yoko Ono"

 

[Kevin Leonard]

Quote:



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.

I'm going to assume you're referring to the US vinyl version of BFS, because IIRC, "I Feel Fine" was a non-album single. Sorry, I grew up in the CD era, so my familiarity with the American vinyl is minimal. I agree, though: "I Feel Fine" is a pretty cool song; dunno if it's the first use of feedback like Lennon always said, but it's a great rocker either way.


Quote:



Let's face it, some record has to be last on the list, and I feel that this one is it. What about you?




My choice for "worse Beatles album" would have to be Let It Be. While there are a few great songs on there, the record just feels to lackluster to me, for a number of reasons:

1) I listened to LIB again recently and noticed how sloppy and unenthusiastic the instrumentation was. "I've Got a Feeling" and "I Me Mine" are good examples of this. A lot of the music doesn't really sound like the Beatles to me; it sounds more like John, Paul or George singing lead while a trio of somewhat incompetent session players back him up.

2) A friend of mine has a massive 10-disc box set containing many outtakes, demos and alternate takes from the LIB sessions, and from the stuff I've listened to, there was a lot of great material that could've been put on the album instead of the more filler-like official tracks ("Dig It," "The One After 909," "Maggie May," etc.). Even some of the tracks on Anthology 3 were superior to what was on LIB.

3) Another reason I'm not a big fan of LIB is because of the somewhat hypocritical nature of the album. This record was advertised as an album that was just like their earliest material, which meant no overdubs, among other things. There's nothing wrong with going back to your musical roots, but don't ignore the concept by hiring Mr. Wall-of-Sound himself, Phil Spector, to work on some of the tracks. The unaltered version of "The Long and Winding Road" (on Anthology 3) is vastly superior, and should have been on the original album.

4) Additionally, I like the single versions of "Let It Be" and "Get Back" more than their album counterparts. That's not really a criticism, just a personal preference.

5) Finally, I kind of wish the band had used the original cover for the album: an updated version of the Please Please Me cover. Just would've given a nice visual sense of closure to their career.

Don't get me wrong though. I don't hate Let It Be; for all the problems I have with it, it's a pretty good listen. And in the Beatles universe, "worse" translates into "better than some people's best." Considering how fractured the group's relationships with each other were at the time, it's a miracle this album even got released. I just prefer to think of Abbey Road as their "true" final album and view LIB as an interesting experiment.

Ah, thanks for letting me know about the McLachlan cover. With a voice like hers and great source material like "Blackbird," it'd pretty hard to screw it up. Nice to know she did a great job.

BTW: I asked this question in the "signature song" thread but didn't get a response, so I'll ask again. Ric, where did you get that drawing of the Beatles that is on your sig file?

 

[Philip Hamm]

Kevin, while I share your blah blah opionion of the "Let It Be" album, any and all the songs on that album is superior to:
"I'll Follow The Sun"
"Every Little Thing"
"I Don't Want To Spoil The Party" *
"Mr. Moonlight"

* My pick for the single worst Beatles song ever.

 

[Nick_G]

quote from mike broadman:

"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."

i agree. i think that album is over rated. there are some great songs on it..."dear prudence" is probably my favorite.

"revolver" is DEFINITELY my favorite album. then after that i like all of them upto revolver in no particular order. they all have great songs. from sgt. pepper on i have no particular fave, though once again they all contain some great tunes.

 

[Anthony Hom]

Quote:

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?"

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

I'm sorry I have to repond to that. Sure it has historical value, comparing all the pop that came out of America at the same time. I used to think like you, making there early stuff seem so insfantile compared to the later stuff like strawberry fields. But I have changed my opnion on that and consider songs like:

She Loves You

I want to hold your hand

I saw her standing there

I would put those three songs up against anything else they had written as being their finest work. The recordings were raw, and electric. The lyrics weren't so personal, but they are still enjoyable to listen and represent. It was dynamic, amazing they could create those recordings out of just the few basic instruments they played at the time.

If you can listen to the session tracks for ISHST, you might change your ind about the early stuff. They were playing live in the studio and playing their hearts out.

I do like all their later studio work, but I would never dismiss their early material. And as for their musical influences, the one thread was a little off. If you read all the official sources, they (J P and G) did not get into playing music seriously until Elvis came on the scene. If there was an influence that started them on the road, it was him.

 

[Ted Lee]

i started listening to the beatles about four years ago. my friend had a mix tape he made and brought to work.
i tell ya i listened to that tape every night...it started driving everyone crazy!
i don't have a really big collection...just some of their greatest hits compilations. but i often find myself listening to them. i would definitely consider them for my d.i.d list.
i'm glad i've had the opportunity to listen to and appreciate all that these guys have done. i always promote them to whomever i can now.