|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 6, 2019 7:17:59 GMT -5
I just realized we don't have a proper Beatles thread. Here we go. Rubber soul or revolver?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 7:29:24 GMT -5
Revolver.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 6, 2019 7:50:22 GMT -5
The best Beatles song was the last one I heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 6, 2019 7:54:29 GMT -5
Depends what day to be honest.
Rubber Soul and Revolver are also intriguing with an alternative playlist, just like Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane for Pepper. Meaning you could find room for Day Tripper and We Can Work It Out on Rubber Soul or Rain and Paperback Writer on Revolver.
Tunes I’d take off in place of these if you had to? What Goes On and Run For Your Life, and Good Day Sunshine and Doctor Robert.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 6, 2019 8:08:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 6, 2019 8:15:00 GMT -5
Both are excellent albums and the recordings are so well done. They must have been absurd to listen to in 65/66 compared to what else was going on in the scene. This might be blasphemy but I’ve never been a fan of Yellow Sub or Here There Everywhere. Too damn slow for my ears. Side two of Revolver is perfection.
|
|
|
|
Post by lg on Nov 6, 2019 8:16:50 GMT -5
I think revolver is better but for some reason I prefer rubber soul
Both great albums btw
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 8:20:31 GMT -5
Both are excellent albums and the recordings are so well done. They must have been absurd to listen to in 65/66 compared to what else was going on in the scene. This might be blasphemy but I’ve never been a fan of Yellow Sub or Here There Everywhere. Too damn slow for my ears. Side two of Revolver is perfection. No, I follow you on Yellow Submarine. My least favourite track on Revolver along with Good Day Sunshine. Here, There and Everywhere is a beautiful song though. |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Nov 6, 2019 10:47:47 GMT -5
Never liked Yellow Submarine, always skip it, Here There and Everywhere nice track imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 6, 2019 12:24:22 GMT -5
I know when I was a kid in the 80s and teen in the 90s, the perception was Lennon’s songwriting was becoming lazy, wrote about nonsense and taken a backseat to Paul. I never agreed with that. Over the last 20 years the album and the songs below are celebrated.
I’m Only Sleeping
She Said She Said
And Your Bird Can Sing
Doctor Robert
These are all minor works but great great listens. Love this type of guitar pop. We never really saw the Beatles or John do this type of rock again.
|
|
|
|
Post by glider on Nov 6, 2019 13:02:26 GMT -5
I've been on a giant Beatles kick for the past two weeks, for mainly post Rubber Soul and their solo LPs - and I've realized something. matt, I believe you've stated McCartney's career and contributions has become underrated? I agree. Many people look over his post Beatles material because he aged with everyone else, but he's a musical savant when it comes to pop Melody and lyricism. Paul even could rock when he wanted to, but the immortalization of Lennon (here comes my controversial statement) may be the most overrated event in music ever. His murder was a tragedy but his material for me was never as consistently brilliant as Paul's outside Wings (who still had decent tunes here and there) nor a juggernaut like with George's Triple Masterpiece. His LPs always sounded all over the place and Double Fantasy got overblown because of the historical significance around it, the songs aren't the best and dare I say it, cliched. It's as if Lennon's Yoko lovesong works were precursors for Ashcroft to follow for his Kate ballads. I'm not trying to dig at John as he was still a lyrical genius but Paul's post Beatles work shows he was perhaps the most talented amongst them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 13:18:23 GMT -5
I know when I was a kid in the 80s and teen in the 90s, the perception was Lennon’s songwriting was becoming lazy, wrote about nonsense and taken a backseat to Paul. I never agreed with that. Over the last 20 years the album and the songs below are celebrated. I’m Only Sleeping She Said She Said And Your Bird Can Sing Doctor Robert These are all minor works but great great listens. Love this type of guitar pop. We never really saw the Beatles or John do this type of rock again. I'm Only Sleeping might be in my Beatles top 10. Amazing song. |
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 6, 2019 14:48:10 GMT -5
Who is your favorite beatle(lead vocals)? I'll go with the obvious, John Lennon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 6, 2019 14:49:02 GMT -5
Things we said today is a great tune.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 14:58:31 GMT -5
Revolver is the best Beatles album.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 6, 2019 16:22:46 GMT -5
I've been on a giant Beatles kick for the past two weeks, for mainly post Rubber Soul and their solo LPs - and I've realized something. matt, I believe you've stated McCartney's career and contributions has become underrated? I agree. Many people look over his post Beatles material because he aged with everyone else, but he's a musical savant when it comes to pop Melody and lyricism. Paul even could rock when he wanted to, but the immortalization of Lennon (here comes my controversial statement) may be the most overrated event in music ever. His murder was a tragedy but his material for me was never as consistently brilliant as Paul's outside Wings (who still had decent tunes here and there) nor a juggernaut like with George's Triple Masterpiece. His LPs always sounded all over the place and Double Fantasy got overblown because of the historical significance around it, the songs aren't the best and dare I say it, cliched. It's as if Lennon's Yoko lovesong works were precursors for Ashcroft to follow for his Kate ballads. I'm not trying to dig at John as he was still a lyrical genius but Paul's post Beatles work shows he was perhaps the most talented amongst them. I agree, it’s fair to argue Paul has a stronger, more consistent solo set. As for Lennon, anything post-Imagine isn’t really worth it. I laughed at some journalist who jumped on the Lennon bandwagon and said he’d be releasing experimental electronic music if he was alive today. It’s these types of ignorant cliches that make me laugh. Erm, where the fuck is that adventure in his solo career? It’s fairly meat and potatoes stuff, and becomes more regressive and derivative as the 1970s wore on. He’d passed his experimental phase even by 1969 - remember that he bemoaned to Paul and George Martin the idea of Abbey Road being an entire medley piece (hence the compromise of the traditional first half and the medley second half), shouting ‘we’re supposed to be a fucking rock n roll band’. There’s a smattering of great tunes here and there spread across his albums, but the reality is, Paul was making better music than both John and George into the late 70s and 80s (obviously not Lennon for the 80s). One thing that works against Paul though is that I don’t think he has a solo album as great as Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass. There’s a few albums that are very very good touching on greatness but nothing that surpasses those two. But his consistency in releasing very good music is much higher than the other two. There’s a whole lot of experimentation going on there too. McCartney II, while not great, is great fun (and the deluxe version even better idea of the kind of madness he was getting up to). Flowers In The Dirt is beautiful too. Identity is key though. George had the spiritualism that gave his album an identity, and John had his cathartic album that revealed his torment - both albums of stark identity. Paul was never willing to reveal himself so bluntly and as a result, it’s harder to identify with and as a solo star, perhaps people expect you to be more revealing and upfront when you are the only focal point. It’s harder therefore to latch on to Paul’s stuff so you have to be quite a bit of a fanatic to highlight it - but if you hear, the musicianship, melody and song structures, while never scaling the unbelievable heights of his Beatles work, are still top quality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 16:55:00 GMT -5
I've been on a giant Beatles kick for the past two weeks, for mainly post Rubber Soul and their solo LPs - and I've realized something. matt, I believe you've stated McCartney's career and contributions has become underrated? I agree. Many people look over his post Beatles material because he aged with everyone else, but he's a musical savant when it comes to pop Melody and lyricism. Paul even could rock when he wanted to, but the immortalization of Lennon (here comes my controversial statement) may be the most overrated event in music ever. His murder was a tragedy but his material for me was never as consistently brilliant as Paul's outside Wings (who still had decent tunes here and there) nor a juggernaut like with George's Triple Masterpiece. His LPs always sounded all over the place and Double Fantasy got overblown because of the historical significance around it, the songs aren't the best and dare I say it, cliched. It's as if Lennon's Yoko lovesong works were precursors for Ashcroft to follow for his Kate ballads. I'm not trying to dig at John as he was still a lyrical genius but Paul's post Beatles work shows he was perhaps the most talented amongst them. I agree, it’s fair to argue Paul has a stronger, more consistent solo set. As for Lennon, anything post-Imagine isn’t really worth it. I laughed at some journalist who jumped on the Lennon bandwagon and said he’d be releasing experimental electronic music if he was alive today. It’s these types of ignorant cliches that make me laugh. Erm, where the fuck is that adventure in his solo career? It’s fairly meat and potatoes stuff, and becomes more regressive and derivative as the 1970s wore on. He’d past his experimental phase even by 1969 - remember that he bemoaned to Paul and George Martin the idea of Abbey Road being an entire medley piece (hence the compromise of the traditional first half and the medley second half), shouting ‘we’re supposed to be a fucking rock n roll band’. There’s a smattering of great tunes here and there spread across his albums, but the reality is, Paul was making better music than both John and George into the late 70s and 80s (obviously not Lennon for the 80s). One thing that works against Paul though is that I don’t think he has a solo album as great as Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass. There’s a few albums that are very very good touching on greatness but nothing that surpasses those two. But his consistency in releasing very good music is much higher than the other two. There’s a whole lot of experimentation going on there too. McCartney II, while not great, is great fun (and the deluxe version even better idea of the kind of madness he was getting up to). Flowers In The Dirt is beautiful too. Identity is key though. George had the spiritualism that gave his album an identity, and John had his cathartic album that revealed his torment - both albums of stark identity. Paul was never willing to reveal himself so bluntly and as a result, it’s harder to identify with and as a solo star, perhaps people expect you to be more revealing and upfront when you are the only focal point. It’s harder therefore to latch on to Paul’s stuff so you have to be quite a bit of a fanatic to highlight it - but if you hear, the musicianship, melody and song structures, while never scaling the unbelievable heights of his Beatles work, are still top quality. What do you think of Ram, matt ? For me, Macca's best solo work. I put it next to Plastic Ono Band and All Things Must Pass. |
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Nov 7, 2019 5:41:15 GMT -5
I don't think there's no other Beatles song which I love more than "In My Life".
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 7, 2019 7:57:12 GMT -5
I don't think there's no other Beatles song which I love more than "In My Life". At my wedding, many moons ago, I debated what song to dance with my mom to. The options were Woman by John Lennon or In My Life by The Beatles. I went Beatles in the end.  |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 9, 2019 15:14:21 GMT -5
I agree, it’s fair to argue Paul has a stronger, more consistent solo set. As for Lennon, anything post-Imagine isn’t really worth it. I laughed at some journalist who jumped on the Lennon bandwagon and said he’d be releasing experimental electronic music if he was alive today. It’s these types of ignorant cliches that make me laugh. Erm, where the fuck is that adventure in his solo career? It’s fairly meat and potatoes stuff, and becomes more regressive and derivative as the 1970s wore on. He’d past his experimental phase even by 1969 - remember that he bemoaned to Paul and George Martin the idea of Abbey Road being an entire medley piece (hence the compromise of the traditional first half and the medley second half), shouting ‘we’re supposed to be a fucking rock n roll band’. There’s a smattering of great tunes here and there spread across his albums, but the reality is, Paul was making better music than both John and George into the late 70s and 80s (obviously not Lennon for the 80s). One thing that works against Paul though is that I don’t think he has a solo album as great as Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass. There’s a few albums that are very very good touching on greatness but nothing that surpasses those two. But his consistency in releasing very good music is much higher than the other two. There’s a whole lot of experimentation going on there too. McCartney II, while not great, is great fun (and the deluxe version even better idea of the kind of madness he was getting up to). Flowers In The Dirt is beautiful too. Identity is key though. George had the spiritualism that gave his album an identity, and John had his cathartic album that revealed his torment - both albums of stark identity. Paul was never willing to reveal himself so bluntly and as a result, it’s harder to identify with and as a solo star, perhaps people expect you to be more revealing and upfront when you are the only focal point. It’s harder therefore to latch on to Paul’s stuff so you have to be quite a bit of a fanatic to highlight it - but if you hear, the musicianship, melody and song structures, while never scaling the unbelievable heights of his Beatles work, are still top quality. What do you think of Ram, matt ? For me, Macca's best solo work. I put it next to Plastic Ono Band and All Things Must Pass. Sorry lubeck, didn’t see your tag (I don’t seem to get notification of this - yours and TheEscapists for some strange reason?). I love Ram, and I agree it’s his strongest solo work. I think the thing that holds it back is essentially what I noted above in its apparent lack of identity due to its more cryptic and ambiguous lyrics (e.g. John thought Dear Boy was a dig at him when I think it was about Linda’s dad or something), again Paul opening up his heart explicitly is never going to happen. There is an argument that this shouldn’t hold it back and that it deserves its place amongst the great post-Beatles albums. It’s seen a strange reappraisal in recent years - slated when it came out but now gets brilliant reviews with the reissues. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Nov 9, 2019 16:13:32 GMT -5
'Let It Be (Naked)'. Not a big Beatles fan, but that's my favourite album of theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 9, 2019 17:05:35 GMT -5
Let it be is the worst post rubber soul album. Really sucked to see a band you love in that state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 9, 2019 17:08:32 GMT -5
'Let It Be (Naked)'. Not a big Beatles fan, but that's my favourite album of theirs. Naked.............you’re such a perv. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 10, 2019 6:39:32 GMT -5
1. Abbey Road
2. Revolver
3. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
4. Magical Mystery Tour
5. The White Album
6. Rubber Soul
7. Help!
8. A Hard Day's Night
9. Let it Be
10. Please Please Me
11. With the Beatles
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Nov 10, 2019 7:41:54 GMT -5
I've been on a giant Beatles kick for the past two weeks, for mainly post Rubber Soul and their solo LPs - and I've realized something. matt , I believe you've stated McCartney's career and contributions has become underrated? I agree. Many people look over his post Beatles material because he aged with everyone else, but he's a musical savant when it comes to pop Melody and lyricism. Paul even could rock when he wanted to, but the immortalization of Lennon (here comes my controversial statement) may be the most overrated event in music ever. His murder was a tragedy but his material for me was never as consistently brilliant as Paul's outside Wings (who still had decent tunes here and there) nor a juggernaut like with George's Triple Masterpiece. His LPs always sounded all over the place and Double Fantasy got overblown because of the historical significance around it, the songs aren't the best and dare I say it, cliched. It's as if Lennon's Yoko lovesong works were precursors for Ashcroft to follow for his Kate ballads. I'm not trying to dig at John as he was still a lyrical genius but Paul's post Beatles work shows he was perhaps the most talented amongst them. I know you acknowledged you were saying someting potentially controversial, but I still think you got a bit carried away there.
Overhyped he may be--and, yes, conversely Macca probably doesn't get the respect he deserves a lot of the time--but there are many popular music artists I can think of who are more underserving of the esteem they are held in than John Lennon. How about Michael Jackson, for a start?
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5