Post subject: Something tells me you haven't talked Beatles for awhile
Let's talk. Who doesn't like a good Beatles conversation.
Form opinion: Not the greatest band of all time put certainly the greatest pop rock band. I'm so glad that the reputation of the Beatles has lead me for many years to keep discovering 60's music, even if I wasn't a true Beatlemaniac before. IMO Ram is the best solo-Beatles album. _________________ Do it yourself and let me play my music: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=61802
A lot of the darn kids these days ([grumpy old man voice]dang kids get off my lawn! ) think that news article where some rapper I don't even remember was cool because he kicked Paul McCartney out was the shit. It's interesting how their "clout" has really gone to shit in the past decade for the cool internet posters. Ironically they still dominate nearly every musical site I've seen. Still a top listened to artist on Last.FM. Still dominates overall and 60s charts on both RYM and BEA. So while there's a few hopefuls that maybe their more vocal statements on the internet will change the fact that this band is incredibly historically significant and incredibly musically significant, it won't. My favorite rebuttal once was when I was discussing how Beatles bridged a gap between classical music and rock n' roll, they laughed and were like, yeah, I'm smarter than a composer because I make lists on the internet, plus I agree with the youtube comments...
If only youtube comments could save the world.
Anyway, if you aren't on that side of the railroad tracks, I strongly recommend watching/reading the Anthology that came out in the 90s. It was both a series (I think in the states released on PBS?) and then a coffee table book - which was a little more significant for me. It helps you get in the head space of the creativity of the music. Or if you are on the other side of the tracks the glorification of it and it's really just a bunch of garbage.
The band really can be well split between two periods imo (nicely split between their red and blue albums actually) - I'm not specialist here, but for me it's Rubber Soul onwards and then everything before Rubber Soul. They also were one of the first acts to actually WRITE their own music. A lot of the artists coming out when they did had that single track they wrote, but the whole album was covers. Beatles had a higher track record here, and I think it contributes to their later success being more creative. Their takes on early rock n' roll standards like Roll Over Beethoven or Kansas City puts them on the map as "serious" rock n' rollers as well. I say this because I honestly think they put out these covers (at a time by the way that possibly as much as 80% of releases were covers) and were a match to the greatest rock n' rollers of all time like Little Richard and Chuck Berry. Paul McCartney nails that howling rock n' roll vocal fantastically. I mean compare Elvis' version of Tutti Fruitti to Beatles performances of these to get an idea of what I mean. Beatles did it right - they even did the early motown song right. So in other words, they did this early rock thing really well. They did a pretty good take on soul/motown music as well. Sure they were teased for it and not accepted (hence the title of "Rubber Soul"), but I think they did pretty good for it for a bunch of pasties. I'll say it another way, the bass and drums were imo comparable to Muscle Shoals feel at many times, whereas you don't get that deep bass or swampy drum vibe from most of their peers. Anyway, while I'm not crazy about their early era, I'm just trying to say they did it much better than their peers imo. Would I rather listen to Rolling Stones in 1964 or Beatles? Beatles every time. As a matter of fact, even a Little Richard or Roy Orbison in 1964, I'd take Beatles over them. I mean even Chuck Berry released a live from Liverpool in 64... why would he do a Liverpool location if he wasn't doing an homage himself? They arrived and dominated this rock n' roll, motown/soul, pop rock era.
But then something happened. Some blame it on Bob Dylan introducing them to weed. A new way to look at the world. Later it was LSD. Contrary to popular belief though, according to Ringo, nothing released was while under the influence. They got the ideas using it, but performance wise it usually sounded like shit he said. Musically I think not only did they push boundaries likely due to drugs, but I also want to blame George Martin here. His arrangements became key to their ties to the classical world. I'm curious how much song structure was more up to him than a Beatle or chord changes. How much did he play a role, I'd love to know more. I think most publications will glorify the Beatles themselves, and to say they were only puppets in Mr. Martin's hands likely isn't true either... anyway, I digress. This period where they start doing stuff like a piano solo sped up to almost sound like a harpsichord in the studio on In My Life... stuff like this really revolutionized (I'll be careful here) THEM... they just exploded at this point and left a legacy that countless critics, musicians (Brian Wilson at minimum), and music fans alike don't overrate.
When I revisited their discography in 2016, this is what I decided on when rating it song by song and then averaging out (something I wish I still did, but it's quite tedious):
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band The Beatles 1967 100
Abbey Road The Beatles 1969 100
Revolver The Beatles 1966 95
Magical Mystery Tour The Beatles 1967 95
Love The Beatles 2006 95
Let It Be... Naked The Beatles 2003 91
The Beatles (The White Album) The Beatles 1968 90.9
Let It Be The Beatles 1970 90.8
Rubber Soul The Beatles 1965 90.7
With The Beatles The Beatles 1963 90
Meet The Beatles! The Beatles 1964 90
1967-1970 [Blue Album] The Beatles 1973 90
Past Masters: Volume Two The Beatles 1988 90
Beatles For Sale The Beatles 1964 85
Help! The Beatles 1965 85
1962-1966 [Red Album] The Beatles 1973 85
Anthology 1 The Beatles 1995 85
Anthology 2 The Beatles 1996 85
Anthology 3 The Beatles 1996 85
Please Please Me The Beatles 1963 80
A Hard Day's Night The Beatles 1964 80
Past Masters: Volume One The Beatles 1988 80
Yellow Submarine The Beatles 1969 75
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band The Beatles 1967 100
Abbey Road The Beatles 1969 100
Revolver The Beatles 1966 95
Magical Mystery Tour The Beatles 1967 95
Love The Beatles 2006 95
Let It Be... Naked The Beatles 2003 91
The Beatles (The White Album) The Beatles 1968 90.9
Let It Be The Beatles 1970 90.8
Rubber Soul The Beatles 1965 90.7
With The Beatles The Beatles 1963 90
Meet The Beatles! The Beatles 1964 90
1967-1970 [Blue Album] The Beatles 1973 90
Past Masters: Volume Two The Beatles 1988 90
Beatles For Sale The Beatles 1964 85
Help! The Beatles 1965 85
1962-1966 [Red Album] The Beatles 1973 85
Anthology 1 The Beatles 1995 85
Anthology 2 The Beatles 1996 85
Anthology 3 The Beatles 1996 85
Please Please Me The Beatles 1963 80
A Hard Day's Night The Beatles 1964 80
Past Masters: Volume One The Beatles 1988 80
Yellow Submarine The Beatles 1969 75
A Hard Day's Night so low on your list !?
There is a bizarre american tracklist, but isn't this (UK) tracklist amazing ?!
1. A Hard Day's Night
2. I Should Have Known Better
3. If I Fell
4. I'm Happy Just to Dance with You
5. And I Love Her
6. Tell Me Why
7. Can't Buy Me Love
8. Any Time at All
9. I'll Cry Instead
10. Things We Said Today
11. When I Get Home
12. You Can't Do That
13. I'll Be Back
Do you really like With the Beatles better?
1. It Won't Be Long
2. All I've Got to Do
3. All My Loving
4. Don't Bother Me
5. Little Child
6. Till There Was You
7. Please Mr. Postman
8. Roll Over Beethoven
9. Hold Me Tight
10. You Really Got a Hold on Me
11. I Wanna Be Your Man
12. Devil in Her Heart
13. Not a Second Time
14. Money
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band The Beatles 1967 100
Abbey Road The Beatles 1969 100
Revolver The Beatles 1966 95
Magical Mystery Tour The Beatles 1967 95
Love The Beatles 2006 95
Let It Be... Naked The Beatles 2003 91
The Beatles (The White Album) The Beatles 1968 90.9
Let It Be The Beatles 1970 90.8
Rubber Soul The Beatles 1965 90.7
With The Beatles The Beatles 1963 90
Meet The Beatles! The Beatles 1964 90
1967-1970 [Blue Album] The Beatles 1973 90
Past Masters: Volume Two The Beatles 1988 90
Beatles For Sale The Beatles 1964 85
Help! The Beatles 1965 85
1962-1966 [Red Album] The Beatles 1973 85
Anthology 1 The Beatles 1995 85
Anthology 2 The Beatles 1996 85
Anthology 3 The Beatles 1996 85
A Hard Day's Night The Beatles 1964 82.3
Please Please Me The Beatles 1963 80
Past Masters: Volume One The Beatles 1988 80
Yellow Submarine The Beatles 1969 75
A Hard Day's Night so low on your list !? (AVERAGE IS 82.3)
There is a bizarre american tracklist, but isn't this (UK) tracklist amazing ?!
1. A Hard Day's Night - 100
2. I Should Have Known Better - 90
3. If I Fell - 70
4. I'm Happy Just to Dance with You - 85
5. And I Love Her - 100
6. Tell Me Why - 80
7. Can't Buy Me Love - 95
8. Any Time at All - 70
9. I'll Cry Instead - 70
10. Things We Said Today - 90
11. When I Get Home - 70
12. You Can't Do That - 70
13. I'll Be Back -80
Do you really like With the Beatles better? (90 AVERAGE TRACK RATING)
1. It Won't Be Long - 100
2. All I've Got to Do - 100
3. All My Loving - 100
4. Don't Bother Me - 80
5. Little Child - 80
6. Till There Was You - 90
7. Please Mr. Postman - 100
8. Roll Over Beethoven - 100
9. Hold Me Tight - 80
10. You Really Got a Hold on Me - 100
11. I Wanna Be Your Man - 80
12. Devil in Her Heart - 75
13. Not a Second Time - 75
14. Money - 100
Based on a track by track rating, yes, I like With The Beatles better. Like I mentioned in my early post, Please Mr. Postman (Soul-like feel) and Roll Over Beethoven (early rock n' roll) they did really well.
It looks like while Help! in theory is a better album from a gut check, just has way lower lows for me at a song for song take, which is what made the decision for me in that ranking. I agree that if I were doing a gut check, I'd possibly not make that decision. Help's intro is another key "progression" into very creative songwriting, and that song still is incredibly cathartic at times.
Also it looks like my imperfect record keeping allowed for a bump in it's ranking.
Please Please Me is another record that surprises me as being ranked so low, but there's some pretty bad tracks on that record, even if some of the best early Beatles tracks are on there too.
Last edited by RoundTheBend on 09/13/2020 21:54; edited 1 time in total
I listen to the Beatles all the time and have done for years. They are my favourite band, fave artists.
What surprises me is that I don't get fed up listening to them. I mean sometimes I will go a week not listening to them just to give them a rest, and other music artists a chance.
But I just really like the Beatles.
And, RoundtheBend, I have got the Anthology book, hidden in my bedroom somewhere. That was a good shout man. I am going to read it. I also want to see the Anthology DVD set. And I like the Anthology CDs.
I never understand people who don't rate the Beatles. I can accept differences of opinion but I just don't understand.
Forgot how traumatic (intentional exaggeration) that discussion/argument was. Possibly one of the worst conversations Ive ever had on an internet forum (on both our parts). Though in the context of the internet as a whole monster of its own, Ive seen far worse. Despite how crappy it was, we were both able to say the gist of what we wanted to say without just cutting each other to pieces even if this was often a bit too colored by some impulses of hostility for the others position (but just go to twitter or old imdb msg boards to see the worst of the worst) and (for me at least) the 'rush' of trying to make my points with too much concision in the haste of only having a few min at a time to state them.
To be fair -- and if I remember right -- that video was introduced in the middle (or end) of an argument about Appetite for Destruction, in the middle of an argument about Ringo's drumming ( am I remembering that right ???). What were we thinking haha. And in the context of what was happening, I think I recall saying I wasn't interested nor did I have time to rewatch that (quite long) video that Id already seen years back, but that there were comments scattered throughout the youtube comment section that point out specific flaws in his argument and that I agreed with them. Obviously not an ideal 'retort' but at least something. I dont think I ever said he was wrong from a compositional perspective (or that I was nearly as knowledgeable as him as just a composer) but probably did say that he was exaggerating how extraordinary their compositional merits in relation to music history and 20th century music were (think one of his main points is that they are in the pantheon in this regard with Beethoven and Wagner). Maybe one day Ill break his argument down a bit more but in the end it is not too important to me in a general sense (just occasionally feels like its more important when in the heat of an argument, but outside of that I usually wouldn't even think of it). My biggest weakness in conversations/arguments on the internet is usually a decided lack of time to spend really taking up each point or fleshing out everything in depth, so youre often going to lose me when it comes to having to spend too much time doing that (at least as much my fault as the other guy). _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Forgot how traumatic (intentional exaggeration) that discussion/argument was. Possibly one of the worst conversations Ive ever had on an internet forum (on both our parts). Though in the context of the internet as a whole monster of its own, Ive seen far worse. Despite how crappy it was, we were both able to say the gist of what we wanted to say without just cutting each other to pieces even if this was often a bit too colored by some impulses of hostility for the others position (but just go to twitter or old imdb msg boards to see the worst of the worst) and (for me at least) the 'rush' of trying to make my points with too much concision in the haste of only having a few min at a time to state them.
To be fair -- and if I remember right -- that video was introduced in the middle (or end) of an argument about Appetite for Destruction, in the middle of an argument about Ringo's drumming ( am I remembering that right ???). What were we thinking haha. And in the context of what was happening, I think I recall saying I wasn't interested nor did I have time to rewatch that (quite long) video that Id already seen years back, but that there were comments scattered throughout the youtube comment section that point out specific flaws in his argument and that I agreed with them. Obviously not an ideal 'retort' but at least something. I dont think I ever said he was wrong from a compositional perspective (or that I was nearly as knowledgeable as him as just a composer) but probably did say that he was exaggerating how extraordinary their compositional merits in relation to music history and 20th century music were (think one of his main points is that they are in the pantheon in this regard with Beethoven and Wagner). Maybe one day Ill break his argument down a bit more but in the end it is not too important to me in a general sense (just occasionally feels like its more important when in the heat of an argument, but outside of that I usually wouldn't even think of it). My biggest weakness in conversations/arguments on the internet is usually a decided lack of time to spend really taking up each point or fleshing out everything in depth, so youre often going to lose me when it comes to having to spend too much time doing that (at least as much my fault as the other guy).
Hey man, out of respect I didn't call you out by name and of course used some hyperbole, because if I didn't, I wouldn't be me. Now that you've called yourself out, I will recant my statement, AfterHours didn't literally say I'm smarter than a composer or that he trusts YouTube comments as the gospel truth... hehe. But emotionally that's how I felt and clearly those emotions still run deep.
But no, we really did end up "getting" the jist of what we were trying to say, even if we both agreed if we were talking in person that'd make the whole conversation better. And possibly never did have more than 70% of true clarity in the conversations from both sides possibly. And yes, good lord is the internet often the worst place to have an opinionated conversation. Asynchronous communication has all kinds of issues making it difficult even in the best of intentions.
It's funny how the tone of written word can be misconstrued (laughing at your use of the word traumatic and the proper reframe of the use because in someways it was enough for us both to remember, but not really all too crazy either).
And no if you are looking for an intelligent argument that Beatles=Beethoven, that's not what he's saying, but what he does do is break down their very clever arrangements/methods used in their music that contemporaries weren't doing at all. He also makes an argument that the reason they became respected by the likes of Leonard Bernstein is because *he* argues they bridge this gap between rock n' roll/pop music and turns it a little more serious... as do countless critics, etc.
Quote:
"Hailed on its release as proof that popular music could be as rich an artistic pursuit as more high-minded media such as jazz and classical, the record's reputation and sense of ambition ushered in the album era." - Scott Plagenhoef, Pitchfork
At least many can argue leagues and bounds above Rolling Stones and dare I say Velvet Underground... - in their ability to do what he talks about with their musical creativity - strictly from a arrangement/chord choice, etc. NOT saying those other artists are not good musicians of course. For example I'm remembering him talking about a track (forgetting which) which sounds like a simple pop song, but it actually has 8 chord changes in just the first verse or something like this. The modes they use outside of just major/minor. Uh probably a few other things I'm now forgetting. I mean in all seriousness most velvet undergound songs don't go past 3 chords and the truth (exagerating some there of course), but they aren't masterful arrangements, they are however fantastic in their own right due to their lyrics, artistry, and sound. But please don't think I think any less of them because of it - that's just not their thing. I mean that's why they are cited as many musicians being inspired by them, like U2 was inspired by the Ramones - if a 15 year old thought they had to make music like Sgt. Pepper, they'd not even consider it, but Sweet Jane is one of my favorite songs to play because it's so easy and fun. Even their more daring works like Venus in Furs is replicated by less "skilled" musicians. Not really a fair comparison though because it'd likely be hard for Beatles themselves to recreate what they recreated in the studio - that was the point of their craft though of the time. Push some things to their limits - only able to happen once in the studio just like that.
BUT... to your point, is it emotionally significant or conceptually mindblowing. And to that, I can see where you are coming from. Do they bring up emotional and conceptual things in me greater than most artists yes (Reader Response literary criticism) vs a more formalist read, do they themselves do the most mindblowing stuff, I agree with you in most of your synopsis - some tracks yes, but overall maybe not. I can see why the Doors or VU have an emotional edge (although to be honest I'm not certain of the conceptual edge) whereas the Beatles are considerably more polished in sound, albeit that's kind of their shtick. They have this pop song that actually is a wild trip. They have this near classical polished sound at times (probably due to playing every waking moment of their lives for first part of their career - 8 hour days in Hamburg, but then often playing 2 shows in the same day while on tour when they "made it", and sometimes in two different cities).
However to be honest someday I'd love to hear a break down of your number 1 album from Robert Wyatt because it just doesn't speak to me (even after understanding the emotional health changes he went through/tragedy that inspired the record). I even dig his Shleep album better.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
) think that news article where some rapper I don't even remember was cool because he kicked Paul McCartney out was the shit. It's interesting how their "clout" has really gone to shit in the past decade for the cool internet posters. Ironically they still dominate nearly every musical site I've seen. Still a top listened to artist on Last.FM. Still dominates overall and 60s charts on both RYM and BEA. So while there's a few hopefuls that maybe their more vocal statements on the internet will change the fact that this band is incredibly historically significant and incredibly musically significant, it won't. My favorite rebuttal once was when I was discussing how Beatles bridged a gap between classical music and rock n' roll, they laughed and were like, yeah, I'm smarter than a composer because I make lists on the internet, plus I agree with the youtube comments... 
