Best reissues - The Beatles.

HA!

Quote
skipstone
The fans of both bands always made it such a big deal. They didn't. That should say something.

Yeah. Back around 1965 when most of those making it a big deal were about 12.

In 2010, to get worked up about it is bordering on the retarded.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
skipstone
The fans of both bands always made it such a big deal. They didn't. That should say something.

Yeah. Back around 1965 when most of those making it a big deal were about 12.

In 2010, to get worked up about it is bordering on the retarded.

Perhaps there´s a few youngsters on this forum too...

Yeah it really is silly isn't it? They hung out, loved each other's music, and they are both great! You can find unique aspects for each band, and enjoy their diverse sounds equally. Boy what would have happened if they really did start their own label together...? Maybe that would have shielded The Beatles from Allen Klein. Anyhow, both great bands with so much to offer interested listeners...

I don´t believe you are talking about stones x beatles yet.

Just to be clear, when I said 'they' I meant the Beatles and the Stones, not fans. The entire thing is stupid and means absolutely nothing and has no ground, no depth, no substance - it's just a gigantic ball of nothing.

Quote
skipstone
Just to be clear, when I said 'they' I meant the Beatles and the Stones, not fans. The entire thing is stupid and means absolutely nothing and has no ground, no depth, no substance - it's just a gigantic ball of nothing.

I realised that. My comments werent aimed at you, mate.

In the great professional wrestling steel cage match, I'd give the nod to the Stones: they had one more member, and Lennon and Harrison were too pacificist to brawl. On the other hand, Perky would have been too busy trying to give girls in the front rows his room number, and Brian Jones would have been distracted by beating up his lady of the moment who rushed to ringside from the wings. Then Epstein or Oldham throws a chair into the ring, and no title changes hands.

Did you ever notice that LSTNT sounds like The Beatles Youre Gonna Lose That Girl? There seem to be lots of wxamples where Mick and Keith take Beatle chords and melodies for their songs but i dont believe The Beatles were looking to The Stones for material or influences. It happened a lot too. Without Beatles no Stones. Didnt Andrew Oldham come from Brian Epsteins company? The Stones have more CDs I love but comparing these bands should take into account that The Stones whole professional career and promotion and even hair were a product of Beatlemania at first. Mick with the Mahariji in India etc. Brian Jones had the most creative natural intelligence of the 5 but Mick and Keith turned into such wonderful songwriters. The Beatles were the originators. They were glad to help The Stones. The Stones never seemed to do that.

>> The Stones never seemed to do that <<

sure they did! it was from Keith that the Beatles got the idea of using Epiphone Casinos :E

>> Mick with the Mahariji in India <<

... a weekend session with the Maharishi in Wales, you mean (and it was cut short when Brian Epstein died)

Quote
with sssoul
>> The Stones never seemed to do that <<

sure they did! it was from Keith that the Beatles got the idea of using Epiphone Casinos :E

>> Mick with the Mahariji in India <<

... a weekend session with the Maharishi in Wales, you mean (and it was cut short when Brian Epstein died)

And all he did there was sex with Marianne.
There is this story Mick told in Ruthless - they made love and Jonh came in the room and told smth. like "Mick, all you think about is f---g sex! We are here for the spiritual goals..."

Mick was in india with them. Good joke about the guitar brands tho. ;-) . The Stones grew into a very original band pretty quickly because the writing and playing and chemistry was so good and in the first years Brian always brought some odd but perfectly original instrument or sound. There are about four Beatle albums that stand every test of time for me but at the end of all comparisons The Stones for me are more earthy. There are probably at least 6 RS albums that are overwhelmingly durable.

I don't believe the Beatles ever released a bad album, or even one that could be deemed less than good. The fact that many of them are of such a high quality just goes to show how incredible their work rate was, especially in the days when they were still touring also, as well as writing and recording etc. Those were the days pre-1966 when the Beatles were releasing two albums a year. I think the strain does show a little on 'Beatles For Sale', however, because despite the fact the album does possess a number of exceptional tracks ('No Reply', I'm A Loser' especially) which show a clear progression, generally i don't think it is quite up to the standard of a number of their other albums from the period. Perhaps with 'Rubber Soul' the Beatles began to develop a great deal more artistically, where the songs become a little less simplistic, and greater depth can be found. However, those early albums do retain an incredible freshness and vitality, and are extremely charming, where many of the songs remain infinitely still very memorable. It is amazing how perfectly in sinc the members of the group were with each other in those early days, and in turn how well they complimented each other. I don't think the Stones influenced them greatly, although i think i read somewhere that the heavier riff of 'Day Tripper' was influenced by the Stones heavier sound, as well as other contemporary groups like the Who. To a degree, after 'Revolver' art began to replace musical spontaneity in the Beatles sound, which worked well to a point, but also could give the impression that the Beatles were becoming, perhaps, a touch self indulgent. That's not to say that the results were severely inferior in any degree. To a point i think Doxa is right that post 'Sergeant Pepper' the Beatles were no longer quite the central force within popular music, in terms of them existing no longer alone in that role, although they did continue to be exceptionally good, in pretty much all respects. However only 'Revolver' comes close to capturing my heart in the way many of the very best Stones albums tend to. The Stones did appear to spend much of their time trying to play catch up to the Beatles, although their blues influences, of course, marked a clear distinction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-13 19:52 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining
I don't believe the Beatles ever released a bad album.

but they did release some lousy songs. Rubber Soul is a great album but it also has some less-than memorable filler on it. What Goes On and I'm looking Through You being two of them. even Nowhere Man is kinda boring to me.

An old battlefield.... I always thought Brian Jones was the image of Rock, that the cover pic of Rolling Stones New Hitmakers was the alpha and omega of Rock and Roll. I think my musical choice was the right one in those very old days and still does. I never listened to the Beatles. They are not part of my musical world.

Quote
bernardanderson

Quote
Edward Twining
I don't believe the Beatles ever released a bad album.

but they did release some lousy songs. Rubber Soul is a great album but it also has some less-than memorable filler on it. What Goes On and I'm looking Through You being two of them. even Nowhere Man is kinda boring to me.

Well, i wouldn't argue with you there in relation to 'What Goes On'. There are many songs spread across their career i could agree are lousy (for use of a better word), but the rate of great songs in relation to lousy songs is very high in my opinion, and certainly when compared with many of their contemporaries.

I don't believe the Beatles ever released a bad album, or even one that could be deemed less than good - Edward Twining Quote

Magical Mystery Tour, at least the American version, is a little lackluster. The cuts included but previously released seem from a different, better era. Personally I could flush Your Mother Should Know down the john with Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

Quote
24FPS
I don't believe the Beatles ever released a bad album, or even one that could be deemed less than good - Edward Twining Quote

Magical Mystery Tour, at least the American version, is a little lackluster. The cuts included but previously released seem from a different, better era. Personally I could flush Your Mother Should Know down the john with Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

Ahhh, but then you have the essential I Am the Walrus, other great tracks like Flying, Blue Jay Way and The Fool on the Hill, and then the singles and b sides, like Baby Your A Rich Man... It was better as an EP as it was released in England.

Magical Mystery Tour is a bit akin to Goats Head Soup; both following epochal albums by both groups, Sgt. Pepper, and Exile, respectively. And both have moments, but both suffer in comparison to their previous works.

I never really thought of 'Magical Mystery Tour' as an album - more a collection of singles and b sides with a few bonus studio tracks thrown in. It's still pretty good, mind. The album 'Yellow Submarine' which again i don't think of as a genuine Beatles album has the poorest contributions from the Beatles in my opinion. Possibly the only time within their recording career aside from the occasional later 'Anthology' compilation songs, where the Beatles sounded like they were scraping the barrel a little, by their very high standards.

Magical Mystery Tour wasn't meant as an album. It was an double-EP and not an LP-album at that time when it was originally released.
But when their catalogue was released on CD they put in some singles from that period and made an CD-album of it.
And the compilations Past Masters is an result of the CD-era, too. Only contains songs (or versions) that you can't find on any album).

(I hope I remember this corrent )

Actually MMT was an album in the US. It was released in the 60's as an album in the US, and in Britain as a double EP. When released on CD the US version was released.

Quote
Thommie
Magical Mystery Tour wasn't meant as an album. It was an double-EP and not an LP-album at that time when it was originally released.
But when their catalogue was released on CD they put in some singles from that period and made an CD-album of it.
And the compilations Past Masters is an result of the CD-era, too. Only contains songs (or versions) that you can't find on any album).

(I hope I remember this corrent )

I have Past Masters vol1 and 2 on LP. Think it was a result of being able to buy beatles singles on 2 albums.

Quote
Come On

Quote
Thommie
Magical Mystery Tour wasn't meant as an album. It was an double-EP and not an LP-album at that time when it was originally released.
But when their catalogue was released on CD they put in some singles from that period and made an CD-album of it.
And the compilations Past Masters is an result of the CD-era, too. Only contains songs (or versions) that you can't find on any album).

(I hope I remember this corrent )

I have Past Masters vol1 and 2 on LP. Think it was a result of being able to buy beatles singles on 2 albums.

Yes, but weren't they released in the 80's when the CDs were released?

Sure Past Masters is a great compilation. One could only hope The Stones would one day release a similar collection of complete B-sides and Rarities.

Last year Past Masters was re-released as ONE title (not two as in the 80's). The collection includes every track not available on the original UK albums and Magical Mystery Tour (which is canon these days).

Quote
Thommie

Quote
Come On

Quote
Thommie
Magical Mystery Tour wasn't meant as an album. It was an double-EP and not an LP-album at that time when it was originally released.
But when their catalogue was released on CD they put in some singles from that period and made an CD-album of it.
And the compilations Past Masters is an result of the CD-era, too. Only contains songs (or versions) that you can't find on any album).

(I hope I remember this corrent )

I have Past Masters vol1 and 2 on LP. Think it was a result of being able to buy beatles singles on 2 albums.

Yes, but weren't they released in the 80's when the CDs were released?

I bought them 1981 (I remember this cause I start collecting everything with Beatles and related after 8 december -80) and my first CD I won 1987 and not many had a CD-player that year.

Quote
Layladylay
Did you ever notice that LSTNT sounds like The Beatles Youre Gonna Lose That Girl? There seem to be lots of wxamples where Mick and Keith take Beatle chords and melodies for their songs but i dont believe The Beatles were looking to The Stones for material or influences. It happened a lot too. Without Beatles no Stones. Didnt Andrew Oldham come from Brian Epsteins company? The Stones have more CDs I love but comparing these bands should take into account that The Stones whole professional career and promotion and even hair were a product of Beatlemania at first. Mick with the Mahariji in India etc. Brian Jones had the most creative natural intelligence of the 5 but Mick and Keith turned into such wonderful songwriters. The Beatles were the originators. They were glad to help The Stones. The Stones never seemed to do that.

Sure, the Rolling Stones did, listen to the intros to "Ticket to Ride" and "Day Tripper", they sound similar to "The Last Time" and "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" respectively, I think the second one George Harrison even admitted that somewhere. "Love You To" also sounds similar to "Paint it black", but that one could just be coincidental, because of the fast melodies, the dark lyrics, and obviously the sitars. I am sure there are more examples.

- Brandanman2

Quote
Come On

Quote
Thommie

Quote
Come On

Quote
Thommie
Magical Mystery Tour wasn't meant as an album. It was an double-EP and not an LP-album at that time when it was originally released.
But when their catalogue was released on CD they put in some singles from that period and made an CD-album of it.
And the compilations Past Masters is an result of the CD-era, too. Only contains songs (or versions) that you can't find on any album).

(I hope I remember this corrent )

I have Past Masters vol1 and 2 on LP. Think it was a result of being able to buy beatles singles on 2 albums.

Yes, but weren't they released in the 80's when the CDs were released?

I bought them 1981 (I remember this cause I start collecting everything with Beatles and related after 8 december -80) and my first CD I won 1987 and not many had a CD-player that year.

You can't have bought Past Masters in 1981. They where first released in 1988.

Quote
Blueranger

Quote
Come On

Quote
Thommie

Quote
Come On

Quote
Thommie
Magical Mystery Tour wasn't meant as an album. It was an double-EP and not an LP-album at that time when it was originally released.
But when their catalogue was released on CD they put in some singles from that period and made an CD-album of it.
And the compilations Past Masters is an result of the CD-era, too. Only contains songs (or versions) that you can't find on any album).

(I hope I remember this corrent )

I have Past Masters vol1 and 2 on LP. Think it was a result of being able to buy beatles singles on 2 albums.

Yes, but weren't they released in the 80's when the CDs were released?

I bought them 1981 (I remember this cause I start collecting everything with Beatles and related after 8 december -80) and my first CD I won 1987 and not many had a CD-player that year.

You can't have bought Past Masters in 1981. They where first released in 1988.

I'm still talking about buying LPs...