For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Which is why Paul McCartney never released Let It Be... Naked.Quote
71Tele
At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Quote
FreeBirdWhich is why Paul McCartney never released Let It Be... Naked.Quote
71Tele
At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Oh, wait. He did. Never mind then.
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Tainted by years of decay?
Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Tainted by years of decay?
Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.
Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Tainted by years of decay?
Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Tainted by years of decay?
Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.
I thought they were still at the top of their game when they did Bridges. To me Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and Thief, are as good or better than anything they have ever done and Flip the Switch is a damn fine song. I love Don't Stop that came even later on the 40 Licks album. Some people really like ABB. I honestly think if they decide to do another album we are going to be surprised and could just get another classic? Let's wait and see.
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Tainted by years of decay?
Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.
Are you saying that you wish the Stones had quit in 1973? That you wish that they had never recorded another album? That they never toured again? Is that what you are saying?
My point was that Let It Be... Naked was artistically dishonest because it claimed to be true to the stripped down approach of the original sessions, but in fact it employed lots of trickery, including the worst of them all, Auto-Tune - and that Paul McCartney didn't even have the guts to admit that he did that.Quote
71Tele
Not sure what your point is, really, but it has nothing to do with the one I made.
Let It Be, Naked was a variation of Let It Be, and certainly no closer to the original "Get Back" album than the Phil Spector officially-released LIB LP, but the Beatles had the class to go out on top, before the songwriting deteriorated, unlike certain other bands.
Quote
FreeBirdMy point was that Let It Be... Naked was artistically dishonest because it claimed to be true to the stripped down approach of the original sessions, but in fact it employed lots of trickery, including the worst of them all, Auto-Tune - and that Paul McCartney didn't even have the guts to admit that he did that.Quote
71Tele
Not sure what your point is, really, but it has nothing to do with the one I made.
Let It Be, Naked was a variation of Let It Be, and certainly no closer to the original "Get Back" album than the Phil Spector officially-released LIB LP, but the Beatles had the class to go out on top, before the songwriting deteriorated, unlike certain other bands.
I mean, I don't like Let It Be, I don't think it's a good album, but if attempting to rewrite history (poorly) doesn't taint one's body of work then I don't know what does.
On a side note, if Abbey Road is to be considered The Beatles' swan song, then Let It Be must be their encore - and it's not a very good one at that. Much has been said about Phil Spector's approach to the album, but I think he actually improved on it. And as a matter of fact, John Lennon agreed...
George Harrison passed away before the album was finished, so he couldn't possibly have heard the final result. Yoko Ono doesn't count. So that only leaves Ringo Starr as the one that gave his blessing (which isn't the same thing as being actively involved).Quote
Blueranger
McCartney didn't release Let It Be... Naked by himself. It was a joint release blessed by all three surviving Beatles and Yoko. Harrison gave his blessing for the project (and 2006's LOVE) before he passed away in 2001.
It's quite common (though apparently not ubiquitous) knowledge that Auto-Tune was used on Dig a Pony. It may also have been used on other songs, that's debatable, but Dig a Pony is the only example I need.Quote
Blueranger
And where the hell did people got the impression they're using Auto-Tune??? They do NOT! They used pro-tools to edit the performances and to correct bum-notes - especialy Lennon's abysmal bass parts on The Long And Winding Road.
that's nonsense. the beatles have plenty of rockin' friday night songs and the stones have plenty of "sunday morning" songs.Quote
thewatchman
Somebody around here recently said, "the Stones are Saturday night, the Beatles, Sunday morning"! My exact same sentiments.
Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Tainted by years of decay?
Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.
Quote
stones78Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Yes. Although Beatle-bashing has become quite popular sport of late, any idea that these bands are somehow opposites, or that The Beatles are somehow less "authentic" thank the Stones is asinine. At least The Beatles had the good sense not to allow their body of work to be tainted by years of decay.
Tainted by years of decay?
Yes. had the Stones stopped recording when they were at or near the top of their game, they would not have issued stuff that paled in comparison to their work through 1973 or so, or even 1981 if you like. I am glad we don't have a string of second or third tier Beatle albums.
But we have a string of second or third tier solo albums by all 4 Beatles.
Quote
bob r
Love the Beatles...love the Stones... and they were fans of each other and friends..
But I disagree totally on the Stones Sat night / Beatles Sunday Morning thing...
Beatles Sat night: Yer Blues, Back in the USSR, Guitar Gently Weeps, Me & My Monkey, Sanoy Truffle, I want You ( Shes so Heavy ), You Cant Do That, I'm Down, Long Tall Sally, She Said She Said, Get Back, Dont Let Me Down, Its All Too Much, Why Dont We Do It In The Road, Helter Skelter,Revolution, I Wanna Be Your Man, Everybody's Tryin To Be My Baby, Mr Moonlight, Kansas City
Stones Sunday Morning: Back Street Girl, Angie, Winter, Moonlight Mile, Sleep Tonight, All About You, Time Waits For No One, As Tears Go By, The Worst, Losing My Touch, Fool To Cry, Memory Motel, Sweet Black Angel, Wating on a Friend
See, it works both ways. Two great bands for each and every Saturday / Sunday
Something for every taste