Hi gang. Sorry, most of you know when I post topics they're rarely non-Stones related, but I just think about this sometimes. "Revolver" is routinely called the Beatles' greatest album. Hell, Rolling Stone even voted it the greatest album of all time. So, yes, it IS great. But personally, I prefer the White Album, and the far more consistent Rubber Soul and the far more epic Abbey Road to this one. "Revolver" was definitely innovative, just like Sgt. Pepper. But also as with Pepper's, it contains an awful lot of weak songs to be considered one of their greatest. "Dr. Robert"? Unlistenable to me. George's "I want To Tell You" and "Love You To" - tepid at best. "Good Day Sunshine" is cute but it's no better than, say, "When I'm 64" - just pleasant throwaway material. "She Said She Said" never really worked for me until the Black Keys covered it, and "Tomorrow Never Knows" - while a cool sonic experiment - is just that, an experiment. Not a song you want to put on while you're getting ready in the morning.

Anyway, sorry for the long analysis. I give the record credit for being a sonic groundbreaker and for also showcasing a handful of classic songs, I just find it more inconsistent than a lot of fans do I guess.

I kinda agree, Revolver is important but not their best. I guess most fans prefer the white album for the songs or Abbey Road for the production. Rubber Soul has better songs, or at least more listenable songs, the best pop record. But, And your bird can sing, TNK and Im only sleeping are great. I never listen to Pauls three gems on that record but theyre great of course. Often boring but important. Yes Revolver is overrated, sort of.

Pretty much agreed on all counts, Redhotcarpet. I think "I'm Only Sleeping" and "For No One" are probably the best songs on the record. Revolver is one of their best moments, but not their finest. I have tried to listen to arguments objectively on why it's their 'greatest', but no 'greatest' album from any band can have so many weak songs on it IMO. For comparison (and to sort of relate the Stones) - look at Sticky Fingers. Not a dud on the whole thing. And Rolling Stone magazine calling it the greatest album of all-time? No way.

Beatles "Revolver" overrated? NO!

Everything The Beatles have done is vastly overrated...

Quote
theimposter
"Tomorrow Never Knows" - while a cool sonic experiment - is just that, an experiment. Not a song you want to put on while you're getting ready in the morning.

I wouldn't want to put Neil Young's "Tonight's The Night" album on while I'm getting ready in the morning, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the greatest albums ever made.

Quote
Sleepy City
Everything The Beatles have done is vastly overrated...

Simply



wrong.

It's the 2nd best album of all time after Let It Bleed / Exile (it changes). Genius album that did more to usher in psychedelia than anything before it and set a new standard for songwriting and musicianship.

The overrated thing I can understand because like Pet Sounds it was never out of the news in the 90s, especially in rock mags like Mojo, Uncut and Q who would put it in No1 spot in their polls. To be blunt it got played to death. But never underestimate how important an album it was in the great scheme of things.

Nothing the Beatles did musically was overrated. The legacy is there, the body of work, the influence on music and culture. You can not like it, but it's hard to claim that it's "overrated". The one and only area they paled was as a live band, because they chose to stop performing before the concert industry and experience was revolutionized in the late 1960s. But even on that score, when one glimpses the rooftop "Get Back" performance, one can see what might have been had these guys gone back on the road, as at least McCartney wanted to do.

I think it's a great album, not overrated.

great album!

.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-29 06:37 by tatters.

As usual, I'm with 71Tele on this one. There's not much else to say except that really, every Beatles album, especially from 1966 onward, was revolutionary, not overrated at all. Hearing a song like 'And Your Bird Can Sing' for the first time, in 1967 (or whenever Revolver came out), must have been simply mind-blowing. It was for me whenever I first heard it (and the rest of that album), as well as Magical Mystery Tour, etc, etc... You might not love the Beatles, but nobody made records like them. Four incredibly talented guys in one monster band. And '66-'68 saw them at their creative peak.

Quote
Tate
As usual, I'm with 71Tele on this one. There's not much else to say except that really, every Beatles album, especially from 1966 onward, was revolutionary, not overrated at all. Hearing a song like 'And Your Bird Can Sing' for the first time, in 1967 (or whenever Revolver came out), must have been simply mind-blowing. It was for me whenever I first heard it (and the rest of that album), as well as Magical Mystery Tour, etc, etc... You might not love the Beatles, but nobody made records like them. Four incredibly talented guys in one monster band. And '66-'68 saw them at their creative peak.

I can still remember the moment I first heard 'All Together Now', 'Flying', 'Honey Pie', 'Piggies', 'Goodnight' & 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'...unfortunately.

Quote
likecats
I think it's a great album, not overrated.

And I think its a great album and overrated, sort of. I guess it has to do with the 90s music magazines, I blame it on that hype. Is Taxman great? Yes, it's genius within that context, Revolver. Great opener. Is Rigby great? Yes. Sleeping? Yes yes yes. Love you to. No, the intro is cool, but again, within this context it is kinda genius. It's genious. Here there and anywhere, genius and I hate it. Submarine? Again, within this Beatles context. Outside Revolver? Of course not. She said, genius pop, yes. Production is great and the over all flow is magical.
Side two: Good day. No, this is not genius. No f-in way it is genius. It is part of the album, that's all. Beatle charm maybe. And your bird can sing. Yes, this is one of the underrated songs of the 20th century. A perfect pop song. For no one. No, sorry, not genius. Part of the three gems of Paul Mc Pretentious. It's great and maybe his best on the record or at least most listenable. But not the glimpse of rock Einstein the music magazines pretended in 1996. Dr Robert? Of course not. Better than one thinks though. Throwaway really. I want to tell you. Yeah but I dont have to listen. GTGYIML: annoying piece of garbage. TNK: genius. Not overrated, genius.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-28 22:18 by Redhotcarpet.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
GTGYIML: annoying piece of garbage.

I think it's the best song on there, but Paul's voice isn't good enough to handle it... here's the big UK hit version, far superior imo:







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-28 22:21 by Sleepy City.

I always laughs when I read these threads. It's like The Beatles where only bubblegum pop music with no substance. They didn't change anything and The Stones kicked their butts.

Let me tell you all. Without the Beatles, The Stones could never have written all those fab tunes they did. They would still be playing Johnny B. Goode in 1967!

All those poor atempts Jagger / Richard made at songwriting in 1963 says it all.

The Beatles changed every piece of popular music and every single 45 release was awaited. Every time they did a new 45, that's where others would follow. Every LP changed the face of poular music.

Sorry guys, all your pretending that The Stones could do without The Beatles and could have made them what they are today is a big lie. Face it, like it or not.

The Beatles where the leaders and spokesmen of a generation. Where they'd go, all others would follow.

All this Beatles-bashing, is clearly because some people will not accept that The Beatles changed popular culture forever.

Quote
Blueranger
I always laughs when I read these threads. It's like The Beatles where only bubblegum pop music with no substance. They didn't change anything and The Stones kicked their butts.

Let me tell you all. Without the Beatles, The Stones could never have written all those fab tunes they did. They would still be playing Johnny B. Goode in 1967!

All those poor atempts Jagger / Richard made at songwriting in 1963 says it all.

Rubbish!

Jagger / Richards started writing great songs once they ignored what The Beatles were doing.

Quote
Blueranger
I always laughs when I read these threads. It's like The Beatles where only bubblegum pop music with no substance. They didn't change anything and The Stones kicked their butts.

Let me tell you all. Without the Beatles, The Stones could never have written all those fab tunes they did. They would still be playing Johnny B. Goode in 1967!

All those poor atempts Jagger / Richard made at songwriting in 1963 says it all.

The Beatles changed every piece of popular music and every single 45 release was awaited. Every time they did a new 45, that's where others would follow. Every LP changed the face of poular music.

Sorry guys, all your pretending that The Stones could do without The Beatles and could have made them what they are today is a big lie. Face it, like it or not.

The Beatles where the leaders and spokesmen of a generation. Where they'd go, all others would follow.

All this Beatles-bashing, is clearly because some people will not accept that The Beatles changed popular culture forever.

beatlemania changed popular culture, but the Stones music is so much better than
the Beatles music.

Quote
Sleepy City
Everything The Beatles have done is vastly overrated...

I second that!!!!!

><

Quote
MKjan
beatlemania changed popular culture, but the Stones music is so much better than
the Beatles music.

Exactly, just as Elvis Presley changed popular culture doesn't mean his music is better than Chuck Berry.

Well folks, a lot of you have some valid points. But please put into context my use of the word "overrated". I don't mean that I think the album's not that good - I'd rate it an easy 8/10. I just think it is overrated by a lot of musical talking heads who keep parroting the idea that this is both the greatest Beatles record and the greatest pop album of all time. It simply is not, IMO.

Quote
theimposter
I don't mean that I think the album's not that good - I'd rate it an easy 8/10. I just think it is overrated by a lot of musical talking heads who keep parroting the idea that this is both the greatest Beatles record and the greatest pop album of all time. It simply is not, IMO.

This could describe my feelings about "Exile" to be honest (though I prefer it to Revolver)...

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Blueranger
I always laughs when I read these threads. It's like The Beatles where only bubblegum pop music with no substance. They didn't change anything and The Stones kicked their butts.

Let me tell you all. Without the Beatles, The Stones could never have written all those fab tunes they did. They would still be playing Johnny B. Goode in 1967!

All those poor atempts Jagger / Richard made at songwriting in 1963 says it all.

Rubbish!

Jagger / Richards started writing great songs once they ignored what The Beatles were doing.

Really???

Lady Jane, Ruby Tuesday, Take It Or Leave It, Let's Spend The Night Together, Dandelion, Tell Me, Backstreet Girl - not to mention they quickly recorded As Tears Go By to the US market because Yesterday was high on the charts.

Yeah, sure they ignored them...

They even used the same chord-structures.

Before the Beatles, everything was these 4-chord vamps or 3-chord Rock'n'Roll songs.

Quote
Blueranger

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Blueranger
I always laughs when I read these threads. It's like The Beatles where only bubblegum pop music with no substance. They didn't change anything and The Stones kicked their butts.

Let me tell you all. Without the Beatles, The Stones could never have written all those fab tunes they did. They would still be playing Johnny B. Goode in 1967!

All those poor atempts Jagger / Richard made at songwriting in 1963 says it all.

Rubbish!

Jagger / Richards started writing great songs once they ignored what The Beatles were doing.

Really???

Lady Jane, Ruby Tuesday, Take It Or Leave It, Let's Spend The Night Together, Dandelion, Tell Me, Backstreet Girl - not to mention they quickly recorded As Tears Go By to the US market because Yesterday was high on the charts.

Yeah, sure they ignored them...

They even used the same chord-structures.

Before the Beatles, everything was these 4-chord vamps or 3-chord Rock'n'Roll songs.

I didn't say they were never influenced by them afterwards, just that most of Jagger-Richards songs weren't.

Anyway, by 1966-1967 everyone was writing more complex pop songs, so we could just as easily argue that everyone was being influenced by Motown or The Beach Boys or Phil Spector etc.

I think it's a great album too...as all the Beatles albums are great.... especially for the time it was released, but not their greatest, I think there are some lousy songs on it Dr. Robert!!!!!!, Taxman!!!!!!.I Want To Tell You!!!!!!

The reason why they rate this album high is because the Beatles might have thought we can write any thing we want and came up with some extraordinary songs as I'm Only Sleeping, Love You To, Tomorrow Never Knows and I Want To Tell You which probably didn't were welcomed by most Beatles fans back then.

I rate Rubber Soul way much higher..............except For In My Life..but that's an other story

__________________________

The Beatles where the greatest Band of all time whether we like it or not. In 100 years time it will be the Beatles who are remembered as the most influentualcomposers of this time, nobody else

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Blueranger
I always laughs when I read these threads. It's like The Beatles where only bubblegum pop music with no substance. They didn't change anything and The Stones kicked their butts.

Let me tell you all. Without the Beatles, The Stones could never have written all those fab tunes they did. They would still be playing Johnny B. Goode in 1967!

All those poor atempts Jagger / Richard made at songwriting in 1963 says it all.

Rubbish!

Jagger / Richards started writing great songs once they ignored what The Beatles were doing.

That was in in the end '67 and '68

__________________________

Quote
NICOS

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Blueranger
I always laughs when I read these threads. It's like The Beatles where only bubblegum pop music with no substance. They didn't change anything and The Stones kicked their butts.

Let me tell you all. Without the Beatles, The Stones could never have written all those fab tunes they did. They would still be playing Johnny B. Goode in 1967!

All those poor atempts Jagger / Richard made at songwriting in 1963 says it all.

Rubbish!

Jagger / Richards started writing great songs once they ignored what The Beatles were doing.

That was in in the end '67 and '68

I don't hear much Beatles in The Last Time or Satisfaction or Get Of Off My Cloud or 19th Nervous Breakdown or Paint It Black or Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby...I do hear The Rolling Stones in Day Tripper & Paperback Writer & Revolution & Yer Blues though.

I haven't heard that many people say that Revolver was the Beatles best, its usually Peppers or Abby Road. All their albums are pretty good but for production and song choice I would have to go for Abbey Road, all though I do have a soft spot for Let It Be and Rubber Soul.