Quote
BroomWagon
It definitely seems to be real significant, I once heard someone make an analogy that one album was "the revolver of reggae" (see: [www.amazon.com] )and I thought whoah! With the Byrds coming up, I think there is some sort of correlation with which was going on in the music, I'm just not sure exactly what it was. I think they say maybe there is a Byrds influence to either Rubber Soul or Revolver.

There sure is. I bet the Beatles had listened carefully to the Byrds' two first albums, or at least their first, before recording Rubber Soul and Revolver.

Quote
flacnvinyl
Live at the BBC sucks. It was a lousy album when I first heard it and it sucks even more now. Every 'rocknroll' song the Beatles perform ends up being a weak jazzy pop song that wouldn't offend white folks on the radio. The Stones, on the otherhand, played with balls. IE: Rocknroll. See below...





VS

The Beatles on 'Carol' are lousy. I blame it on Ringo. He's putting the brakes on them. that open hi hat and white man's snare is pulling backwards; Charlie on the other hand is charging ahead of the beat. The Beatles were the greatest, but they were not a rock'n roll band.

It's funny, when I started getting into the Beatles (mid 80s) Pepper was widely considered their best and regularly topped greatest album polls. I bought my first copy of Revolver on Christmas Eve 1985 and it seemed cold and harsh compared to other Beatle albums. But over the intervening years it has totally overtaken Pepper in both album polls and my own personal taste. It wasn't until Beggars that the Stones produced something that could stand toe to toe with Revolver.

I've heard the best version of Revolver is the mono version.

Unfortunately it's part of the boxed set costing over £100.

I have it in stereo.

Would using Audacity/Cakewalk to merge the stereo into mono work I wonder?

Quote
GravityBoy
I've heard the best version of Revolver is the mono version.

Unfortunately it's part of the boxed set costing over £100.

I have it in stereo.

Would using Audacity/Cakewalk to merge the stereo into mono work I wonder?

I wonder why that is? IMO, Revolver has a brilliant, almost unique, stereo mix for its time.

The Beatles mixed and approved in mono.

The stereo mixes were done later, they were a bit gimmicky at the time.

Quote
GravityBoy
The Beatles mixed and approved in mono.

The stereo mixes were done later, they were a bit gimmicky at the time.

Hmm, you probably know this way better than me. But isn't it strange that they fooled around with countless tape machines to get many tracks, and then wanted to compress all those tracks into mono in 1966, a year where most other bands already had released stereo records, the Stones included?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-03 13:03 by DandelionPowderman.

I have stereo and mono versions. In some cases (especially Sgt. Pepper), the mono mix sounds way better - you can hear the phasing/flanging on guitars and vocals much better for example.

Dr. Robert was real.he supplied "pop stars" with dope.I always thought Revolver is the dogs bollox,as for Live at the BBC a chance to hear a great rock band without any overdubs,roll on a Stones official release.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
flacnvinyl
Live at the BBC sucks. It was a lousy album when I first heard it and it sucks even more now. Every 'rocknroll' song the Beatles perform ends up being a weak jazzy pop song that wouldn't offend white folks on the radio. The Stones, on the otherhand, played with balls. IE: Rocknroll. See below...





VS

The Beatles on 'Carol' are lousy. I blame it on Ringo. He's putting the brakes on them. that open hi hat and white man's snare is pulling backwards; Charlie on the other hand is charging ahead of the beat. The Beatles were the greatest, but they were not a rock'n roll band.

I agree on Carol, but to defense The Beatles version, it was only recorded for radio, whereas The Stones version was cut for an LP. I don't think The Beatles would ever have aproved this version for release in the 60's.

Regarding Rock 'n Roll numbers, they knew how to do them on record:

Quote
Blueranger

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
flacnvinyl
Live at the BBC sucks. It was a lousy album when I first heard it and it sucks even more now. Every 'rocknroll' song the Beatles perform ends up being a weak jazzy pop song that wouldn't offend white folks on the radio. The Stones, on the otherhand, played with balls. IE: Rocknroll. See below...





VS

The Beatles on 'Carol' are lousy. I blame it on Ringo. He's putting the brakes on them. that open hi hat and white man's snare is pulling backwards; Charlie on the other hand is charging ahead of the beat. The Beatles were the greatest, but they were not a rock'n roll band.

I agree on Carol, but to defense The Beatles version, it was only recorded for radio, whereas The Stones version was cut for an LP. I don't think The Beatles would ever have aproved this version for release in the 60's.

Regarding Rock 'n Roll numbers, they knew how to do them on record:

This is not the LP-version. That is even better, imo.

Quote
GravityBoy
I've heard the best version of Revolver is the mono version.

Unfortunately it's part of the boxed set costing over £100.

I have it in stereo.

Would using Audacity/Cakewalk to merge the stereo into mono work I wonder?

No. Many of the Beatles mono versions were complete different mixes and in some cases complete different takes of the songs.

My favorite album of all time.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
The Beatles on 'Carol' are lousy. I blame it on Ringo. He's putting the brakes on them. that open hi hat and white man's snare is pulling backwards; Charlie on the other hand is charging ahead of the beat. The Beatles were the greatest, but they were not a rock'n roll band.

The Beatles were a rock 'n roll band. They could rock and roll. I think they just chose not to later in their career because they wanted to make deeper music than that. And in defense of Ringo, he was a much heavier drummer than Charlie ever was. Case and point:



Watch Ringo at 1:43 to 2:05 (especially beginning at the 1:52 mark). THAT is rock and roll! If you watch that and you still think of that as "pop boy band stuff" then you people are just stubborn.

If you don't love and appreciate George Harrison you might not love Revolver. I love this album, all of it, and it STILL stands the test of time. George starts to exert his influence on this album, lots of beautiful sitar runs throughout. Much better writing by Lennon/McCartney too. How can you not love " Norwegian Wood"?? Wow! Miles away of the pack at this time.

SO SORRY! Big mistake, not enough coffee today..." Norwegian Wood" is on Rubber Soul, not Revolver!! GEE!!! Still love that track..LOL! Glad I'm not on Jeopardy answering Rock questions...I'd get the boot!

Quote
mickschix
SO SORRY! Big mistake, not enough coffee today..." Norwegian Wood" is on Rubber Soul, not Revolver!! GEE!!! Still love that track..LOL! Glad I'm not on Jeopardy answering Rock questions...I'd get the boot!

Was just looking up the songs on Rubber Soul, and didn't realize that the album in the UK was different than the one from ours in the U.S., and they left out "I've Just Seen a Face" on the U.K. Release..I wonder why they left out such a good song, like I never understood why they eliminated "Paint It Black" from Aftermath album in the U.K...it was one of the Stones top songs ever.

>and they left out "I've Just Seen a Face" on the U.K. Release..I wonder why they left out such a good song, like I never understood why they eliminated "Paint It Black" from Aftermath album in the U.K,


You've got it backwards -- they weren't eliminated from the UK versions (which are the original tracklistings as intended by the artists), those songs were added to the US editions by the record company. The UK audience already had "I've Just Seen A Face" (on HELP! I believe).

Quote
Glam Descendant
>and they left out "I've Just Seen a Face" on the U.K. Release..I wonder why they left out such a good song, like I never understood why they eliminated "Paint It Black" from Aftermath album in the U.K,


You've got it backwards -- they weren't eliminated from the UK versions (which are the original tracklistings as intended by the artists), those songs were added to the US editions by the record company. The UK audience already had "I've Just Seen A Face" (on HELP! I believe).

I see! . Thanks!!

Yup all The Beatles albums UK versions were butchered to create more albums in the US. This happened up to Sgt Peppers, which was their first album to stay intact and have the same version in both the US and the UK. The Beatles put their foot down on that one and demanded an end to the padding practices of EMI and Capital. This was also why they released Yesterday and Today with the fabled Butcher cover that was banned. This was a jibe at how they felt their catalog was being handled.

Quote
GravityBoy
The Beatles mixed and approved in mono.

The stereo mixes were done later, they were a bit gimmicky at the time.

True enough, but I still prefer the stereo mixes.

It's funny, I was just going through my CDs, trying to make space for new arrivals, and two of the CDs that got the boot were "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver". I did however burn my favorite songs from both albums onto the computer, but as complete albums, I must say I never listen to them. I think if you took roughly half of each record you'd have one pretty great one. Some of my friends think I am crazy, considering "Revolver" in particular often pops up on "best albums of all-time" lists.....but I agree that songs like 'Good Day Sunshine', 'Got To Get You Into My Life' and some others on "Revolver" aren't very good. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is outstanding, definitely. But as an overall album, I think "Sgt. Pepper's", "Abbey Road" and even early stuff like "Hard Day's Night" are better than "Revolver" or "Rubber Soul". Great production, yes.....but for the most part (outside of the afore mentioned 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and a few others) they are overly poppy with little grit.....and thats how I like it....gritty! In the early Beatles and late Beatles stuff, there is far more grit. 'Twist and Shout', 'Helter Skelter', 'Don't Let Me Down', etc...

Quote
floodonthepage
It's funny, I was just going through my CDs, trying to make space for new arrivals, and two of the CDs that got the boot were "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver". I did however burn my favorite songs from both albums onto the computer, but as complete albums, I must say I never listen to them. I think if you took roughly half of each record you'd have one pretty great one. Some of my friends think I am crazy, considering "Revolver" in particular often pops up on "best albums of all-time" lists.....but I agree that songs like 'Good Day Sunshine', 'Got To Get You Into My Life' and some others on "Revolver" aren't very good. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is outstanding, definitely. But as an overall album, I think "Sgt. Pepper's", "Abbey Road" and even early stuff like "Hard Day's Night" are better than "Revolver" or "Rubber Soul". Great production, yes.....but for the most part (outside of the afore mentioned 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and a few others) they are overly poppy with little grit.....and thats how I like it....gritty! In the early Beatles and late Beatles stuff, there is far more grit. 'Twist and Shout', 'Helter Skelter', 'Don't Let Me Down', etc...

They are both great albums as they are - pure and simple.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
floodonthepage
It's funny, I was just going through my CDs, trying to make space for new arrivals, and two of the CDs that got the boot were "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver". I did however burn my favorite songs from both albums onto the computer, but as complete albums, I must say I never listen to them. I think if you took roughly half of each record you'd have one pretty great one. Some of my friends think I am crazy, considering "Revolver" in particular often pops up on "best albums of all-time" lists.....but I agree that songs like 'Good Day Sunshine', 'Got To Get You Into My Life' and some others on "Revolver" aren't very good. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is outstanding, definitely. But as an overall album, I think "Sgt. Pepper's", "Abbey Road" and even early stuff like "Hard Day's Night" are better than "Revolver" or "Rubber Soul". Great production, yes.....but for the most part (outside of the afore mentioned 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and a few others) they are overly poppy with little grit.....and thats how I like it....gritty! In the early Beatles and late Beatles stuff, there is far more grit. 'Twist and Shout', 'Helter Skelter', 'Don't Let Me Down', etc...

They are both great albums as they are - pure and simple.

The beauty of the arts I guess. They are in the eye....and ear...of the beholder.

Quote
whitem8
Yup all The Beatles albums UK versions were butchered to create more albums in the US. This happened up to Sgt Peppers, which was their first album to stay intact and have the same version in both the US and the UK.

Right. Except the original US vinyl version did not have the sound loop that appeared in the end groove after "A Day In The Life"

Speaking of inner grooves ....









Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-04 05:29 by tatters.

Yes loog droog! I forgot the inner groove. Which is a great way to end an album. I love playing that with my dog in the room. Immediately her ears perk up and she looks around, and sometimes even will give a bark.

Quote
floodonthepage
but I agree that songs like 'Good Day Sunshine', 'Got To Get You Into My Life' and some others on "Revolver" aren't very good.

I often hear this but I don't get it.

I love those songs I think they are great.

The hate for them usually comes from Paul haters though.

Not saying that's the case here.

Quote
Glam Descendant
You've got it backwards -- they weren't eliminated from the UK versions (which are the original tracklistings as intended by the artists), those songs were added to the US editions by the record company. The UK audience already had "I've Just Seen A Face" (on HELP! I believe).

This is correct.

The only true versions of the albums as the Beatles made them are the UK versions.

Same goes for the Stones.