Tell Me :
Talk
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-02 23:37 by stonesnow.
I'm a Stones fan but I can't agree that "one more shot" is better than Revolver.
The songs on Revolver are really well constructed and are groundbreaking lyrically - when had anyone ever sung about floating upstream on LSD and knowing what its like to be dead before? Then you have the mindblowing backwards guitar solos and the pioneering use of elements of indian music. The Beatles had managed to produce music that was trailblazing and experimental whilst remaining catchy and accessible and by and large avoiding the self indulgence of most avant-garde music. This was and is a stunning achievement.
I think the guitar motif in "and your bird can sing" is terrific. "Taxman" also features another memorable guitar riff. The string motif on "Eleanor Rigby" is also memorable. The macabre style of the piece was also very different to the Pop music norm.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" uses tape loops and sound effects as riffs very imaginatively and ends up sounding like music from another universe.
"Here, There and Everywhere" might be a bit soppy but it is a very pretty melody.
Then there is that really mad chord in "I want to tell you".
Aftermath is a good record but Revolver is better.
This is according to Wikipedia mind you, so take it how you will...
"The US version of the album greatly influenced the Beach Boys. Brian Wilson believed it was the first time in pop music that the focus had shifted from just making popular singles to making an actual album, without the usual filler tracks. He "answered" the album by releasing Pet Sounds in 1966"
Just my opinion, the Beatles of course were fine musicians, who can argue that, but with Revolver and after the songs had less appeal. Your Bird Can Sing sounds fantastic. I guess its a matter of taste, and it's definitely a minority opinion, but all the trippy experimentation, backwards guitars, spacey lyrics, doom and gloom violins on Eleanor Rigby, just don't SOUND ALL THAT GREAT OR pleasing to the ears, all probably technically better than the Stones I guess as you say, but in the end, not SOUNDING better than the Stones when it's all said and done.
Lol, not many people here would agree with me either. There are many accomplished musicians on IORR, and most likely, Revolver must be a better album in the technological sense. I think some people don't like their music and how it sounded after Rubber Soul, it seemed to come at the cost of losing great melodies and GOOD SOUNDING riffs....give me Paint It Black (USA Aftermath) any day over any song on Revolver.
I've never seen any list of greatest albums that had Revolver at the top. That spot usually goes to Sgt. Peppers- not saying I agree with that choice.
And Paint it, Black in particular.
Well, of course. The Stones moments of mid-60's greatness were on par with Beatles. It's just that Lennon and McCarthey were more consistent in their quality of songwriting from the beginning. It took Mick and Keith a little longer to develop. By the time of Jumpin' Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet, they had caught up. There are times when I would take Beggars Banquet over The Beatles (White Album). As much as I enjoy Abbey Road, Let It Bleed is miles better.
I beg to differ my opinion at that point...
2 1 2 0
I will always do that. The White Album is a mess, although there are a few gems in there.
The White Album is a fabulous mess and continues to grow on me, but Beggars Banquet contains Sympathy For The Devil and Street Fighting Man. For all it's greatness, The White Album will always be associated with Piggies, Don't Pass Me By and Goodnight.
I still don't know why Sgt. Pepper is always talked about more than Revolver other than it's album artwork. Revolver and Abbey Road are probably their best work. But you can't really compare albums like Sticky Fingers and Exile to Revolver or Sgt. Pepper...the latter two were at the start of the psychadelic movement and the former two after it clearly ended. Two different eras.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: December 2, 2012 23:29
Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
The Vegas line lists The Stones as a 21 point favorite
The Vegas line lists The Stones as a 21 point favorite
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: December 2, 2012 23:34
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-02 23:37 by stonesnow.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: December 2, 2012 23:37
I love them both ...........don't think you can compare them ...compare Stones Beatles after '68.
Two bad songs on Revolver IMO are "Doctor Robert" and "Taxman"
No bad song on Aftermath IMO
__________________________
Two bad songs on Revolver IMO are "Doctor Robert" and "Taxman"
No bad song on Aftermath IMO
__________________________
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: December 2, 2012 23:59
If the Stones covered an album of Beatles songs and the Beatles covered an album of Stones songs, which of the two would yield the most listenable results? Judging from the available evidence, the competition appears to be neck and neck at this point....
Below, Mick Jagger does his best John Lennon.
Below, Mick Jagger does his best John Lennon.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
BJPortugal
()
Date: December 3, 2012 00:18
They are both very good! Aftermath are in my top 3 Stones records... Only What To Do is a less good song... And, well, The Beatles had Your bird can sing...Just in one song The Beatles outperformed The Stones... and that is Tomorrow Never Knows..
Aftermath are in my top 3 Stones records... Only What To Do is a less good song... And, well, The Beatles had Your bird can sing...Just in one song The Beatles outperformed The Stones... and that is Tomorrow Never Knows..Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
Blueranger
()
Date: December 3, 2012 00:47
To say The Beatles music sounds dated, is simply downright stupid. The records sound as fresh today ad when they were recorded.
Aftermath; well with a few exceptions, that is REAL dated music. Mick and Keith had good songs on it, but half of it sounds like it was recorded in an airport gate. And some songs are half-baked-poor-man's Lennon / McCartney rip-offs. Take It Or Leave It and What To Do, pfffff...
Give me Beggars, Bleed, Sticky and Exile. Those albums continue to inspire and sounds 100% authentic.
Aftermath; well with a few exceptions, that is REAL dated music. Mick and Keith had good songs on it, but half of it sounds like it was recorded in an airport gate. And some songs are half-baked-poor-man's Lennon / McCartney rip-offs. Take It Or Leave It and What To Do, pfffff...
Give me Beggars, Bleed, Sticky and Exile. Those albums continue to inspire and sounds 100% authentic.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 3, 2012 00:58
Blueranger - I understand where you are coming from but The STones were just finding their way as songsmiths and Aftermath does not have the production that Revolver has. Also remember that The Stones produced themselves, The Beatles had George Martin which was a real strength for them. Don't give me anything that the Stones had a producer in Oldham. Oldham was a PR man and knew next to nothing about production. But yes some of the songs on Aftremath suffer from being poorly recorded but I don't think they are dated. Except What To Do. Their are some terrific songs on Aftemath. i still have to give the nod to Revolver though I think Rubber Soul is a superior album to Revolver.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
salty
()
Date: December 3, 2012 04:58
Quote
Blue
the Beatles were very innovative, but forgot to include great melodies, riffs...starting with Revolver..The Stones always have, even up to their new song "One More Shot"..they are and were masters at it.
I'm a Stones fan but I can't agree that "one more shot" is better than Revolver.
The songs on Revolver are really well constructed and are groundbreaking lyrically - when had anyone ever sung about floating upstream on LSD and knowing what its like to be dead before? Then you have the mindblowing backwards guitar solos and the pioneering use of elements of indian music. The Beatles had managed to produce music that was trailblazing and experimental whilst remaining catchy and accessible and by and large avoiding the self indulgence of most avant-garde music. This was and is a stunning achievement.
I think the guitar motif in "and your bird can sing" is terrific. "Taxman" also features another memorable guitar riff. The string motif on "Eleanor Rigby" is also memorable. The macabre style of the piece was also very different to the Pop music norm.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" uses tape loops and sound effects as riffs very imaginatively and ends up sounding like music from another universe.
"Here, There and Everywhere" might be a bit soppy but it is a very pretty melody.
Then there is that really mad chord in "I want to tell you".
Aftermath is a good record but Revolver is better.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: December 3, 2012 05:14
Revolver's rise to the top of "best ever" albums only came after the English version on CD was issued. When I was growing up, no one (even in the rock press) ever mentioned Revolver as being the greatest album ever. The American vinyl version is missing 3 key Lennon songs. Aftermath is kind of the same, as the running order is different and a few songs are missing.
McCartney rarely mentions Revolver in any interview (though he did put 3 Revolver songs on Broad Street), George preferred Rubber Soul, and I've never heard/read an interview where John mentions Revolver at all.
Odd, too, that Brian Wilson mentions Rubber Soul as his motivation to make Pet Sounds.
I wonder which version he was referring to. The American version is WAY different than the British version.
McCartney rarely mentions Revolver in any interview (though he did put 3 Revolver songs on Broad Street), George preferred Rubber Soul, and I've never heard/read an interview where John mentions Revolver at all.
Odd, too, that Brian Wilson mentions Rubber Soul as his motivation to make Pet Sounds.
I wonder which version he was referring to. The American version is WAY different than the British version.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: December 3, 2012 05:34
Quote
tomk
Odd, too, that Brian Wilson mentions Rubber Soul as his motivation to make Pet Sounds.
I wonder which version he was referring to. The American version is WAY different than the British version.
This is according to Wikipedia mind you, so take it how you will...
"The US version of the album greatly influenced the Beach Boys. Brian Wilson believed it was the first time in pop music that the focus had shifted from just making popular singles to making an actual album, without the usual filler tracks. He "answered" the album by releasing Pet Sounds in 1966"
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: December 3, 2012 05:40
Revolver is brilliant and unlike any rock album up to that point. It combines so many musical styles from a rock band. Children's music, psychadelia, rock, pop, ballads, strings, backward loops, surreal lyrics, amazing melodies. It has it all. A truly vast musical expression unlike any that a rock band had attempted to that point. Whether or not if you like The Beatles, you can appreciate how unique this album was at the time. And to see how far their writing went from I Saw Her Standing There to Tomorrow Never Knows, is stunning.
Aftermath is great, but not near the orginality of Revolver.
Aftermath is great, but not near the orginality of Revolver.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
Blue
()
Date: December 3, 2012 05:52
Quote
saltyQuote
Blue
the Beatles were very innovative, but forgot to include great melodies, riffs...starting with Revolver..The Stones always have, even up to their new song "One More Shot"..they are and were masters at it.
I'm a Stones fan but I can't agree that "one more shot" is better than Revolver.
The songs on Revolver are really well constructed and are groundbreaking lyrically - when had anyone ever sung about floating upstream on LSD and knowing what its like to be dead before? Then you have the mindblowing backwards guitar solos and the pioneering use of elements of indian music. The Beatles had managed to produce music that was trailblazing and experimental whilst remaining catchy and accessible and by and large avoiding the self indulgence of most avant-garde music. This was and is a stunning achievement.
I think the guitar motif in "and your bird can sing" is terrific. "Taxman" also features another memorable guitar riff. The string motif on "Eleanor Rigby" is also memorable. The macabre style of the piece was also very different to the Pop music norm.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" uses tape loops and sound effects as riffs very imaginatively and ends up sounding like music from another universe.
"Here, There and Everywhere" might be a bit soppy but it is a very pretty melody.
Then there is that really mad chord in "I want to tell you".
Aftermath is a good record but Revolver is better.
Just my opinion, the Beatles of course were fine musicians, who can argue that, but with Revolver and after the songs had less appeal. Your Bird Can Sing sounds fantastic. I guess its a matter of taste, and it's definitely a minority opinion, but all the trippy experimentation, backwards guitars, spacey lyrics, doom and gloom violins on Eleanor Rigby, just don't SOUND ALL THAT GREAT OR pleasing to the ears, all probably technically better than the Stones I guess as you say, but in the end, not SOUNDING better than the Stones when it's all said and done.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 3, 2012 06:10
Blue - I don't know if I can agree with you. Revolver was so groundbreaking as was Pepper. Aftermath is a grat album as well but I don't think the Stones had caught the Beatles in 1966. In 1968 maybe but not in 1966. The Whote Album as its referred to is Overated that to me is the only Beatle record that has a LOT of filler. Julia, Rocky Racoon, Why Don't We DO It In the Road and most of the secon LP are not all that good. I think Beggar's Banquet is a superior album to e White Album. However Hey Jude/Revolution certainly still proved the Beatles could come up with hit songs. Jumping Jack Flash/Child of the Moon though I like those better probably can not be regarded as good a single as Hey Jude. The White Album though I have never understood why its in such high standing and it has the single biggest piece of trash ever released by a top band in Revolution 9 why anyone would call that good is beyond me. Only the Beatles could get away with that. That is pure gibberish!!
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
Blue
()
Date: December 3, 2012 06:31
Quote
slew
Blue - I don't know if I can agree with you. Revolver was so groundbreaking as was Pepper. Aftermath is a grat album as well but I don't think the Stones had caught the Beatles in 1966. In 1968 maybe but not in 1966. The Whote Album as its referred to is Overated that to me is the only Beatle record that has a LOT of filler. Julia, Rocky Racoon, Why Don't We DO It In the Road and most of the secon LP are not all that good. I think Beggar's Banquet is a superior album to e White Album. However Hey Jude/Revolution certainly still proved the Beatles could come up with hit songs. Jumping Jack Flash/Child of the Moon though I like those better probably can not be regarded as good a single as Hey Jude. The White Album though I have never understood why its in such high standing and it has the single biggest piece of trash ever released by a top band in Revolution 9 why anyone would call that good is beyond me. Only the Beatles could get away with that. That is pure gibberish!!
Lol, not many people here would agree with me either. There are many accomplished musicians on IORR, and most likely, Revolver must be a better album in the technological sense. I think some people don't like their music and how it sounded after Rubber Soul, it seemed to come at the cost of losing great melodies and GOOD SOUNDING riffs....give me Paint It Black (USA Aftermath) any day over any song on Revolver.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: December 3, 2012 06:48
Blue - I too will take Paint it Black and Under My Thumb over anything on Revolver. Overall I think Revolver is a better album but not those two songs
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
Blue
()
Date: December 3, 2012 06:57
Quote
slew
Blue - I too will take Paint it Black and Under My Thumb over anything on Revolver. Overall I think Revolver is a better album but not those two songs
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: December 3, 2012 08:17
Revolver is definitely the better album. Lennon's tracks are groundbreaking and innovative without sounding too pretentious - I love "I'm Only Sleeping" and "tomorrow Never Knows". McCartney was at his absolute peak as a songwriter - five tracks, every one of them boasting a great melody, and each a fully-realized song (as opposed to the melodic fragments and snippets he would end up relying on in the years to come) - and his bass playing throughout is superb. Their ensemble vocals on the album are superb.
Aftermath (the US version) has too many attempts at mid-sixties pop by the Stones (never their strong point) and starts the group down the wrong road that led to Between the Buttons and Satanic Majesties, their two least-bluesey albums.
So, why do I tend to listen to "Paint it, Black", "Under My Thumb", "Going Home" and "Doncha Bother Me" more than anything on Revolver, which I rarely pull out to play? Possibly, it's because the Stones version of "rock and roll" with its blues antecedents intact, is more natural and elemental, giving their iteration a sense of timelessness that much of Revolver lacks. Or, maybe I'm just a simple guy that likes guitar solos played forwards instead of backwards.
Aftermath (the US version) has too many attempts at mid-sixties pop by the Stones (never their strong point) and starts the group down the wrong road that led to Between the Buttons and Satanic Majesties, their two least-bluesey albums.
So, why do I tend to listen to "Paint it, Black", "Under My Thumb", "Going Home" and "Doncha Bother Me" more than anything on Revolver, which I rarely pull out to play? Possibly, it's because the Stones version of "rock and roll" with its blues antecedents intact, is more natural and elemental, giving their iteration a sense of timelessness that much of Revolver lacks. Or, maybe I'm just a simple guy that likes guitar solos played forwards instead of backwards.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: December 3, 2012 20:07
Quote
tomk
Revolver's rise to the top of "best ever" albums only came after the English version on CD was issued. When I was growing up, no one (even in the rock press) ever mentioned Revolver as being the greatest album ever. The American vinyl version is missing 3 key Lennon songs. Aftermath is kind of the same, as the running order is different and a few songs are missing.
McCartney rarely mentions Revolver in any interview (though he did put 3 Revolver songs on Broad Street), George preferred Rubber Soul, and I've never heard/read an interview where John mentions Revolver at all.
Odd, too, that Brian Wilson mentions Rubber Soul as his motivation to make Pet Sounds.
I wonder which version he was referring to. The American version is WAY different than the British version.
I've never seen any list of greatest albums that had Revolver at the top. That spot usually goes to Sgt. Peppers- not saying I agree with that choice.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: December 3, 2012 20:43
Aftermath!!
Too many boring songs on Revolver.
Too many boring songs on Revolver.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
andrewt
()
Date: December 3, 2012 20:58
I've always said Aftermath captures swinging London better than Face To Face by the Kinks.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 4, 2012 03:23
Quote
BlueQuote
slew
Blue - I too will take Paint it Black and Under My Thumb over anything on Revolver. Overall I think Revolver is a better album but not those two songs
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
microvibe
()
Date: December 4, 2012 04:13
revolver!
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 4, 2012 09:34
Aftermath isn't far behind Revolver song-wise, imo. However, the production is miles behind.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 4, 2012 09:44
Quote
Big Al
I will add, however, tracks like Under My Thumb stand up to anything The Beatles ever laid-down on the long-player.
And Paint it, Black in particular.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: December 4, 2012 09:58
Quote
treaclefingers
And Paint it, Black in particular.
Well, of course. The Stones moments of mid-60's greatness were on par with Beatles. It's just that Lennon and McCarthey were more consistent in their quality of songwriting from the beginning. It took Mick and Keith a little longer to develop. By the time of Jumpin' Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet, they had caught up. There are times when I would take Beggars Banquet over The Beatles (White Album). As much as I enjoy Abbey Road, Let It Bleed is miles better.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: December 4, 2012 10:03
Quote
Big AlQuote
treaclefingers
And Paint it, Black in particular.
Well, of course. The Stones moments of mid-60's greatness were on par with Beatles. It's just that Lennon and McCarthey were more consistent in their quality of songwriting from the beginning. It took Mick and Keith a little longer to develop. By the time of Jumpin' Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet, they had caught up. There are times when I would take Beggars Banquet over The Beatles (White Album). As much as I enjoy Abbey Road, Let It Bleed is miles better.
I beg to differ my opinion at that point...
2 1 2 0
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 4, 2012 10:12
Quote
Big AlQuote
treaclefingers
And Paint it, Black in particular.
Well, of course. The Stones moments of mid-60's greatness were on par with Beatles. It's just that Lennon and McCarthey were more consistent in their quality of songwriting from the beginning. It took Mick and Keith a little longer to develop. By the time of Jumpin' Jack Flash and Beggars Banquet, they had caught up. There are times when I would take Beggars Banquet over The Beatles (White Album). As much as I enjoy Abbey Road, Let It Bleed is miles better.
I will always do that. The White Album is a mess, although there are a few gems in there.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: December 4, 2012 14:57
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I will always do that. The White Album is a mess, although there are a few gems in there.
The White Album is a fabulous mess and continues to grow on me, but Beggars Banquet contains Sympathy For The Devil and Street Fighting Man. For all it's greatness, The White Album will always be associated with Piggies, Don't Pass Me By and Goodnight.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: December 4, 2012 18:54
Quote
FrankM
When you actually listen to Sgt. Peppers/Revolver and compare them to Sticky Fingers/Exile or Who's Next/Tommy song for song they're not any better imo. The Beatles albums were a little more mainstream and more popular amongst the masses but not superior.
I still don't know why Sgt. Pepper is always talked about more than Revolver other than it's album artwork. Revolver and Abbey Road are probably their best work. But you can't really compare albums like Sticky Fingers and Exile to Revolver or Sgt. Pepper...the latter two were at the start of the psychadelic movement and the former two after it clearly ended. Two different eras.
Re: Stones' Aftermath vs Beatles' Revolver
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: December 4, 2012 18:59
You're making me wish like I'd never been born!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , artedm , Bashlets , Chacho , elmod , FloresMuertas , josepi , jumpingjackflash5 , NilsHolgersson , philrock90 , SKILLS , steffialicia , thetiger , TW2019
Guests:
2236
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10