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 agree wholeheartedly with most of what you have said, Big Al, apart from the last sentence.
THE BEATLES (White album) probably has as many great songs on it as BEGGARS BANQUET, but whereas BEGGARS BANQUET was sharp and focused, The White Album was pretty messy and uneven. Maybe 'messy' is the wrong term because most of those songs are meticulously crafted, yet so many of them seem so trivial and inconsequential compared to much of the Beatles previous output. My thoughts are that The Beatles had reached a point in their career when they felt they had the freedom to do whatever they liked. This resulted in them becoming over indulgent. Snippets of songs and almost nursery rhyme lyrics, in addition to the notorious 'Revolution 9' tended to dilute the strength of the album, which had some very strong moments, the strongest of which, in my opinion, were mainly Lennon's. I think a track like 'Helter Skelter' showed the Beatles chasing trends instead of inspiring trends. The Beatles simply wanting to create the loudest 'rock' song, as an answer to the more progressive music scene, but the Beatles version of rock lacked any kind of finesse. I think overall BEGGARS BANQUET makes for a much more cohesive statement.
LET IT BLEED, however, despite some of the Stones most classic songs, is a little more uneven than BEGGARS BANQUET, and ABBEY ROAD tends to hang together much better than The White Album, so i think these two albums are much closer in terms of their quality.