Each song?

Quote
ash
I like the fact that on Revolver each song is sung by a different band member.
Name another LP where that happens.
Tomorrow Never Knows is seriously trippy and inventive...shit those guys were so stoned they even let Ringo sing a number. They were progressive mainstream pop. Our kids sing their drug songs at school 50 years later..isn't that more subversive than some bands you could mention.
Revolver rules. As does Beggars, Face to face, etc. love them all.
Ray's review gives you an idea as to his music - hall taste. He probably liked When I'm 64 best on Sgt Pepper. That's a dead end street as far as i'm concerned.
Worth mentioning that some of his recent recordings have been really good though.

ray is a very odd character and i think you have to be to write some of the stuff he does. ray is a musical genius and usually people like that are a bit odd. in the booklet for picture book ray takes plenty of shots at some of his own songs and some are songs people think are classics

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
sonomastone
revolver is better than anything the kinks ever recorded.

IMO, the Beatles didn't last long enough to reach the Kinks's level.

Listen to the Sleepwalker album. IMO, there is stuff there that very few bands can do.

sleepwalker, misfits, muswell hillbillies, everybody's in showbiz, something else and village green are all better than revolver.some might include the album arthur and lola as well.

I love Revolver, but even Schoolboys and Low Budget are better, imo.

thats starting to stretch it a bit.

"Re: OT: Ray Davies slates "Revolver"
Posted by: DandelionPowderman ()
Date: July 11, 2013 23:31

Each song?"

sorry, meant to say no singer sings 2 songs in a row - the lead singers for each Revolver track as follows
side 1 - george,paul,john,george,paul,ringo,john
side 2 - paul,john,paul,john,george,paul,john.

ok i'm stretching it by calling Ringo a singer but you get the idea.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-11 23:58 by ash.

Yeah, I am a big fan of both bands. But sorry, Revolver is an epic piece of work.
Arthur and Muswell are incredible albums. And up there in the top of the best of British music. As is Village Green. Sleepwalker and Misfits are great as well, but they don't have near the depth and focus as Arthur, Musswell, and Lola. This is where you have personal tastes and it is usually pointless to try to convince someone who loves an album that another album is better than it. I do love both bands immensely, but also feel that Revolver is a stunning achievement of originality, melody, and experimentation.

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, I am a big fan of both bands. But sorry, Revolver is an epic piece of work.
Arthur and Muswell are incredible albums. And up there in the top of the best of British music. As is Village Green. Sleepwalker and Misfits are great as well, but they don't have near the depth and focus as Arthur, Musswell, and Lola. This is where you have personal tastes and it is usually pointless to try to convince someone who loves an album that another album is better than it. I do love both bands immensely, but also feel that Revolver is a stunning achievement of originality, melody, and experimentation.

That's very well said.
Something else that i like about the dreaded fab four is that they are a totally mainstream pop band who consistently improved as writers, re-invented their style,pushed studio techniques etc and then take everyone else along for the trip - both the general public and virtually all the other brilliant bands of that era (tomorrow never knows morphs into we love you a few months later - both absolutely brilliant.)
Maybe i'd have more respect for Take That,One Direction etc if they took the same approach in their positions as mainstream pop bands.
Maybe not.

Quote
ash

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, I am a big fan of both bands. But sorry, Revolver is an epic piece of work.
Arthur and Muswell are incredible albums. And up there in the top of the best of British music. As is Village Green. Sleepwalker and Misfits are great as well, but they don't have near the depth and focus as Arthur, Musswell, and Lola. This is where you have personal tastes and it is usually pointless to try to convince someone who loves an album that another album is better than it. I do love both bands immensely, but also feel that Revolver is a stunning achievement of originality, melody, and experimentation.

That's very well said.
Something else that i like about the dreaded fab four is that they are a totally mainstream pop band who consistently improved as writers, re-invented their style,pushed studio techniques etc and then take everyone else along for the trip - both the general public and virtually all the other brilliant bands of that era (tomorrow never knows morphs into we love you a few months later - both absolutely brilliant.)
Maybe i'd have more respect for Take That,One Direction etc if they took the same approach in their positions as mainstream pop bands.
Maybe not.

i really don't see the beatles taking the kinks or the who "along for the trip". i don't see a ton in common between the sounds of those 3 bands and think the who and the kinks created new sounds and techniques that the beatles never tried to do

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
ash

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, I am a big fan of both bands. But sorry, Revolver is an epic piece of work.
Arthur and Muswell are incredible albums. And up there in the top of the best of British music. As is Village Green. Sleepwalker and Misfits are great as well, but they don't have near the depth and focus as Arthur, Musswell, and Lola. This is where you have personal tastes and it is usually pointless to try to convince someone who loves an album that another album is better than it. I do love both bands immensely, but also feel that Revolver is a stunning achievement of originality, melody, and experimentation.

That's very well said.
Something else that i like about the dreaded fab four is that they are a totally mainstream pop band who consistently improved as writers, re-invented their style,pushed studio techniques etc and then take everyone else along for the trip - both the general public and virtually all the other brilliant bands of that era (tomorrow never knows morphs into we love you a few months later - both absolutely brilliant.)
Maybe i'd have more respect for Take That,One Direction etc if they took the same approach in their positions as mainstream pop bands.
Maybe not.

i really don't see the beatles taking the kinks or the who "along for the trip". i don't see a ton in common between the sounds of those 3 bands and think the who and the kinks created new sounds and techniques that the beatles never tried to do

In a sense, though, The Beatles did, because they were the first band to really elevate the status of the album as an art form unto itself rather than as a mere collection of singles and filler, which enabled bands like The Who and The Kinks to create such album-length artistic statements as, respectively, Sell Out and Village Green.

Well, there had to come a day when the trend started to move backwards...

Revolver has since the mid-90's been regarded as their best album by many. Before that it was Pepper. Next up is Rubber Soul.

Like Lennon once said, people go in trends...

Personally, I still rank Revolver as the best one, closely followed by White Album. Rubber Soul and Pepper are next. Then Abbey Road and A Hard Days Night -do not forget that last one. It is superb!

Yes, I agree stonehearted. The fact was The Beatles were the first of the Brit bands to make it big. Re-reading the Jagger Remembers interview in Rolling Stone he says that. They were the first and their influence can not be overestimated. They inspired groups like The Who, The Kinks, and The Stones to search for new sounds. The Beatles showed that a group could be self sustained, write their own music, have a vision for the production, and successfully push the boundaries and still sell oodles of records. And create trends in fashion, sights and sound. I am not sure of many sounds they didn't do?

Another cool thread would be "favorite Concept Albums" and Arthur would be one of the tops for me. And the recent three disc version is incredible. For one, you finally get to hear the entire thing in glorious mono, where is just shines. And the plethora of bonus material is incredible!

Quote
whitem8
Yes, I agree stonehearted. The fact was The Beatles were the first of the Brit bands to make it big. Re-reading the Jagger Remembers interview in Rolling Stone he says that. They were the first and their influence can not be overestimated. They inspired groups like The Who, The Kinks, and The Stones to search for new sounds. The Beatles showed that a group could be self sustained, write their own music, have a vision for the production, and successfully push the boundaries and still sell oodles of records. And create trends in fashion, sights and sound. I am not sure of many sounds they didn't do?

Another cool thread would be "favorite Concept Albums" and Arthur would be one of the tops for me. And the recent three disc version is incredible. For one, you finally get to hear the entire thing in glorious mono, where is just shines. And the plethora of bonus material is incredible!

why do you keep saying 3 disc versions? village green is the only kinks album with a 3 cd version. the rest are 2.

anyways being the first in an art form doesn't make you the best or mean everybody copied what you were doing.

And now What Ray? Slating albums like that?

2 1 2 0

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
ash

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, I am a big fan of both bands. But sorry, Revolver is an epic piece of work.
Arthur and Muswell are incredible albums. And up there in the top of the best of British music. As is Village Green. Sleepwalker and Misfits are great as well, but they don't have near the depth and focus as Arthur, Musswell, and Lola. This is where you have personal tastes and it is usually pointless to try to convince someone who loves an album that another album is better than it. I do love both bands immensely, but also feel that Revolver is a stunning achievement of originality, melody, and experimentation.

That's very well said.
Something else that i like about the dreaded fab four is that they are a totally mainstream pop band who consistently improved as writers, re-invented their style,pushed studio techniques etc and then take everyone else along for the trip - both the general public and virtually all the other brilliant bands of that era (tomorrow never knows morphs into we love you a few months later - both absolutely brilliant.)
Maybe i'd have more respect for Take That,One Direction etc if they took the same approach in their positions as mainstream pop bands.
Maybe not.

i really don't see the beatles taking the kinks or the who "along for the trip". i don't see a ton in common between the sounds of those 3 bands and think the who and the kinks created new sounds and techniques that the beatles never tried to do

How about feedback ?
It was clear to the kinks,who and stones that the way to go for a quality group was to drop the r 'n' b / rock n roll covers and write your own material. the who's early pattern (daltrey lead plus john/pete backing vocals) follows the pattern (nicked from girl groups!) of the john lead paul/george backing vox. Wyman frequently complained about the stones crap backing vocals. The kinks did the same and their classic tracks add Rasa Davies to the mix - a key component to many of their classics such as Waterloo sunset.
Kinks beat the beatles in terms of the indian "thing". The Who created a monstrous pop-art explosion and were arguably the UK's second power trio (johnny kidd and the pirates being the first?). Pete himself said that the beatles bought songwriting to the fore. There's quite a bit of fab influence on the Quick One album too.
all 3 were very definitely english.
I would say that the social phenomenon of the fabs led to other artists getting unfairly overshadowed in their achievements - in particular Ray and Pete.
@#$%& it they're all great. take your pick. i pick all of them !
no kinks...no who
no stones...no kinks
no beatles...no stones
no shadows..no beatles
no cliff richard...no shadows.
that's not a pretty thought. i think we should stop there.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
anyways being the first in an art form doesn't make you the best or mean everybody copied what you were doing.

What the Beatles did do and that the rest followed in was that they became masters of the studio early on, controllers of their own domain.

As we know, The Who and The Kinks were put under pressure to record tracks as fast as possible. You Really Got Me was not given a lot of takes, and if they didn't nail it quickly and work fast and efficiently the way the producer pushed them, then they might not have gotten another chance again, ever.

The Beatles changed all that. If you listen to the sessions tapes from the first few Beatles albums, you see how the attitude of the producers and engineers begins to change, to become more amiable and collaborative, whereas in the first and second album sessions you can hear George Martin and Norman Smith becoming peeved at the many stops and retakes the band would run through for each track, because in those days EMI Studios worked on a strict day-shift schedule of 3 hours on and some time off for tea in between 3-hour recording bursts. But eventually The Beatles made their own schedule, pulling all-nighters if they pleased and taking several months to record an album instead of several hours. By the end of the decade, they even renamed for all the world this already world-renowned recording studio.

Great albums take time, and because The Beatles made sure they took their time, other bands could follow suit and put in the time they needed to make their greatest albums.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
keefriffhard4life
anyways being the first in an art form doesn't make you the best or mean everybody copied what you were doing.

What the Beatles did do and that the rest followed in was that they became masters of the studio early on, controllers of their own domain.

As we know, The Who and The Kinks were put under pressure to record tracks as fast as possible. You Really Got Me was not given a lot of takes, and if they didn't nail it quickly and work fast and efficiently the way the producer pushed them, then they might not have gotten another chance again, ever.

The Beatles changed all that. If you listen to the sessions tapes from the first few Beatles albums, you see how the attitude of the producers and engineers begins to change, to become more amiable and collaborative, whereas in the first and second album sessions you can hear George Martin and Norman Smith becoming peeved at the many stops and retakes the band would run through for each track, because in those days EMI Studios worked on a strict day-shift schedule of 3 hours on and some time off for tea in between 3-hour recording bursts. But eventually The Beatles made their own schedule, pulling all-nighters if they pleased and taking several months to record an album instead of several hours. By the end of the decade, they even renamed for all the world this already world-renowned recording studio.

Great albums take time, and because The Beatles made sure they took their time, other bands could follow suit and put in the time they needed to make their greatest albums.

Very astute and interesting observation.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
keefriffhard4life
anyways being the first in an art form doesn't make you the best or mean everybody copied what you were doing.

What the Beatles did do and that the rest followed in was that they became masters of the studio early on, controllers of their own domain.

As we know, The Who and The Kinks were put under pressure to record tracks as fast as possible. You Really Got Me was not given a lot of takes, and if they didn't nail it quickly and work fast and efficiently the way the producer pushed them, then they might not have gotten another chance again, ever.

The Beatles changed all that. If you listen to the sessions tapes from the first few Beatles albums, you see how the attitude of the producers and engineers begins to change, to become more amiable and collaborative, whereas in the first and second album sessions you can hear George Martin and Norman Smith becoming peeved at the many stops and retakes the band would run through for each track, because in those days EMI Studios worked on a strict day-shift schedule of 3 hours on and some time off for tea in between 3-hour recording bursts. But eventually The Beatles made their own schedule, pulling all-nighters if they pleased and taking several months to record an album instead of several hours. By the end of the decade, they even renamed for all the world this already world-renowned recording studio.

Great albums take time, and because The Beatles made sure they took their time, other bands could follow suit and put in the time they needed to make their greatest albums.

didn't ray basically tell shel tamy he sucks and too over the mixing and stuff of "you really got me"?

The Beatles certainly benefitted from the staff and sound and consistency of abbey road as did cliff richard/the shadows/johnny kidd and the pirates/the hollies etc.
Didn't Ray ask for the first version of YRGM to be re-recorded which he was only allowed to do at his own expense ? Is it true the band paid for their own sessions after this not coz they wanted too but because of their (rubbish) Pye contract ?
The Who recorded all over the place and the stones did too until they discovered rca and olympic.
I wish there was a definitive recording history for the Stones. What on earth do abkco have in their vaults ?

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
ash

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, I am a big fan of both bands. But sorry, Revolver is an epic piece of work.
Arthur and Muswell are incredible albums. And up there in the top of the best of British music. As is Village Green. Sleepwalker and Misfits are great as well, but they don't have near the depth and focus as Arthur, Musswell, and Lola. This is where you have personal tastes and it is usually pointless to try to convince someone who loves an album that another album is better than it. I do love both bands immensely, but also feel that Revolver is a stunning achievement of originality, melody, and experimentation.

That's very well said.
Something else that i like about the dreaded fab four is that they are a totally mainstream pop band who consistently improved as writers, re-invented their style,pushed studio techniques etc and then take everyone else along for the trip - both the general public and virtually all the other brilliant bands of that era (tomorrow never knows morphs into we love you a few months later - both absolutely brilliant.)
Maybe i'd have more respect for Take That,One Direction etc if they took the same approach in their positions as mainstream pop bands.
Maybe not.

i really don't see the beatles taking the kinks or the who "along for the trip". i don't see a ton in common between the sounds of those 3 bands and think the who and the kinks created new sounds and techniques that the beatles never tried to do

In a sense, though, The Beatles did, because they were the first band to really elevate the status of the album as an art form unto itself rather than as a mere collection of singles and filler, which enabled bands like The Who and The Kinks to create such album-length artistic statements as, respectively, Sell Out and Village Green.

One small example
Anyone who doesn't realize that the who and kinks were following in the Beatles footsteps does not know much about the history of 60s music
Like the Beatles or not, they paved the way

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
whitem8
Yes, I agree stonehearted. The fact was The Beatles were the first of the Brit bands to make it big. Re-reading the Jagger Remembers interview in Rolling Stone he says that. They were the first and their influence can not be overestimated. They inspired groups like The Who, The Kinks, and The Stones to search for new sounds. The Beatles showed that a group could be self sustained, write their own music, have a vision for the production, and successfully push the boundaries and still sell oodles of records. And create trends in fashion, sights and sound. I am not sure of many sounds they didn't do?

Another cool thread would be "favorite Concept Albums" and Arthur would be one of the tops for me. And the recent three disc version is incredible. For one, you finally get to hear the entire thing in glorious mono, where is just shines. And the plethora of bonus material is incredible!

why do you keep saying 3 disc versions? village green is the only kinks album with a 3 cd version. the rest are 2.

anyways being the first in an art form doesn't make you the best or mean everybody copied what you were doing.

Sorry typo, meant two discs. Still great! Like I said, the mono version of Arthur is stunning.

Quote
ash
The Beatles certainly benefitted from the staff and sound and consistency of abbey road as did cliff richard/the shadows/johnny kidd and the pirates/the hollies etc.
Didn't Ray ask for the first version of YRGM to be re-recorded which he was only allowed to do at his own expense ? Is it true the band paid for their own sessions after this not coz they wanted too but because of their (rubbish) Pye contract ?
The Who recorded all over the place and the stones did too until they discovered rca and olympic.
I wish there was a definitive recording history for the Stones. What on earth do abkco have in their vaults ?

ray didn't like what shel tamy did at all. i know he said the first version of YRGM sounded like phil spector crap

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
ash

Quote
whitem8
Yeah, I am a big fan of both bands. But sorry, Revolver is an epic piece of work.
Arthur and Muswell are incredible albums. And up there in the top of the best of British music. As is Village Green. Sleepwalker and Misfits are great as well, but they don't have near the depth and focus as Arthur, Musswell, and Lola. This is where you have personal tastes and it is usually pointless to try to convince someone who loves an album that another album is better than it. I do love both bands immensely, but also feel that Revolver is a stunning achievement of originality, melody, and experimentation.

That's very well said.
Something else that i like about the dreaded fab four is that they are a totally mainstream pop band who consistently improved as writers, re-invented their style,pushed studio techniques etc and then take everyone else along for the trip - both the general public and virtually all the other brilliant bands of that era (tomorrow never knows morphs into we love you a few months later - both absolutely brilliant.)
Maybe i'd have more respect for Take That,One Direction etc if they took the same approach in their positions as mainstream pop bands.
Maybe not.

i really don't see the beatles taking the kinks or the who "along for the trip". i don't see a ton in common between the sounds of those 3 bands and think the who and the kinks created new sounds and techniques that the beatles never tried to do

In a sense, though, The Beatles did, because they were the first band to really elevate the status of the album as an art form unto itself rather than as a mere collection of singles and filler, which enabled bands like The Who and The Kinks to create such album-length artistic statements as, respectively, Sell Out and Village Green.

One small example
Anyone who doesn't realize that the who and kinks were following in the Beatles footsteps does not know much about the history of 60s music
Like the Beatles or not, they paved the way

heres an example for you. the kinks with their guitar tone and early single "you really got me" are credited with helping create punk and heavy metal. boy thats exactly what the beatles did too

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
ash
The Beatles certainly benefitted from the staff and sound and consistency of abbey road as did cliff richard/the shadows/johnny kidd and the pirates/the hollies etc.
Didn't Ray ask for the first version of YRGM to be re-recorded which he was only allowed to do at his own expense ? Is it true the band paid for their own sessions after this not coz they wanted too but because of their (rubbish) Pye contract ?
The Who recorded all over the place and the stones did too until they discovered rca and olympic.
I wish there was a definitive recording history for the Stones. What on earth do abkco have in their vaults ?

ray didn't like what shel tamy did at all. i know he said the first version of YRGM sounded like phil spector crap

Yes, Ray didn't like the echo. So on the deluxe edition of the first album, there are two versions, one with the echo (stereo) and one without (mono).

Whatever issues Ray may have had with Shel Talmy, he remained the Kinks producer through 1966.

Regardless of whatever issues Ray was having with the recording of YRGM, it had to be done quickly and issued immediately to preserve their recording deal. The Kinks were under enormous pressure to release a breakthrough. As Ray has recalled in his Storytellers show, it was do or die time. Having already released 3 flop singles, if they didn't come through with a hit this time they would be through and would never see the inside of a recording studio again.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
heres an example for you. the kinks with their guitar tone and early single "you really got me" are credited with helping create punk and heavy metal. boy thats exactly what the beatles did too

Yes, in an indirect way, that's what The Beatles did, too. Because when The Beatles came along, guitar groups were "on the way out"--which is the reason Decca Records gave for not signing them when they auditioned.

And the Beatles' guitar sound was quite revolutionary as well, as David Marks of The Beach Boys has recently noted:

"Those hollow-body German guitars. I mean, these were not the solid-body Fenders we were used to hearing. And when you listened to the records, those guitars sounded like they were right there in the room with you."

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
ash
The Beatles certainly benefitted from the staff and sound and consistency of abbey road as did cliff richard/the shadows/johnny kidd and the pirates/the hollies etc.
Didn't Ray ask for the first version of YRGM to be re-recorded which he was only allowed to do at his own expense ? Is it true the band paid for their own sessions after this not coz they wanted too but because of their (rubbish) Pye contract ?
The Who recorded all over the place and the stones did too until they discovered rca and olympic.
I wish there was a definitive recording history for the Stones. What on earth do abkco have in their vaults ?

ray didn't like what shel tamy did at all. i know he said the first version of YRGM sounded like phil spector crap

Yes, Ray didn't like the echo. So on the deluxe edition of the first album, there are two versions, one with the echo (stereo) and one without (mono).

Whatever issues Ray may have had with Shel Talmy, he remained the Kinks producer through 1966.

Regardless of whatever issues Ray was having with the recording of YRGM, it had to be done quickly and issued immediately to preserve their recording deal. The Kinks were under enormous pressure to release a breakthrough. As Ray has recalled in his Storytellers show, it was do or die time. Having already released 3 flop singles, if they didn't come through with a hit this time they would be through and would never see the inside of a recording studio again.

thats probably true but ray has also said he presented YRGM to the record company, at least a demo or idea of the song, after the 1st single and the record company ignored him.


anyone keep up with ray or daves solo stuff? i just got most of the solo stuff by both of them. my favorite is the hidden treasures album by dave which is a recreation of what was going to be his late 60's solo album that never was

Quote
keefriffhard4life
thats probably true but ray has also said he presented YRGM to the record company, at least a demo or idea of the song, after the 1st single and the record company ignored him.

Yes, I recall reading about that. Originally YRGM was a slow blues, and that was probably the demo version of just him on piano that he presented to the record company, because Ray recorded his demos that way in those days. They weren't full band demos, because they didn't have access to that kind of recording gear in those days outside the studio.

So it wasn't until they got to the studio version that they finally recorded YRGM with Dave adding on his touches the way they did for the live version, which was always a showstopper. Dave's guitar punch made it the hit it became.