Tell Me :
Talk
I'm not kidding. The Magical Mystery Tour double EP is probably the weakest Beatles release ever. McCartney's songs sound like children's songs as usual. The instrumental is boring and Harrisons song is just OK. I am the walrus is great, but it had already been released as a single b-side. Anyway, I bought it when released and sold it within a couple of months. Sgt.Pepper is much better, but it hasn't aged very well. A day in the life is great, but again McCartney's stuff does nothing for me.
I really like Rubber Soul and Revolver, though.
You just like his playing so much, it blinkers your ears to when he's just widdling for the sake of it as in that 1969 Satisfaction clip.
He has been doing very good stuff on the recent Jimmy Reed gigs with Ronnie. Much better than what he did during stones 50th concerts which essentially ended up being songs as excuses for Taylor to have a few guitar solo features.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-09 23:52 by His Majesty.
No doubt had The Beatles continued that they had managed just as well with the old team (and most probably left the The Stones in their shadows as before), but my speculative point was just to remind the radical decision the Stones did/were forced to do in 1969. But they were lucky too: having an ace guitarist as Taylor onboard was exactly the thing they needed in order to establish their credibility as a stage act, after the stage had been conquered such as acts like Hendrix, The Cream, Zeppelin, etc. who had taken the instrumental standard to a new level.
Anyways, by 1969 the old but inspiring rivalry between The Beatles and The Stones started to be yesterday's news, and I think Jagger as a clever trend-follower knew that they needed to do a next step in their career if there would be a future. They had more or less followed the example of The Beatles for some years, and like them, ending up as a studio band. But when they did they 'come back' to concert circuit, there were new challengers they need to compete with. With Taylor, and reinvented 'hard rock' sound they were more than ready to start a new decade, and a decade where there was no The FabFour any longer.
The Beatles, by contrast, never needed to re-establish their concert credibility, and they ended up as a pure studio band. By that time they call it finally quits, the roads of them and The Stones had already separated, and Jagger's group had its own adventures and new games by then. (I would claim that the Hyde Park concert - where they famously were introduced as the 'greatest rock and roll band of the world' for the very first time - was a kind of symbolic moment when The Stones broke free from the old tandem-like rivalry with the Beatles, and took a new Beatles-free direction in their career.)
What goes for Harrison, I don't think he was 'updated' at all compared to the scene The Stones were now taking part. Yeah, he did nice and suitable guitar stuff to their songs in the studio, but no way he was in the league of guitar players that took the scene by the end of the 60's. But the point is that I don't think The Beatles never should have needed that kind of 'updating' - they could have managed just well by their own, as splendid song-writers and good enough musicians. They were so damn big.
- Doxa
Other than to replace a non functioning band member, the stones didn't either. They, with he, had already proven that they could adapt to changes in musical styles quite easily and successfully.
There is only what is of course, so blah blah blah.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 00:07 by His Majesty.
Yep, they had proven, but to adapt to the demands of late-60's/early 70's live performances, it was handy to have a technically high-class player in the team. The guy who, to quote Charlie Watts, "brought them professionalism". I have always interpreted Charlie's comment not only as Taylor showing individual competence, but also like sparring them all to better results. But it is true that they all had developed as players, especially Keith. The result can be heard in GET YER YA-YA'S OUT!, which is one of strongest and most important musical statements in their career. Not many saw them at Hyde Park (good), nor in American Tour, but that album made the new Stones sound worldwide well-known.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 00:49 by Doxa.
Just got the update on my IORR app. The Stones made it, they won!
Glastonbury, my friend, Glastonbury.... by the way, where is he?
- Doxa
Glastonbury's travelled down to Kent for the weekend, but what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
+1 They're both great for different reasons. To say The Stones had a variety The Beatles couldn't match is utterly ridiculous, as is the "few bands from any era" bit. The Beach Boys anyone? They had arguably more variety than either (I know many on this board loathe them, but their 1966-1973 era alone has more variety than most bands, and that's AFTER the overrated surf/cars era), but all three bands did so many styles at different junctions of their career that this Greg Kot quote is ludicrous.
Abbey Road doesn't have much rock and roll on it? I Want You (She's So Heavy)? Come Together? Oh Darling? The End? You Never Give Me Your Money? Seriously man?! Abbey Road and The White Album were the *only* ROCK albums The Beatles made. They have tons of variety, but through and through they're the only two Beatles albums you can call "rock" as opposed to psychedelic pop, classic pop, whatever you wanna call their (GREAT) earlier work. Abbey Road has about as much rock on it as Sticky Fingers, which has a TON of mellow stuff, and that's a good thing.
Handy, but not essential. The essential came from Mick and Keith, ie their songs.
True, but the songs themselves don't perform, you need someone to deliver them convincingly, one after other, here and now. Especially when they are products of a studio band who have had all the time on earth to record them, use the best technology, and do as many takes, overdubs, etc. needed...
Even Taylor himself has stated that his first impression playing with them was that how such a sloppy band can make such great records...
But the songs and their makers - Mick and Keith - truely are essential. Without them, nothing. Taylor was not essential - I'm with Mathijs in that sense that any technically competent guitar player of the day could have taken that role and help in the delivery of the songs. But honestly of any red and hot British blues players, I can't think anyone could have been a better choice than Taylor (taking his skills, style and still rather low profile name). Were they lucky or just damn smart in picking him up, I don't know...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 10:57 by Doxa.
I need to add that my picture is that from the moment they decided to hire Jimmy Miller as their producer and started to make songs for BEGGARS BANQUET to the very last moment in finishing EXILE ON MAIN STREET, the Stones just couldn't do wrong as far as musical decisions go. The intuitions they had at the time just were a spot on. There is not much during that time period I could find something to critizise.
Ronnie Wood seems to fancy that they wanted to hire him initially in 1969. True or not, thanks jeezchrist, allah, or whatever (Mick Jagger most likely), that that alternative possible world never realized. I simply don't even dare to imagine that scenario. Ronnie's time was not yet to come; he was needed later... The Stones make me sometimes believe in fate, even though I'm a totally secular person...
- Doxa
><
No shit sherlock.
Quite simple, he was available due to Mayall not wanting that kind of guitar player anymore.
Taylor was the lucky one although it some what ruined his life for quite some time so maybe not so lucky.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 16:24 by His Majesty.
Yes yes, believe it or not!
- Doxa
Its strength is "Here Comes the Sun" and in its ballads - those are the tracks that people remember as classic Beatles tracks, and there's a good reason for it. "Come Together" is a great opener, but Paul's "rock" numbers are all oldies send-offs. "I Want You" is long and "heavy" but not memorable for any reason. It does rock harder than Magical Mystery Tour, though. I think their best rock album was "The Beatles Second Album" (released only in the US).
It's all subjective, so there may be other people in the world that think that Abbey Road has as much rock as Sticky Fingers - but, I think there's more rock in the opening riff to CYHMK or in the guitar solo in Sway, than there is on the entire Abbey Road album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 16:48 by drbryant.
Like Brian Jones was the lucky one to meet these two musical geniuses from Dartford but it some what ruined his life in the end so maybe not so lucky...
- Doxa
I think McCartney in the Beatles was just fabulous. What a duo with Lennon.
We all know the story of their break up, but it strikes me to see how much fun both L. and McC had during the Rooftop concert. And what a great interaction between the two of them. Those guys were too long in the studio and needed more fresh air for sure.
I think both Beatles and Stones are not surpassed by any solo album by any member of those bands.
No, not the same.
Brian was already doing a great job of ruining his own life before he even met them.
Well put Lieb.
Well, they helped him doing the job 'properly'.
Or maybe delayed the inevitable.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
walkingthedog
()
Date: November 9, 2013 21:48
Quote
kleermakerQuote
walkingthedogQuote
kleermaker
Abbey Road is indeed fantastic. Best Beatles album. Better than Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed. At least on par with Sticky Fingers.
Abbey Road is one of my least favourite Beatles albums. Way too much McCartney, the Harrison songs are too sweet for my taste and Lennon's material is not his best. The only decent song is I Want You (She's So Heavy). Not even close to BB or LIB.
I'd rather hear Emotional Rescue any day!
You're kidding!
What about Pepper and Mystery Tour? Both initiated (and dominated) by McCartney too. Both great.
I'm not kidding. The Magical Mystery Tour double EP is probably the weakest Beatles release ever. McCartney's songs sound like children's songs as usual. The instrumental is boring and Harrisons song is just OK. I am the walrus is great, but it had already been released as a single b-side. Anyway, I bought it when released and sold it within a couple of months. Sgt.Pepper is much better, but it hasn't aged very well. A day in the life is great, but again McCartney's stuff does nothing for me.
I really like Rubber Soul and Revolver, though.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 9, 2013 23:51
Quote
kleermaker
To be serious: the question is what really IS serving the song. Until now it's a subjective thing: you have your ideas about it and I have mine. We still don't agree on the concept what serving the song really is.
You just like his playing so much, it blinkers your ears to when he's just widdling for the sake of it as in that 1969 Satisfaction clip.
He has been doing very good stuff on the recent Jimmy Reed gigs with Ronnie. Much better than what he did during stones 50th concerts which essentially ended up being songs as excuses for Taylor to have a few guitar solo features.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-09 23:52 by His Majesty.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 9, 2013 23:55
Quote
kleermakerQuote
DoxaQuote
His Majesty
Comparing The Beatles with the post Jones Rolling Stones is a bit silly because any band can bring in some younger hot shot musicians and move in different, arguably better ways than they can in their original form.
I think you have a point there. And also a good reminder what a big change occurred at the time when the band was 'updated' with Mick Taylor. It doesn't look like that any longer, since they came out as winners, but there was a big risky involved there (even though I don't think the Stones had a choice really). Not musically but imagewise, and The Stones tried to be as diplomatic as they ever could when announced the change.
A bit like if The Beatles had replaced George Harrison by, say, Eric Clapton or Jimmy Page (musically the band even might have sounded better and surely more competent if hey have decided to continue and go back to road...). Or if we continue the analogy, if the Stones had acted like they did in 1969 to 'update' the band, they should have kicked out Ronnie Wood in 1982 and had replaced him by some more current and relevant player (according to the times), someone from Eddie Van Halen generation of guitar players. Malmsteen?
- Doxa
Remember the Stones kicked Jones out because he didn't function anymore, so they had no choice. If he was still active and not 'wasted' he would still be in the band. Besides it's not fair to compare Harrison with Jones, because Harrison acted more like Taylor during the last years of the Beatles (his guitar playing on the last Beatles albums is splendid). With Harrison they were already 'update'. Second thing is that Taylor never had the role of the dominating lead guitar hotshot, but he added something special the way Jones did during his tenure in the band.
No doubt had The Beatles continued that they had managed just as well with the old team (and most probably left the The Stones in their shadows as before), but my speculative point was just to remind the radical decision the Stones did/were forced to do in 1969. But they were lucky too: having an ace guitarist as Taylor onboard was exactly the thing they needed in order to establish their credibility as a stage act, after the stage had been conquered such as acts like Hendrix, The Cream, Zeppelin, etc. who had taken the instrumental standard to a new level.
Anyways, by 1969 the old but inspiring rivalry between The Beatles and The Stones started to be yesterday's news, and I think Jagger as a clever trend-follower knew that they needed to do a next step in their career if there would be a future. They had more or less followed the example of The Beatles for some years, and like them, ending up as a studio band. But when they did they 'come back' to concert circuit, there were new challengers they need to compete with. With Taylor, and reinvented 'hard rock' sound they were more than ready to start a new decade, and a decade where there was no The FabFour any longer.
The Beatles, by contrast, never needed to re-establish their concert credibility, and they ended up as a pure studio band. By that time they call it finally quits, the roads of them and The Stones had already separated, and Jagger's group had its own adventures and new games by then. (I would claim that the Hyde Park concert - where they famously were introduced as the 'greatest rock and roll band of the world' for the very first time - was a kind of symbolic moment when The Stones broke free from the old tandem-like rivalry with the Beatles, and took a new Beatles-free direction in their career.)
What goes for Harrison, I don't think he was 'updated' at all compared to the scene The Stones were now taking part. Yeah, he did nice and suitable guitar stuff to their songs in the studio, but no way he was in the league of guitar players that took the scene by the end of the 60's. But the point is that I don't think The Beatles never should have needed that kind of 'updating' - they could have managed just well by their own, as splendid song-writers and good enough musicians. They were so damn big.
- Doxa
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 10, 2013 00:04
Quote
Doxa
the point is that I don't think The Beatles never should have needed that kind of 'updating' - they could have managed just well by their own, as splendid song-writers and good enough musicians. They were so damn big.
- Doxa
Other than to replace a non functioning band member, the stones didn't either. They, with he, had already proven that they could adapt to changes in musical styles quite easily and successfully.
There is only what is of course, so blah blah blah.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 00:07 by His Majesty.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 10, 2013 00:10
Haven't the Beatles won this yet? I keep checking back for confirmation and the jury stills like it's out.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 10, 2013 00:38
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Doxa
the point is that I don't think The Beatles never should have needed that kind of 'updating' - they could have managed just well by their own, as splendid song-writers and good enough musicians. They were so damn big.
- Doxa
Other than to replace a non functioning band member, the stones didn't either. They, with he, had already proven that they could adapt to changes in musical styles quite easily and successfully.
There is only what is of course, so blah blah blah.
Yep, they had proven, but to adapt to the demands of late-60's/early 70's live performances, it was handy to have a technically high-class player in the team. The guy who, to quote Charlie Watts, "brought them professionalism". I have always interpreted Charlie's comment not only as Taylor showing individual competence, but also like sparring them all to better results. But it is true that they all had developed as players, especially Keith. The result can be heard in GET YER YA-YA'S OUT!, which is one of strongest and most important musical statements in their career. Not many saw them at Hyde Park (good
), nor in American Tour, but that album made the new Stones sound worldwide well-known.- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 00:49 by Doxa.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 10, 2013 01:07
Quote
treaclefingers
Haven't the Beatles won this yet? I keep checking back for confirmation and the jury stills like it's out.
Just got the update on my IORR app. The Stones made it, they won!
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 10, 2013 02:18
Quote
treaclefingers
Haven't the Beatles won this yet? I keep checking back for confirmation and the jury stills like it's out.
Glastonbury, my friend, Glastonbury.... by the way, where is he?
- Doxa
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
CanYouHearTheMusic
()
Date: November 10, 2013 03:35
Quote
BluzDudeQuote
GumbootCloggeroo
Funny, for a band being "soft and pop" they certainly had a drummer that played heavier and louder than The Stones have.
Agree, McCartney did play drums a little louder and heavier than Charlie.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 10, 2013 03:38
Quote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingers
Haven't the Beatles won this yet? I keep checking back for confirmation and the jury stills like it's out.
Glastonbury, my friend, Glastonbury.... by the way, where is he?
- Doxa
Glastonbury's travelled down to Kent for the weekend, but what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
CanYouHearTheMusic
()
Date: November 10, 2013 03:39
Quote
His MajestyQuote
xke38
I'd say this quote from Greg Kot/BBC Culture sums it up nicely:
"Were the Stones as revolutionary as the Beatles? No, but their reign of good-to-great albums was nearly twice as long, and their best music from this era – 1963 through 1981 – has a consistency, durability and variety that few bands from any era could match. Not even The Beatles, it turns out."
Nonesense.
+1 They're both great for different reasons. To say The Stones had a variety The Beatles couldn't match is utterly ridiculous, as is the "few bands from any era" bit. The Beach Boys anyone? They had arguably more variety than either (I know many on this board loathe them, but their 1966-1973 era alone has more variety than most bands, and that's AFTER the overrated surf/cars era), but all three bands did so many styles at different junctions of their career that this Greg Kot quote is ludicrous.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
CanYouHearTheMusic
()
Date: November 10, 2013 03:51
Quote
drbryantQuote
His Majesty
It doesn't have to be all or nothing eh.
Of course not. My only point is that Pepper, MMT and Abbey Road don't have much rock and roll, and I like rock and roll so I prefer Let it Bleed. Hey, I love the Beatles - in fact, I'll see Paul McCartney perform twice this month in Tokyo. But if forced to choose which to take to a desert island, I would take my Brown Sugar/Bitch/Let it Rock 45 over all my copies of Pepper, MMT and Abbey Road.
[Edit] just checked - actually have tickets for THREE McCartney shows this month, as well as Atoms for Peace and the Vienna Philharmonic. Wonder how I'll get any work done.
Abbey Road doesn't have much rock and roll on it? I Want You (She's So Heavy)? Come Together? Oh Darling? The End? You Never Give Me Your Money? Seriously man?! Abbey Road and The White Album were the *only* ROCK albums The Beatles made. They have tons of variety, but through and through they're the only two Beatles albums you can call "rock" as opposed to psychedelic pop, classic pop, whatever you wanna call their (GREAT) earlier work. Abbey Road has about as much rock on it as Sticky Fingers, which has a TON of mellow stuff, and that's a good thing.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 10, 2013 03:54
Quote
Doxa
Yep, they had proven, but to adapt to the demands of late-60's/early 70's live performances, it was handy to have a technically high-class player in the team.
- Doxa
Handy, but not essential. The essential came from Mick and Keith, ie their songs.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: November 10, 2013 04:01
Regarding the Exile vs White Album, discussion ... I think the White Album is great but it's a bit like four solo artists collaborating (sometimes barely) and everybody gets to put whatever they want in the stew. Cool songs but a bit of a hodge podge, like a bunch of single A- and B-sides thrown together randomly. You need to enjoy a lot of silly little styles and genres to fully appreciate it.
...Whereas Exile is very cohesive in its sound and styles. There's variety there, with country and gospel and all that, but if you like Hip Shake, chances are you're gonna like Shine A Light too. It sounds more like a tight band effort to me, where the songs really sit well beside each other (and sometimes sound weaker when heard on their own).
Perhaps Abbey Road is the Beatles' Exile? It shorter, but it has that cohesiveness. It's hard and tight, more '70s sounding than the White Album. It has several songs that are just little ditties on their own but work very well together and really belong on that record. It has more of a band feel than the White Album, despite the Beatles being on the verge of splitting, sort of how I picture the Stones working in the south of France -- a bit of a mess on a personal level but producing good music.
...Whereas Exile is very cohesive in its sound and styles. There's variety there, with country and gospel and all that, but if you like Hip Shake, chances are you're gonna like Shine A Light too. It sounds more like a tight band effort to me, where the songs really sit well beside each other (and sometimes sound weaker when heard on their own).
Perhaps Abbey Road is the Beatles' Exile? It shorter, but it has that cohesiveness. It's hard and tight, more '70s sounding than the White Album. It has several songs that are just little ditties on their own but work very well together and really belong on that record. It has more of a band feel than the White Album, despite the Beatles being on the verge of splitting, sort of how I picture the Stones working in the south of France -- a bit of a mess on a personal level but producing good music.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 10, 2013 07:23
So, Abbey Road is like Exile, and The White Album's a bit like Sucking In The 70s 60s?
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 10, 2013 10:45
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Doxa
Yep, they had proven, but to adapt to the demands of late-60's/early 70's live performances, it was handy to have a technically high-class player in the team.
- Doxa
Handy, but not essential. The essential came from Mick and Keith, ie their songs.
True, but the songs themselves don't perform, you need someone to deliver them convincingly, one after other, here and now. Especially when they are products of a studio band who have had all the time on earth to record them, use the best technology, and do as many takes, overdubs, etc. needed...
Even Taylor himself has stated that his first impression playing with them was that how such a sloppy band can make such great records...
But the songs and their makers - Mick and Keith - truely are essential. Without them, nothing. Taylor was not essential - I'm with Mathijs in that sense that any technically competent guitar player of the day could have taken that role and help in the delivery of the songs. But honestly of any red and hot British blues players, I can't think anyone could have been a better choice than Taylor (taking his skills, style and still rather low profile name). Were they lucky or just damn smart in picking him up, I don't know...
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 10:57 by Doxa.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 10, 2013 11:34
Quote
Doxa
But honestly of any red and hot British blues players, I can't think anyone could have been a better choice than Taylor (taking his skills, style and still rather low profile name). Were they lucky or just damn smart in picking him up, I don't know...
- Doxa
I need to add that my picture is that from the moment they decided to hire Jimmy Miller as their producer and started to make songs for BEGGARS BANQUET to the very last moment in finishing EXILE ON MAIN STREET, the Stones just couldn't do wrong as far as musical decisions go. The intuitions they had at the time just were a spot on. There is not much during that time period I could find something to critizise.
Ronnie Wood seems to fancy that they wanted to hire him initially in 1969. True or not, thanks jeezchrist, allah, or whatever (Mick Jagger most likely), that that alternative possible world never realized. I simply don't even dare to imagine that scenario. Ronnie's time was not yet to come; he was needed later... The Stones make me sometimes believe in fate, even though I'm a totally secular person...
- Doxa
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: November 10, 2013 11:43
This is John Lennon with Yer Blues...
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: November 10, 2013 13:16
Quote
treaclefingers
So, Abbey Road is like Exile, and The White Album's a bit like Sucking In The70s60s?
>
<Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 10, 2013 16:10
Quote
Doxa
True, but the songs themselves don't perform, you need someone to deliver them convincingly, one after other, here and now.
No shit sherlock.
Quote
Doxa
Were they lucky or just damn smart in picking him up, I don't know...
Quite simple, he was available due to Mayall not wanting that kind of guitar player anymore.
Taylor was the lucky one although it some what ruined his life for quite some time so maybe not so lucky.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 16:24 by His Majesty.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 10, 2013 16:18
Quote
His MajestyQuote
Doxa
True, but the songs themselves don't perform, you need someone to deliver them convincingly, one after other, here and now.
No shit sherlock.
Yes yes, believe it or not!
- Doxa
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: November 10, 2013 16:20
Quote
CanYouHearTheMusicQuote
drbryantQuote
His Majesty
It doesn't have to be all or nothing eh.
Of course not. My only point is that Pepper, MMT and Abbey Road don't have much rock and roll, and I like rock and roll so I prefer Let it Bleed. Hey, I love the Beatles - in fact, I'll see Paul McCartney perform twice this month in Tokyo. But if forced to choose which to take to a desert island, I would take my Brown Sugar/Bitch/Let it Rock 45 over all my copies of Pepper, MMT and Abbey Road.
[Edit] just checked - actually have tickets for THREE McCartney shows this month, as well as Atoms for Peace and the Vienna Philharmonic. Wonder how I'll get any work done.
Abbey Road doesn't have much rock and roll on it? I Want You (She's So Heavy)? Come Together? Oh Darling? The End? You Never Give Me Your Money? Seriously man?! Abbey Road and The White Album were the *only* ROCK albums The Beatles made. They have tons of variety, but through and through they're the only two Beatles albums you can call "rock" as opposed to psychedelic pop, classic pop, whatever you wanna call their (GREAT) earlier work. Abbey Road has about as much rock on it as Sticky Fingers, which has a TON of mellow stuff, and that's a good thing.
Its strength is "Here Comes the Sun" and in its ballads - those are the tracks that people remember as classic Beatles tracks, and there's a good reason for it. "Come Together" is a great opener, but Paul's "rock" numbers are all oldies send-offs. "I Want You" is long and "heavy" but not memorable for any reason. It does rock harder than Magical Mystery Tour, though. I think their best rock album was "The Beatles Second Album" (released only in the US).
It's all subjective, so there may be other people in the world that think that Abbey Road has as much rock as Sticky Fingers - but, I think there's more rock in the opening riff to CYHMK or in the guitar solo in Sway, than there is on the entire Abbey Road album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 16:48 by drbryant.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 10, 2013 16:28
I Want You is heavy, but like most Beatles heavy tunes it's in a Tonka truck kinda way. They aspire to create something heavy, but it doesn't quite become an actual truck.
Part of their charm is that they just can't help being musical.
The real heavy shit, as in weight of emotion and delivery etc is to be found on Lennons first solo album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 16:31 by His Majesty.
Part of their charm is that they just can't help being musical.
The real heavy shit, as in weight of emotion and delivery etc is to be found on Lennons first solo album.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-10 16:31 by His Majesty.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 10, 2013 16:41
Oh Darling is pretty heavy in places...
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: November 10, 2013 17:31
Quote
His Majesty
Taylor was the lucky one although it some what ruined his life for quite some time so maybe not so lucky.
Like Brian Jones was the lucky one to meet these two musical geniuses from Dartford but it some what ruined his life in the end so maybe not so lucky...
- Doxa
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 10, 2013 17:37
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Oh Darling is pretty heavy in places...
I think McCartney in the Beatles was just fabulous. What a duo with Lennon.
We all know the story of their break up, but it strikes me to see how much fun both L. and McC had during the Rooftop concert. And what a great interaction between the two of them. Those guys were too long in the studio and needed more fresh air for sure.
I think both Beatles and Stones are not surpassed by any solo album by any member of those bands.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 10, 2013 18:05
Quote
DoxaQuote
His Majesty
Taylor was the lucky one although it some what ruined his life for quite some time so maybe not so lucky.
Like Brian Jones was the lucky one to meet these two musical geniuses from Dartford but it some what ruined his life in the end so maybe not so lucky...
- Doxa
No, not the same.
Brian was already doing a great job of ruining his own life before he even met them.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 10, 2013 18:07
Quote
LieB
Regarding the Exile vs White Album, discussion ... I think the White Album is great but it's a bit like four solo artists collaborating (sometimes barely) and everybody gets to put whatever they want in the stew. Cool songs but a bit of a hodge podge, like a bunch of single A- and B-sides thrown together randomly. You need to enjoy a lot of silly little styles and genres to fully appreciate it.
...Whereas Exile is very cohesive in its sound and styles. There's variety there, with country and gospel and all that, but if you like Hip Shake, chances are you're gonna like Shine A Light too. It sounds more like a tight band effort to me, where the songs really sit well beside each other (and sometimes sound weaker when heard on their own).
Perhaps Abbey Road is the Beatles' Exile? It shorter, but it has that cohesiveness. It's hard and tight, more '70s sounding than the White Album. It has several songs that are just little ditties on their own but work very well together and really belong on that record. It has more of a band feel than the White Album, despite the Beatles being on the verge of splitting, sort of how I picture the Stones working in the south of France -- a bit of a mess on a personal level but producing good music.
Well put Lieb.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 10, 2013 18:12
Quote
His MajestyQuote
DoxaQuote
His Majesty
Taylor was the lucky one although it some what ruined his life for quite some time so maybe not so lucky.
Like Brian Jones was the lucky one to meet these two musical geniuses from Dartford but it some what ruined his life in the end so maybe not so lucky...
- Doxa
No, not the same.
Brian was already doing a great job of ruining his own life before he even met them.
Well, they helped him doing the job 'properly'.
Re: beatles white album or stones exile on main st.
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 10, 2013 18:16
Quote
kleermaker
Well, they helped him doing the job 'properly'.
Or maybe delayed the inevitable.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Adams , Broesel2404 , DandelionPowderman , daniel t , deardoctor , fanch , GeirGG , PaintMonkeyManBlack , RobertJohnson , Rosto , soundboard , wupperstein
Guests:
1315
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10