Tell Me :
Talk
Does it get confused during We Love You?
Yes, sgt. is/was a great album in the day, but I'd agree it doesn't hold up that well. Abbey Road on the other hand is fantastic.
Or during She's A Rainbow?
Let It Be is great too.
It's a dog eat dog world out there...
Pretty much spot on kleer.
I'd agree although I think the Velvet Underground would have been a strong argument except they really didn't do it in the volume the stones and beatles did.
Pretty remarkable how much music of unparalleled quality in such a small space of time.
Shabby Road is still probably the best album Wings ever made featuring as it does John and George on some tracks but it's too slick for my liking and lacks any real involvement from John. The triple tracked vocals on Because are highly over-rated. Not a patch on This Boy or Yes It Is. They should have split up after the White Album or taken a year out and certainly not have used a transistor mixing desk.
Standout tracks for me are I Want You (She's so heavy) and The End.
Let It Be sucks too though the rooftop concert is ace.
Maybe i like the Stones better after all.hmm
Can't believe people still argue the merits of each band. We're lucky to have had both. Very lucky indeed.
Let It Be doesn’t work as an LP. It was cobbled-together from the chaotic ‘Get Back’ sessions in early ’69. I think it’s only I Me Mine and Spector’s string arrangements that post-date the recording and release of Abbey Road. Going by what we know, the Get Back album would’ve been far from a ‘classic’, but the sleeve design - which later appeared on the ‘Blue’ 1967-70 best-of - is one of their very finest. It was going to be ‘Get Back, With Don’t Let Me Down And 10 Other Songs’, wasn’t it?
Gotta love this bit of 'shopping.
[www.45worlds.com]
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Sadly not mine, see the link under the picture.
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
The majority of stones recordings from 60's - 70's were done with transistor mixing desks.
I always thought Abbey Road was one of their best albums. Sgt. Pepper's was good but way overrated.
"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.
Well you thought right..........I think Abbey Road is their greatest album too....if a few out here claim it isn't their greatest and some songs s-u-c-k-s it's their opinion..............(it's a time less album).
Sgt'Pepper is great too but a bit dated.......... (sorry Sgt'Pepper isn't dated) when I wrote Sgt'Pepper I had in mind The White Album some of the songs are dated
__________________________
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-02 00:59 by NICOS.
were they ? I'm not a stones expert but they recorded at Regent sound,Chess,RCA,pye and Olympic till 1967....weren't all those studios equipped with valve desks ? I think the move to transistor was late 60s and certainly 1969 at Abbey Road at least Beatle wise. I know Macca complained he couldn't overdrive his guitars thru the new desk like they did on white album for example.
I think there's also quite a change in sound between the Doors second and third album which isn't entirely down to Jimbo's alcohol consumption but down to the move from valve to transistor. Could be wrong though.
Strange Days was recorded at Elektra's Sunset Sound Recorders on 8-track, whereas Waiting For The Sun was recorded at T.T.G. Recording Studios, which had just been equipped with a 16-track system, so perhaps that accounts for the difference.
Source: [thedoors.com]
However, despite the above source coming from the official Doors website, a more comprehensive session by session studio guide claims that they continued recording on 8-track during this time.
[www.thedoorsguide.com]
Here also is Doors engineer Bruce Botnick discussing in great detail the console used for the Strange Days album.
[www.soundonsound.com]
The big change in sound was really between the first and second albums. The first was recorded on 4-track, whereas the second was recorded on 8-track, and as Botnick explains in the above-linked Sound on Sound article, they made major recording innovations during the sessions for Strange Days.
Another source describes Waiting For The Sun like this: "Mastered by Doug Sax using an all-tube system. Overseen by Bruce Botnick, The Doors producer/engineer".
[www.analogueproductions.com]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-02 01:31 by stonehearted.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
walkingthedog
()
Date: November 28, 2013 23:05
I have trained my dog to like the Stones and not the Beatles.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: November 29, 2013 02:15
Quote
walkingthedog
I have trained my dog to like the Stones and not the Beatles.
Does it get confused during We Love You?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: November 29, 2013 02:30
What about during Hey Bulldog, what happens then? Or does the dog just attack the speakers?
Here's a little something from Pepper, the isolated animal effects, something for the dog to chew on, for a training exercise.
Here's a little something from Pepper, the isolated animal effects, something for the dog to chew on, for a training exercise.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: November 29, 2013 03:39
....what's it do when ya play Bitch ???
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: November 29, 2013 08:52
My dog leaves the building as soon as I glance at the trumpet ... the sound is amplified times 37 for a dog so I understand him almost ...
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 29, 2013 17:13
Quote
andrea66
i never liked beatles that much, sorry.
I mean, they wrote beautiful songs, no doubt about it, but generally speaking i don't like them-
2 weeks ago i re-listened to sgt.pepper and i found it boring boring boring.
and overrated.
Yes, sgt. is/was a great album in the day, but I'd agree it doesn't hold up that well. Abbey Road on the other hand is fantastic.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 29, 2013 18:08
Quote
His MajestyQuote
walkingthedog
I have trained my dog to like the Stones and not the Beatles.
Does it get confused during We Love You?
Or during She's A Rainbow?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 29, 2013 18:09
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
andrea66
i never liked beatles that much, sorry.
I mean, they wrote beautiful songs, no doubt about it, but generally speaking i don't like them-
2 weeks ago i re-listened to sgt.pepper and i found it boring boring boring.
and overrated.
Yes, sgt. is/was a great album in the day, but I'd agree it doesn't hold up that well. Abbey Road on the other hand is fantastic.
Let It Be is great too.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: November 29, 2013 18:11
Quote
kleermakerQuote
His MajestyQuote
walkingthedog
I have trained my dog to like the Stones and not the Beatles.
Does it get confused during We Love You?
Or during She's A Rainbow?
It's a dog eat dog world out there...
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 29, 2013 20:01
Quote
kleermakerQuote
treaclefingersQuote
andrea66
i never liked beatles that much, sorry.
I mean, they wrote beautiful songs, no doubt about it, but generally speaking i don't like them-
2 weeks ago i re-listened to sgt.pepper and i found it boring boring boring.
and overrated.
Yes, sgt. is/was a great album in the day, but I'd agree it doesn't hold up that well. Abbey Road on the other hand is fantastic.
Let It Be is great too.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: November 29, 2013 22:08
I think Beatles and Stones (until 1974) have given us the greatest pop/rock music available. Not intending to do Lou Reed, David Bowie and others an injustice. But Beatles and Stones beat them all, musically.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: November 29, 2013 23:02
Quote
kleermaker
I think Beatles and Stones (until 1974) have given us the greatest pop/rock music available. Not intending to do Lou Reed, David Bowie and others an injustice. But Beatles and Stones beat them all, musically.
Pretty much spot on kleer.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 29, 2013 23:05
Quote
Silver DaggerQuote
kleermaker
I think Beatles and Stones (until 1974) have given us the greatest pop/rock music available. Not intending to do Lou Reed, David Bowie and others an injustice. But Beatles and Stones beat them all, musically.
Pretty much spot on kleer.
I'd agree although I think the Velvet Underground would have been a strong argument except they really didn't do it in the volume the stones and beatles did.
Pretty remarkable how much music of unparalleled quality in such a small space of time.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
ash
()
Date: November 30, 2013 02:00
I'm on The Beatles side of this argument but side 1 of Shabby Road sucks - Maxwell,Oh Darling and Octopus's Garden all in a row. Zoinks. That's the worst run of tracks on any Beatle album. Worse than side 2 of Help!Quote
bitusa2012
I dislike INTENSLY the 2nd side, the mini-operatic side, of Abbey Road. Side 1 though is stunning
Shabby Road is still probably the best album Wings ever made featuring as it does John and George on some tracks but it's too slick for my liking and lacks any real involvement from John. The triple tracked vocals on Because are highly over-rated. Not a patch on This Boy or Yes It Is. They should have split up after the White Album or taken a year out and certainly not have used a transistor mixing desk.
Standout tracks for me are I Want You (She's so heavy) and The End.
Let It Be sucks too though the rooftop concert is ace.
Maybe i like the Stones better after all.hmm
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 30, 2013 22:18
Come Together, She's So Heavy, Something and Here Comes The Sun are some of the best songs out of rock music ever, hence a pretty good involvement from John and George...
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Silver Dagger
()
Date: November 30, 2013 22:47
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Come Together, She's So Heavy, Something and Here Comes The Sun are some of the best songs out of rock music ever, hence a pretty good involvement from John and George...
Can't believe people still argue the merits of each band. We're lucky to have had both. Very lucky indeed.Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: November 30, 2013 23:58
Quote
ash
Let It Be sucks too though the rooftop concert is ace.
Let It Be doesn’t work as an LP. It was cobbled-together from the chaotic ‘Get Back’ sessions in early ’69. I think it’s only I Me Mine and Spector’s string arrangements that post-date the recording and release of Abbey Road. Going by what we know, the Get Back album would’ve been far from a ‘classic’, but the sleeve design - which later appeared on the ‘Blue’ 1967-70 best-of - is one of their very finest. It was going to be ‘Get Back, With Don’t Let Me Down And 10 Other Songs’, wasn’t it?
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: December 1, 2013 00:43
If there is a problem with Let It Be, it isn't the material itself, which is quite good, but the performances, which convey the weary dispiritedness of a group of musicians that had seemed to run out of ideas for moving forward as well as patience with one another. The rooftop concert only came about because they couldn't agree on the several proposed live venues (Paul's ideas) for presenting the album as well as providing a closing for the film. They were only on their best behavior--both personally and as a performing unit--when Billy Preston showed up. I imagine the performances on the rooftop would not have been as compelling if Preston had not been there to sit in.
There were originally two versions of the Get Back album compiled and presented to the band, both mixed by Glyn Johns and both rejected by the band. The proposed title and cover of the first version reflected a return to their first album of naming it after the first single (and the B-side, which was Don't Let Me Down).
Get Back version one, May 1969
Side one
The One After 909
Rocker (Improvisation)
Save the Last Dance for Me
Don't Let Me Down
Dig a Pony
I've Got a Feeling
Get Back
Side two
For You Blue
Teddy Boy
Two of Us
Maggie Mae
Dig It
Let It Be
The Long and Winding Road
Get Back (reprise)
The second version was compiled on January 5, 1970 and subsequently rejected as well.
Side one:
One After 909
Rocker
Save The Last Dance For Me
Don't Let Me Down
Dig A Pony
I've Got A Feeling
Get Back
Let It Be
Side two:
For You Blue
Two Of Us
Maggie Mae
The Long And Winding Road
I Me Mine
Across The Universe
Get Back (Reprise)
An acetate of the early (first version) Get Back mixes was actually played on some U.S. "underground" FM radio stations that same year--not a promo acetate per se, but actually a tape of Glyn Johns' reference acetate.
There were originally two versions of the Get Back album compiled and presented to the band, both mixed by Glyn Johns and both rejected by the band. The proposed title and cover of the first version reflected a return to their first album of naming it after the first single (and the B-side, which was Don't Let Me Down).
Get Back version one, May 1969
Side one
The One After 909
Rocker (Improvisation)
Save the Last Dance for Me
Don't Let Me Down
Dig a Pony
I've Got a Feeling
Get Back
Side two
For You Blue
Teddy Boy
Two of Us
Maggie Mae
Dig It
Let It Be
The Long and Winding Road
Get Back (reprise)
The second version was compiled on January 5, 1970 and subsequently rejected as well.
Side one:
One After 909
Rocker
Save The Last Dance For Me
Don't Let Me Down
Dig A Pony
I've Got A Feeling
Get Back
Let It Be
Side two:
For You Blue
Two Of Us
Maggie Mae
The Long And Winding Road
I Me Mine
Across The Universe
Get Back (Reprise)
An acetate of the early (first version) Get Back mixes was actually played on some U.S. "underground" FM radio stations that same year--not a promo acetate per se, but actually a tape of Glyn Johns' reference acetate.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Deltics
()
Date: December 1, 2013 01:10
Quote
stonehearted
Gotta love this bit of 'shopping.
[www.45worlds.com]
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: December 1, 2013 01:18
^ HaHa, nice one! Never saw that image before.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
Deltics
()
Date: December 1, 2013 09:20
Quote
kleermaker
Well done Deltics!
Sadly not mine, see the link under the picture.
"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 1, 2013 18:29
Quote
ash
...and certainly not have used a transistor mixing desk.
The majority of stones recordings from 60's - 70's were done with transistor mixing desks.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
belld
()
Date: December 1, 2013 18:33
A more appropriate title for this thread -
Stones Vs The Who.
Beatles Vs The Monkees.
Enough said.
Stones Vs The Who.
Beatles Vs The Monkees.
Enough said.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: December 1, 2013 22:23
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
andrea66
i never liked beatles that much, sorry.
I mean, they wrote beautiful songs, no doubt about it, but generally speaking i don't like them-
2 weeks ago i re-listened to sgt.pepper and i found it boring boring boring.
and overrated.
Yes, sgt. is/was a great album in the day, but I'd agree it doesn't hold up that well. Abbey Road on the other hand is fantastic.
I always thought Abbey Road was one of their best albums. Sgt. Pepper's was good but way overrated.
"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: December 1, 2013 22:35
Quote
FrankMQuote
treaclefingersQuote
andrea66
i never liked beatles that much, sorry.
I mean, they wrote beautiful songs, no doubt about it, but generally speaking i don't like them-
2 weeks ago i re-listened to sgt.pepper and i found it boring boring boring.
and overrated.
Yes, sgt. is/was a great album in the day, but I'd agree it doesn't hold up that well. Abbey Road on the other hand is fantastic.
I always thought Abbey Road was one of their best albums. Sgt. Pepper's was good but way overrated.
Well you thought right..........I think Abbey Road is their greatest album too....if a few out here claim it isn't their greatest and some songs s-u-c-k-s it's their opinion..............(it's a time less album).
__________________________
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-02 00:59 by NICOS.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
ash
()
Date: December 1, 2013 23:55
Quote
His MajestyQuote
ash
...and certainly not have used a transistor mixing desk.
The majority of stones recordings from 60's - 70's were done with transistor mixing desks.
were they ? I'm not a stones expert but they recorded at Regent sound,Chess,RCA,pye and Olympic till 1967....weren't all those studios equipped with valve desks ? I think the move to transistor was late 60s and certainly 1969 at Abbey Road at least Beatle wise. I know Macca complained he couldn't overdrive his guitars thru the new desk like they did on white album for example.
I think there's also quite a change in sound between the Doors second and third album which isn't entirely down to Jimbo's alcohol consumption but down to the move from valve to transistor. Could be wrong though.
Re: Beatles v Stones
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: December 2, 2013 00:47
Quote
ash
I think there's also quite a change in sound between the Doors second and third album which isn't entirely down to Jimbo's alcohol consumption but down to the move from valve to transistor. Could be wrong though.
Strange Days was recorded at Elektra's Sunset Sound Recorders on 8-track, whereas Waiting For The Sun was recorded at T.T.G. Recording Studios, which had just been equipped with a 16-track system, so perhaps that accounts for the difference.
Source: [thedoors.com]
However, despite the above source coming from the official Doors website, a more comprehensive session by session studio guide claims that they continued recording on 8-track during this time.
[www.thedoorsguide.com]
Here also is Doors engineer Bruce Botnick discussing in great detail the console used for the Strange Days album.
[www.soundonsound.com]
The big change in sound was really between the first and second albums. The first was recorded on 4-track, whereas the second was recorded on 8-track, and as Botnick explains in the above-linked Sound on Sound article, they made major recording innovations during the sessions for Strange Days.
Another source describes Waiting For The Sun like this: "Mastered by Doug Sax using an all-tube system. Overseen by Bruce Botnick, The Doors producer/engineer".
[www.analogueproductions.com]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-02 01:31 by stonehearted.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1StonesRecluse , AJDuffer , Bastion , bengigan , Braincapers , eibert , GJV , hockenheim95 , Kevinstones78 , makustone , Mr Jimmy , Paddy , quarkie , rattler2004 , roryg , spidey39 , stonemac , syrel , TumblinDice76 , Whale
Guests:
1370
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10