boring drivel

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Still sleeping.
>
> YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
> NNNNNn

Waking up.
>
> Whatever y0u say girlie-girl

Hi, welcome.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference is: the Beatles never were a live
> band, they were a studio band.


Check out I'm Down from Shea Stadium and say that again. They were a marvellous live act, but their music changed so it couldn't be played live. It wouldn't make much sense to make I Am The Walrus and then go out on the road and play 'Till There Was You. They weren't in the same place live as they were in the studio. I think that was what happened. Also they coulnd't hear themselves. As they said: "We were just up on stage to be looked at. Nobody cared about the music, as long as we were being shown".

JumpingKentFlash

Some people thought they were quite good. I never got it. I always found them boring. Sorry if I have a different view.

Geez, I remember all the hubub with the "it was 20 years ago today" bizo in 87 whan it was released on cd for the first time. Now it's 20 years on. Man life zips by.

I agree with your points for the most part Mathijs but disagree with your opinion of them live.

As chance would have it I've been crancking Please Please Me and With The Beatles in the car going home from work at nite for the passed couple of weeks - along with Beatle For Sale and A Hard Day's Nite. Just had a real hankering lately for early Beatles' gear.

I think their first two lps were great - esp given they were basically live albums put straight to tape.

I don't think they ever really (overall) put a step wrong in the studio.

I think live they were a great band till 65ish and then started to wane. But how could any band improve or keep to a high standard playing wise when you could not even hear yourself play or sing. They may as well have been reciting the Dead Sea Scrolls to the muzak of Sinatra for all the screaming fans cared.

Abbey and Revolver are the two that stand out for me. But given that I think the worst album they made was Let It Be and regard that as a 8 out of 10 record, categorisng them becomes redundant.

They produced the greatest body of music known to the human race in an incredibly short period of time. I slightly love the Stones more but the Beatles are - and probably will always be alone at the top.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

monkey man Wrote:

> They produced the greatest body of music known to
> the human race in an incredibly short period of
> time.

You must be joking.

Bärs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> monkey man Wrote:
>
> > They produced the greatest body of music known
> to
> > the human race in an incredibly short period of
> > time.
>
> You must be joking.

I don't think he is; pound for pound they did. You can look at percentages of crap tracks out of total output...whatever criteria you want and they come up trumps most times. Not in terms of longevity of band existance, but to go from Love me Do at the arse end of 1962 to Let it be in 1970 taking in Revolver/Rubber Soul/Pepper they did.

I love the stones, I really do, but most objective - and note my use of the word objective - bystanders would say that the Beatles outshone them and EVERY other band if you consider all the factors.

You might well prefer the Stones. I can see that plenty of folks here find the Beatles boring. I know a chap who believes that the Kinks were the best the 60's ever offered, and all the viewpoints are valid as the next, but the general consensus of 100 random people on the street will tend to concur with what Monkey Man said....

....I agree with the monkey man.....except I'd put Let It Be as a 9 out of 10



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-01 17:43 by Lukester.

Why?

They've outsold everyone from Mozart to U2 - and by a fuking long, long shot. Their music is more widely known than anyone else's. Once all the promotion and pomp dies down the fact is that their music is loved across the world and generations - far more than anyone else's.

It sells in abundance even 38 years after their demise. There's a reason for it - they wrote and produced brilliant music. Sure it's only opinion, but hundreds of millions think similarly.

If they were simply product without substance this thread probably wouldn't exit for example.

Where's the joke?

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

I will put THIS up against ANYBODY!!!

Beggars> Let It Bleed > Ya Yas> Sticky > Exile> Goats> IORR

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> boring drivel

ah yes, the typically cogent and thoughtful analysis that we've come to expect from aslecs.

Ah yes, I do not agree with you so that upsets you. Would be better if everyone agreed on everything -- I see your COGENT point.

Lukester and Textmonkey you are clearly people with an mighty fine tastes that have clarity of the mind and ears and if you were anywhere nearby Downunder I would be compelled to buy the both of you lots of beer. :0)

Speaking of the Let It Be album. Isn't it incredible how artists are compared to their own highest standards? LIB was for the most part panned by critics and yet it boasts "Two of us", "Across the universe", "Get back", "The long and winding road" along with the title track. Imagine any band bringing out songs of that quality these days and having their album bagged?

I guess it's the same reason for Goats Head being dissed in 73. It wasn't to the incredible levels of brilliance that BB, LIB, SF, GYYYO and Exile were at so it's given the thumbs down.

How incredibly arrogant is it for anyone to expect that level of brillaince and creativity remain a constant? People should be happy that these works of art were made in the first place and stop comparing artists to their previous works I sez....

The Beatles owed the world nothing musically really after Rubber Soul when you think of how ground breaking to that point they had already been.

And yet look (or listen to rather) at what they subsequently gave us.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

...monkeyman, I've been known to sail to different continents just to drink "lots of beer," so be careful what you offer.......smile.....

Aslecs we get your point. Your posts are becoming more dull to me than Beatles' music is to you.

And there is no reason to apologize for a point of view. No-one is bothered by the fact you don't like them.

Chow down on a chloroform sandwich dude and have a real ZZZZZZZZZZZ.

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

monkey man you so smart man. won't ever disagree with you. you da man. you so "with it"

Lukester I never find beer a laughing matter. It is to be treated with the utmost of respect, veneration and reverence. It is then to be appreciated like a spring morning that in turn leads to it needing to be destroyed by stomach lining and expelled like diet coke!.....hence respectfully making more room for the aforementioned nectar of the Gods.

I hope you come across Capt Jack's father on your journey across the oceans to my fair Oz. Bid him good tidings if you will from me.

The beer and my goodself are standby in the meantime....

kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

There's a nice article/interview with Sir Paul in the June 4 New Yorker.

The impact of the Beatles and SP is enormous. To not recognize its appeal is simply being contrary. That record landed like a bombshell and the crater is still there.

If the Stones last live concert was in '66, would it be a legendary live band? I chafe at the statement people like to repeat...that the Beatles were a lousy live act. They were, however, master studio song craftsmen. THAT is true.

It is food for thought to ponder what a Beatles reunion tour would be like, especially compared to what the Stones have been doing for past couple decades. If John and George had anything to say about it, it would be much different and rewarding, perhaps even provocative, I expect. In any event, no one can question the integrity of the band members.

I think a big loser of the Beatles breakup is the Stones. Sure, it cleared the field, but the Stones lost its chief "rival" whose influence may have challenged it to be more than what it became...charismatic, pandering, pop performers with nothing to say.

Hi All,

Of course this means that the real landmark album that we should be lauding is also 40...



Now that's genius!

Cheers,

Si.

ps it goes without saying that The Beatles were/are @#$%& great!

SimonN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi All,
>
> Of course this means that the real landmark album
> that we should be lauding is also 40...
>
> [i68.photobucket.com]
> .jpg
>
> Now that's genius!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Si.
>
> ps it goes without saying that The Beatles
> were/are @#$%& great!

indeed. and this proved there were no hard feelings!!

Hi TM,

1000 thanks for posting that-magic!

Cheers,

Si.

PMK, so the Stones had "nothing to say" after the beatles broke up??

Hmmm, might wanna check Exile, IORR, Goats, Some Girls, Tattoo, ABB - to name just a few.

The Beatles invented pop music. As for my opinion and for 1,000,000 others. The greatest effort was A Day In The Life. Whatever our opinion of this album, it is without doubt the most famous release ever.

Never been my favourite Beatles album, prefer a few others but that doesn't stop me from saying "Happy Birthady" Sgt.

So I guess it was 60 years ago today...

I have to agree with a few other people here, Sgt Peppers is not my favorite beatle album, nor do I think it is their best (that would be Abbey Road or Revolver, IMO). Likewise Sgt Pepper does have a dated sound to it, which means it doesnt stand up as well today. Musically it is very good though, and contains some of the Beatles best music. Lucy is a great song and as people have mentioned, A Day in the Life. However, my personal favorite is "She's Leaving Home". There is something about this song that carrys alot of emotion. The melody evokes many different emotions of sadness, which combined with the lyrics, brings a tear to one's eye.

Mathijs Wrote:
> The difference is: the Beatles never were a live
> band, they were a studio band.

what were they doing onstage in those hundreds of shows in Hamburg and the Cavern for years before they ever got near a record contract?

Playing cards?

Not my favorite by The Beatles - several ahead of it -

Rubber Soul
Revolver
White Album
Abbey Road

But music can pretty much be defined as pre- or post-Sgt. Pepper.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Sgt.Pepper is simply one of the greatest albums of all time. A local radio station played the whole album in it's entirety this morning. Sounded pretty great to me.

I have never listened to this " most famous album ever released" from A to Z. I think I stopped at B or C, or maybe it was A. And I am feeling real good.

I think Sgt Pepper is an excellent album. Some people say it sounds dated but to me they were great songs in 1967 and they are great songs in 2007.

But then again its only my opinion.