Magical Mystery Tour is really more of a singles collection than a proper album but I think the drums and the songs are the best on that ("Flying" for instance).
Would you SoulStrut dudes please try to act right just for a day and stop recommending Beatles albums off of "the drums"?
The reason i dig the beatles has nothing to do with any drums or specific songs.
I simply enjoy listening to some of the catchy tunes they did, i hate country western it's just not for me, so everyone hates something imo. The point is the beatles did a lot for rock/pop more than any one single person or group did. If problems with lennon and the united states we're not at such a high level maybe "imagine" or whatever other hit you liked would not have been made. If you don't like them so be it, but it is what is it.... they own a huge piece of music history.
"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly. I'm crying."
1) Revolver 2) Rubber Soul 3) Abbey Road 5) Magical Mystery Tour 6) Sgt Pepper 7) White Album 8) Help 9) Hard Days Night 10) Let It Be 11) Beatles For Sale 12) With The Beatles 13) Please Please Me
In that order and proper UK releases...non of this US re-packaging bull!
With all the bad looks in this thread - and there are many - I have to say that placing "Magical Mystery Tour" above Sgt. Pepper, White Album, Help, Beatles for Sale ... that really takes the prize.
Regardless of their immense popularity and media saavy ways ("We're bigger then Jesus!") The Beatles, more specifically Lennon/McCartney, were a tremendous song-writing team that could consisitently up the ante, for themselves and others... every popular rock group of the 60's was playing catch-up as evidenced by numerous interviews with the chief creative forces behind such groups as The Byrds, Beach Boys, etc... Pet Sounds in fact was a reaction to Rubber Soul in an attempt to top what Brian Wilson described as "pop perfection"... Funny enough, McCartney said almost the same of "God Only Knows"...
1) Revolver 2) Rubber Soul 3) Abbey Road 5) Magical Mystery Tour 6) Sgt Pepper 7) White Album 8) Help 9) Hard Days Night 10) Let It Be 11) Beatles For Sale 12) With The Beatles 13) Please Please Me
In that order and proper UK releases...non of this US re-packaging bull!
With all the bad looks in this thread - and there are many - I have to say that placing "Magical Mystery Tour" above Sgt. Pepper, White Album, Help, Beatles for Sale ... that really takes the prize.
I mean, please, please, please be serious!
Could be worse, at least Sgt. Pepper's is in about the right place.
I still can't believe that dude recommended the Cirque De Sole remix album as a good starting point.
Yeah, it's the type of post so absurd it would normally spark the creation of a (dollarbin) new graemlin (dollarbin) like maybe (dollarbin) a butcher cover where the boys are (dollarbin!!!) saying "disconnected" or something (DOLLARBIN!?)
That's funny, but that's not how I rate everything.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
I think most folks' problem with the Beatles doesn't stem from their music being talentless and irredeemable, its more of a resentment towards them being so massively overrated, all while other artists from the era languish in obscurity. Look no further than Paul Mccartney still being treated like some kind of rock and roll ubermensch with any kind of relevence whatsoever.
The problem with this, though, is that the whole "Beatles = overrated" thing is almost always predicated on a mixture of over-familiarity and received wisdom. As Jimster points out upthread, it's difficult (although not impossible, of course) to truly grasp the impact they had unless you were There At The Time (I say this as a native Scouser whose earliest childhood memory is of being taken by my ma to NEMS, the Liverpool record store owned by Brian Epstein, where she bought me a copy of the Beatles first album for my fourth birthday). Although I didn't understand it at the time, I have a clear memory of a family gathering over the Christmas period when "Rubber Soul" was released, and it seemed that the album was never off the turntable the whole time we were there. When my older cousins weren't playing it, they seemed to be constantly talking about how great it was.
What's undeniably unique about the Beatles is the way in which they managed to be both commercially successful and wildly innovative, received widespread critical acclaim whilst still reaching a mass audience, and managed to have an enduring influence that's resonated long beyond the term of their artistic life - remember that their recording career lasted less than a decade. I defy any of the Beatles nay-sayers in this thread to point to another musician, or group of musicians, whose impact can be measured in similar terms. I'll give you a clue - there aren't very many.
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
I was think 'bout puttin together a Beatles Soul R&B covers mix for myself. The fact that there so many is a testament to their art.
I can understand the hatt, but id rather listen for myself then properly hatt.
More like a testament that they were the "most popular"(read: highest paid) band at the time, and labels thought covers would garner some sort of mainstream appeal (read: money).
Just FYI, every rock act(arguably every pop music act) from 1966 on was influenced by the Beatles.
mmm... disagree.
Ozzy and Alice Cooper (just to use your examples above) are both on record as the Beatles being the main impetus behind their existence.
Two white dudes, and one british = so what?
and btw, I love the the work of the beatles, but mainly LENNON and HARRISON. Mccartney always seemed like the pussy. Is it essential listening nah? Is it fun. Sure.
I reccomend, BLUE JAY WAY, I WANT YOU (SHE'S SO HEAVY), BECAUSE, JULIA, HAPPINESS IS A WARM GUN, and While my Guitar Gently weeps(Acoustic version).
I love the the work of the beatles, but mainly LENNON and HARRISON. Mccartney always seemed like the pussy.
I've heard people say this before, and seriously, Paul McCartney is a GREAT songwriter IMHO. Blackbird, Fixing a Hole, Martha my Dear, Got to get you into my life. I mean, c'mon, Eleanor Rigby even (collab, but he wrote the most of it). Sure he's an annoying fellow nowadays and has been for quite a while, but he had serious chops before and Sergeant Peppers is mostly his work.
Don't listen to the Beatles because they're influential and important. They are, but listen to them because they're great. If you like 60s pop/rock AT ALL, you should be able to find something on Revolver you like.
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
Again, recommending a Cirque De Sole remix album as a good place for the uninitiated to start goes down in the pantheon of bad recs.
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
Again, recommending a Cirque De Sole remix album as a good place for the uninitiated to start goes down in the pantheon of bad recs.
first off, stop spouting that Cirque De Sole remix bullshit. they didn't remix shit. George Martin did this CD. how could what is essentially a greatest hits package tastefully mixed and re-mastered by the groups long time producer really be that bad a place to start?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
Again, recommending a Cirque De Sole remix album as a good place for the uninitiated to start goes down in the pantheon of bad recs.
first off, stop spouting that Cirque De Sole remix bullshit. they didn't remix shit. George Martin did this CD. how could what is essentially a greatest hits package tastefully mixed and re-mastered by the groups long time producer really be that bad a place to start?
I have to admit that I don't quite get the hostility towards "Love" either. As a concept alone, I would have thought it might have a few supporters here, of all places. I finally heard it myself a few weeks back and, for what it is, I think it's pretty good. As big a fan as I am of the Beatles, I can't take this attitude that the songs are like sacred texts which shouldn't be tampered with under any circumstances. Something like "Love" represents a pretty adventurous approach to one of the most famous catalogues in the history of recorded music, at the very least. For all that, I'd still say that an actual Beatles album is the best place to start for someone after an idea of what they were about musically.
More importantly, Love the show - the result of George Harrison's friendship with Cirque founder Guy Laliberte - involved producer George Martin disinterring the group's master tapes from the Abbey Road vault for he and his son Giles to remix and remodel[/b].
It may have been done for one of their shows, but nobody from Cirque du Soleil so much as touched a fader on that project.
you kept calling it a Cirque du Soleil remix album hence me saying 'they didn't remix shit'. George Martin on the other hand did remix shit. fuck me you are one dumb fool. i'd prefer if your mentality in the future remained unheard, how you've managed to stretch your bullshit beyond 400 posts is a shock to anyone.
Dude, my whole point was that that was a monumentally poor choice for someone to introduce themselves to the Beatles. These dudes have created what are considered some of the most revered songs and albums of the last 50 years. My man, you suggested that the best way to introduce yourselves to these songs and albums is an album where they are all blended together. Please be serious. I borrowed the album from pops, and you know what, it wasnt terrible. I know George Martin is a fucking genius, but that doesnt change the fact that this album was another calculated way to extract money from aging fans, by collapsing their monumental albums into a Vegas spectacle, with accompanying soundtrack. You can keep playing dumb, and saying, well Cirque De Sole didnt actually remix the songs. Whatever, I never said the album sucked, I simply said that as a starting point, your recommendation sucked ass. No one has disagreed. I do think its fun for everyone that your actually sticking to your guns. Please to continue sonning yourself.
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
One doesn't need to listen to it to know that it's a wholly inappropriate recommendation.
It's like recommending that Bill Laswell-remixed crap as a starting point to someone interested in Fela, or those mad Scientist records to somebody curious about Lee Perry. Or maybe one of Puffy's posthumous cut-n-paste jobs to someone that's never heard Biggie.
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
One doesn't need to listen to it to know that it's a wholly inappropriate recommendation.
It's like recommending that Bill Laswell-remixed crap as a starting point to someone interested in Fela, or those mad Scientist records to somebody curious about Lee Perry. Or maybe one of Puffy's posthumous cut-n-paste jobs to someone that's never heard Biggie.
Straight up - defending "Love" is just an act of stubborness at this point. It may not be a hot pile of shit or not (I haven't listened to it) but there's no possible way it's going to be a better introduction to the Beatles considering that their catalog IS READILY AVAILABLE IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM.
you kept calling it a Cirque du Soleil remix album hence me saying 'they didn't remix shit'. George Martin on the other hand did remix shit. fuck me you are one dumb fool. i'd prefer if your mentality in the future remained unheard, how you've managed to stretch your bullshit beyond 400 posts is a shock to anyone.
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
One doesn't need to listen to it to know that it's a wholly inappropriate recommendation.
It's like recommending that Bill Laswell-remixed crap as a starting point to someone interested in Fela, or those mad Scientist records to somebody curious about Lee Perry. Or maybe one of Puffy's posthumous cut-n-paste jobs to someone that's never heard Biggie.
It's arguably even worse, given that (correctly or not), the Beatles are habitually credited as being THE group to a)shift the dominant commercial format from the 7" to the LP, and b)raise the LP from haphazard collection of songs to immaculately constructed art form.
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
One doesn't need to listen to it to know that it's a wholly inappropriate recommendation.
It's like recommending that Bill Laswell-remixed crap as a starting point to someone interested in Fela, or those mad Scientist records to somebody curious about Lee Perry. Or maybe one of Puffy's posthumous cut-n-paste jobs to someone that's never heard Biggie.
It's arguably even worse, given that (correctly or not), the Beatles are habitually credited as being THE group to a)shift the dominant commercial format from the 7" to the LP, and b)raise the LP from haphazard collection of songs to immaculately constructed art form.
Hmmm, yeah... I guess those comparisons were all too mild.
How about: "It's like recommending US3 to someone that inquires about the Blue Note catalog"?
Comments
^^ Ringo hater
I simply enjoy listening to some of the catchy tunes they did, i hate country western it's just not for me, so everyone hates something imo. The point is the beatles did a lot for rock/pop more than any one single person or group did. If problems with lennon and the united states we're not at such a high level maybe "imagine" or whatever other hit you liked would not have been made. If you don't like them so be it, but it is what is it.... they own a huge piece of music history.
"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying."
With all the bad looks in this thread - and there are many - I have
to say that placing "Magical Mystery Tour" above Sgt. Pepper, White Album,
Help, Beatles for Sale ... that really takes the prize.
I mean, please, please, please be serious!
Regardless of their immense popularity and media saavy ways ("We're bigger then Jesus!") The Beatles, more specifically Lennon/McCartney, were a tremendous song-writing team that could consisitently up the ante, for themselves and others... every popular rock group of the 60's was playing catch-up as evidenced by numerous interviews with the chief creative forces behind such groups as The Byrds, Beach Boys, etc... Pet Sounds in fact was a reaction to Rubber Soul in an attempt to top what Brian Wilson described as "pop perfection"... Funny enough, McCartney said almost the same of "God Only Knows"...
darnit... 5:00... time to go home....
Could be worse, at least Sgt. Pepper's is in about the right place.
Yeah, it's the type of post so absurd it would normally
spark the creation of a (dollarbin) new graemlin (dollarbin)
like maybe (dollarbin) a butcher cover where the boys are
(dollarbin!!!) saying "disconnected" or something (DOLLARBIN!?)
It must have drums!
RAER BEATLEZ BREAKZ!!!
That's funny, but that's not how I rate everything.
The problem with this, though, is that the whole "Beatles = overrated" thing is almost always predicated on a mixture of over-familiarity and received wisdom. As Jimster points out upthread, it's difficult (although not impossible, of course) to truly grasp the impact they had unless you were There At The Time (I say this as a native Scouser whose earliest childhood memory is of being taken by my ma to NEMS, the Liverpool record store owned by Brian Epstein, where she bought me a copy of the Beatles first album for my fourth birthday). Although I didn't understand it at the time, I have a clear memory of a family gathering over the Christmas period when "Rubber Soul" was released, and it seemed that the album was never off the turntable the whole time we were there. When my older cousins weren't playing it, they seemed to be constantly talking about how great it was.
What's undeniably unique about the Beatles is the way in which they managed to be both commercially successful and wildly innovative, received widespread critical acclaim whilst still reaching a mass audience, and managed to have an enduring influence that's resonated long beyond the term of their artistic life - remember that their recording career lasted less than a decade. I defy any of the Beatles nay-sayers in this thread to point to another musician, or group of musicians, whose impact can be measured in similar terms. I'll give you a clue - there aren't very many.
I know it ain't quite an original UK pressing of the White Album (what is it with yanks and this album?) but Love is actually pretty good. I really do think that half the hatters on here have never even listened to it.
More like a testament that they were the "most popular"(read: highest paid) band at the time, and labels thought covers would garner some sort of mainstream appeal (read: money).
mmm... disagree.
Two white dudes, and one british = so what?
and btw, I love the the work of the beatles, but mainly LENNON and HARRISON. Mccartney always seemed like the pussy. Is it essential listening nah? Is it fun. Sure.
I reccomend, BLUE JAY WAY, I WANT YOU (SHE'S SO HEAVY), BECAUSE, JULIA, HAPPINESS IS A WARM GUN, and While my Guitar Gently weeps(Acoustic version).
LOVE IS FUCKING GARBAGE.
- spidey
actually now that you put it in capitals it sorta makes sense.
I've heard people say this before, and seriously, Paul McCartney is a GREAT songwriter IMHO. Blackbird, Fixing a Hole, Martha my Dear, Got to get you into my life. I mean, c'mon, Eleanor Rigby even (collab, but he wrote the most of it). Sure he's an annoying fellow nowadays and has been for quite a while, but he had serious chops before and Sergeant Peppers is mostly his work.
Don't listen to the Beatles because they're influential and important. They are, but listen to them because they're great. If you like 60s pop/rock AT ALL, you should be able to find something on Revolver you like.
Again, recommending a Cirque De Sole remix album as a good place for the uninitiated to start goes down in the pantheon of bad recs.
first off, stop spouting that Cirque De Sole remix bullshit. they didn't remix shit. George Martin did this CD. how could what is essentially a greatest hits package tastefully mixed and re-mastered by the groups long time producer really be that bad a place to start?
I have to admit that I don't quite get the hostility towards "Love" either. As a concept alone, I would have thought it might have a few supporters here, of all places. I finally heard it myself a few weeks back and, for what it is, I think it's pretty good. As big a fan as I am of the Beatles, I can't take this attitude that the songs are like sacred texts which shouldn't be tampered with under any circumstances. Something like "Love" represents a pretty adventurous approach to one of the most famous catalogues in the history of recorded music, at the very least. For all that, I'd still say that an actual Beatles album is the best place to start for someone after an idea of what they were about musically.
The ambitions of Love go beyond renovation, however. Its 26 tracks are set in an ambient flow of sound collages distilled from hours of Beatles tapes and containing fragments and echoes of 130 songs in all.
Thanks for playing....
Thanks for playing....
It may have been done for one of their shows, but nobody from Cirque du Soleil so much as touched a fader on that project.
oh yeah, thanks for playing.
One doesn't need to listen to it to know that it's a wholly inappropriate recommendation.
It's like recommending that Bill Laswell-remixed crap as a starting point to someone interested in Fela, or those mad Scientist records to somebody curious about Lee Perry. Or maybe one of Puffy's posthumous cut-n-paste jobs to someone that's never heard Biggie.
Straight up - defending "Love" is just an act of stubborness at this point. It may not be a hot pile of shit or not (I haven't listened to it) but there's no possible way it's going to be a better introduction to the Beatles considering that their catalog IS READILY AVAILABLE IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM.
It's arguably even worse, given that (correctly or not), the Beatles are habitually credited as being THE group to a)shift the dominant commercial format from the 7" to the LP, and b)raise the LP from haphazard collection of songs to immaculately constructed art form.
Hmmm, yeah... I guess those comparisons were all too mild.
How about: "It's like recommending US3 to someone that inquires about the Blue Note catalog"?