The Beatles

[Langdale Wolf]

And it wasn't Ringo messing around and having blacked up like on the Help! album, I assume?

Ah, the loveable yet racist scouse scamp!

[Radar]

For me, it's always been about the quality of the songs they wrote (which, along with the arrangements, were innovative imo) followed by the immaculate performances they gave those songs

the technical innovations they brought along were just the icing really

That all seems reasonable, I still think people go over the top though. EDIT: like your use of the word "immaculate"

FFS mate - you've got 22 pages to go through for some sort of idea!!!

well I do know much of their work.

I just don't see what makes them so much better than (say) The Beach Boys, The Kinks or indeed the Rolling Stones (just to pick three other great bands of that era).

Ah ... I know this.

Because they were the only band to have not one, not two, not even three but all four members of the Beatles in them. Sometimes they even had a fifth Beatle in there, but I think that was showing off.

Erm, exactly!!!

Edited September 14, 2009 by Radar

[sifi]

I just don't see what makes them so much better than (say) The Beach Boys, The Kinks or indeed the Rolling Stones (just to pick three other great bands of that era).

You don't want to go down the who were better - the Beatles or the Stones. That divided most people in the 60s, families, the works.

I suppose the pro-Beatles lobby would argue who got there first really. Certainly for me the output of both bands in the late sixties and for the stones early seventies was fascinating stuff.

And hand on heart, I don't think the Beatles made as good an album as Exile on Maine Street.

Edited September 14, 2009 by sifimaster

[sifi]

The Beach Boys were also up there for a while, but it took Rubber Soul to inspire Brian to make Pet Sounds

Yeah, and I'd say that John's writing especially on Rubber Soul had Bob's fingerprints all over it. A bit infantile Bob, but Bob nonetheless.

Am I allowed to say that? I got told off for mentioning his Bobness in this thread.

Edited September 14, 2009 by sifimaster

[Radar]

You don't want to go down the who were better - the Beatles or the Stones. That divided most people in the 60s, families, the works.

I'm aware of that Sifi, it was perhaps a little mischievous

The Kinks were great, but lacked the consistency of The Beatles... there isn't one Kinks album that I'd happily listen to from the beginning to the end.

The Stones were, like most bands, playing catch up with The Beatles. The first non cover by The Stones was given to them by John and Paul (I Wanna Be Your Man). The Beatles made a psychedelic masterpiece, so The Stones had a go (and failed on the whole)... lots of other examples... In the main though, The Beatles and The Stones were inspiring each other, they'd even release singles so that they didn't clash, and there was none of that infantile "we're better than you" going on, they hung out with each other, even played on each other's songs sometimes.

You're right in that they weren't the only 'great' group to have existed... but then I've never implied that

The Beach Boys were also up there for a while, but it took Rubber Soul to inspire Brian to make Pet Sounds

Aye fair play, but I often get the impression that it's "not OK" to not worship the work of the Beatles above all else.

In essence, I don't want to put the Beatles on a pedestal but lots of people do and it irks me a little. Plus as I say, the spoon-feeding from childhood (as I experienced it) alienated me a little.

[Cardboard Box City]

The Kinks were great, but lacked the consistency of The Beatles... there isn't one Kinks album that I'd happily listen to from the beginning to the end.

Yup.

And Ray Davies was the bollocks at Glastonbury.

[The Nal]

The Kinks were great, but lacked the consistency of The Beatles... there isn't one Kinks album that I'd happily listen to from the beginning to the end.

[sifi]

Well, there was the collision of folk sensibilities into rock n'roll. That was part of the singer / songwriter and artists writing their own material, that I was referring to earlier.

I honestly think that 65-66, those Bob albums were far superior to similar Beatles stuff of the time, in terms of lyrical complexity. As Paul McCartney admitted when he said when he heard "Like a Rolling Stone". It was Bob going completely mad on gear / having a motor-bike crash that derailed him. He lost the crown only for the Beatles to pick it up, which they did amazingly with their technological advancements. With the jester on the sidelines in a cast and all that. Whether or not they would have made those leaps forward without touring, I don't know.

And then he did the Basement Tapes, which fell into the hands of one Keith Richards, who is on record as saying that he heard that and wanted to make Exile.

Edited September 14, 2009 by sifimaster

[Radar]

life's hard

I get more upset that racism is on the rise, Chris Moyles is considered a good broadcaster, and Jonothan Ross is still on the tele and radio..

plus a few squillion other things,

that's why I retreat to music most of the time

Aye. Bloody life!!! Better than the alternative though!

Those are all very valid imho... I'd be raging about them, as opposed to "a bit irked"

"Tony Blair is your name, and music is your aeroplane..."

[sifi]

I was disappointed that with all the programmes that were shown, the clip of John and Bob in the back of the car, talking, wasn't shown...

The pissed up scene off Eat the Document? Wierd. But available on youtube.

I tell you what was good was the Cate Blanchett segment of "I'm not there". Very well done.

[staggerlee]

Really? I was there too, loved it, but wouldn't say it's the best gig i've ever seen, there's a few that beat that.

He was fantastic in Liverpool 2004 near the Albert dock. That was probably the best gig I've ever seen.

[When Jokers Attack]

Masterpiece and along with Someone Else as the best Kinks albums.

Been watching through my Beatles Anthology series for the first time in ages , Excellant stuff.

[staggerlee]

stevie wonder - we can work it out.

no contest! did i read this one right?

I would certainly go for that. Better than the original IMO.

[sifi]

infantile Bob? In My Life?

Yeah. Maybe infantile was the wrong word. Bit simple really. Compared to what Bob was doing at the time. Grade school stuff as comapred to a-level.

Edited September 14, 2009 by sifimaster

[The Nal]

Yeah. Maybe infantile was the wrong word. Bit simple really. Compared to what Bob was doing at the time. Grade school stuff as comapred to a-level.

While one who sings with his tongue on fire

Gargles in the rat race choir

Bent out of shape from society's pliers

Cares not to come up any higher

But rather get you down in the hole that he's in.

Lennon was still writing Help around this period.

But Dylan didn't write Ticket to Ride! ie, they're not that comparable.

[sifi]

While one who sings with his tongue on fire

Gargles in the rat race choir

Bent out of shape from society's pliers

Cares not to come up any higher

But rather get you down in the hole that he's in.

Lennon was still writing Help around this period.

But Dylan didn't write Ticket to Ride! ie, they're not that comparable.

For them that must obey authority

That they do not respect in any degree

Who despise their jobs, their destinies

Speak jealously of them that are free

Cultivate their flowers to be

Nothing more than something

They invest in.

[thomasowen]

The Kinks were great, but lacked the consistency of The Beatles... there isn't one Kinks album that I'd happily listen to from the beginning to the end. The Stones were, like most bands, playing catch up with The Beatles. The first non cover by The Stones was given to them by John and Paul (I Wanna Be Your Man). The Beatles made a psychedelic masterpiece, so The Stones had a go (and failed on the whole)... lots of other examples... In the main though, The Beatles and The Stones were inspiring each other, they'd even release singles so that they didn't clash, and there was none of that infantile "we're better than you" going on, they hung out with each other, even played on each other's songs sometimes.

You're right in that they weren't the only 'great' group to have existed... but then I've never implied that

The Beach Boys were also up there for a while, but it took Rubber Soul to inspire Brian to make Pet Sounds

And It took Pet Sounds to Inspire The Beatles to make Revolver

[The Nal]

For them that must obey authority

That they do not respect in any degree

Who despise their jobs, their destinies

Speak jealously of them that are free

Cultivate their flowers to be

Nothing more than something

They invest in.

Nowhere near as good as

The wild dogs cry out in the night

As they grow restless longing for some solitary company

I know that I must do what's right

Sure as Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus above the Serengeti

[sifi]

sorry sifi, but you're just showing how blinded by his bobness you are. Dismissing In My Life (voted THE best song ever written I believe once) as simple is just misssing the point by miles and miles... it's to the point.

Who is dismissing In My Life? If you look back it's on there, on my list of favourite Beatles songs.

I just said it was simple. It said infantile first, but corrected myself. It said it was simple.

And Bob could do simple. Lay lady Lay for example is as simple as In My life - if not simpler.

[sifi]

ok, sorry, I take it back.

"Grade school stuff as comapred to a-level."

I misunderstood you

At that point, it was. It did get a lot more interesting though. I'm talking about lyrics here. My blindness in Bob has already seen me agree that music wise the Beatles were a lot more diverse for the period of their existence.

I don't think we are ever going to agree, so I'll end with some quotes for you:

"Dylan is so brilliant. To me, he makes William Shakespeare look like Billy Joel. Can you imagine what a world it would be if we didn't have Bob Dylan? It would be awful." - George Harrison

Edited September 15, 2009 by sifimaster

[The Nal]

At that point, it was. It did get a lot more interesting though. I'm talking about lyrics here. My blindness in Bob has already seen me agree that music wise the Beatles were a lot more diverse for the period of their existence.

I don't think we are ever going to agree, so I'll end with some quotes for you:

"Dylan is so brilliant. To me, he makes William Shakespeare look like Billy Joel. Can you imagine what a world it would be if we didn't have Bob Dylan? It would be awful." - George Harrison

"I’m in awe of McCartney. He’s about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he’s never let up... He’s just so damn effortless." Bob Dylan

[sifi]

"I’m in awe of McCartney. He’s about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he’s never let up... He’s just so damn effortless." Bob Dylan

It's a veritable love in. There's loads of that kinda thing floating around.

Shame they never did anything together really.

[Radar]

Who is dismissing In My Life? If you look back it's on there, on my list of favourite Beatles songs.

In My Life... I've known heartache and pain

I don't know, if I could face it again

Can't stop now, I've travelled so far

To change this lonely life...

I wanna know what love is...!

I want you to show me...!

*hails taxi*

[Wooderson]

Just listening to Martha My Dear on the radio...

not one I'd generally choose as a fave, but even that shows the musical genius of Paul.. the melodies, arrangements... just luvverly really

The "Take a goood look around you..." bit is just gorgeous.

Funny that its about his dog.

[Langdale Wolf]

The "Take a goood look around you..." bit is just gorgeous.

Funny that its about his dog.

It's disrespectful to speak ill of the dead.