Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Show your support for what this community means to you:


Choose a Donation Amount
Username (required for credit)



Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Take a look around and join the community. Have a topic? Join us and start a thread.

Would a 1970 Beatles album have been their greatest work? Aka higher level Fab 4 discussion

24

Comments

  • WilburHooksHandsWilburHooksHands Posts: 4,196
    2500 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes

    Hot and off-topic taek: the Beatles greatest work begins and ends with "Tomorrow Never Knows." The fact that they made that in the 60's on analog technology is truly revolutionary.

    Many would argue that Revolver was their greatest achievement. It certainly was their greatest leap forward in the studio...more than Pepper I think.
    I would argue that. Heavy drugs Beatles are hands down the best Beatles.
    dfleaAZDuckDennis_DeYoung
  • chuckchuck Posts: 2,023
    250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes 1000 Comments

    chuck said:

    I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

    You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

    I think they still would have split up by the early 70's, regardless. Just too many creative differences. But there's no question John and Paul were better in a group than outside of one. John didn't really have many good songs post Imagine (1971) and Paul left to his own devices, was a lightweight, indeed.
    He didn't have many but still sprinkled in some good shit after imagine. I actually listen to the non-yoko songs from Double Fantasy to this day.
    salemcoog
  • chuckchuck Posts: 2,023
    250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes 1000 Comments

    chuck said:

    chuck said:

    I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

    You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

    There was a joke back in the day

    Who were the Beatles?

    The band Paul played in before Wings

    By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput
    Perhaps because they didn't exist by 1970? Paul post 1970 was featherweight, easy listening shit...which is why he was more popular than the others. George and John both put out better or at least more interesting music after the breakup than they did as Beatles.
    Maybe you're too young for classic rock but you didn't have to exist to get airtime well into the 90's
    I'm not that young grandpa. I was a twinkle in daddy's eye when they split up.

    And the Beatles continued to get tons of airtime well into and beyond the 90s, just not on top 40 radio. They're so irrelevant in modern times that it's pretty hard to find a pop music writer/blogger, regardless of age, who hasn't dedicated a significant amount of time to them.

    I get the backlash, I really do. Overrated, overplayed, overcredited...its all true. it just doesn't affect me.
    YellowSnow
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Posts: 5,257
    Swaye's Wigwam 5000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary

    chuck said:

    I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

    You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

    There was a joke back in the day

    Who were the Beatles?

    The band Paul played in before Wings

    By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput
    Agree, but the boy in the boat brings up an interesting point. The Beatles evolved over the 60's. Hard to say what they would have sounded like reuniting after an inevitable break up, but they had the talent to leave a serious mark as a more refined band. 70's Stones and 70's Who were damn strong at times. Just sayin.
    YellowSnowRaceBannonCirrhosisDawg
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Posts: 5,257
    Swaye's Wigwam 5000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary
    *overestimated
    YellowSnow
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Posts: 5,257
    Swaye's Wigwam 5000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary

    Hot and off-topic taek: the Beatles greatest work begins and ends with "Tomorrow Never Knows." The fact that they made that in the 60's on analog technology is truly revolutionary.

    Many would argue that Revolver was their greatest achievement. It certainly was their greatest leap forward in the studio...more than Pepper I think.
    I would argue that. Heavy drugs Beatles are hands down the best Beatles.
    It cannot be underestimated overstated how important the drugs were. They first smoked weed in 1964 and the following year you get Rubber Soul which is my favorite Beatle album. 1965 was when they first dropped acid in Bel Air and then you get Revolver in 1966. In fact, Dylan, getting the Beatles high n NYC in 1964 for the first time might have been the most important moment in rock history.
    That definitely made them far more creative. Experience also made them better musicians. By the time they broke up, there were legitimately a very good band.
    YellowSnowAZDuck
  • LebamDawgLebamDawg Posts: 874
    250 Answers 500 Up Votes 500 Awesomes 500 Comments
    edited April 12
    I always thought they were overrated but their fame was more timing than anything else. I have all their music but have only selected certain albums that I listen to - Revolver, Sgt Pepper (first time I took acid I listened to that for the first time - I know cool story), Rubber Soul, Abbey Road. Then I have the sound track to Across the Universe. Good covers for a bunch of songs especially Dear Prudence.

    Paul sucked afterwards and I puke when that old fuck came out with Freedom after 9-11.
    George was ok - anybody who could hang out with Eric Idle is OK.
    Ringo and his all star band shows are pretty good, they air on AXS once in awhile.
    Edit: Lennon is dead

    My kids were in a high school play about the beatles so kids know them - being the attentive parent I have no idea what the hell it was
  • SwayeSwaye Posts: 24,565
    Swaye's Wigwam Solar Eclipse Donator 10000 Comments 250 Answers

    chuck said:

    chuck said:

    I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

    You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

    There was a joke back in the day

    Who were the Beatles?

    The band Paul played in before Wings

    By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput
    Perhaps because they didn't exist by 1970? Paul post 1970 was featherweight, easy listening shit...which is why he was more popular than the others. George and John both put out better or at least more interesting music after the breakup than they did as Beatles.
    Maybe you're too young for classic rock but you didn't have to exist to get airtime well into the 90's
    I was on date a couple months ago with a woman who was 29. She had never heard of Billy Idol. When I expressed my amazement, she said "I'm just not into classic rock."

    The rest of the date went just as poorly.
    This was funny.
    AZDuckDerekJohnson
  • AZDuckAZDuck Posts: 14,820
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary Fucktard of the Week Award
    Yeah, some of my go-to questions have always been "Beatles or Stones," "Willie or Waylon," and "fave Elvis song." Thank the gods I'm out of the dating pool (because I gave up on myself).
    YellowSnowLebamDawgTequillaDerekJohnson
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Posts: 9,328
    Swaye's Wigwam 5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    AZDuck said:

    Yeah, some of my go-to questions have always been "Beatles or Stones," "Willie or Waylon," and "fave Elvis song." Thank the gods I'm out of the dating pool (because I gave up on myself).

    Stones
    Waylon
    Marie's the Name of His Latest Flame

    Wanna screw?
    AZDuckBennyBeaver
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Posts: 9,328
    Swaye's Wigwam 5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    LebamDawg said:

    I always thought they were overrated but their fame was more timing than anything else. I have all their music but have only selected certain albums that I listen to - Revolver, Sgt Pepper (first time I took acid I listened to that for the first time - I know cool story), Rubber Soul, Abbey Road. Then I have the sound track to Across the Universe. Good covers for a bunch of songs especially Dear Prudence.

    Paul sucked afterwards and I puke when that old fuck came out with Freedom after 9-11.
    George was ok - anybody who could hang out with Eric Idle is OK.
    Ringo and his all star band shows are pretty good, they air on AXS once in awhile.
    Edit: Lennon is dead

    My kids were in a high school play about the beatles so kids know them - being the attentive parent I have no idea what the hell it was

    They certainly were in the right place at the right time and this, of course, had a lot do with their fame.
  • LebamDawgLebamDawg Posts: 874
    250 Answers 500 Up Votes 500 Awesomes 500 Comments
    so you got me thinking and I have been listening to the White Album this morning - it is actually pretty good. it was done before Paul became a pile of shit
    YellowSnowGilbystaint
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Posts: 9,328
    Swaye's Wigwam 5000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
    LebamDawg said:

    so you got me thinking and I have been listening to the White Album this morning - it is actually pretty good. it was done before Paul became a pile of shit

    Stalin approves of this message.


    LebamDawgDerekJohnson
  • TequillaTequilla Posts: 14,273
    10000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    I don’t get the hate for the Beatles ... but then I just listen to the music usually and don’t get too philosophical about it.

    The Paul hate blows my mind ... but to each their own.

    I’ve always found that I enjoy Yesterday and Let It Be the most ... but you could throw 10 other songs up against those and I couldn’t argue.

    Post break up I generally only think of Paul’s work because it’s what you hear the most.

    Imagine is in my top 15-20 songs of all time ... just don’t hear it played enough which is a total shame.

    Likewise, Live and Let Die is also a high end song for me ... being a Bond song gets extra credit
    89uteBennyBeaver
  • chuckchuck Posts: 2,023
    250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes 1000 Comments
    Tequilla said:

    I don’t get the hate for the Beatles ... but then I just listen to the music usually and don’t get too philosophical about it.

    The Paul hate blows my mind ... but to each their own.

    I’ve always found that I enjoy Yesterday and Let It Be the most ... but you could throw 10 other songs up against those and I couldn’t argue.

    Post break up I generally only think of Paul’s work because it’s what you hear the most.

    Imagine is in my top 15-20 songs of all time ... just don’t hear it played enough which is a total shame.

    Likewise, Live and Let Die is also a high end song for me ... being a Bond song gets extra credit

    Paul wrote some of their best songs and wasn't always a lightweight. He was back and forth as a Beatle between trivial shit (some of which was still good) and some amazingly heartfelt songs. The guy could sing too.

    I just think he was pretty dull and trivial post Beatles.
    LebamDawg
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Posts: 1,499
    Swaye's Wigwam 250 Answers 1000 Comments 500 Up Votes
    It would have been just as good as anything else they put out. All their albums and singles were excellent. There was no era that was better than another, only one Beatle that was clearly better than the others, and that was John Lennon.
    chuckYellowSnow
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Posts: 1,499
    Swaye's Wigwam 250 Answers 1000 Comments 500 Up Votes

    chuck said:

    I'm not much of a fan of anything Paul did post Beatles though I only know a small percentage of what he recorded.

    You could compile a greatest hits of the 70s from John and George and blow anything the Beatles did as a group out of the water in terms of sheer # of great songs. I think those two, especially Lennon, kept Paul from going too light hearted and goofy. Paul kept Lennon a little more grounded and his music a little more consistently listenable since he couldn't let Paul be the only one producing #1 hits.. Keep them all together for another decade and I'm pretty sure they would have kept doing great things as a group.

    I think they still would have split up by the early 70's, regardless. Just too many creative differences. But there's no question John and Paul were better in a group than outside of one. John didn't really have many good songs post Imagine (1971) and Paul left to his own devices, was a lightweight, indeed.
    John really didn't try that hard after Imagine. Paul put out a lot more than John, yet they both had about the same amount of good stuff.
    chuckYellowSnowDennis_DeYoung
Sign In or Register to comment.