Would a 1970 Beatles album have been their greatest work? Aka higher level Fab 4 discussion
Comments
-
I would argue that. Heavy drugs Beatles are hands down the best Beatles.YellowSnow said:
Many would argue that Revolver was their greatest achievement. It certainly was their greatest leap forward in the studio...more than Pepper I think.WilburHooksHands said: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.
-
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.YellowSnow said:
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.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'm not that young grandpa. I was a twinkle in daddy's eye when they split up.RaceBannon said:
Maybe you're too young for classic rock but you didn't have to exist to get airtime well into the 90'schuck said:
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.RaceBannon said:
There was a joke back in the daychuck 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.
Who were the Beatles?
The band Paul played in before Wings
By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput
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. -
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.RaceBannon said:
There was a joke back in the daychuck 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.
Who were the Beatles?
The band Paul played in before Wings
By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput -
It cannot be underestimated 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.WilburHooksHands said:
I would argue that. Heavy drugs Beatles are hands down the best Beatles.YellowSnow said:
Many would argue that Revolver was their greatest achievement. It certainly was their greatest leap forward in the studio...more than Pepper I think.WilburHooksHands said: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.
-
*overestimated
-
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.YellowSnow said:
It cannot beWilburHooksHands said:
I would argue that. Heavy drugs Beatles are hands down the best Beatles.YellowSnow said:
Many would argue that Revolver was their greatest achievement. It certainly was their greatest leap forward in the studio...more than Pepper I think.WilburHooksHands said: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.
underestimatedoverstated 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. -
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 -
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."RaceBannon said:
Maybe you're too young for classic rock but you didn't have to exist to get airtime well into the 90'schuck said:
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.RaceBannon said:
There was a joke back in the daychuck 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.
Who were the Beatles?
The band Paul played in before Wings
By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput
The rest of the date went just as poorly. -
This was funny.DerekJohnson said:
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."RaceBannon said:
Maybe you're too young for classic rock but you didn't have to exist to get airtime well into the 90'schuck said:
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.RaceBannon said:
There was a joke back in the daychuck 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.
Who were the Beatles?
The band Paul played in before Wings
By 1970 no one listened to the Beatles. Done. Finished. Kaput
The rest of the date went just as poorly.
