Would a 1970 Beatles album have been their greatest work? Aka higher level Fab 4 discussion
Comments
-
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).
-
-
StonesAZDuck 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).
Waylon
Marie's the Name of His Latest Flame
Wanna screw? -
They certainly were in the right place at the right time and this, of course, had a lot do with their fame.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 -
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.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
-
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.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
I just think he was pretty dull and trivial post Beatles. -
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.
-
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.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. -
Fenderbender123 said:
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.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.
Let's not forget, Paul had an ugly divorce from Heather Mills.
At the start of the proceedings Mills asked for £125 million, but McCartney offered £15.8 million
In his judgment, Justice Bennett stated: "The husband's evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall, she was a less than impressive witness."[16] Regarding her career, the judge said: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife's career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite. He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim."[87] In anger at the judgment, Mills threw a pitcher of water on the head of Fiona Shackleton, McCartney's solicitor, in the courtroom.
She only got about 1/4 of what she asked for because.....
Wait for it.....
She didn't have a leg to stand on.
-
As a fan of interesting international music, one of my favorite Beatles songs is Love To You which features the sitar and tabla.
Was going to link it here, but the only youtube version I found had the audio removed for copyright shit.
-
Used to be able to play Beatles on YouTube.uzi said:As a fan of interesting international music, one of my favorite Beatles songs is Love To You which features the sitar and tabla.
Was going to link it here, but the only youtube version I found had the audio removed for copyright shit.
Love You Too is awesome...a rocking song with Indian instruments. -
Still wood. Peg leg or no.PurpleThrobber said:Fenderbender123 said:
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.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.
Let's not forget, Paul had an ugly divorce from Heather Mills.
At the start of the proceedings Mills asked for £125 million, but McCartney offered £15.8 million
In his judgment, Justice Bennett stated: "The husband's evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall, she was a less than impressive witness."[16] Regarding her career, the judge said: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife's career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite. He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim."[87] In anger at the judgment, Mills threw a pitcher of water on the head of Fiona Shackleton, McCartney's solicitor, in the courtroom.
She only got about 1/4 of what she asked for because.....
Wait for it.....
She didn't have a leg to stand on. -
Yep. He didn't give a fuck after Imagine. Hence, lost weekend.Fenderbender123 said:
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.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. -
Yeah, anybody that can play the sitar is talented as fuck.chuck said:
Used to be able to play Beatles on YouTube.uzi said:As a fan of interesting international music, one of my favorite Beatles songs is Love To You which features the sitar and tabla.
Was going to link it here, but the only youtube version I found had the audio removed for copyright shit.
Love You Too is awesome...a rocking song with Indian instruments.
This dude doing a decent cover and playing both instruments is the top return on Youtube now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY3Jn5twwSA -
Wings is one of the best bands ever.
The thing is, John was like the banana in a banana split. You take him out of that shit, you've just got a banana... but it sets off the ice cream and ice cream by itself is better than ice cream with something a little bitter or natural; so Paul was always a little too goofy and shit, but the Wings albums are pretty fucking money.
Still, let's never forget that Lennon did fucking 'Whatever gets you through the night'. Let's not act like he was some fucking amazing artist in the 70s. He was a madman when he lived in LA and used to hang out at my favorite LA bar, the Rainbow with Mickey Dolenz, Alice Cooper, Harry Nilsson, Ringo Starr, Keith Moon and Bob Brown.
My favorite Lennon song following the Beatles (well, I suppose he was still technically in the Beatles) is 'Hold on John'.
But his albums past imagine are dry as fuck. Ringo never did anything worthwhile and George had like 3 good songs (Wah Wah, What is Life, Awaiting on You All, maybe a couple more).
Wings has endless fucking amazing songs. Sure, some are corny - but Jet is fucking amazing, Let Me Roll It, the aforementioned Every Night, Some People Never Know, Tomorrow... Another Day.
Fucking Lennon went to shit, man. He had Imagine and Jealous Guy and that's pretty much it. Oh Yoko is okay if you're in the mood. -
Your music cred took a big hit when you chose your name, and was permanently destroyed when you reviewed one of your own albums. It's no surprise that a member of Styx would be a Wings fan.Dennis_DeYoung said:Wings is one of the best bands ever.
The thing is, John was like the banana in a banana split. You take him out of that shit, you've just got a banana... but it sets off the ice cream and ice cream by itself is better than ice cream with something a little bitter or natural; so Paul was always a little too goofy and shit, but the Wings albums are pretty fucking money.
Still, let's never forget that Lennon did fucking 'Whatever gets you through the night'. Let's not act like he was some fucking amazing artist in the 70s. He was a madman when he lived in LA and used to hang out at my favorite LA bar, the Rainbow with Mickey Dolenz, Alice Cooper, Harry Nilsson, Ringo Starr, Keith Moon and Bob Brown.
My favorite Lennon song following the Beatles (well, I suppose he was still technically in the Beatles) is 'Hold on John'.
But his albums past imagine are dry as fuck. Ringo never did anything worthwhile and George had like 3 good songs (Wah Wah, What is Life, Awaiting on You All, maybe a couple more).
Wings has endless fucking amazing songs. Sure, some are corny - but Jet is fucking amazing, Let Me Roll It, the aforementioned Every Night, Some People Never Know, Tomorrow... Another Day.
Fucking Lennon went to shit, man. He had Imagine and Jealous Guy and that's pretty much it. Oh Yoko is okay if you're in the mood. -
This inspired the line in UGK/Outkast's Intl Player's Anthem:PurpleThrobber said:Fenderbender123 said:
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.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.
Let's not forget, Paul had an ugly divorce from Heather Mills.
At the start of the proceedings Mills asked for £125 million, but McCartney offered £15.8 million
In his judgment, Justice Bennett stated: "The husband's evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall, she was a less than impressive witness."[16] Regarding her career, the judge said: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife's career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite. He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim."[87] In anger at the judgment, Mills threw a pitcher of water on the head of Fiona Shackleton, McCartney's solicitor, in the courtroom.
She only got about 1/4 of what she asked for because.....
Wait for it.....
She didn't have a leg to stand on.
Ask Paul McCartney
The lawyers couldn't stop me
Slaughterin' them pockets
Had to tie her to a rocket -
No love for "Mother"? Mother you had me, but I never had you, is as Fast Strategy as it gets. Lennon's first 2 solo efforts - i.e., Plastic Ono and Imagine - we're both classic and ground breaking in their own way. George's first album had closer to 7 or 8 really good songs. Paul had good songs all the way through Band on the Run including all that you mentioned. Hell, I can even get into Venus and Mars / Rock Show when I'm in the mood.Dennis_DeYoung said:Wings is one of the best bands ever.
The thing is, John was like the banana in a banana split. You take him out of that shit, you've just got a banana... but it sets off the ice cream and ice cream by itself is better than ice cream with something a little bitter or natural; so Paul was always a little too goofy and shit, but the Wings albums are pretty fucking money.
Still, let's never forget that Lennon did fucking 'Whatever gets you through the night'. Let's not act like he was some fucking amazing artist in the 70s. He was a madman when he lived in LA and used to hang out at my favorite LA bar, the Rainbow with Mickey Dolenz, Alice Cooper, Harry Nilsson, Ringo Starr, Keith Moon and Bob Brown.
My favorite Lennon song following the Beatles (well, I suppose he was still technically in the Beatles) is 'Hold on John'.
But his albums past imagine are dry as fuck. Ringo never did anything worthwhile and George had like 3 good songs (Wah Wah, What is Life, Awaiting on You All, maybe a couple more).
Wings has endless fucking amazing songs. Sure, some are corny - but Jet is fucking amazing, Let Me Roll It, the aforementioned Every Night, Some People Never Know, Tomorrow... Another Day.
Fucking Lennon went to shit, man. He had Imagine and Jealous Guy and that's pretty much it. Oh Yoko is okay if you're in the mood. -
Yep. I’m with you on most of this... but John basically said “Fuck writing melodies” once Paul was gone.YellowSnow said:
No love for "Mother"? Mother you had me, but I never had you, is as Fast Strategy as it gets. Lennon's first 2 solo efforts - i.e., Plastic Ono and Imagine - we're both classic and ground breaking in their own way. George's first album had closer to 7 or 8 really good songs. Paul had good songs all the way through Band on the Run including all that you mentioned. Hell, I can even get into Venus and Mars / Rock Show when I'm in the mood.Dennis_DeYoung said:Wings is one of the best bands ever.
The thing is, John was like the banana in a banana split. You take him out of that shit, you've just got a banana... but it sets off the ice cream and ice cream by itself is better than ice cream with something a little bitter or natural; so Paul was always a little too goofy and shit, but the Wings albums are pretty fucking money.
Still, let's never forget that Lennon did fucking 'Whatever gets you through the night'. Let's not act like he was some fucking amazing artist in the 70s. He was a madman when he lived in LA and used to hang out at my favorite LA bar, the Rainbow with Mickey Dolenz, Alice Cooper, Harry Nilsson, Ringo Starr, Keith Moon and Bob Brown.
My favorite Lennon song following the Beatles (well, I suppose he was still technically in the Beatles) is 'Hold on John'.
But his albums past imagine are dry as fuck. Ringo never did anything worthwhile and George had like 3 good songs (Wah Wah, What is Life, Awaiting on You All, maybe a couple more).
Wings has endless fucking amazing songs. Sure, some are corny - but Jet is fucking amazing, Let Me Roll It, the aforementioned Every Night, Some People Never Know, Tomorrow... Another Day.
Fucking Lennon went to shit, man. He had Imagine and Jealous Guy and that's pretty much it. Oh Yoko is okay if you're in the mood.
If you’re in the Beatles - write a damn melody. -
One of my pet peeves with music is when I hear somebody criticize somebody for putting out something “poppy” (translated commercial and popular) vs something pushing limits and/or speaking to societal issues. There’s room for both and one isn’t necessarily better than the other.
It’s like watching a movie and seeing a nominated movies being some indy production that addresses a social issue or whatever yet makes little at the box office and can be a chore to watch. In contrast you have movies from someone like Adam Sandler that will rarely be accused of being thought provoking yet make you smile/laugh, are easy watches, and tend to make a lot of money.
Rant over -
I'll preface this comment by noting that the Beatles are not my favorite band of all time - the Rolling Stones are GOAT - but one of the things that sets the Beatles apart really from almost any other artists in history (doesn't matter we're talking painting, music, etc.) is that they were simultaneously the BEST and the MOST POPULAR at their craft. Elvis, for instance, was the most popular of his era, but hard to say if he was the best.Tequilla said:One of my pet peeves with music is when I hear somebody criticize somebody for putting out something “poppy” (translated commercial and popular) vs something pushing limits and/or speaking to societal issues. There’s room for both and one isn’t necessarily better than the other.
It’s like watching a movie and seeing a nominated movies being some indy production that addresses a social issue or whatever yet makes little at the box office and can be a chore to watch. In contrast you have movies from someone like Adam Sandler that will rarely be accused of being thought provoking yet make you smile/laugh, are easy watches, and tend to make a lot of money.
Rant over
-
That’s really the unicorn combo right?YellowSnow said:
I'll preface this comment by noting that the Beatles are not my favorite band of all time - the Rolling Stones are GOAT - but one of the things that sets the Beatles apart really from almost any other artists in history (doesn't matter we're talking painting, music, etc.) is that they were simultaneously the BEST and the MOST POPULAR at their craft. Elvis, for instance, was the most popular of his era, but hard to say if he was the best.Tequilla said:One of my pet peeves with music is when I hear somebody criticize somebody for putting out something “poppy” (translated commercial and popular) vs something pushing limits and/or speaking to societal issues. There’s room for both and one isn’t necessarily better than the other.
It’s like watching a movie and seeing a nominated movies being some indy production that addresses a social issue or whatever yet makes little at the box office and can be a chore to watch. In contrast you have movies from someone like Adam Sandler that will rarely be accused of being thought provoking yet make you smile/laugh, are easy watches, and tend to make a lot of money.
Rant over
How many times has that happened in history where the best band/artist was the most popular? Maybe just The Beatles and peak Jacko ... and in both instances that “top of the mountain” status only really maintains for a short period of time -
Watching the Wheels is a better song than any song Paul did post Beatles.
John and Paul's best shit all came from the Beatles, though. Paul was more of a technical writer/composer, and John was more of a groove writer/composer.
-
Couldn't agree more.Fenderbender123 said:Watching the Wheels is a better song than any song Paul did post Beatles.
John and Paul's best shit all came from the Beatles, though. Paul was more of a technical writer/composer, and John was more of a groove writer/composer. -
Watching the wheels is better than anything Paul did after 1973. Up till Band on the Run, he had some great tracks on his early solo albums.Fenderbender123 said:Watching the Wheels is a better song than any song Paul did post Beatles.
John and Paul's best shit all came from the Beatles, though. Paul was more of a technical writer/composer, and John was more of a groove writer/composer. -
They were good, but I wouldn't put them in one of the best bands ever category.Dennis_DeYoung said:Wings is one of the best bands ever.
.............
.
I missed this show when they rolled through town in 1976, but had a copy of Wings over America on eight track. It did manage to get played enough for both tapes to be eaten (the demise of many eight track tapes).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4r-OG7Jrtk -
Or if youre Wes AndersonDennis_DeYoung said:Oh Yoko is okay if you're in the mood.
-
That fucko Wes has been plagiarizing my shitty soundtrack ideas for year. The Who's "A Quick One While He's Away" was heavy in my rotation well before Rushmore.WilburHooksHands said:
