The Beatles

You're completely out of your mind.

I don't think they have had a bad studio album, but their worst album is Let It Be. Not as much for the songwriting which is solid but for the godawful production. The George Martin takes are uncharacteristically amateurish. And Phil Spectors feeble decision to add orchestrations and vocal overdubs to Accross The Universe, Let It Be and The Long & Winding Road was just bloated, bordering on ridiculous.



Her voice.
 
The Beatles are pretty darn awesome. Tool is the band that sucks.

I think you had them reversed.

EDIT: May I also mention that the remaining merabers of the Beatles continue to produce NEW material and music... unlike say The Rolling Stones and Lynard Skynard (arguably two big classic rock banRAB), who are just empty shells of the banRAB they once were; playing songs they wrote 30 years ago to rednecks on fair ground stages.
 
Well none of us really know exactly just when Paul, John, George, and Ringo got hit with the thunderbolt and decided to do something different. We do have the music however, which speaks for itself.

Rubber Soul seems very downbeat with a few exceptions (Drive My Car), that track obviously similar to earlier Beatles tunes. Nowhere Man and Norwegian Wood are abstract but not very complex or outstanding. Here, I'm going to quote Wikipedia (to be lame of course) : "The song 'Wait' was initially recorded for, and then left off, the album Help!. The Beatles chose not to include it on Help because they thought the song was dull. The reason the song was released on Rubber Soul was that that album was one song short, and with the Christmas deadline looming, the Beatles chose to release 'Wait' instead of recording a new composition."

That doesn't really make you want to rush right out and but the album, does it?

A huge difference on Revolver is Ken Townsend doing the engineering (also did it for Sgt. Pepper's) which was incredibly groundbreaking work. BackwarRAB guitar, automatic double tracking, backmasking and closemiking, etc. Also, The sound is much more a mix of Rock and Pop, with McCartney being influenced by Motown and Lennon bringing Psychedelic sounRAB to the masses (Tomorrow Never Knows)
Rubber Soul did none of that.
There's my argument. Revolver was when the Beatles began to change their styles.
 
Neither Lennon nor McCartney were Beatlemania. Beatlemania was simply born out of clever, aggressive marketing. It wouldn't have even existed if John Lennon had been a solo artist. It was the Beatles as a single entity, the image of the whole band and all that was associated with it, that was used to create Beatlemania.

If you want to say that the Beatles was merely a vehicle for the greater artistic cause of John Lennon, then fine. You're wrong, but fine.
 
But the thing is, it's SO very inaccurate to say that John Lennon WAS the Beatles that it's just beyond ridiculous. There is so much proof that this idea is nonsense that it hardly begs mention. I mean, for starters, it should be enough of an indication that such claims are total hogwash that the most recorded song of ALL TIME, Yesterday (1965), was solely a McCartney composition.

In the early days, John and Paul used to write together in an extremely close collaborative manner. John said in a Playboy Magazine interview in 1980:

"We wrote a lot of stuff together, one on one, eyeball to eyeball. Like in 'I Want to Hold Your Hand,' I remeraber when we got the chord that made the song. We were in Jane Asher's house, downstairs in the cellar playing on the piano at the same time. And we had, 'Oh you-u-u/ got that something...' And Paul hits this chord, and I turn to him and say, 'That's it!' I said, 'Do that again!' In those days, we really used to absolutely write like that—both playing into each other's noses."

As time progressed and they began to write more and more separately, we still observe that their contributions to the albums were more or less even, the differences being marked in style.

In terms of their UK nuraber #1 hits, Paul wrote I believe six on his own, whereas John wrote five (the rest are generally believed to be collaborations).

There is really no way it could be possible to claim that Lennon was any more important to the Beatles' success than McCartney.
 
:stupid::stupid::mad::laughing: Thats why John was sexually involved with many young women as a teenager,and he confessed out of guilt to his first wife Cynthia that he had been with 100's of other women mostly young groupies!
 
I've been diggin the Beatles lately, I think my favorite album is either Revolver or Abbey Road. I like George Harrison's stuff best, like Something, Think For Yourself, Here Comes the Sun, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Long Long Long etc. My favorite songs are probably, Eleanor Rigby, For No One, Something, Here Comes the Sun, Blackbird, Long Long Long, If I Needed Someone, and Because.
 
Interestingly enough Lennon once said of McCartney, as being "all form and no substance" and that their song writing partnership was over as early as 1962.
He also went on to say they did their best stuff from then on, separately.

Lennon's early influences were in the earliest forms of R&B and Soul, which explains the Beatles version of the Isley Brothers 'Twist & Shout' (1962), which in turn was produced by a pre fame Phil Spector, of all people.

Lennon's hero was Roy Orbison, which explains his singing style (as he wanted to sound like him...although I don't see it personally)...anyway, my feeling is that the Beatles would have been a far better band if Lennon had kicked the shit out of that prat McCartney from the very start.

Edit: the above rant has no reference to Beatlemania whatsoever, but it's off topic saving grace is that it's by far the most interesting post so far, which includes the opening 'cut & paste' effort.
 
Well if were saying that then surely any band is radio friendly if any of their songs are played on the radio. so, guns'n'roses, metallica, **** even korn are radio-friendly material i am told.
My original point still stanRAB, The only good thing to come out of the beatles was an aspiring singer by the name of "Ozzy"....
Music today is so corrupt with money and the amount of editing that gets put in, in 20 years i wouldnt be surprised if were are listening to electronica. Still, better that than britney spears i suppose.
 
Back
Top