What's your favourite Beatles album?

Steve F

A lot of people feel the same about U2 especially Bono but if they voice their opinion they are stared at like they have 2 heads.It's not compulsory to like U2...or any other band.Personally I wouldn't cross the road to see U2. Music tastes, like a lot of other things in life, is subjective

Steve F

Goodshape wrote: »

Really? That's very cool if true. Pics?



Ringo had it. Sold for $910k a few years ago – https://www.nme.com/news/music/the-beatles-27-1205199



Edit:: I'm assuming the 0005 claim is not at all true, as the article above states "The first four pressings of the album were all in possession of The Beatles, while copy No. 0000005 sold at an auction in 2008 for a little less than $30,000 (£20,000)."

A gentle leg pull.However,John did have 0001 as stated by Paul in an interview

Rubberchikken

none of them.
was too young when they were around and while ive tried to listen to some of their music, just can get the hype.

do like some of Wings songs though.

storker

trashcan wrote: »

That's ok, you're entitled to be wrong. The Kinks were better than all of the above on your list, never mind the Beatles. Incidentally, while the Beatles were undoubtedly the band of the sixties, in my view anyway, they didn't produce the best song of the decade for my money. That award goes to Ray Davies/ The Kinks and "Waterloo Sunset."

Great song but best of the decade? Naah...but I guess we're both entitled to be wrong. Still, I'd put the Kinks up on my list with the others I mentioned.

storker

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

For anyone that says they're overrated, I'd like to know what's overrated about them?

In the sense that people tend to go on about them as if there was no other music going on in the 60's, and I keep hearing how much they influenced everything else, but I never I've never actually seen such influence in evidence that couldn't be attributed to any or a number of other bands from the era. Except maybe Oasis.

While you're at it name another song from 1967 or before that has as much going on as Strawberry Fields Forever.

For you, perhaps, but it may disappoint you to know that there is no "Book of Brilliant", there's just what people like. But do feel free to demonstrate, using empirical, scientifically testable evidence, that there was no better song prior to 1967. Actually I find Strawberry Fields to be a bit of a bore as songs go, but I can't prove that it is because that's just a subjective opinion - just like yours.

There's more happening in it than there is in the average twenty minute Yes song. Among many other instruments George Harrison plays a swarmandal on it. Name another song by British or American musicians from the same time period that uses a swarmandal. Or even try telling me what a swarmandal is without Googling it. And that's just one tiny part of the song.

I don't need to Google anything - I don't care what it is, because it's not relevant to the point. Amount-of-stuff-going-on is no indicator of anything. If it was, we'd only ever listen to symphonies by orchestras.

Even among Beatles 'fans' there's the cliche that their early music was a load of balls. Try playing something like Please Please Me on guitar though and you'll see how complicated the chords are.

I don't play guitar. I am learning the drums, though, and in the course of my drum-related explorations I watched a very interesting video about what Ringo Starr's drumming added to the Beatles' music, and how it was more unique than many people (including me) might have imagined. It game me a new respect for someone I used to dismiss as "just the Beatles' drummer".

Wibbs

storker wrote: »

But do feel free to demonstrate, using empirical, scientifically testable evidence, that there was no better song prior to 1967.

Oh sure, no way could you pin that down. But like I said as far as being around in 1967 a song like that and many others of theirs would have sounded so new, different, something you'd not heard before. I think these days we have so many choices in music and types of music, that it can be hard to appreciate how different a lot of their stuff was. And was still popular. Anyone can write something wacky and oddball, but to then have wacky and oddball that both kids and grannies liked is some trick to pull off. A load of their stuff is very singalong and memorable, but is often very odd as far as scales and phrasing and rhythms go.

I don't play guitar. I am learning the drums, though, and in the course of my drum-related explorations I watched a very interesting video about what Ringo Starr's drumming added to the Beatles' music, and how it was more unique than many people (including me) might have imagined. It game me a new respect for someone I used to dismiss as "just the Beatles' drummer".

+1 He was a very interesting drummer. Being a leftie playing a right handed kit was some of it. I find him more a "percussionist" of sorts. He's not so much a drummers drummer if you know what I mean? He rarely played mad fills or was flashy or got into a groove, more a guy who wrote drum parts for specific songs.

He had his work cut out, particularly with Lennon, who wrote some really bastshit timing songs. Jumping all over the place. A couple of times they'd lay down tracks without him and then he'd be asked to lay down the drum track on top. Eh... And the timing was usually off so he'd have to accommodate that.

McCartney on top of his talent as a songwriter was also one of the best bass players of his generation too, which helped(and he only picked it up after their original bassist left). You can hear it on this cover(and Ringo's drumming).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f7D2_jUkqA

Yer Da sells Avon

Goodshape wrote: »

White Album – some of the best they've done, but some relative stinkers too.

True, but... life goes on.

Bobtheman

Abbey road hands down. Bar Maxwell's silver hammer it's a great album

pumpkin4life

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

For anyone that says they're overrated, I'd like to know what's overrated about them? As in something that makes sense rather than saying "they're shite". What were they rated for that they didn't do as well as is claimed?

While you're at it name another song from 1967 or before that has as much going on as Strawberry Fields Forever. There's more happening in it than there is in the average twenty minute Yes song. Among many other instruments George Harrison plays a swarmandal on it. Name another song by British or American musicians from the same time period that uses a swarmandal. Or even try telling me what a swarmandal is without Googling it. And that's just one tiny part of the song.

Even among Beatles 'fans' there's the cliche that their early music was a load of balls. Try playing something like Please Please Me on guitar though and you'll see how complicated the chords are.

I guess part of the problem for me is that like Bob Dylan, there's this massive bubble of hype around them and there's this fanatic "they're the best band ever" that you can't criticize, especially among older lads. You younger lads with your Snoopy Snoopy Dog Dog. Lennon for life.



For me they were visionary, highly innovative, wrote some fantastic tunes, but were inconsistent, somewhat dated by today's standards, and maybe shallow/fake?

I mean, I'm not a massive classic rock lad, any of it really, but one of my favorite albums ever is Wish You Were Here. That album has more feeling and depth (for me anyway) than some annoying Bungalow Bill/Good Morning psychedelic bum. I listen to a Beatles song, go "nice tune" and forget about it. I hear Shine On, and I get completely blown away/sucked in, for the whole twenty six minutes its on.

Revolver is a great album though.

On the whole psychedelic music thing though as well, I think Piper at the Gates of Dawn is a much better album than Sgt Peppers.

Not a massive Floyd fan though in general, despite the post lol.

The Tetrarch

Revolver.
It is easy to slag The Beatles but they had dozens of good songs, and changed popular music from men in tuxedos singing about the moon and love, to bands with guitars and drums.

NewbridgeIR

1 Let It Be
2 The Beatles
3 Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Wibbs

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I mean, I'm not a massive classic rock lad, any of it really, but one of my favorite albums ever is Wish You Were Here. That album has more feeling and depth (for me anyway) than some annoying Bungalow Bill/Good Morning psychedelic bum. I listen to a Beatles song, go "nice tune" and forget about it. I hear Shine On, and I get completely blown away/sucked in, for the whole twenty six minutes its on.

Revolver is a great album though.

On the whole psychedelic music thing though as well, I think Piper at the Gates of Dawn is a much better album than Sgt Peppers.

Not a massive Floyd fan though in general, despite the post lol.

Funny enough I could never see the attraction of Floyd. I fully understand and appreciate why they're so well liked and revered, but never appealed to me. I find them a bit Eh lads, great song, but could we cut it in half?

storker

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 He was a very interesting drummer. Being a leftie playing a right handed kit was some of it. I find him more a "percussionist" of sorts. He's not so much a drummers drummer if you know what I mean? He rarely played mad fills or was flashy or got into a groove, more a guy who wrote drum parts for specific songs.

trashcan

storker wrote: »

Great song but best of the decade? Naah...but I guess we're both entitled to be wrong. Still, I'd put the Kinks up on my list with the others I mentioned.

What would your nomination be ? (I suspect I'm not going to agree )

Franz Von Peppercorn

Steve F wrote: »

A lot of people feel the same about U2 especially Bono but if they voice their opinion they are stared at like they have 2 heads.It's not compulsory to like U2...or any other band.Personally I wouldn't cross the road to see U2. Music tastes, like a lot of other things in life, is subjective

U2 are routinely slagged off. The Beatles were clearly brilliant.

Subjectivity isn’t that important here. I might think Van Gogh is sh1te (I don’t but let’s pretend) but it wouldn’t matter because art experts disagree.

storker

trashcan wrote: »

What would your nomination be ? (I suspect I'm not going to agree )

I couldn't isolate one...but a few contenders (based on what I've listened to lately) would be:

Tin Soldier - The Small Faces
White Rabbit - Jefferson Airplane
I Can't Explain - The Who
Gimme Shelter - Rolling Stones
The First Cut is the Deepest - P.P. Arnold

Now, maybe they're not deserving of the all time No. 1 spot for the decade (back to subjectivity again) but I wouldn't rate Waterloo Sunset higher than any of them, as much as I like it.

dxhound2005

Yamanoto wrote: »

All you need is cash

Indeed.

Rothko

Steve F wrote: »

A lot of people feel the same about U2 especially Bono but if they voice their opinion they are stared at like they have 2 heads.It's not compulsory to like U2

If anything, it's the complete opposite with U2.

branie2

The Blue Album

VeryTerry

The Beatles were way before my time but I can't say I'm in to them at all. Obviously I understand their significance to pop music but for me the likes of the Sonics and the Animals were better and a bit less dated now. Respect to them all the same because I probably wouldn't know the aforementioned bands if the Beatles didn't popularise 60s garage rock in the first place.

Wibbs

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

U2 are routinely slagged off.

Aye and I can't think of another band who stayed pretty close to the leading edge of change and general popularity that they did for so long. Sure they're a cabaret act now, and a bloody good one, but for well over twenty years they were producing songs that were keeping up with those coming behind them. Madonna would be another example. Bowie too. Most if they stay going at all, do a Stones and have a real high point relatively early on and ride that wave all the way to old age and world tours trading on spectacle and nostalgia sponsored by credit card companies. To be fair the Stones had a few peaks. Initially as part of the "British Invasion" of the sixties, then got more grunge as they started to trust themselves rather than compete with others(in particular the Beatles) and then in the early seventies had their final peak at the cutting edge. From then on in it was cabaret and reputation.

That's another aspect where the Beatles "won". By mistake. They split up. Right at their peak of innovation and popular relevance. They avoided looking like old wine in new bottles and cabaret. Stuck forever young and relevant, no Frog Song or Oh Yoko.

Subjectivity isn’t that important here. I might think Van Gogh is sh1te (I don’t but let’s pretend) but it wouldn’t matter because art experts disagree.

Do not get me started on art experts.

Wibbs

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Indeed.

Intro sound familiar...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI8AOkbfgNE

To be fair Paul Weller and the lads were big fans of the scousers so admitted that at the time.

storker

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough I could never see the attraction of Floyd. I fully understand and appreciate why they're so well liked and revered, but never appealed to me. I find them a bit Eh lads, great song, but could we cut it in half?

I thought the opposite about Wish You Were Here (the song), I could stay with it for a few more verses but instead they cut it brutally short as if it was half finished.

I never could get into Floyd either, a bit too up themselves I find, but there are some tracks I like a lot e.g. Wish You Were Here, Run Like Hell, Comfortably Numb, The Gunner's Dream and a few others I can't think of right now, so they do have a place on my Spotify Playlist. I can't stand Another Brick in the Wall, though.

Irish Guitarist

storker wrote: »

In the sense that people tend to go on about them as if there was no other music going on in the 60's, and I keep hearing how much they influenced everything else, but I never I've never actually seen such influence in evidence that couldn't be attributed to any or a number of other bands from the era. Except maybe Oasis.



For you, perhaps, but it may disappoint you to know that there is no "Book of Brilliant", there's just what people like. But do feel free to demonstrate, using empirical, scientifically testable evidence, that there was no better song prior to 1967. Actually I find Strawberry Fields to be a bit of a bore as songs go, but I can't prove that it is because that's just a subjective opinion - just like yours.



I don't need to Google anything - I don't care what it is, because it's not relevant to the point. Amount-of-stuff-going-on is no indicator of anything. If it was, we'd only ever listen to symphonies by orchestras.



I don't play guitar. I am learning the drums, though, and in the course of my drum-related explorations I watched a very interesting video about what Ringo Starr's drumming added to the Beatles' music, and how it was more unique than many people (including me) might have imagined. It game me a new respect for someone I used to dismiss as "just the Beatles' drummer".

I don't care if someone doesn't like The Beatles. It's the use of the word 'overrated' that bugs me. Just say The Beatles aren't your thing if you don't like them. "I don't like them" is a subjective opinion. "They're overrated" suggests you're going to come up with a more compelling argument than "lol they're shite".

And saying there's a lot going on in Strawberry Fields Forever or that there's a lot of exotic instruments on it isn't a subjective opinion. There is a lot going on and there are a lot of exotic instruments on it. There isn't a lot going on just for me. There's a lot going on in the song full stop.

That would be like me saying Mariah Carey can't sing just because her music doesn't appeal to me, someone telling me that she has a five octave vocal range and me replying with "that's just your opinion".

It's very relevant to point out how much work went into something when someone is calling it overrated.

physioman

storker wrote: »

I couldn't isolate one...but a few contenders (based on what I've listened to lately) would be:

Tin Soldier - The Small Faces
White Rabbit - Jefferson Airplane
I Can't Explain - The Who
Gimme Shelter - Rolling Stones
The First Cut is the Deepest - P.P. Arnold

Now, maybe they're not deserving of the all time No. 1 spot for the decade (back to subjectivity again) but I wouldn't rate Waterloo Sunset higher than any of them, as much as I like it.

Some great tunes there. Tin soldier is class. What a voice Steve Marriott had. Very underrated. Gimme shelter for the female vocal is unreal.

d8491prj5boyvg

To whoever said the white album, it was full of filler! I do love it but huge negative marks for not being able to kill door darlings. Would have made a top single album.

I like abbey road. Love the medley, George Harrison came into his own and we get a John classic in come together.

storker

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I don't care if someone doesn't like The Beatles. It's the use of the word 'overrated' that bugs me. Just say The Beatles aren't your thing if you don't like them. "I don't like them" is a subjective opinion. "They're overrated" suggests you're going to come up with a more compelling argument than "lol they're shite".

They're not my thing and I still think they're overrated and I've explained why. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but I stand by it.

And saying there's a lot going on in Strawberry Fields Forever or that there's a lot of exotic instruments on it isn't a subjective opinion. There is a lot going on and there are a lot of exotic instruments on it. There isn't a lot going on just for me. There's a lot going on in the song full stop.

True, and I agree there's a lot going on it but claiming that because of that it's better than everything else is too much of a jump, and that's when things become subjective.

That would be like me saying Mariah Carey can't sing just because her music doesn't appeal to me, someone telling me that she has a five octave vocal range and me replying with "that's just your opinion".

That's not a great analogy, because, I'm not saying the Beatles couldn't sing, or play, or write songs, or play them well. I'm saying that there were plenty of other groups around at the time who could do all those things too, and I get the impression that people go on too much about the Beatles when there were equally-talented contemporaries around and that's what I mean by overrated.

It's very relevant to point out how much work went into something when someone is calling it overrated.

I think you're on dodgy ground there. Mere work expended is not guarantee of quality in most walks of life (except maybe the gym). What not just accept that in music, as in art, as in literature and poetry there are lots of conflicting opinions that don't jibe with each other. Such is life. Why get upset over it?

coolshannagh28

trashcan wrote: »

That's ok, you're entitled to be wrong. The Kinks were better than all of the above on your list, never mind the Beatles. Incidentally, while the Beatles were undoubtedly the band of the sixties, in my view anyway, they didn't produce the best song of the decade for my money. That award goes to Ray Davies/ The Kinks and "Waterloo Sunset."
.

Truly a great song , I go for " all or nothing " The small faces.

pumpkin4life

storker wrote: »

I thought the opposite about Wish You Were Here (the song), I could stay with it for a few more verses but instead they cut it brutally short as if it was half finished.

I never could get into Floyd either, a bit too up themselves I find, but there are some tracks I like a lot e.g. Wish You Were Here, Run Like Hell, Comfortably Numb, The Gunner's Dream and a few others I can't think of right now, so they do have a place on my Spotify Playlist. I can't stand Another Brick in the Wall, though.

They were great as the Syd Barrett falling the fùck apart supporting band, and for Wish You Were Here and DSOTM, where things just fell into place incredibly well and everyone worked together at what they were good at.

As the Roger Waters ran band though, they were fùcking pretentious and puerile as bum. And post Syd, pre Darkside, they didn't really know what the fùck they were doing, though they have their moments.

The Gilmour albums after Roger left though are some of the worst albums I've ever heard, at least Roger's era had Dogs, Comfortably Numb, The Gunners Dream, the odd thing like that.

storker

physioman wrote: »

Some great tunes there. Tin soldier is class. What a voice Steve Marriott had. Very underrated.

I saw him live a few times around London in the late 80's in small venues and he was amazing, that pounding R&B sound and that powerful voice coming from the little guy with dungarees and mullet. Of course the Small Faces and Humble Pie days were long over and it was "Steve Marriott and his Packet of Three" and later, after the taxman got hold of him, "Steve Marriott and the Official Receivers".

At one gig a university student band kicked things off with a few U2 numbers and such like and they were fine. I was interested to see that they and their fans stuck around to see Marriott. He wandered out on stage, made some joke about the venue and then launched straight into a blistering version of Watcha Gonna Do About It. I looked at the kids to check their reaction and they looked spellbound and they stayed that way until he finished. It looked like they were thinking "So that's how it's done..."

sicknotexi

Revolver
Abbey Road
Sgt Pepper/ White Album/Rubber Soul (depending on mood)

mzungu

pumpkin4life wrote: »

They were great as the Syd Barrett falling the fùck apart supporting band, and for Wish You Were Here and DSOTM, where things just fell into place incredibly well and everyone worked together at what they were good at.

As the Roger Waters ran band though, they were fùcking pretentious and puerile as bum. And post Syd, pre Darkside, they didn't really know what the fùck they were doing, though they have their moments.

The Gilmour albums after Roger left though are some of the worst albums I've ever heard, at least Roger's era had Dogs, Comfortably Numb, The Gunners Dream, the odd thing like that.

These days I view that more as a Dave Gilmour solo project but going under the PF banner. Both The Division Bell and A Momentary Lapse of Reason are really good albums in their own right. Not the best of Floyd by a long shot, but very well crafted music nonetheless.

Arghus

Talking to people about how great The Beatles were is often a total waste of time. It's kinda like saying, "I've seen this amazing sport called football, have you ever heard of it?"

The point being that they're literally the most famous and acclaimed band of all time: there's not much left to add in many respects.

Still though...

I was a committed metal head growing up and anything that didn't have crunching distorted guitars and a vocalist screaming their head off wasn't much of an interest to me. But when I reached 18/19 my ears needed a bit more and I started to let go of my prejudices about other genres of music and I started to go back and listen to all the greats from the 60's and 70's.

What a time that was, really discovering all the proper legends and my knowledge and appreciation of music grew and grew. This was the early to mid-noughties, the last hurrah of spending twenty quid on an album by someone you hadn't heard before, you'd just read about. And to justify the outlay I'd listen to albums again and again and again. I listened to nothing but Trout Mask Replica for about a fortnight straight at one stage, because it was famous and I was going to try to understand it dammit' - I don't know if I succeeded there, but I love that album for what it is.

Anyways, I digress, but I got a fairly good handle on all of the big hitters from that era. The Who did nothing for me. I appreciated Bob Dylan, though I never crossed over into the evangelical fandom phase. Pink Floyd were great in places. The Kinks were solid - occasionally amazing. The Doors were kind of perceived as a bit of a joke, but I'd put them up there with the very best - the amount of classic tunes they wrote was obscene. The Rolling Stones were amazing and dangerous. The Beach Boys were obviously great, fantastic melodies, but maybe a bit overrated for me. Who else made an impression? Creedance, Zepplin, Velvet Underground, King Crimson, Neil Young, Townes Van Zandt, The Stooges - ah, there's loads more, but those were the ones that did it for me the most.

But, man, The Beatles. The Beatles were number fcking one. The melodies. The harmonies. The variety. The innovation. The absolutely insane artistic growth they displayed over such a short space of time. The distinctiveness of a Lennon song to a McCartney song - and then, eventually, a George song - the magic when a collabaration worked. The way they never had a fallow period, they just kept evolving and changing right up until the point where they just stopped dead. I don't listen to them religiously anymore, but when I meet one of their songs every now and again it usually precipitates a major binge for a little while and I still love the tunes even after hearing them a thousand times. Hand on heart, I actually think because they were that good that, if anything, they're underrated.

Woke Hogan

I'm just about old enough to remember the Beatles during their heyday. I thought they were alright at the time, like anyone, but I dislike a lot of the beard stroking and over analyses. You'd think young fellas and young ones would have their own bands they can like, how can anyone aged under 40 listen to a group who broke up before they were even born?

Woke Hogan

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I'm just about old enough to remember the Beatles during their heyday. I thought they were alright at the time, like anyone, but I dislike a lot of the beard stroking and over analyses. You'd think young fellas and young ones would have their own bands they can like, how can anyone aged under 40 listen to a group who broke up before they were even born?

That argument is wafer thin. Why listen to 18th century classical music, Mozart who. Sometimes there is a timelessness which transcends fickle punditry & passing fads.

Woke Hogan

Deleted User wrote: »

That argument is wafer thin. Why listen to 18th century classical music, Mozart who. Sometimes there is a timelessness that transcends fickle punditry.

First of all Mozart was his surname.

Also, I'm not saying nobody should listen to The Beatles. But ultimately all they are are pop musicians. Mozart will still be remembered in two hundred years, will The Beatles? I doubt it.

demanufactured

KungPao wrote: »

Tough one. I think I'd have to say The Best of the Beatles.

Exactly what I thought when I saw the thread title.
Textbook.

Woke Hogan

Woke Hogan wrote: »

First of all Mozart was his surname.

Also, I'm not saying nobody should listen to The Beatles. But ultimately all they are are pop musicians. Mozart will still be remembered in two hundred years, will The Beatles? I doubt it.

Wolfgang to his mother. 'Pop' is a flippant dismissal of a sound that radically evolved within a few short years. They are regarded in many quarters as the greatest band of the last century, that's an insurance policy against being forgotten in a hurry.

Cienciano

Lot of love for The White Album, I have to agree, it's my favourite Beatles album. Let It Be is their most underrated album imho.

Steve F wrote: »

A lot of people feel the same about U2 especially Bono but if they voice their opinion they are stared at like they have 2 heads.It's not compulsory to like U2...or any other band.Personally I wouldn't cross the road to see U2. Music tastes, like a lot of other things in life, is subjective

This makes no sense, but I liked U2 up to (not including) Achtung Baby. Now I fúcking hate them, to the point I can't even enjoy their older stuff any more. Bono is such a tosser I can't even enjoy Where The Streets Have No Name or Bad any more.

storker wrote: »

I can't stand Another Brick in the Wall, though.

I love Pink Floyd but hate that song too. Skip up until the guitar solo

FreshTendrils

Written and recorded in the space of 48 months (Sep 1965 - Aug 1969):

Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt Pepper
Magical Mystery Tour
The White Album
Abbey Road
Let it Be
Past Masters Volume 2

That's a shocking level of creativity.
Right now my favourite is Abbey Road but it changes every year or so.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Wolfgang to his mother. 'Pop' is a flippant dismissal of a sound that radically evolved within a few short years. They are regarded in many quarters as the greatest band of the last century, that's an insurance policy against being forgotten in a hurry.

Pretty much. People forget that guys like Mozart became and remain famous because they wrote music that was extremely popular when it was current and over time. They in essence wrote "pop music"*. If charts had been around guys like him would have hogged the number one position on the regular and he played sold out gigs throughout his life. If modern media was around it might have headlines like "Are you a Mozart or Beethoven fan" a la the Blur/Oasis, Stones/Beatles fan splits. There were also other composers around, some were one hit wonders, others were jobbing composers and musicians who made a living but that was about it. Just like today. Every era threw up a couple of greats and those are the ones we remember. No doubt there will be a few people who will have heard of someone like Frank Zappa in a few centuries time, but many more will have heard of The Beatles.



*because there emerged a high/low brow thing in later years, we also forget that someone like Shakespeare was mass market drama very much aimed at the cheap seats. Opera was extremely "pop music" in intent and background, as was the vast majority of art. Raphael when he finished a painting would often be cheered by crowds in the street as he brought the finished work to its buyer. Going way back there are accounts of Greek playwrights and poets being mobbed by adoring fans when they showed up to the Greek colonies in Italy and we remember them too.

Deebles McBeebles

Wibbs wrote: »

No doubt there will be a few people who will have heard of someone like Frank Zappa in a few centuries time, but many more will have heard of The Beatles.

Dear Jebus, there will be a time when FZ is practically forgotten. Time to get the old CD time capsule out from under the stairs.

Wibbs

FreshTendrils wrote: »

Written and recorded in the space of 48 months (Sep 1965 - Aug 1969):

When you look it like that; 48 months, it is a truly incredible level of output and creativity. It would be incredible on its own if their style had stayed the same, but that it changed and expanded in so many directions so rapidly in the latter half of that timeframe almost beggars belief. Never mind that the period was one of rapid change, both socially and musically. When they started it was the early days of rock and roll and more locally skiffle and records were laid down mostly directly onto wax disks and by the end of their run it was 16, even 24 track recording(they did most of their stuff on 4 track), world tours, synths coming in etc and they still stayed on top right to the end.

Look at album covers. The vast majority were a usually stilted photo of the artist, their cover art started to push that and by Pepper it blew it out of sight. You know those covers with lyrics written on them? They did that first. Lists of engineers etc? Ditto. Gatefold cover? Ditto. Even the sleeves inside the cover were decorated and it came with cut out "free gifts, cos drugs.

trashcan

storker wrote: »

I couldn't isolate one...but a few contenders (based on what I've listened to lately) would be:

Tin Soldier - The Small Faces
White Rabbit - Jefferson Airplane
I Can't Explain - The Who
Gimme Shelter - Rolling Stones
The First Cut is the Deepest - P.P. Arnold

Now, maybe they're not deserving of the all time No. 1 spot for the decade (back to subjectivity again) but I wouldn't rate Waterloo Sunset higher than any of them, as much as I like it.

Well, I was right about not agreeing. . We clearly have very different musical tastes . Wouldn't rate any of those as exceptional at all.

Cienciano

trashcan wrote: »

Well, I was right about not agreeing. . We clearly have very different musical tastes . Wouldn't rate any of those as exceptional at all.

If you don't rate Gimme Shelter by the Rolling Stones, not only should you not be in thread about music, you need to delete your account and go off and stand in a corner. :pac:

trashcan

Cienciano wrote: »

If you don't rate Gimme Shelter by the Rolling Stones, not only should you not be in thread about music, you need to delete your account and go off and stand in a corner. :pac:

You wot :eek:

We're going well off topic here, but when it comes to over rated, the Stones would be near the top of my list. To suggest that Gimme Shelter is even close to Waterloo Sunset as a song is almost blasphemous.

storker

Cienciano wrote: »

I love Pink Floyd but hate that song too. Skip up until the guitar solo

Yep

kunst nugget

mzungu wrote: »

These days I view that more as a Dave Gilmour solo project but going under the PF banner. Both The Division Bell and A Momentary Lapse of Reason are really good albums in their own right. Not the best of Floyd by a long shot, but very well crafted music nonetheless.

I think they are unadulterated ****. Well crafted **** but **** all the same. Aural chloroform.

storker

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think they are unadulterated ****. Well crafted **** but **** all the same. Aural chloroform.

I wouldn't completely agree but I gave this a like for the phrases "well-crafted ****" and "aural chlorofrom" which I will definitely be plagiarising.

mzungu

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think they are unadulterated ****. Well crafted **** but **** all the same. Aural chloroform.