The Beatles

Status
Not open for further replies.


I never quite understand why Sgt. Pepper's gets the high praise it does. Years ago I had a conversation with some guys that liked to think they were up on their music, and they were trotting out how Sgt. Pepper's was the best the Beatles had ever done. I asked them what songs were on that album. "Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Magical Mystery Tour..." i.e. a load of songs that people associate with the trippy LSD era but are not actually on the record. It has a couple of great tracks, 'A Day in the Life' being an absolutely stunning production and song, the 'Lovely Rita' and 'Fixing a hole' showed Paul McCartney's first signs of drifting out into his cow field territory where he writes some very pretty songs. McCartney's bass playing is outstanding across the album, and Ringo's work is first rate. But it has some utter dogs as well. 'Getting Better' is just an ear ache, and 'Within you Without you', was an unnecessary indulgence and bore to keep George Harrison happy. I like 'Good Morning', but it is a second or third rate song by the Beatles standards, and the Anthology 2 version without the vocal dubs or effects dubs is better than the Sgt. Pepper's version.

For me, the real greatest Beatles record will always be 'Rubber Soul'. The songs were outstanding and fantastically produced without the studio tricks they later relied on. The only slightly weaker song on the record is 'What goes on', but everything else is outstanding, and it perfectly represents the halfway point of the band, with a lot of the energy and exuberance of their earlier material, but with some of the more far out invention of their later work. But it is all kept in check.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
I never quite understand why Sgt. Pepper's gets the high praise it does. Years ago I had a conversation with some guys that liked to think they were up on their music, and they were trotting out how Sgt. Pepper's was the best the Beatles had ever done. I asked them what songs were on that album. "Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Magical Mystery Tour..." i.e. a load of songs that people associate with the trippy LSD era but are not actually on the record. It has a couple of great tracks, 'A Day in the Life' being an absolutely stunning production and song, the 'Lovely Rita' and 'Fixing a hole' showed Paul McCartney's first signs of drifting out into his cow field territory where he writes some very pretty songs. McCartney's bass playing is outstanding across the album, and Ringo's work is first rate. But it has some utter dogs as well. 'Getting Better' is just an ear ache, and 'Within you Without you', was an unnecessary indulgence and bore to keep George Harrison happy. I like 'Good Morning', but it is a second or third rate song by the Beatles standards, and the Anthology 2 version without the vocal dubs or effects dubs is better than the Sgt. Pepper's version.

For me, the real greatest Beatles record will always be 'Rubber Soul'. The songs were outstanding and fantastically produced without the studio tricks they later relied on. The only slightly weaker song on the record is 'What goes on', but everything else is outstanding, and it perfectly represents the halfway point of the band, with a lot of the energy and exuberance of their earlier material, but with some of the more far out invention of their later work. But it is all kept in check.
Click to expand...
Interesting that Rolling Stone magazine rated it the most important rock n roll album ever made:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/l...-sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band-20120531
 
Oli Wagkz said:
Sometimes you're a f***ing idiot mate.
Click to expand...

I know a few really top notch musicians who just hate listening to the Beatles. They appreciate the songwriting, but I think for some people with really sharp ears, they do come across as a bit sloppy in their recorded material. It does not help that they recorded a lot of their early stuff on machines that tended to struggle to keep their speed, mainly because of the variable nature of the power supplies going into Abbey Road at the time. As a result, some of the dubs, particularly with pre-tuned instruments like keyboards, do make them sound a tiny bit out of tune.

The Beatles had to contend quite a bit with that tape speed problem in their early days. I've heard an session tape where the tape speed suddenly increased in the middle of a take, so on playback it suddenly gets slower and the pitch drops. I guess the street lights had come on at that moment or something. I guess most people had to deal with that sort of thing at that time though.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
I know a few really top notch musicians who just hate listening to the Beatles. They appreciate the songwriting, but I think for some people with really sharp ears, they do come across as a bit sloppy in their recorded material. It does not help that they recorded a lot of their early stuff on machines that tended to struggle to keep their speed, mainly because of the variable nature of the power supplies going into Abbey Road at the time. As a result, some of the dubs, particularly with pre-tuned instruments like keyboards, do make them sound a tiny bit out of tune.

The Beatles had to contend quite a bit with that tape speed problem in their early days. I've heard an session tape where the tape speed suddenly increased in the middle of a take, so on playback it suddenly gets slower and the pitch drops. I guess the street lights had come on at that moment or something. I guess most people had to deal with that sort of thing at that time though.
Click to expand...


They weren't the best musicians, far from it. Songwriting though?
 
The Omega Man said:
Interesting that Rolling Stone magazine rated it the most important rock n roll album ever made:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/l...-sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band-20120531
Click to expand...

Yes, but all sorts of records have had that accolade, and it does not change what is on the album. I think a lot of people associate Sgt Peppers with an era rather than the actual material on the record. It is a variable record by the Beatles standards, in my opinion. It tends to be people who were there in the 60's that see it as being tied to a bigger change. If Brian Wilson had finished Smile by then, maybe it would have held that accolade, and probably have been more deserving. When he eventually finished it, it was arguably a bigger and better album, although 'A day in the life' matched its quality.
 
JumpingAnaconda said:
I never quite understand why Sgt. Pepper's gets the high praise it does. Years ago I had a conversation with some guys that liked to think they were up on their music, and they were trotting out how Sgt. Pepper's was the best the Beatles had ever done. I asked them what songs were on that album. "Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Magical Mystery Tour..." i.e. a load of songs that people associate with the trippy LSD era but are not actually on the record. It has a couple of great tracks, 'A Day in the Life' being an absolutely stunning production and song, the 'Lovely Rita' and 'Fixing a hole' showed Paul McCartney's first signs of drifting out into his cow field territory where he writes some very pretty songs. McCartney's bass playing is outstanding across the album, and Ringo's work is first rate. But it has some utter dogs as well. 'Getting Better' is just an ear ache, and 'Within you Without you', was an unnecessary indulgence and bore to keep George Harrison happy. I like 'Good Morning', but it is a second or third rate song by the Beatles standards, and the Anthology 2 version without the vocal dubs or effects dubs is better than the Sgt. Pepper's version.

For me, the real greatest Beatles record will always be 'Rubber Soul'. The songs were outstanding and fantastically produced without the studio tricks they later relied on. The only slightly weaker song on the record is 'What goes on', but everything else is outstanding, and it perfectly represents the halfway point of the band, with a lot of the energy and exuberance of their earlier material, but with some of the more far out invention of their later work. But it is all kept in check.
Click to expand...

For me their middle period 65-67 saw their best work. Agree with you re Rubber Soul. That & the following album Revolver were where they cut themselves apart from other bands in terms of writing & recording. Slightly disagree re Pepper, of course some tracks were "filler" but even the Beatles' filler tracks were superior to what other artists were doing.
 
vinegar hill said:
I'm always suspicious of people who say they don't like The Beatles.
Click to expand...
Usually knackers who have a well thought through taste in music which in their opinion will make them appear cool and contrary.
On another note......I don't get wholesale devotion and rejection of Acts/Artists?
 
Oli Wagkz said:
They weren't the best musicians, far from it. Songwriting though?
Click to expand...

I think they were the perfect musicians for their records, as they were the perfect producers for the records, and they were the perfect songwriters for their records, and they wrote a lot of perfect songs, and they made some perfect records. They put a lot of life into productions, and they helped change what was considered high brow art. 'Please Please Me' is a phenomenal album. In the scope of the songwriting, the perspectives they write from, the musicianship, the harmonies, the lead vocals, how it went to tape, it is all amazing. That they did that from the very outset is incredible. Even their audition tapes are terrific. They were an incredible band. There were three outstanding songwriters in that band. Bearing in mind that George wrote songs like 'Circles' 'Woman Don't you cry for me' 'Beautiful Girl' and 'Not Guilty' that were considered not good enough to make the band's records, and Paul had 'Teddy Boy' and 'Junk' saved over for his first solo record, it shows how insane their standards were.
 
Oli Wagkz said:
They're not my favourite band of all time by the way. Wouldn't make my top 5.

However they're easily the best band of all time. Kids will learn and write about them alongside Shakespeare
Click to expand...

I'm the same but there will never be another band like them. I never really listened to them at all when I was growing up but eventually got round to it, they're superb. Considering they weren't really together that long as well by todays standards. I live in Liverpool and walk past The Cavern every day on my way to work, can't even comprehend how mad 'Beatlemania' must have been - even now there's loads of tourists visiting.
 
The Omega Man said:
The thread about Queen led me to you tube and you dont stumble very far before the The Beatles emerge.

Clearly the songs they wrote defined them. Shea Stadium defined them and set the scene for the mass open air concerts/gigs that we know today.

However to basically define a whole decade in human history, the 1960's, takes some doing.

Widely regarded as the most influential musical act in history what do we make of them now 45 years after they basically ended their recording together?

Has Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band ever been eclipsed?

Can songs like this be bettered?

Click to expand...

They jumped on any bandwagon going. They weren't even the best band in Liverpool never mind the world. It's amazing what record companies can drive into peoples heads..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top