|
|
Post by matt on Nov 12, 2019 16:03:44 GMT -5
I don't want to diminish them of course, but as instrumentalists they were ok to very good, not great, at the time there were far better, even The Beatles recognised this. Pete Townshed, Clapton (who played the fantastic guitar solo on While My Guitar Gently Weeps) and Hendrix were all much better guitarists than any of them, as for bassists John Entwistle and John Paul Jones were better too, Moon and Bonham way better drummers than Ringo. As for singers, Robert Plant and Mick Jagger were much better singers than any of them with way better vocal range, not to mention Fred Mercury. I really like Mick Jagger but I wouldn't say he's any better than John, Paul or George. Vocal range has never equated to good. Freddie Mercury had an amazing voice but as I think Queen are mostly shite that doesn't really matter to much. Would rather hear any of the three Beatles I mentioned singing. I ageee. Personally think Jagger is a mediocre singer. A great performer but nobody aspires a voice like his. Likewise Robert Plant, can’t get on board with his reedy voice and the pair have no emotion at all, just swagger. Freddie Mercury is technically great but again, the theatrics sucks the emotion out. I think The Beatles were the best singers ever barring Ringo. Hearing those harmonies and the power in them is just amazing. They all had such a range of emotions too. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 12, 2019 16:07:28 GMT -5
The Beatles weren't the best musicians, but no-one could have made Beatles songs sound better than them.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 12, 2019 16:09:45 GMT -5
Okay here goes: 1. Sgt Pepper 2. Revolver 3. Rubber Soul 4. Abbey Road 5. A Hard Days Night 6. The Beatles 7. Please Please Me 8. Help! 9. Magical Mystery Tour 10. With The Beatles 11. Beatles For Sale 12. Let It Be Top six is interchangeable. A Hard Days Night is their first perfect album and any notion that they only became a serious band from Rubber Soul onwards is nonsense. Early Beatles is ultimate pop at its ultimate best. For all the talk of ABBA or Queen, their pop hits still couldn’t hold a candle to the Beatlemania phase. It's not a true album but what's your main gripe with Let It Be? Spector? Underwhelming songs? Spectors production sucks, it’s just not The Beatles and is tasteless compared to George Martins production. I can sympathise why Paul broke into tears after The Long & Winding Road was ‘Disneyfied’. Likewise the melodramatic production of All Across The Universe blows - much prefer the WWF original version. Overall the album just doesn’t work. Individually I can take many of the tunes, but I think its pretty scrappy and lacks an energy to it. |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Nov 12, 2019 16:16:36 GMT -5
It's not a true album but what's your main gripe with Let It Be? Spector? Underwhelming songs? Spectors production sucks, it’s just not The Beatles and is tasteless compared to George Martins production. I can sympathise why Paul broke into tears after The Long & Winding Road was ‘Disneyfied’. Likewise the melodramatic production of All Across The Universe blows - much prefer the WWF original version. Overall the album just doesn’t work. Individually I can take many of the tunes, but I think its pretty scrappy and lacks an energy to it. I personally do like the Spector version of The Long And Winding Road - the cleanup job on it for the 1 Reissue by Giles Martin really brought some much needed clarity to the mix. The choir is a bit much but the orchestral arrangement was beautiful. At times I prefer the stripped back Let It Be Naked version over the album cut. The album has the best George guitar solo for Let It Be I think. I agree Spector butchered Across The Universe, John and the acoustic was enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 12, 2019 16:43:59 GMT -5
I always thought clapton was vastly over rated. Don't think he was that great. Same with hendrix. He was just a good blues rock guitarist who used interesting effects and techniques. But, as anybody can agree Lennon and McCartney are some of the finest songwriters of all time. Come on, Clapton is a excellent guitarist. Like him or loathe him, the man can play. He can certainly play. Go listen to Zakk wylde and tell me Clapton could even contend with that. Listen to Joe satriani. Those guys piss all over what hendrix and Clapton ever did. They're still great though. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Nov 12, 2019 16:55:17 GMT -5
Come on, Clapton is a excellent guitarist. Like him or loathe him, the man can play. He can certainly play. Go listen to Zakk wylde and tell me Clapton could even contend with that. Listen to Joe satriani. Those guys piss all over what hendrix and Clapton ever did. They're still great though. Joe satriani? Yeah he can move his fingers really fast, just watched a couple of videos of the other guy and he was doing somehting similar. For me, fret wanking is basically bottom of the list of what I want a guitarist to be able to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Nov 12, 2019 17:00:42 GMT -5
I don't want to diminish them of course, but as instrumentalists they were ok to very good, not great, at the time there were far better, even The Beatles recognised this. Pete Townshed, Clapton (who played the fantastic guitar solo on While My Guitar Gently Weeps) and Hendrix were all much better guitarists than any of them, as for bassists John Entwistle and John Paul Jones were better too, Moon and Bonham way better drummers than Ringo. As for singers, Robert Plant and Mick Jagger were much better singers than any of them with way better vocal range, not to mention Fred Mercury. I really like Mick Jagger but I wouldn't say he's any better than John, Paul or George. Vocal range has never equated to good. Freddie Mercury had an amazing voice but as I think Queen are mostly shite that doesn't really matter to much. Would rather hear any of the three Beatles I mentioned singing. Whether people like this artist or that artist that is a matter of personal preference, I'm not here to talk about that, I don't like Queen but imo Fred has an outstanding voice. From a technical standpoint both Fred Mercury and Mick Jagger has a much better vocal range than either Paul, John and George, Mick can go from falsetto to explosive vocals in a blink of an eye, Fred's vocal are from another planet, he easily can do falsettos and baritones, he can sing rock or opera songs if he wanted to. |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Nov 12, 2019 17:05:03 GMT -5
Come on, Clapton is a excellent guitarist. Like him or loathe him, the man can play. He can certainly play. Go listen to Zakk wylde and tell me Clapton could even contend with that. Listen to Joe satriani. Those guys piss all over what hendrix and Clapton ever did. They're still great though. Let me know when any of those guys make something as groundbreaking as Machine Gun. |
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 12, 2019 17:05:55 GMT -5
I don't know what videos you watched, but they do more then just play fast. Both can play perfectly melodic solos with techniques that Eric Clapton couldn't even fathom. The sheer precision and brilliance of what guys like that play should blow your mind, listen here. my.mail.ru/mail/ustyuhin51/video/25540/29388.html |
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 12, 2019 17:07:59 GMT -5
He can certainly play. Go listen to Zakk wylde and tell me Clapton could even contend with that. Listen to Joe satriani. Those guys piss all over what hendrix and Clapton ever did. They're still great though. Let me know when any of those guys make something as groundbreaking as Machine Gun. I didn't say they were more influential, ground breaking, or inspiring or whatever. I said, from a technical, objective standpoint, they are indeed better. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Nov 12, 2019 17:20:38 GMT -5
I really like Mick Jagger but I wouldn't say he's any better than John, Paul or George. Vocal range has never equated to good. Freddie Mercury had an amazing voice but as I think Queen are mostly shite that doesn't really matter to much. Would rather hear any of the three Beatles I mentioned singing. Whether people like this artist or that artist that is a matter of personal preference, I'm not here to talk about that, I don't like Queen but imo Fred has an outstanding voice. From a technical standpoint both Fred Mercury and Mick Jagger has a much better vocal range than either Paul, John and George, Mick can go from falsetto to explosive vocals in a blink of an eye, Fred's vocal are from another planet, he easily can do falsettos and baritones, he can sing rock or opera songs if he wanted to. I said Fred was amazing and I know that him and many others will have a greater range. A lot of today's pop singers will have, technically I'm sure they're better, I appreciate that but the characterless trans atlantic drawl just loses me. If people love the technical aspect of singing and its important to them that's great but it means nothing to me. I prefer feel, character and individuality in the voice and the playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 12, 2019 17:29:04 GMT -5
Lennon had a fucking awesome voice. He may not have had a great range, but he was a brilliant singer in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Nov 12, 2019 17:35:59 GMT -5
Whether people like this artist or that artist that is a matter of personal preference, I'm not here to talk about that, I don't like Queen but imo Fred has an outstanding voice. From a technical standpoint both Fred Mercury and Mick Jagger has a much better vocal range than either Paul, John and George, Mick can go from falsetto to explosive vocals in a blink of an eye, Fred's vocal are from another planet, he easily can do falsettos and baritones, he can sing rock or opera songs if he wanted to. I said Fred was amazing and I know that him and many others will have a greater range. A lot of today's pop singers will have, technically I'm sure they're better, I appreciate that but the characterless trans atlantic drawl just loses me. If people love the technical aspect of singing and its important to them that's great but it means nothing to me. I prefer feel, character and individuality in the voice and the playing. Agree, I was just talking from a technical standpoint, but like you've said it's all a matter of personal preference, feel, emotion and personality, to each his own, Michael Jordan may be the best basketball player ever, but it doesn't stop people from preffering Larry Bird or Bryant. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 12, 2019 19:24:11 GMT -5
Lennon and McCartney are way way better singers than Jagger, whose voice is average.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeayeayeah on Nov 12, 2019 23:20:08 GMT -5
People say that Ringo wasn't a great drummer, but guess what, Jonh wasn't a great guitarist either, George wasn't a great guitarist either and Paul wasn't a great bassist either, also they weren't great singers, on the flip side they were perfect songwriters, that's their strongest point. Paul's one of the greatest bassists of all time-no question. George became a great guitarist but his early solos are a little lacklustre. Ringo also did some amazing and original drum parts (Rain, A Day In the Life, Come Together, Here Comes the Sun) Have you listened to Because? Amazing singing! The Beatles were fantastic at harmonising. None of them could sing like Freddy Mercury but I wouldn't want that anyway. Songwriting was their strongest point but they also knew how to play(in my opinion). |
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Nov 13, 2019 0:33:14 GMT -5
Let me know when any of those guys make something as groundbreaking as Machine Gun. I didn't say they were more influential, ground breaking, or inspiring or whatever. I said, from a technical, objective standpoint, they are indeed better. Fair enough. I just don't see why that kind of comparison would be relevant, it's a case of apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Nov 13, 2019 1:58:38 GMT -5
Eddie Hazel was better than all the guitarists mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 17, 2019 9:41:10 GMT -5
Genuinely think this tune is the peak of his creative spike towards the end of his life. Not sure if it was written specifically about Paul, but the words ‘for Paul’ were scribbled on the tape I believe and he definitely thought the sentiment of the song fitted. Some believe he wished to record this with Paul, potentially as part of a Beatles reunion.
Considering the overarching narrative of The Beatles story (which, just forgetting the music, is the greatest story in music), it is particularly hard hitting. Feels like a coda or some kind of last word on the whole adventure. I don’t think full production values or a collaboration with The Beatles would do the song justice to the home demo we have here - it’s isolating, vulnerable and haunting. Feels like a melancholy retrospective of two guys who grew up as lads together in Liverpool to conquer the world, yet stripping away all the bile and anger of latter years, the song shows all the affection and tenderness never left. The lack of a proper reconciliation makes this song so sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 17, 2019 10:20:36 GMT -5
I think John and Paul were supposed to write together in 1981, before John passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by World71R on Nov 17, 2019 17:21:39 GMT -5
I think John and Paul were supposed to write together in 1981, before John passed. That would've been insane and completely shook up the charts in '82. I wish we had gotten an alternate timeline where Lennon didn't pass and The Beatles would've reunited, or even there just been a Lennon/McCartney reunion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2019 6:46:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yeayeayeah on Nov 22, 2019 3:55:29 GMT -5
I think John and Paul were supposed to write together in 1981, before John passed. That would've been insane and completely shook up the charts in '82. I wish we had gotten an alternate timeline where Lennon didn't pass and The Beatles would've reunited, or even there just been a Lennon/McCartney reunion. [/quote Beatles with mullets and 80s production wouldn't have been beneficial in the long run. A lot of their magic is they split at their peak while still in their 20s. Reunions are nice but they have to eventuallyend too. I'd rather their story end at the end of the decade they defined. |
|
|
|
Post by madferitusa2025 on Nov 22, 2019 22:26:33 GMT -5
I call this some solid rock n roll.
|
|
|
|
Post by fabulousbakers on Nov 23, 2019 0:23:51 GMT -5
I think John and Paul were supposed to write together in 1981, before John passed. They had made no plans to write together again. In the late 1970s there was a very successful stage play called Beatlemania which used numerous Beatles songs and the Beatles took them to court alleging they were effectively trading using the Beatles name. The Beatlemania people countered by arguing the real Beatles were no longer together and had no plans to reform so they weren't infringing on the name of an active band. In response to that in 1980 - just a few months before he died - Lennon recorded a deposition with his lawyers where he stated that the four ex-Beatles did indeed plan to reform at some stage. That's where this rumour started that Lennon and McCartney (and the others) were planning to reform just before John died. Unfortunately I'd take this deposition with a grain of salt when it comes an actual reunion being planned - it was probably nothing more than a shrewd legal move on the part of the ex-Beatles to draw a line in the sand and finally start protecting their own history and legacy. If anybody's interested there's an excellent podcast series at beatlespod.libsyn.com and two episodes go into the situation at some length. Great podcast and these two episodes are particularly fascinating and well worth a listen. Nothing Is Real - Episode 16 - 1980 Part One Nothing Is Real - Episode 17 - 1980 Part Two I think if John had survived we probably would have just got pretty much what we did with the Anthology project but - of course - with John's involvement. Maybe John and Paul would have guested occasionally on each other's albums. Maybe even showed up now and then for a quick surprise appearance at each other's concerts. I still don't think we'd ever have gotten all four of them back on stage together. |
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Nov 23, 2019 1:53:21 GMT -5
I call this some solid rock n roll. This is aweseme |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5