flyfisher Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Rubber Soul first, then work through the albums in order (remembering that Let It Be was recorded before Abbey Road). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I really struggle with Revolver. It's full of great songs but as an album leaves me rather cold. It feels a bit more sinister than their other records, to me at least, and I'm not sure I like that. Rubber Soul, on the other hand... just wonderful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onemanband Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360422170' post='1970120'] The most over-rated band in history [/quote] Fortunately or unfortunately, whichever you choose, (I'm 62 now), I was there in the 60's and glad I was. Thankfully, The Beatles (amongst others) were responsible for so many, many young kids taking up music, everyone wanted a guitar and to be "a Beatle"!! Even if their musicianship was questionable, and I don't think it was, their songwriting talent was overwhelming; they've got nothing to prove, the history books will tell the story!! Edited February 20, 2013 by onemanband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgbass Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Just when you thought it was safe to look at a calendar. IT'S BACK! Fifty years ago to the day, Like I said in the opening post, [font=times new roman,times,serif][b]THE BEATLES! [/b][/font] [i]SORRY,[/i] i just had to mark the day. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ioKd4hk.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ccuxI2u.jpg[/IMG] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Yep, the news is going to be full of them this year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconic Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1360430622' post='1970346'] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KvgVQgZsrY[/media] [/quote] brilliant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconic Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 If this has been posted earlier, forgive me.. http://youtu.be/JqVV1uURKYk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybassplayer Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 We are over in the states at the moment and it's pretty big news over here and I seem to recall that tonight on tv they have Paul and Ringo on tv ( not sure if it's an interview or a concert or both as I only caught a glimpse ). Think I will tune in because those scenes when they arrived here for the first time and the whole Ed Sullivan show thing are still amazing fifty years later and it's unlikely anything like that will be repeated ever again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) That's the thing I think. They can't be repeated because they were the first. Same as there's only ever going to be one 'first man on the moon'. Edited February 9, 2014 by flyfisher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391955663' post='2362937'] Yep, the news is going to be full of them this year! [/quote] Fab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgbass Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='tonybassplayer' timestamp='1391958155' post='2362963'] We are over in the states at the moment and it's pretty big news over here and I seem to recall that tonight on tv they have Paul and Ringo on tv ( not sure if it's an interview or a concert or both as I only caught a glimpse ). Think I will tune in because those scenes when they arrived here for the first time and the whole Ed Sullivan show thing are still amazing fifty years later and it's unlikely anything like that will be repeated ever again. [/quote] I think it's a tribute to The Beatles 50th year on The Ed Sullivan Show. Other performers, along with Paul, and Ringo. Now I'm to old to sit on the floor and watch like I did 50 years ago, but I'll watch it. I still believe The Beatles were one of the greatest societal phenomenon of all time. Apollo 11 was up there too! It wasn't everyday Armstrong, and Aldrin walked on the moon. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ioKd4hk.gif[/IMG] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='gsgbass' timestamp='1391960940' post='2362994'] ....I still believe The Beatles were one of the greatest societal phenomenon of all time.... [/quote] Anyone who experienced the world before 1962 will understand how true that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) [quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1360511618' post='1971464'] Buddy Holly.[/quote] Thank you! Five pages into the bi-monthly Beatles debate before someone mentions a young guy who had a guitar, bass, drums band that wrote and recorded their own hits while The Quarrymen were still playing skiffle & was dead before the Beatlezzzz had their first hit. Then some BCer says they don't rate them which some bell-ender translates and twists into a denial of some kind and so the rage starts. Remember Kiwi might be away but has his spies out & they're taking notes. ........................... ........................... & indeed Edited February 9, 2014 by Big_Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='gsgbass' timestamp='1391960940' post='2362994'] I still believe The Beatles were one of the greatest societal phenomenon of all time. [/quote] I think that Beatlemania may have been but that was very short lived compared to The Beatles as a band. Twickenham Film Studios was swamped by hundreds of screaming kids which i witnesses first hand while The Beatles were filming A Hard Days Night & Help. Roll on to 1969 when they were recording there and i doubt there was anyone waiting outside to see them. Beatlemania was the real phenomenon to me but it goes without saying that it couldn't have happened without The Fab Four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391964319' post='2363056'] Thank you! Five pages into the bi-monthly Beatles debate before someone mentions a young guy who had a guitar, bass, drums band that wrote and recorded their own hits while The Quarrymen were still playing skiffle & was dead before the Beatlezzzz had their first hit. Then some BCer says they don't rate them which some bell-ender translates and twists into a denial of some kind and so the rage starts. Remember Kiwi might be away but has his spies out & they're taking notes. ........................... ........................... & indeed [/quote] I think it's safe to predict many more Beatles-related [s]rants[/s] [s]arguments[/s] discussions this year, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum. But Buddy Holly? Fact is, he [u]didn't[/u] change the world of music forever, but The Beatles did. Maybe he could have done, or maybe he would have still disappeared without trace when the Fabs burst on the scene. Like a million others. But we'll never know. What we do know is that The Beatles did it. For better or worse, but they still did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391968225' post='2363100'] I think it's safe to predict many more Beatles-related [s]rants[/s] [s]arguments[/s] discussions this year, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum. But Buddy Holly? Fact is, he [u]didn't[/u] change the world of music forever, but The Beatles did. Maybe he could have done, or maybe he would have still disappeared without trace when the Fabs burst on the scene. Like a million others. But we'll never know. What we do know is that The Beatles did it. For better or worse, but they still did it. [/quote] But i wonder if there hadn't been Buddy Holly would there have ever been The Beatles? Maybe Buddy changed music more than some people seem to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391968225' post='2363100']But Buddy Holly? Fact is, he [u]didn't[/u] change the world of music forever, but The Beatles did. Maybe he could have done, or maybe he would have still disappeared without trace when the Fabs burst on the scene. Like a million others. But we'll never know. What we do know is that The Beatles did it. For better or worse, but they still did it.[/quote] Personally I prefer to see them as one of the biggest stepping stones to what we have now, rather than a shift changer. As I said, they did what Holly & others before him had done but on a bigger scale. Almost all of those who the Beatles members freely cited as influences were those who escaped the confines of being locked into writing "partnerships" eg Elvis, who wrote few of his hits & therefore lost a large wedge of potential income. They - eventually - wrote & played their own songs, as did Holly, Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Little Richard, Bo Diddley. But at the time of the fledgling Beatles the scandal of Payola was common knowledge which had done a lot of damage to the careers of those 3 black artists, writing your own material removed most of any possibility of being ripped off. Something Chuck made very little secret about. Chuck Berry once threatened to sue Lennon for plagiarism but they sorted it out friendly-ish, which made them good friends - or as much as anyone can be with Chuck. They also would have encountered many other bands doing the band revues and matinee circuits & taken notes off their encounters, eg The Animals who wrote few of their hits - if any? - and were royally screwed with ££s. Fact is it's only arsehole threads ad nauseum like these that puts rivalry and one-upmanship where there wasn't any at the time, quite often the opposite. Someone mentioned The Moody Blues earlier & was very wrongly dismissed, they were hugely noted. With them they were writing their own concept album "Days Of Future Past" at the time Sgt Peppers was released & of course Pet Sounds which was a real ground-breaker was out IIRC the year before?? Bottom line for me is that despite having a good half dozen+ of Beatles albums they do very little for me. I very rarely get the urge or have an ear-worm of one of their songs. They just don't [i]move me[/i], now The Stones?? Oh well, The Stones, oh man!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391970135' post='2363138'] Bottom line for me is that despite having a good half dozen+ of Beatles albums they do very little for me. I very rarely get the urge or have an ear-worm of one of their songs. They just don't [i]move me[/i], now The Stones?? Oh well, The Stones, oh man!! [/quote] Wheee! Let's have a big Beatles v Stones argument/rant!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [i]Where is Beatles band? This band who have not been as of late clear of circumstance. Beatles Band! Can we no longer hear there medolious throng? John! Paul! All in Beatles Band come forth! What question have we to put? Now? Arguments neccessary can begin with whole results expected for any return. Ringo! Here in Thailand Beatles band experience is long loved and can be hurt away from John, Paul etc. Please give any news to Samuel K. Amphong of address similar to above. yours as in rock! Samuel K Amphong, Thailand[/i] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1391971776' post='2363158'] Wheee! Let's have a big Beatles v Stones argument/rant!! [/quote] can't do that, the Beatles/Stones comparison/argument/rant traditionally doesn't start until page 24 of these threads ......... remember? my comment was a pre-emptive strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391972007' post='2363164'] can't do that, the Beatles/Stones comparison/argument/rant traditionally doesn't start until page 24 of these threads ......... remember? my comment was a pre-emptive strike. [/quote] OK... only four pages to go... [size=4] [/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391970135' post='2363138'] Personally I prefer to see them as one of the biggest stepping stones to what we have now, rather than a shift changer. As I said, they did what Holly & others before him had done but on a bigger scale. [/quote] I see your point about 'stepping stones' but surely the unique thing about The Beatles is that THEY were the ones who defined the stepping stones to a very large extent. Yes, they did some Buddy Holly type stuff in their early days, and Elvis type stuff and Chuck Berry and others but the Fabs were different because of the way they developed. Holly disn't really have much time to develop different stuff so remains frozen in time. Presley did the same sort of stuff throughout his career and Berry - well Berry today is pretty much identical to Berry of the 50s. They don't represent stepping stones, they are just standing on a single stone. By contrast, compare Love Me Do era Beatles with Sgt Pepper a mere 4 years later. FOUR YEARS! Or the huge variation of styles on the 'white album' a year later, or Abbey Road. The Stones, in comparison, are more like Chuck Berry in that they haven't really developed the genre over 50 years. That may be a good thing, but it's not influential. They are just another 'white boys playing the blues' band, very successfully of course, but innovative and influential? Oh dear, have I jumped the gun by 4 pages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1391971776' post='2363158'] Wheee! Let's have a big Beatles v Stones argument/rant!! [/quote] There really is no argument - I mean... Don't recall The Fabs ever recording anything by Jagger/Richards. Back o' the net!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391988247' post='2363406']By contrast, compare Love Me Do era Beatles with Sgt Pepper a mere 4 years later. FOUR YEARS! Or the huge variation of styles on the 'white album' a year later, or Abbey Road. The Stones, in comparison, are more like Chuck Berry in that they haven't really developed the genre over 50 years. That may be a good thing, but it's not influential. They are just another 'white boys playing the blues' band, very successfully of course, but innovative and influential? Oh dear, have I jumped the gun by 4 pages? [/quote] Just for a change this time around; can we PLEASE have anyone point out - because this is the same reason the last Beatles thread descended into a primary school playground - PLEASE point out where anyone AT ALL has said that they weren't "influential"?? But of course in your points quoted - by then the Beatles had stopped being a live act. Which led them to being a studio bound experimental combo. I don't know of any of, what this forum construes as, rivals who did the same. As a rock band they couldn't hack what the main purpose of most rock bands is. I won't go to The Stones are still playing 40+ years later because IMHO they should have packed that in a decade+ ago. Chuck Berry is who he is, without him the Beatles progress would have started and ended with Lonnie Donnegan. He's the one who created the "genre", NOT the Beatles! Surely knowing what Berry's contribution to music history shouldn't need any explanation. Then of course, there's all of the Beatles admissions that without George Martin there would have been far less progress. Edited February 9, 2014 by Big_Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.