nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What's your favourite Beatles album?

KungPao

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

storker

Hector Savage wrote: »

None,
All of them are sh1te, like the Beatles - overrated rubbish.

I wouldn't say rubbish, but definitely overrated. Small Faces/Yardbirds/Stones for me.

Goodshape

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

The beatles are responsible for metal?

Maybe I'm missing something here but I cant see how Hey Jude developed into Enter Sandman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk1hCSA89fc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAe2Q_LhY8g

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

Liam McPoyle

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

The beatles are responsible for metal?

Maybe I'm missing something here but I cant see how Hey Jude developed into Enter Sandman

Ozzy Osbourne has gone on record and said that hearing The Beatles made him want to be in a band. Sabbath are, for my money at least, the first real heavy metal band. Sabbath have been consistently cited as an influence for thousands of metal bands. Without The Beatles then Ozzy may not have gotten into music. We'll never know for certain of course but their influence is without question.

Wibbs

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

The beatles are responsible for metal?

Maybe I'm missing something here but I cant see how Hey Jude developed into Enter Sandman

Well I'd not go so far as to suggest they're directly responsible for metal O, that is a child of many fathers. Indeed I'd be dubious of claiming their direct influence in later genres. I'd regard them much more as predictors of future genres. And they did it from the very top of the mainstream while they were at it.

As topper75 noted looking back much of their stuff can now seem out there for the time, but at the time when they were current nobody was close to them as far as sheer diversity in music goes, and while making so many so songs "catchy" and popular.

Take a single like Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane from 1967. Double A sided, which itself was "new" for the time. So much so that the charts collated the sales separately and they missed out on number one because of it. And promo films(in colour) IE music videos for both songs. If you were listening to records in 1967 you would simply have never heard anything like it before. It was an entirely new soundscape, yet still approachable. Go back to the Revolver album a year previously and you had the Indian stuff and you had songs like Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows. The former a string quartet and written in an odd scale, the latter so out there it predicts stuff like the Chemical Brothers would do decades later.

Take a song like Jealous Guy. Released later as a solo track, but written by Lennon in the Beatles days. It's written in the pentatonic, that is very basically the black keys on a piano and the scale used by eastern music(he wrote it in India), yet it doesn't sound "eastern" at all and works as a "pop song". Vanishingly few songwriters could pull that kinda thing off. And there two such in the same band, three by the end.

Hector Savage

John DoeReMi wrote: »

There's no shortage of I Hate The Beatles websites out there for cool, discerning, brave iconoclasts like yourself Sir. Why don't you f*ck off to one of them and leave us to our Fabs love in ?

This is AH, just giving my opinion, if it were a Music or Beatles thread I wouldn't post.

looksee

White Album (Blackbird especially). I had a White Album, when it first came out. I broke one of the records almost immediately. Very sad.

trashcan

storker wrote: »

I wouldn't say rubbish, but definitely overrated. Small Faces/Yardbirds/Stones for me.

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."

Favourite Beatles album would be Revolver by the way.

Birneybau

Deleted User wrote: »

The Beatles were sh1te, they didn't even play their own instruments and John was a wife/child beater. The Monkees is where it's at, I'm a believer!

The missus said we were going to see the Monkees in Switzerland. I told her no fcuking way.

And then I saw her face,

Now I'm in Geneva.

Birneybau

And as Wibbs said above, this could be dropped into a Chemical Bros' set and nobody would blink an eye.

Released in 1966!

Lady Spangles

Tough choice for me. But it's between Revolver and the White Album. Really love Rubber Soul as well, though.

Irish Guitarist

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.

Deebles McBeebles

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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.

Always wished I had started learning guitar by exclusively playing Beatles songs instead of whatever the music du jour was. Great band for training your fingers to be that bit more stretchy.

thehairygrape

First album I ever bought out of my own pocket money was Let it be, so soft spot for that in spite of Phil Spector. Late to the party I know&#55357;&#56836;. White album too inconsistent to stand as best album. Some sublime moments but a few I could do without. Revolver of course a better album, but cliche or no, Sgt Peppers still the best album start to finish.

Cryptopagan

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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.

I agree with the overall thrust of your post, but 1967 was the height of psychedelia and there was all sorts of wonderfully complicated pop music being produced. It was also the year of Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Hendrix's Are You Experienced, and of the Beach Boy's aborted Smile album.

Wibbs

Birneybau wrote: »

And as Wibbs said above, this could be dropped into a Chemical Bros' set and nobody would blink an eye.

Released in 1966!

And that's another thing, their truly unreal pace of change and innovation. That above wacky song was recorded just one year after the song Help! was recorded(a very Beatles type song, albeit going beyond the usual boy/girl thing). A year later they were going "psychedelic" and then a year after that while everyone else was still on the psychedelic train they wheel out the double disk White album which has all sorts of musical styles on it. Funny enough they only recorded one proper Blues song(Yer Blues. Not exactly pushing the boat out on that title). Then we went "back to basics" in what would be the Let it be album, then for one last time less than a year after that got back into the studio for Abbey Road which is different again.

Including lots of synthesisers. In 1969. Thing is you don't tend to notice them, as they blended them musically rather than as a stylistic thing(unlike the majority who tried them at the time). Here Comes The Sun is stuffed with synths but its not thought of as a synth heavy song.

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

And throughout they were involved with feature films, videos, massive tours, regular single releases, most of which weren't on albums until the latter years, starting a record company(and fashion shop), even doing a global satellite gig, Lennon even found time to write and publish two books, and they changed the landscape of what a "pop" band could do. All in little more than seven years from the first time they walked into a recording studio to when they split up. Some bands have taken that long between albums.

Wibbs

Cryptopagan wrote: »

the Beach Boy's aborted Smile album.

Funny enough the Beatles saw the Beach Boys as their biggest competition and influence and vice versa. Not the Stones or any others that were around at the time. One of the reasons given for Smile going south was Brian Wilson had heard some early takes of Sgt Pepper songs and it was another pressure on him, as he reckoned they'd beat him to the punch.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough the Beatles saw the Beach Boys as their biggest competition and influence and vice versa. Not the Stones or any others that were around at the time. One of the reasons given for Smile going south was Brian Wilson had heard some early takes of Sgt Pepper songs and it was another pressure on him, as he reckoned they'd beat him to the punch.

With that said, there really is no comparison between the Beach Boys and the Beatles. Macca wanted to better Pet Sounds with Sgt. Peppers, and they succeeded. Even Brian Wilson on top of his game does not come close. I say this as somebody that likes the Beach Boys a lot and I wouldn't be an ultra die hard Beatles fan either.

I think things with Wilson were fairly dire in general, and the stress in general of the music industry (not to mention his dysfunctional family) meant that even if he had never made it big, he would have had the exact same mental health issues.

Steve F

I like the Vinyl copy I have of the White Album
Serial number 0005. Apparently John got 0001 cause he shouted loudest according to Paul

Gwynplaine

Hector Savage wrote: »

None,
All of them are sh1te, like the Beatles - overrated rubbish.

Just because you don't like them, it doesn't mean they're rubbish.
I don't like them either, a few of their songs are alright, but that's it.

Goodshape

Steve F wrote: »

I like the Vinyl copy I have of the White Album
Serial number 0005.

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

Apparently John got 0001 cause he shouted loudest according to Paul

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)."

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.