bobbob1313

If you have sinus problems you won't be able to stand the pressure past like 10 feet or so.

Entwistle is incredible. McCartney changed the way people thought about the bass player, but Entwistle changed the way people approached it. He is, without a doubt, my favorite bassist ever (though Paul's gift for melody shown through especially in his bass playing. He's the only bassist you can sing along to.)

Y E S

I'm going with the Who. Not sure if I had made that clear earlier on.

That Treehugger is making quite a good point regarding all of the crap Bush was given for thinking he was appointed by God. It's not the same thing, but I can garauntee you a lot of Obama supporters were giving Bush all kinds of hell for his comments regarding that, and this is similar.

Jeez, what are you doing with your life?

Filler, in my eyes is any song that isn't as good as the rest of the songs on the album. I don't really know about the artists intent, as there are songs like "Her Majesty" that were obviously intended as throwaways but which are still essential to the album. I suppose when I say filler I just mean songs that I could take or leave. They just serve as buffers between the other better songs.

I don't think it's a top 20 album either. But there aren't many albums that can top "Sloop John B", "God Only Knows", and "Wouldn't It Be Nice".

If it makes you feel any better, there's a very good chance Paul's Boutique probably makes the top 20 that I'm never going to make.

Pet Sounds has tons of filler, but the good songs are so good that you kind of forget about the not so good ones. It's alot like Exile on Main St. in that way.

Do people understand the 2nd poll was just from 69-74?

I think thats it.

They might be vital in the album, but since I don't think the album is all that vital, I'm not a big fan of some of the tracks. Maybe filler isn't the right word, but some of the songs aren't as strong as others, and thus, it doesn't really work for me.

"Mr. Brownstone" is what the Beatles would've sounded like if they were Guns N' Roses.

I do not understand why so many people love this album. Despite how much I like Marvin, I'm not a fan of this album. It has too much filler for me.

Yes!

I don't get the love for "Whats Going On". I love Marvin, but I don't think that's a great album. Talk about filler.

I get nostalgiac from things that were on tv very recently. Such as:

Though this might all be a moot point as I'd probably take Zeppelin or the Beatle's output from this same time (If you count the White Album, which was released 11-22-68) over either. Either way, what a ridiculous time for music. There is a very legitimate argument to be made that 15 of the top 100 albums of all time were released during this period by just 4 bands.

I'm sort of surprised by the reactions here. Then, I have always preferred the Who to the Stones.

Me about a year ago "opening" for Jeff Tweedy.

Well, like I said, I'm not expert on it (I begin with Graceland and end with the Talking Heads, basically), but I don't see what that has to do with their musicianship. They are definitely competetent musicians. I can understand some of the other criticisms of their music, but I'm not hearing this one. They can play their instruments perfectly well. Whether or not they have pep, that is, I suppose subjective, but I hear plenty of pep in songs like "Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa" and "M79". Whether or not it is competent for Afropop isn't really my concern.