Adam2

I may ruffle a few feathers here, but Garth Hudson of the Band sucked. He was a technically great player and when he played piano, came up with some great lines. However, his cheesy, out of tune synth sounds nearly ruin the entire catalog of The Band. I can't believe no one ever called him out on it. Really, just watch the Last Waltz and listen to him vomit all over Mannish Boy, Helpless, and well... pretty much everything.

you are Satan.

tickets are $150, not 200, and it's worth every penny. who would go to a Levon Helm show, on his property, wanting to see Jeff Tweedy? i mean it's Levon freaking Helm.

The Band is the best group of all time. Rock of Ages is completely amazing... screw the Last Waltz.

are you serious?

yes

i fail to see how this topic is so hilarious. i guess it's a crime to like the way someone dresses.

http://newberryphotography.com/pp/images/2...22717_wilco.jpg

anybody know where to get button/dress shirts like those? i really like the one Bach's got

what are some good places to get clothes?

what are good places to get clothes in chicago?

seriously, does anybody know? it's a good question

wow! this guy is right on the money!

Richard Manuel's performance in that Rockin' Chair clip is better than anything the Beatles ever did. and regarding the songwriting... of course The Band ran out of stellar material much too soon. However, if you put their best songs against the Beatles', they are as good or better. The Band's songs were like old traditional songs, they told stories, and sounded like nothing else of the time. They didn't have a songwriting team cranking out pop tunes, but the songs they do have are amazing. Read the lyrics for Rockin' Chair sometime. Or Unfaithful Servant. Or Whispering Pines. some of the most beautiful music ever created.

it's also interesting to note The Band's influence on the Beatles. 1968 - The Beatles release the white album, which is a more stripped-down and natural sounding album. I seem to recall another album that was released prior to the white album, which no doubt had its influence on the Beatles... oh yeah, MUSIC FROM BIG PINK. Also note the Band songs played during the Let It Be sessions. Not to mention McCartney's Band-like beard.

and the person who says the Band only had one good song, and that it is The Weight, is a complete moron.

2 years of playing 8 hours of a night in Hamburg will do that.

or 3 years of playing behind Ronnie Hawkins...

what pathetic taste in music you must have.

To quote George Harrison himself, The Band is "the best band in the universe." looks like he's not even on your side!

Thats not exactly "live" is it? In fact, it sounds like the exact approach the Beatles (and almost every band on the planet earth)used on all of their recordings, making your original point mute and obsolete.

I'm not saying that The Band recorded 100% live and got everything perfect that way. I'm saying that their early recordings are mostly unadultered performances sometimes augmented by minimal overdubs. I guess I forgot that raw, "live-in-the-studio" feel Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour have...

Thats just not true. Sorry. EVERY BAND STARTS THEIR SESSIONS BY PLAYING LIVE IN THE STUDIO. Its called "basics". Then they go back and start re-tooling whatever they want to fix or change. The Band did A LOT of this on "Big Pink" and especially on "The Band".

John Simon himself said that they were recorded mostly live, with added things such as horns, maybe some vocals, and other minimal overdubs. I guess you, someone who was not present at the recording sessions, know more about them than someone who was.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. I think Manuel's voice was amazing (as was Danko's, really) but it was a matter of being perfectly suited to the kind of music that they wrote for themselves to perform (and selected other songs they chose to perform). Neither one of those guys had the kind of overall versatility that either McCartney or Lennon had (in my opinion, of course).

 

There's almost nothing the Beatles couldn't sing and sing well; Manuel was a terrific, fabulously expressive singer for songs by The Band, but he simply couldn't have handled the kinds of screamers that the early Beatles did, and he didn't have the octave range of McCartney. Manuel is a case of wildly overachieving -- doing the very best with what he had; McCartney (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Lennon) is an example of having a supremely capable vocal instrument and being able to apply it with equal skill to a wide variety of styles.

I also have to disagree. Richard Manuel could belt out a screamer better than anyone. The Hawks were also more raw and wild than anything the early Beatles did. I completely disagree with what you said about Manuel. I would say that your statement is flip-flopped... it was Manuel who had the natural singing ability, the supremely capable vocal instrument. He used his voice for a wide variety of applications. Raw belters, quiet ballads, rich falsetto or baritone, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqbTPVvZ5pA

Because I disagree with them, mostly. You like the Band. Hooray.

 

Also, Paul McCartney had an amazing voice. John Lennon's voice was the definition of "raw and organic". George developed into a hell of a singer before he was done, and Ringo did "Don't Pass Me By".

 

As for the harmonies, "This Boy" blah blah blah, whatever.

there are many things i disagree with. that doesn't make them false.

False things in bold. Arguable things in italics. Unimportant things underlined.

 

The one thing that isn't any of those things is the master musician, but they did have George Martin, who was damn close to that, and Paul McCartney wasn't shabby. In fact, he was probably the most innovative bass player of all time.

 

And again, you forgot the whole "They wrote better songs than them".

How are they false? Manuel was such a magnificent singer, I really don't see how you can honestly say any Beatle was better than him. The Beatles' harmonies were tight and clean, vs. the Band's, whose harmonies were raw and organic. Each singer in The Band was so unique and their phrasing and blending was so unique.

I love The Band just as much as anybody, but there are a few things that The Beatles did that The Band could not touch...

 

1) Songwriting- The Band has so many great, timeless songs, if you took them all and put them on one complilation, it would barely fill enough space for the White Album.

2) Live- Its easy to say The Band was better live, but thats because they were able to tour. The Beatles were a damn fine live band in thier time. Just check the BBC sessions.

3) Overdubs and studio tricks- The Band was great in the studio...at doing overdubs, especially when it came to Garth Hudson's parts. They didn't just hit record and play the songs and lay them on tape. On the other hand, a lot of the studio tricks you accuse the Beatles of were done in post-production. You must remember that for most of thier recording career, The Beatles did not have the technology that was available to The Band when they started their recording career in 1968 and they had to record most of the tracks live and then "bounce" them to create room for overdubs.

The first two Band albums, and maybe even the third, were indeed recorded mostly live.

This isn't worth getting into, because you have no intention of doing anything but slag on the Beatles, but from where I'm standing, there are about 5 things that are flat out falsehoods in that one paragraph.

 

And the Beatles wrote better songs, so hey cool.

do elaborate. that is not my intention at all. of course The Beatles are one of the most important bands ever. i'm not trying to say they weren't. i'm just saying that as a band, as a group of musicians in a room playing, The Band was better and I enjoy them more. and songs? Whispering Pines, King Harvest, Rockin' Chair, Across The Great Divide, Unfaithful Servant, Up On Cripple Creek, The Weight, We Can Talk, In A Station, The Rumor, Stage Fright, Sleeping, All La Glory, The Shape I'm In, Caledonia Mission, Lonesome Suzie, When You Awake, The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, The W.S. Walcott Medicine Show, Rag Mama Rag, Strawberry Wine, Katie's Been Gone, etc. so hey cool.

and as i said earlier, Richard Manuel. i could rest my whole argument on him. none of The Beatles had that kind of vocal talent. nor did they have a Garth Hudson, which i also said earlier.

Richard Manuel could sing circles around any member of The Beatles. In addition, the vocals of Rick Danko and Levon Helm provided a richness and variety to the singing The Beatles could never touch. Plus, The Band had a master musician in Garth Hudson, something The Beatles didn't have. They were a better ensemble. They didn't have to do a bunch of overdubs or tricks in the studio to get their point across. They were a perfect match for each other. They were way better live. And they dressed cooler.

well they were.

The Band was better