Mr. Kinsley Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 One of the gheyest things I've ever seen. I should think so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The scary thing with the Beatles is that you can take the best songs they wrote om any given year 64, 65, 66, 67, etc. and just those songs stand up against entire band's careers. --Mike Agreed. The Beatles in 1965 outwrote the average pitchfork friendly band's entire careers. Hell, Revolver has like 9 or 10 classic songs that still get covered, played on radio and raved about by critics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
froggie Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 5 pages and nary a mention of "I've Got A Feeling"? For shame, Viachicago. damn, i was hoping to get to the end of the thread without seeing it so i could the first to mention this gem Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 'Carnival of Light' is my personal favorite. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SarahC Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Mr. Moonlight?MISTAAAH MOONLIGHT!!! i remember being probably 6 or so and my sister and i used to dance around to that song in my nana and papaw's den when they were taking the naps that we really were supposed to be taking... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stooka Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The Beatles are the greatest rock group there ever was or ever will be. They hit at just the right time with the right combination of talents and attitude. LouieB True In My Life Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Adam2 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 The Band was better Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 The band was better than all their solo careers put together. Yes, I agree, but All Things Must Pass is good Quote Link to post Share on other sites
So Long Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 The Band was better I completely disagree. Too a degree I can't actually express... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Adam2 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 well they were. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 The Band was better well they were. So it lasted 6 pages before someone said something ridiculous. Thats gotta be some kind of record for this board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 And if I had to give you my desert island Beatles songs, I would feel really bad if I forgot "Within You Without You", even though I inevitably would. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Adam2 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JerseyMike Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 The drum fill after the 2nd verse is probably my single favorite moment in all of music. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Adam2 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. do elaborate. 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". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Adam2 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Adam2 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Adam2 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 That's just, like, your (my) opinion, man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 "Don't let me down" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Paperback Writer is the shit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
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.