Beatles or the Stones?

[Matty]

Macca has the worst taste in women of ANY mega-milionaiire pop star i ever heard of.


If they arent nutters or vegans there are bits of them missing. You;d think he'd be able to afford a decent model really wouldnt you. In Jane Ashers defence, at least she is/was cute (for a ginger) AND a good cook, non of that veggie sausage bullshit. So he binned her for a cheap Rolling Stone review.



Leccy. I meant awful in a technical sense. When they were a three chord skiffle band, basically not the innovative virtuosos that every seems to be claiming they were.

Disclaimer again, thats not to say i dont like it. And good point re Cliff and Hank. In comparison to that anything is a treat.
Fuck, i hate cliff richard.

[Magdlyn]

Stop being ableist and gingerist!

[Matty]

hey, i paid that ginger a compliment.

[Magdlyn]

I don't think it's possible to pick one song to epitomize The Beatles.

Due to this thread, I've been in a bit of a Beatles kick recently and was listening to them on the way home. There's a couple of duds/forgettables on each album, but each one is packed with gold.

I really need to go download all their non-album singles. You can fill an album with the songs they didn't release on an album.

They did. It's called Past Masters, released 1990.

Disc One

1. Love Me Do (Single Version)
2. From Me To You
3. Thank You Girl
4. She Loves You
5. I'll Get You
6. I Want To Hold Your Hand
7. This Boy
8. Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand (I Want To Hold Your Hand)
9. Sie Liebt Dich (She Loves You)
10. Long Tall Sally
11. I Call Your Name
12. Slow Down
13. Matchbox
14. I Feel Fine
15. She's a Woman
16. Bad Boy
17. Yes It Is
18. I'm Down


Disc 2

1. Day Tripper
2. We Can Work It Out
3. Paperback Writer
4. Rain
5. Lady Madonna
6. The Inner Light
7. Hey Jude
8. Revolution
9. Get Back
10. Don't Let Me Down
11. The Ballad Of John And Yoko
12. Old Brown Shoe
13. Across The Universe
14. Let It Be
15. You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)

[Magdlyn]

hey, i paid that ginger a compliment.

"Cute for a ginger!"

Gingers are the cutEST.

[Matty]

its all relative m'dear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7p8k...eature=related


So i take it you are a "day walker" then eh?

[SteveF]

The Beatles (even though they are overrated)

[Matt]

Macca has the worst taste in women of ANY mega-milionaiire pop star i ever heard of.


If they arent nutters or vegans there are bits of them missing. You;d think he'd be able to afford a decent model really wouldnt you. In Jane Ashers defence, at least she is/was cute (for a ginger) AND a good cook, non of that veggie sausage bullshit. So he binned her for a cheap Rolling Stone review.



Leccy. I meant awful in a technical sense. When they were a three chord skiffle band, basically not the innovative virtuosos that every seems to be claiming they were.

Disclaimer again, thats not to say i dont like it. And good point re Cliff and Hank. In comparison to that anything is a treat.
Fuck, i hate cliff richard.

I think Lennon's taste is a bit worse.

/ono?

[Matty]

well yeah. But in his defence, he was almost blind.

[Magdlyn]

its all relative m'dear.




So i take it you are a "day walker" then eh?

That was really funny!


Well, I get freckles in the sun, but also tan. I'm more of a blonde than a redhead. One of my dds is strawberry blonde, and another dd's bf has auburn hair, ginger beard, and they both have freckles and are A-dorable.

But here's what I was really thinking about.





Slightly on topic. Hey, he's British and he loves the Beatles and the Stones!

[Matty]

eddie is way too cool to be a real ginger. Hes gotta be blonde.

[leccy]

Leccy. I meant awful in a technical sense. When they were a three chord skiffle band, basically not the innovative virtuosos that every seems to be claiming they were.

Disclaimer again, thats not to say i dont like it. And good point re Cliff and Hank. In comparison to that anything is a treat.
Fuck, i hate cliff richard.

If you're talking about The Quarrymen, then maybe, but the Beatles earliest sets also leaned heavily on the popular music of the previous generation and contained a lot of stuff that was heavily harmonised and jazzy, as well as more rock and roll style tunes. That's true even to the extent that some of their song endings are distinctly cheezy music hall and would have been recogniseable to Mr McCartney senior's band.

Again you have to remember at the time that they were starting off everyone was starting off - technical virtuosity wasn;t part of the scenery. If you could pick your way through Move IT you were deemed to be a good guitarist.

[Ray Moscow]

[QUOTE=leccy;69512]

SNIP
Again you have to remember at the time that they were starting off everyone was starting off - technical virtuosity wasn;t part of the scenery. If you could pick your way through Move IT you were deemed to be a good guitarist.

One notices that in a lot of 60's music -- the average hobbyist today is as good or better, technically, than a lot of famous musicians who were counted as "great" at the time.

But they were the ones inventing this stuff and gettting it out there, not us. They were our teachers.

(There were of course some great musicians then as now, even if they weren't necessarily appreciated.)

[Matty]

Again you have to remember at the time that they were starting off everyone was starting off - technical virtuosity wasn;t part of the scenery. If you could pick your way through Move IT you were deemed to be a good guitarist.

I agree, that is partly my point. I dont get why in the light of such things do so many people claim the Beatles are such technical genii and groundbreaking musicians.

I have n issues withetth enjoyment aspects of their music amongst many others as i said but thats not the same as saying they were head and shoulders above everyone i tech terms which is why they were so big. (not saying that is your take, it clearly isnt, but it IS a fairly common perspective in these discussuions. )

[leccy]

I agree, that is partly my point. I dont get why in the light of such things do so many people claim the Beatles are such technical genii and groundbreaking musicians.

Well that would be because they were - Paul McCartney in particular brought a melodic quality to the bass guitar had hadn't really been seen before and which led on to the instrument being far more prominent than it ever had.

The advances in the application of studio recording techniques that they employed paved the way for those who came along afterwards.

The songwriting structures that they developed throughout the sixties were revolutionary for their time in popular music. They weren't just simple ditties.

I have n issues withetth enjoyment aspects of their music amongst many others as i said but thats not the same as saying they were head and shoulders above everyone i tech terms which is why they were so big. (not saying that is your take, it clearly isnt, but it IS a fairly common perspective in these discussuions. )

I consider a lot of the technical innovations that we take absolutely for granted nowadays were made popular by the Beatles - the sort of techniques involving backwards guitar parts, automatic double tracking of voices, tape loops, overdubbing and creating sound canvases to give just a few examples, just weren't done in the late fifties and very early sixties, yet ten years later they were commonplace.

Some of those techniques had been invented by then, but were not being applied. The Beatles, and George Martin, applied them to making truly memorable and ground breaking records. If ANYONE has made a better guitar-band-based LP than "Revolver" then I certainly haven't heard it.

[Gojira]

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that here we are, well into the 21st Century, using the very latest technology, and arguing whether the Beatles are better than the Stones?