Greatest Album in Rock History...

[Sugar Beats]

Based on excellence, sustainabilty, context, and how does is stand up? I mean is it worth listening to the whole thing? :15:

Some that come to mind:

At Folsom Prison ~ Johnny Cash

Black in Black ~ AC/DC

London Calling ~ The Clash

Apetite for Destruction ~ Guns n Roses

Honorable mentions to:

Rumors ~ Fleetwood Mac

Pearl Jam ~ Ten

The Pretenders, Areosmith, Van Halen and
of course Pink Floyd & Hendrix ~ before my time.

Dylan might be big for some people... I just don't get him, I can barely understand a word the man says. :confused:

[Auricauricle]

Without doubt, without debate: Dark Side of the Moon.

[dean_martin]

An album that epitomizes rock 'n roll, its roots and influences, and where it would go from there is the Rolling Stones' "Beggar's Banquet". It is rock 'n roll from start to finish.

[Finch Platte]

Hmmm, over at Obner, they're talking about this (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=73f7809a3beef6d5d2db6fb9a8902bda) being the best live album evar.

Words cannot describe -- cannot contain -- the performance captured on Live at the Star Club, Hamburg, an album that contains the very essence of rock & roll....Who knows why this was a night where everything exploded for Jerry Lee Lewis? It sounds like all of his rage at not being the accepted king of rock & roll surfaced that night, but that probably wasn't a conscious decision on his part -- maybe the stars were aligned right, or perhaps he just was in a particularly nasty mood. Or maybe this is the way he sounded on an average night in 1964.

In any case, Live at the Star Club is extraordinary -- the purest, hardest rock & roll ever committed to record.


http://dkpresents.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/44897.jpg

Judge for yerself.

fp

Note: The word 'this' is a link, in case you can't see it.

[Stone]

Without doubt, without debate: Dark Side of the Moon.

Not in my top 2000.

[02audionoob]

Led Zeppelin II

[Jack in Wilmington]

Led Zeppelin II

There's the first one that I can agree with.

I don't know if anybody caught Sound and Vision's Top 50, but it had more holes in it than a box of Cheerios.

I'll give you maybe 2 Stones albums, but that starts with "Let it Bleed"

And "Dark Side of the Moon"? that's not even Pink Floyd's best album.

And C'mon SB, when did Johnny Cash become Rock.

[Sugar Beats]

I don't think I'm the only one that considers that album rock. He's awesome on that, start to finish.

[Luvin Da Blues]

As these posts are showing, there is no such thing as "one" (or even 100) greatest album when your talking about such a subjective topic.

Myself, even the top 100 is constantly changing as I and my tastes get more IMHO, "mature".

[Swish]

As these posts are showing, there is no such thing as "one" (or even 100) greatest album when your talking about such a subjective topic.

Myself, even the top 100 is constantly changing as I and my tastes get more IMHO, "mature".

I could make a list of 100 records that are my favorites, but picking one that is 'the best' is impossible for me. That's like telling you my favorite food.

[Swish]

I don't think I'm the only one that considers that album rock. He's awesome on that, start to finish.

No way rock. Sorry.

[dingus]

any album from Steely Dan

[dean_martin]

well sugar, I think you've exposed one of the greatest fears around here: to step up and pick something. "Oh no! That's too hard for me, but your pick sux."

I'm callin' you regs out. Stop whining and pick something. Hang your critic's hat on one of SB's parameters for greatest (not favorite) and say whatever pops into your pointy head.

[RoadRunner6]

An album that epitomizes rock 'n roll, its roots and influences, and where it would go from there is the Rolling Stones' "Beggar's Banquet". It is rock 'n roll from start to finish.

Oh, GREAT choice! Sympathy for the Devel is one of the finest rock and roll songs ever. I also have to put the Stones Let It Bleed Album up there at the top also.

RR6

[RoadRunner6]

At Folsom Prison ~ Johnny Cash

Black in Black ~ AC/DC

Dylan might be big for some people... I just don't get him, I can barely understand a word the man says. :confused:

AC/DC and Johnny Cash in the same genre?

If you can't understand Dylan maybe you should listen to his Nashville Skyline album, specifically Dylan and Cash singing Girl from the North Country. BTW, this is a great album.

RR6

[RoadRunner6]

Live at the Star Club, Hamburg, Jerry Lee Lewis -- the purest, hardest rock & roll ever committed to record

Oh yes! OH YES!

Only four post into this thread and Finch Platte has brought up from the past one of the greatest Rock and Roll performers ever. Jerry Lee Lewis would have been at the top of the class if not for some unfortunate choices in marrying his very young cousin. That put the skids on his career. This is "Rock and Roll." at it greatest.

Of course I have to mention the greatest pop/rock group of all time, The Beatles. There are a number of choices and it is almost impossible to decide. So I'll list three of my favorites:

... A Hard Day's Night

... Help

... Abbey Road

Sugar Beats listed her criteria as: "Based on excellence, sustainabilty, context."

100 years from now no one will even know the name Pearl Jam. However, many, many of the songs that McCartney and Lennon wrote will still be covered by different types of musical groups from classical to jazz to pop/rock. These two prolific songwriters wrote song after song after song that have lasting memorable melodies, the true test of time.

RR6

[dean_martin]

Oh, GREAT choice! Sympathy for the Devel is one of the finest rock and roll songs ever. I also have to put the Stones Let It Bleed Album up there at the top also.

RR6

If someone who had never heard rock 'n roll asked me to recommend one album that best exemplifies rock 'n roll, I'd suggest Beggars Banquet because it has all the pieces that became rock - country, blues and gospel, and then balls-to-the-walls rockers like Stray Cat Blues. And like all great albums it has at least one transcendent track like Sympathy for the Devil.

But most of all, it's an unpretentious celebration of the proletariat class. Side 2 is the perfect everyman side: Street Fighting Man, Prodigal Son, Stray Cat Blues, Factory Girl, Salt of the Earth. It's the 1969 Plymouth Road Runner of music.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'd say the #1 rock album of all time is Led Zeppelin's 4th album. I have the album which I purchased when it was released, had the 8 track and now have the CD. Just so happens that the #1 most popular Rock-n-Roll song of all time is Stairway to Heaven.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

well sugar, I think you've exposed one of the greatest fears around here: to step up and pick something. "Oh no! That's too hard for me, but your pick sux."

I'm callin' you regs out. Stop whining and pick something. Hang your critic's hat on one of SB's parameters for greatest (not favorite) and say whatever pops into your pointy head.

I'll pick-up that gauntlet...

London Calling

Beggars Banquet is also a very good pick and one I considered, but in the end LC is the one.

[Stone]

well sugar, I think you've exposed one of the greatest fears around here: to step up and pick something. "Oh no! That's too hard for me, but your pick sux."

I'm callin' you regs out. Stop whining and pick something. Hang your critic's hat on one of SB's parameters for greatest (not favorite) and say whatever pops into your pointy head.

1. The Kinks - Are the Village Green Preservation Society
2. The Beatles - Revolver
3. The Clash - London Calling
4. The Beatles - Rubber Soul
5. Bob Dylan - Blood on the Tracks
6. Bob Marley & The Wailers - African Herbsman
7. Love - Forever Changes
8. Dead Kennedys - Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables
9. Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited
10. The Jesus and Mary Chain - Psychocandy
11. Suicidal Tendencies - Suicidal Tendencies
12. Ramones - Leave Home
13. The Kinks - Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround
14. Minutemen - Double Nickels on the Dime
15. The Modern Lovers - The Modern Lovers
16. Toots & the Maytals - Funky Kingston
17. Wire - Pink Flag
18. Big Star - Radio City
19. The Clash - The Clash
20. Bob Dylan - John Wesley Harding
21. Gang of Four - Entertainment!
22. Husker Du - New Day Rising
23. Bob Marley & the Wailers - Catch a Fire
24. Ramones - Ramones
25. Jane's Addiction - Nothing's Shocking
26. Bob Dylan - Blonde on Blonde
27. Elvis Costello - This Years Model
28. Black Flag - Damaged
29. Buzzcocks - Singles Going Steady
30. Johnny Cash - At Folsom Prison
31. The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead
32. Van Morrison - Astral Weeks
33. The Stooges - Fun House
34. Talking Heads - Remain In Light
35. Misfits - Walk Among Us
36. Pixies - Doolittle
37. Violent Femmes - Hallowed Ground
38. Lucinda Williams - Car Wheels On a Gravel Road
39. The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
40. Beastie Boys - Paul's Boutique
41. Fugazi - Repeater
42. Ramones - Rocket To Russia
43. Violent Femmes - Violent Femmes
44. The Connells - Boylan Heights
45. Hoodoo Gurus - Stoneage Romeos
46. Fugazi - 13 Songs
47. Bob Dylan - Bringing It All Back Home
48. Sex Pistols - Never Mind the Bollocks
49. Big Star - #1 Record
50. The Beatles - Abbey Road
51. Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the Sea
52. Bob Dylan - Another Side of Bob Dylan
53. The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses
54. The Zombies - Odessey & Oracle
55. Pavement - Slanted and Enchanted
56. Prince - Sign 'O' the Times
57. Big Star - Third/Sister Lovers
58. The Kinks - Arthur or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire
59. The Cure - The Head On the Door
60. The Beatles - The Beatles (White Album)
61. Dismemberment Plan - Emergency & I
62. The Flaming Lips - The Soft Bulletin
63. Bedhead - WhatFunLifeWas
64. Van Morrison - Moondance
65. Black Sabbath - Paranoid
66. The Smiths - Meat Is Murder
67. Billy Bragg - Life's a Riot With Spy vs. Spy
68. James Brown - Live at the Apollo, 1962
69. The Kinks - Something Else By The Kinks
70. Otis Redding - Otis Blue
71. The Replacements - Pleased To Meet Me
72. The Clash - Give 'em Enough Rope
73. Circle Jerks - Group Sex
74. Marshall Crenshaw - Marshall Crenshaw
75. Devo - Q: Are We Not Men?
76. The Feelies - Only Life
77. X - Los Angeles
78. Wire - 154
79. Manu Chao - Clandestino
80. Front 242 - Front By Front
81. Descendents - Milo Goes To College
82. XTC - Drums and Wires
83. The Jesus and Mary Chain - Darklands
84. Bob Marley & the Wailers - Burnin�
85. Van Morrison - Veedon Fleece
86. NoMeansNo - Wrong
87. Buck Owens and His Buckaroos - Live at Carnegie Hall
88. Rank and File - Sundown
89. Refused - The Shape of Punk To Come
90. The Replacements - Tim
91. The Saints - (I'm) Stranded
92. Simon & Garfunkel - Bookends
93. The Go-Betweens - 16 Lovers Lane
94. Buddy Holly - The "Chirping" Crickets
95. The Stooges - Raw Power
96. Caetano Veloso - Caetano Veloso (1967)
97. The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground & Nico
98. Love - da capo
99. Wire - Chairs Missing
100. The Celibate Rifles - The Turgid Miasma of Existence

[Luvin Da Blues]

Stone, I see you have the Bobs covered (Dylan & Marley). :thumbsup:

[GMichael]

It's hard to argue with the success of albums like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, The Beatle's White album or The Eagle's Hotel California, but song for song I'd like to put my vote in for Boston's first album. Every song was a hit.

[Sugar Beats]

Jeez! A girl tries to start a thread, what can I say, I like to have options. (what woman doesn't?)
If I had to pick a fav... It would either be Back in Black or London Calling.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Dylan might be big for some people... I just don't get him, I can barely understand a word the man says. :confused:

I can understand this with some of his tunes but the man is one of the top critically acclaimed songsters of all time. I challenge you to have a deeper listen (Tangled Up In Blue, Workingman's Blues #2, Buckets Of Rain, etc,.etc). If your interested, I could sent you a comp of, IMO, his better written, performed and recorded material.

[Sugar Beats]

I guess I'm always up for a challenge. Maybe inbetween the kids, the movie I am going to and the reg. weekend stuff, I'll take a listen... And then I'll let you know. I've just never liked him.

[GMichael]

I like to have options. (what woman doesn't?)


:sosp: :sosp: :sosp:

[Swish]

It's hard to argue with the success of albums like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, The Beatle's White album or The Eagle's Hotel California, but song for song I'd like to put my vote in for Boston's first album. Every song was a hit.

Oh, you really are. :p

Ok, it was likable and all, but the greatest of all time? It's not even on my radar screen. First of all, they had to rely on studio trickery to get those nice vocal harmonies and the dual lead guitar riffs (an octave splitter is the apparatus I'm pretty certain. It takes your voice or other instruments and, as the name implies, creates a duplicate sound that is an octave higher, or lower, as the case may be). Then, when they couldn't replicate it live, it was a huge disappointment to their fans, with many saying how 'flat' they sounded. Well, duh! That's akin to lip-syncing in my opinion.

I'm not refuting your choice because you like what you like, but I'm stating my reasons for not giving it credence on such an esteemed level.

[Mr MidFi]

London Calling is a terrific choice. So is DSOTM. So are Beggar's Banquet and Let It Bleed (and Sticky Fingers and Exile, for that matter). Revolver too.

I'll throw Who's Next and Born to Run into the mix, just for ****zen giggles. And REM's Reckoning, just because I gotta be me.

[GMichael]

Oh, you really are. :p

Ok, it was likable and all, but the greatest of all time? It's not even on my radar screen. First of all, they had to rely on studio trickery to get those nice vocal harmonies and the dual lead guitar riffs (an octave splitter is the apparatus I'm pretty certain. It takes your voice or other instruments and, as the name implies, creates a duplicate sound that is an octave higher, or lower, as the case may be). Then, when they couldn't replicate it live, it was a huge disappointment to their fans, with many saying how 'flat' they sounded. Well, duh! That's akin to lip-syncing in my opinion.

I'm not refuting your choice because you like what you like, but I'm stating my reasons for not giving it credence on such an esteemed level.

Fair enough, but I still stand by my choice.:thumbsup:

More honorable mentions go out to Kansas - Leftoverture, and ELP - Brain Salad Surgery.

[Swish]

....and should be in the top 25 or so.

Echo and the Bunnymen - Ocean Rain
XTC - Skylarking
XTC - English Settlement
Chameleons - Script of the Bridge
World Party - Goodbye Jumbo

[RoadRunner6]

Sugar Beats said

ROCK

Somebody listed Buck Owens and His Buckaroos - Live at Carnegie Hall......what are we smoking here folks?

[Sugar Beats]

what are we smoking here folks?

I don't know, but you got any you want to share!

Not a good day so far...could probably use something!

[Auricauricle]

In naming Dark Side of the Moon my pick as greatest album in Rock history, I realised I was going out on a limb. You guys have named albums that I have likewise considered: Hotel California, Rumors, Led Zep 4, Boston, etc.

First, for me DSOM is noteworthy for its awesome sales record that was usurped only when Michael Jackson's Thriller knocked it out of contention. To think that that album was Number One since its release in 1973 is pretty frickin' amazing.

Secondly, DSOM is a "compete album", in the sense that the cuts are great stand-alone hits but are integrated within the album in such a way that they represent a seamless whole. From the heartbeat that opens the album to the final beat, DSOM is a song cycle that is more contextual than many albums that are random assortments of great merit.

Thrird, DSOM is technologically very influential. With Alan Parsons at the helm in the control room, headphone listeners and quadrophonic fans were treated to a dazzling display of sound effects and musical wizadry that few albums to that time offered. Pink Floyd set the pace for a sound that opened up a huge vista of possibility for future musicians to emulate and perfect. DSOM ushered in this era and it is rightly appreciated if, not for anything else, for this enduring influence.

Fourthly, DSOM is not simply a "rock" album, but one whose musical influences span many genres that were integrated sensibly and with rare finesse. Without going into it, DSOM hearkens forth elements that can be likened to Stockhausen and Ligeti that soon shift to Blues, Jazz, Electronic (Ussachevsky, anyone?), Funk, and Rock. While it's true, many bands and musicians have brought their vast musical heritage to the stage, DSOM does so in a way that is, in my book, unrivalled.

Fifthly, and lastly (I can go on), DSOM is simply deep, man. While other groups sang about sunshine and marigolds, Pink Floyd was content to get to the nittiy-gritty of existence. I will concede that much of PF's earlier, Syd Barrett-inspired albums were rather trite, but that doesn't change the fact that as the band's sound and vision was honed, so did their dark message. DSOM is a thinking man's (or woman's) album, and cannot be casually laid aside once it's played.

So, there you go: My reasons for putting DSOM up, for good or ill but always, for your consideration!

[RoadRunner6]

Sorry Sugar Beats if you're having a bad day. Smokes don't help but maybe some happy music. Very nice thread you started, thanks (you've got my musical wheels a turnin).

I just get a chuckle when someone lists Buck Owens under rock. We used to call him country western. Many of the early Bob Dylan albums when originally released were considered folk music, not rock. Dylan started out as a folk singer not a rock star. Bob Marley and James Brown under rock? I guess the definition of the genre has expanded.

RR6 :thumbsup:

[GMichael]

In naming Dark Side of the Moon my pick as greatest album in Rock history, I realised I was going out on a limb. You guys have named albums that I have likewise considered: Hotel California, Rumors, Led Zep 4, Boston, etc.

First, for me DSOM is noteworthy for its awesome sales record that was usurped only when Michael Jackson's Thriller knocked it out of contention. To think that that album was Number One since its release in 1973 is pretty frickin' amazing.

Secondly, DSOM is a "compete album", in the sense that the cuts are great stand-alone hits but are integrated within the album in such a way that they represent a seamless whole. From the heartbeat that opens the album to the final beat, DSOM is a song cycle that is more contextual than many albums that are random assortments of great merit.

Thrird, DSOM is technologically very influential. With Alan Parsons at the helm in the control room, headphone listeners and quadrophonic fans were treated to a dazzling display of sound effects and musical wizadry that few albums to that time offered. Pink Floyd set the pace for a sound that opened up a huge vista of possibility for future musicians to emulate and perfect. DSOM ushered in this era and it is rightly appreciated if, not for anything else, for this enduring influence.

Fourthly, DSOM is not simply a "rock" album, but one whose musical influences span many genres that were integrated sensibly and with rare finesse. Without going into it, DSOM hearkens forth elements that can be likened to Stockhausen and Ligeti that soon shift to Blues, Jazz, Electronic (Ussachevsky, anyone?), Funk, and Rock. While it's true, many bands and musicians have brought their vast musical heritage to the stage, DSOM does so in a way that is, in my book, unrivalled.

Fifthly, and lastly (I can go on), DSOM is simply deep, man. While other groups sang about sunshine and marigolds, Pink Floyd was content to get to the nittiy-gritty of existence. I will concede that much of PF's earlier, Syd Barrett-inspired albums were rather trite, but that doesn't change the fact that as the band's sound and vision was honed, so did their dark message. DSOM is a thinking man's (or woman's) album, and cannot be casually laid aside once it's played.

So, there you go: My reasons for putting DSOM up, for good or ill but always, for your consideration!

I like your choice and can not dismiss any of your reasons. My only contention is that if I were to choose my favorite PF LP it would be Wish You Were Here instead.

Is no one going to bring up Yes - Fragile?

[ForeverAutumn]

I like your choice and can not dismiss any of your reasons. My only contention is that if I were to choose my favorite PF LP it would be Wish You Were Here instead.

Is no one going to bring up Yes - Fragile?

Ah hah, but the question wasn't "what is your favourite album". If it were I would agree with you that WYWH is a better album, musically, than DSOTM. But since that was not the question, I would have to agree with Auricauricle (how the heck do we shorten that?!).

Because the question is not, what is your favourite album, I would also dismiss Leftoverture. Although it is probably my all-time favourite album in the whole world, I'm not sure that it qualifies as Greatest Album in Rock History as defined by SB.

I might, however, include Bowie's Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. I also agree that London Calling is a very good answer.

[GMichael]

Ah hah, but the question wasn't "what is your favourite album". If it were I would agree with you that WYWH is a better album, musically, than DSOTM. But since that was not the question, I would have to agree with Auricauricle (how the heck do we shorten that?!).

Because the question is not, what is your favourite album, I would also dismiss Leftoverture. Although it is probably my all-time favourite album in the whole world, I'm not sure that it qualifies as Greatest Album in Rock History as defined by SB.

I might, however, include Bowie's Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. I also agree that London Calling is a very good answer.

In that case, do we need to throw in names like Bruce Springsteen and Elvis? (not that I think these two belong in the same sentence with each other)

[Ajani]

If Bob Marley (REGGAE) can be considered Rock, then Michael Jackson needs to be thrown in there too... Beat It and Dirty Diana are 2 of the best Rock songs of all time.... Billie Jean is just a masterpiece... And anyone who disagrees with me is a pixelthis clone (IMO)!!! Oh and did I mention that the ONLY version of 'Come Together' that I like is by MJ on the History Album (Beatles wrote great songs, too bad they couldn't also sing them)

Also, my favourite other Rock artists are:

Bon Jovi - Living on a Prayer and You give love a bad name... What's not to love???
Guns & Roses - November Rain & Knockin on Heaven's Door are amazing (oh yeah, Bob Dylan falls into the Beatles category as well)
AC/DC
The Eagles
Green Day
Prince

[Ajani]

DSOM was usurped only when Michael Jackson's Thriller knocked it out of contention.

Exactly my point... see, even AA realises that Thriller is the greatest Rock album of all time :ciappa:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Roger Waters is/was certainly a musical genius, no doubt about it. DSOM is surely a staple in any 60's and 70's Rock and Roll animal's collection and the Pink Floyd sound, even with the release of "Wish You Were Here" there was a distinctive and unmistakable familiarity that always kept me tuned in, even when I was spaced out, and vise versa. And I don't think I'll ever tire of David Gilmore's voice.

Bob Marley and James Brown under rock?
Bob Marley = Reggae which isn't Rock, and James Brown was the "King of Soul" so I don't know how that figues into this thread.

I don't know, but you got any you want to share!
:ihih:

Not a good day so far...could probably use something!
:ihih: :ihih: :ihih: ;)<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Rich-n-Texas]

Ah hah, but the question wasn't "what is your favourite album". If it were I would agree with you that WYWH is a better album, musically, than DSOTM. But since that was not the question, I would have to agree with Auricauricle (how the heck do we shorten that?!).

Because the question is not, what is your favourite album, I would also dismiss Leftoverture. Although it is probably my all-time favourite album in the whole world, I'm not sure that it qualifies as Greatest Album in Rock History as defined by SB.

I might, however, include Bowie's Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. I also agree that London Calling is a very good answer.
psych_nurse. You can type it pretty fast. :thumbsup:

[Auricauricle]

And I think this is where the discussion potentially disintegrates: Greatest in terms of Music and in terms of Influence. Like you, GM and FA, I think WYWH is musically more accessible; however in terms of influence and range, DSOM is vastly richer.

Mebbe this oughta be put into a different thread (I have considered it fodder for a blog entry, to be honest), I always had a soft spot for Ummagumma. While DSOM and WYWH (and even The Wall) were significant albums in their own right, Ummagumma was important for PF's rare displays of diplomacy. Compare it to future Waters driven albums (The Final Cut) and Gilmore fare (Momentary Lapse of Reason), Ummagumma gave wide berth to the individual members and presented the band in cohesive brilliance (Astronome Domine, Careful With that Axe, Eugene).

Back to Earth, now, Yes was certainly one of the top performers but I think they still command a cult crowd that surpasses main-stream appreciation and impact (this is a compliment, BTW). As for David Bowie, he belongs to a different discussion altogether, describing Greatest Rock Musicians (individuals). As such, he certainly deserves a place on Mount Olympus....

Finally, just call me aa (got rocks in the head, ya know!)

[Auricauricle]

Exactly my point... see, even AA realises that Thriller is the greatest Rock album of all time :ciappa:

C'mere, boy....Yer pickin' one, I got one fer yuh....:sosp:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Just so you know how much of an influence PF had on me, My recent concert DVD purchases were "Live at Pompeii", "Pulse" and "On an Island".

Nevertheless, Led Zep IV is still my hands down choice for the stated parameters.

[Auricauricle]

Me so GREEN!

I am not sure if Thriller can be called a "rock" album, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a significant and important one in its own right. Say what you will, Thriller deserves special merit for musicianship, technological prowess, sales and influence. Michael Jackson truly was a musical and perfomance prodigy, and I think that those fortunate to see his work were see a phenomenon that comes around very, very rarely.

Led Zep IV: Yeah, another worthy woofer killer to be sure!

[Sugar Beats]

Smokes don't help but maybe some happy music...


Any suggestions? I feel fresh out, brain melt... Can't think of any
"happy music" not in the mood I guess.

I don't smoke anyway, or drink. So no real "vices" there. It's not like
I'll go drown (sp?) my sorrows in a drink... even if I feel like I want to. :sad:

[ForeverAutumn]

Just so you know how much of an influence PF had on me, My recent concert DVD purchases were "Live at Pompeii", "Pulse" and "On an Island".


Go get David Gilmour Live in Gdansk with the 2 DVDs. Stunning.

[Swish]

Bon Jovi - Living on a Prayer and You give love a bad name... What's not to love???

I didn't think so.

[Ajani]

Me so GREEN!

I am not sure if Thriller can be called a "rock" album, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a significant and important one in its own right. Say what you will, Thriller deserves special merit for musicianship, technological prowess, sales and influence. Michael Jackson truly was a musical and perfomance prodigy, and I think that those fortunate to see his work were see a phenomenon that comes around very, very rarely.

Led Zep IV: Yeah, another worthy woofer killer to be sure!

Thriller is a great album... I don't think it really counts as Rock either (I think 'Beat It' is about the only 'Rock' song on Thriller), but if we're going to count Bob Marley, then why not MJ?

[Ajani]

I didn't think so.

You're banished from this thread and sentenced to debating Plasma Vs LCD with Pixelthis for your insolence!!!

[kexodusc]

well sugar, I think you've exposed one of the greatest fears around here: to step up and pick something. "Oh no! That's too hard for me, but your pick sux."

I'm callin' you regs out. Stop whining and pick something. Hang your critic's hat on one of SB's parameters for greatest (not favorite) and say whatever pops into your pointy head.
Congrats Dean-o...way to stand up and speak the truth.
Your post gets 4 Kexticles for having balls!!!

@@@@

[GMichael]

Congrats Dean-o...way to stand up and speak the truth.
Your post gets 4 Kexticles for having balls!!!

@@@@

Oh no you did not! :nonod:

[Auricauricle]

Brain Melt?

How about Tangerine Dream?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYUh88gr7DI

[kexodusc]

I could have been cool and tough and picked some lame-ass also-ran rock band's hit album (most of my personal favs), but Dark Side of the Moon is it. Undisputed champ.

It has, and continues to significantly impact the rock'n roll lives of more people that matter more than just about every other album mentioned here so far put together.

And it's not my favorite Floyd album, but damn...when millions of people start dubbing "The Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead" to the Snow White movie seeking some sort of substance assisted out-of-this-world experience we'll have a challenger.

[Sugar Beats]

Originally Posted by dean_martin
well sugar, I think you've exposed one of the greatest fears around here: to step up and pick something. "Oh no! That's too hard for me, but your pick sux."

I'm callin' you regs out. Stop whining and pick something. Hang your critic's hat on one of SB's parameters for greatest (not favorite) and say whatever pops into your pointy head.

Congrats Dean-o...way to stand up and speak the truth.
Your post gets 4 Kexticles for having balls!!!


Well Kex, I did pick London Calling up there for my personal choice, and you and the rest of you can take your opinions re: my list and shove them up your arse! "Way to stand up and speak the truth" Ha! That's laughable... I'm the one you started the thread, so screw off... (that's my opinion) If I think your picks "suck" at least I'm gracious enough to keep it to myself.

[GMichael]

Are you OK Sugar?

[kexodusc]

Originally Posted by dean_martin
well sugar, I think you've exposed one of the greatest fears around here: to step up and pick something. "Oh no! That's too hard for me, but your pick sux."

I'm callin' you regs out. Stop whining and pick something. Hang your critic's hat on one of SB's parameters for greatest (not favorite) and say whatever pops into your pointy head.

Congrats Dean-o...way to stand up and speak the truth.
Your post gets 4 Kexticles for having balls!!!


Well Kex, I did pick London Calling up there for my personal choice, and you and the rest of you can take your opinions re: my list and shove them up your arse! "Way to stand up and speak the truth" Ha! That's laughable... I'm the one you started the thread, so screw off... (that's my opinion) If I think your picks "suck" at least I'm gracious enough to keep it to myself.
Sugar...I fear you may have interpreted my post to Dean as an indirect assault on your thread...which is not the case.
I like your thread (I always like these types of threads) and applaud you for not trying to cop-out by saying something like "lists are pointless" or "it's all personal preference". If you gotta an opinion, shout it out....you obviously did. You get 4 Kexticles too!
@@@@
I think Dean was sorta saying the same thing but I just found his post to be funny and applauded it.

Hope everything's cool? (don't hit me).

Edit: I don't think I insulted your list or selection either...

[Rich-n-Texas]

SB, not only will you find kexo very knowledgeable about everything A/V, but he's also the most diplomatic member here. I agree with deano and him Re: post #10 earlier. If you're not in this forum to talk about Wilco, Porpushead and bands of that ilk, you're generally going to find the club members here will thumb their noses at you. My opinion, take it FWIW.

This thread has gone to about 60 posts in 1 day, so that's a feather in YOUR cap. We're glad to have you here. :thumbsup:

[Sugar Beats]

Apologies are in order...
You're right I misinterpreted what was being said.
I know you didn't insult my selection.
I'm having a very~extremely~ terrible day.
So just a little edgy. Sorry...
Thanks for the Kexticles.
Sorry, I don't mean this the wrong way, but that sounded like a really creepy word as I just tried to spell that out!
Everythings cool.

[Swish]

You're banished from this thread and sentenced to debating Plasma Vs LCD with Pixelthis for your insolence!!!

Now that was funny. But seriously, Bon Jovi? Oh man.

[Swish]

SB, not only will you find kexo very knowledgeable about everything A/V, but he's also the most diplomatic member here. I agree with deano and him Re: post #10 earlier. If you're not in this forum to talk about Wilco, Porpushead and bands of that ilk, you're generally going to find the club members here will thumb their noses at you. My opinion, take it FWIW.

This thread has gone to about 60 posts in 1 day, so that's a feather in YOUR cap. We're glad to have you here. :thumbsup:

Wilco and 'Porpushead' aren't even in the same ballpark. :out:

[Sugar Beats]

I was waiting for someone to say something about that!

seriously, Bon Jovi? Oh man.

That was a few posts ago, I'm surprised it took you so long! Heehee

[Sugar Beats]

Are you OK Sugar?

Inquiring minds want to know?! Thanks for asking.

Most days I'd say yes, my friend, but not today. Today is a real
suck cheese kinda day of the worst variety. But oh well, I'm hoping for better tomorrow.

I do appreciate you asking though, Thanks GMichael.

[GMichael]

Hang in there Sugar. We all have those days. It gets better.

[dean_martin]

I'll pick-up that gauntlet...

London Calling

Beggars Banquet is also a very good pick and one I considered, but in the end LC is the one.

I don't think I've ever actually owned London Calling on any format. Found it on vinyl @ tower.com and it's on order!

[dean_martin]

Congrats Dean-o...way to stand up and speak the truth.
Your post gets 4 Kexticles for having balls!!!

@@@@

Luv my new matched quad! I feel like startin' a bar room brawl. Thank you, Kex.

[Auricauricle]

Sugar's low...A low sugar day....How low, Sugar? Hello, Sugar! Er........

Come on you, laggards....!

All together now: "Always look on the bright side of life..."

[ForeverAutumn]

Now that was funny. But seriously, Bon Jovi? Oh man.

Now if the question was hottest guy in rock history...Jon would have my vote hands down. He's yummy! :arf:

[MindGoneHaywire]

If there can only be one...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61khNXAllTL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

[Ajani]

To all you Bon Jovi haters in this thread:

Kiss My Hairy Black @$$!!!!

OK, maybe that was a tad over-the-top... but anyway, Living on a Prayer & Blaze of Glory are awesome, regardless of what all you Pink Floyd Loving Hippies think....

[Rich-n-Texas]

Bon Jovi couldn't carry Springsteen's jock strap. :rolleyes:

[Rich-n-Texas]

To all you Bon Jovi haters in this thread:

Kiss My Hairy Black @$$!!!!

OK, maybe that was a tad over-the-top... but anyway, Living on a Prayer & Blaze of Glory are awesome, regardless of what all you Pink Floyd Loving Hippies think....
Little too much info there sparky. :ciappa:

[RoadRunner6]

Sugar Beats, here are a few songs that make me smile or want to get up and dance, maybe one will lift your spirits:

... Good Vibrations - Beach Boys

... Here Comes The Sun - The Beatles

... What A Feeling (Flashdance) - Irene Cara

... Peaceful Easy Feeling - Eagles

... Touch Me (All Night Long) - Cathy Dennis

... September - Earth, Wind and Fire

... Time to Say Goodbye - Sarah Brightman & Andrea Bocelli

... Fresh - Kool and the Gang

... Daydream - Lovin' Spoonful

... Good Vibrations - Marky Mark and The Funky Bunch

RR6 (dancing on the ceiling)

[Sugar Beats]

Thanks! Just hearing the name "Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch" makes me laugh!

I do enjoy some Earth, Wind & Fire, so good choice, I think I'll start w/ that one!

Thank you much!

[3-LockBox]

Well, well...congrats SB! I've been a member here (in more ways than one) for nearly a decade and I don't think any post of mine has exploded the way this one did.

As far as my pick goes, I have to give a nod to DSotM as well. It's still a benchmark in engineering and recording quality, and its maintained its hipness for over 3 decades now, with no sign of ever becoming irrelevent. It remains one of the most well-known and influential albums in the modern era.

[Swish]

If there can only be one...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61khNXAllTL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Made me smile.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well, well...congrats SB! I've been a member here (in more ways than one) for nearly a decade and I don't think any post of mine has exploded the way this one did.

As far as my pick goes, I have to give a nod to DSotM as well. It's still a benchmark in engineering and recording quality, and its maintained its hipness for over 3 decades now, with no sign of ever becoming irrelevent. It remains one of the most well-known and influential albums in the modern era.
If only Roger and David had been able to work out their differences...

[bobsticks]

Auri makes a compelling argument for Dark Side.... While on a personal level I agree that it's not even my favorite Floyd disc, that's a hard dollar taking on that fight against. On the other hand, there's prolly thirty-five albums that Stone mentioned that I'd spin first, including Buck and the Buckaroos...and I wasn't even around for the Sixties...so what do I know?


well sugar, I think you've exposed one of the greatest fears around here: to step up and pick something. "Oh no! That's too hard for me, but your pick sux."

I'm callin' you regs out. Stop whining and pick something. Hang your critic's hat on one of SB's parameters for greatest (not favorite) and say whatever pops into your pointy head.

Damn, deano...babe...you do realise that for some of us this Rock'n'Roll comprises maybe twenty percent of our total listening diet. But, for tonight only, you are my muse...

NP: http://lh6.ggpht.com/_fAT7UABRBOo/SH9Ds483gMI/AAAAAAAADJ8/I5lCS13uuOA/Rolling_Stones_Big_Hits_High_Tide_And_Green_GrassA--%5BFront%5D-%5Bwww.FreeCovers.net%5D.jpg

[nobody]

I'm totally one of those whiners who thnks this is silly and impossible. But, amke me pick and I'd go with a double of something most likely. When feeling all American and patriotic, I'd take the Minutemen: Doubles Nickels on the Dine...when feeling a bit more anglocentric...London Calling's as good a choice as any.

And sorry, but I don't really believe in any objective "greatest." These are just 2 albums I've played to death and always pop to the top of the stack eventually for me. And I could just as easily replaced those 2 with about 10-20 others and not feel like I made any lesser choice.

[Jack in Wilmington]

It's hard to argue with the success of albums like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, The Beatle's White album or The Eagle's Hotel California, but song for song I'd like to put my vote in for Boston's first album. Every song was a hit.

But GM isn't that like saying you can't argue with the success of American Idol. Just cause it's the most watched show on TV doesn't make it good. I do agree with your choice of Boston and the White Album.

[kexodusc]

If I had to pick a few nominees for runners up:
Megadeth - Countdown to Extinction - Metal meets mainstream- it's been matched, but never surpassed.
Skid Row - Sebastian Bach f'n rocks.
Scorpions - Love at First Sting - "Hello America, you ahh craazzy we are Scorpions, rock you like a Huricaaaaaaane."
Nirvana - Nevermind....Yeah, I said it. I grew up with it. It dominated culture unlike anything since...

Just a few.

[02audionoob]

If I had to pick a few nominees for runners up:
Megadeth - Countdown to Extinction - Metal meets mainstream- it's been matched, but never surpassed.
Skid Row - Sebastian Bach f'n rocks.
Scorpions - Love at First Sting - "Hello America, you ahh craazzy we are Scorpions, rock you like a Huricaaaaaaane."
Nirvana - Nevermind....Yeah, I said it. I grew up with it. It dominated culture unlike anything since...

Just a few.

For the generation that grew up with it, I'd say the selection of Nevermind is pretty darn reasonable. Has anyone here given any love to Who's Next?

[RoadRunner6]

Thanks! Just hearing the name "Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch" makes me laugh!

He only did two albums and then went on to movie acting. This was his only big hit, not a bad dance song. Make sure you have your sound turned up and ignore the video. My wife can dance all night to these two songs and also the last dance scene from the movie Chicago with Renee Zellweger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sle7nBwM8JM

If you need any more try Dr. Alban, Sing Hallelujah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L03JVPaZpyc

(If this doen't help, take two aspirin and call me in the morning)

RR6 :D

[Troy]

Yeah,I'm one of those whiners too. There cannot be a "correct" answer to this because it's 100% opinion. Arguing about it is futile.

I side with DSOTM too, but it's a personal favorite with a tremendous personal meaning to my formative years. I can see people saying it doesn't rock enough, tho.

If an alien came to me and said "Show me what rock music is." I'd probably play "Who's Next" for them. Even though it's not even in my favorite 25 albums, that one always seemed to define what rock is for me. I dunno.

[ForeverAutumn]

If an alien came to me and said "Show me what rock music is."...

Wow. That could be a whole thread on it's own...

[02audionoob]

If an alien came to me and said "Show me what rock music is." I'd probably play "Who's Next" for them. Even though it's not even in my favorite 25 albums, that one always seemed to define what rock is for me. I dunno.

That's a great assessment of Who's Next. I haven't listened to it in years, but it's very noteworthy.

[Rich-n-Texas]

My runner up is Patti Smith: Horses. Before there was Pat Benetar, before there was Ann & Nancy Wilson, there was the great poet, Patti Smith.

[RoadRunner6]

To me (senior citizen) there is a distinction between Rock and Rock and Roll.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Elaborate please Road Runner. I'm 51 and I'm not understanding the difference.

[3-LockBox]

Can anyone here tell me what a self-choking masturbator is?

self-choking masturbators is a not-so-sensative description of those who practice in the 'art' of auto-erotica asphixiation, including some of our more talented music artists, like Michael Hutchence and Kevin Gilbert. It might be worth noting that the reason anyone knows who's doing this sort of thing is usually when these hobbyists are found dead from taking it to the limit, one more time.

You'll have to look up auto-erotica asphixiation on your own ;)

[RoadRunner6]

Elaborate please Road Runner. I'm 51 and I'm not understanding the difference.

Wow Rich, this really opens up a discussion I don't know if SB wanted to get into. I'll try to be brief. I am not a musician so can't accurately talk to tempo, etc.

To me Rock is a very broad general term used to cover every form of rock music from the 50's to the present which would, include rock n' roll, hard rock, country rock, pop rock, blues-rock, psychedelic rock, heavy metal rock, punk rock, grunge rock, indie rock, and others.

The original form I would attempt to combine into the term rock n' roll which was a blending of country, blues, r & b, gospel, folk, boogie-woogie and honky tonk. White performers tended to have a little more country and hence I think the rockabilly term was used. Black performers were more on the r & b side. Rock n' Roll progressed into rock, hard rock, blues-rock, psychedelic rock and country rock in the late 60's and the 70's and on to other forms of rock.

When I started to read this thread I had no problem with the general term rock until I heard the name Jerry Lee Lewis. Now, I said to myself, that is rock n' roll!

With my lack of writing skills it is sometimes easier to say what songs are and who played rock n' roll rather than to define it.

Rock n' roll performers to me included, Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, Buddy Holly, Gene Vincent, the early Beatles, Elvis Presley, The Beach Boys, the early Rolling Stones, the Del-Vikings, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Creedence Clearwater Revival, just to mention some of the most well known. A later example of a rock n' roll song from a performer in 1980 would be Bob Seger's Betty Lou's Getting Out Tonight, now that is rock n' roll.

Some examples of performers I would classify as not rock n' roll singers (this will raise lots of eyebrows) are, Aretha Franklin, Roy Orbison, Bo Diddley and James Brown.

I was in grade school, high school and university from about 50 thru 67. I grew up with the birth of rock n' roll and its development thru the 60's. I know I have missed many here and have not touched on the earlier performers who helped influence and shape the beginnings. Hope this all makes some sense as I try to differenciate the term Rock n' Roll.

RR6 :4:

[BradH]

[QUOTE=RoadRunner6]Hope this all makes some sense as I try to differenciate the term Rock n' Roll].

Makes sense to me, I always thought of it like that.

Haven't seen a thread blow up like this in years.

The best throw down, get up, get on, get off vinyl butt whuppin' of all time?

Right now it's Who's Next.

Ask me again, it'll be something else.

[kexodusc]

On a thread like this there's been a few notable absences (forgive me if I didn't see them)...someone should probably mention The Doors by now. Don't think I've seen any Beatles, either.

Who's Next is a great pick I can't argue with.

[kexodusc]

Elaborate please Road Runner. I'm 51 and I'm not understanding the difference.
Wow aren't you too old to be driving a Firebird? I hear you can get a good Buick cheap these days. :ciappa:
j/k. I never would have guessed.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Maybe not the "Greatest Rock Album" but a very underrated album IMO is Ten Years After "A Space In Time". This has a permanent place in my top 25 anyway.

[Ajani]

Wow Rich, this really opens up a discussion I don't know if SB wanted to get into. I'll try to be brief. I am not a musician so can't accurately talk to tempo, etc.

To me Rock is a very broad general term used to cover every form of rock music from the 50's to the present which would, include rock n' roll, hard rock, country rock, pop rock, blues-rock, psychedelic rock, heavy metal rock, punk rock, grunge rock, indie rock, and others.

The original form I would attempt to combine into the term rock n' roll which was a blending of country, blues, r & b, gospel, folk, boogie-woogie and honky tonk. White performers tended to have a little more country and hence I think the rockabilly term was used. Black performers were more on the r & b side. Rock n' Roll progressed into rock, hard rock, blues-rock, psychedelic rock and country rock in the late 60's and the 70's and on to other forms of rock.

When I started to read this thread I had no problem with the general term rock until I heard the name Jerry Lee Lewis. Now, I said to myself, that is rock n' roll!

With my lack of writing skills it is sometimes easier to say what songs are and who played rock n' roll rather than to define it.

Rock n' roll performers to me included, Bill Haley, Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, Buddy Holly, Gene Vincent, the early Beatles, Elvis Presley, The Beach Boys, the early Rolling Stones, the Del-Vikings, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Creedence Clearwater Revival, just to mention some of the most well known. A later example of a rock n' roll song from a performer in 1980 would be Bob Seger's Betty Lou's Getting Out Tonight, now that is rock n' roll.

Some examples of performers I would classify as not rock n' roll singers (this will raise lots of eyebrows) are, Aretha Franklin, Roy Orbison, Bo Diddley and James Brown.

I was in grade school, high school and university from about 50 thru 67. I grew up with the birth of rock n' roll and its development thru the 60's. I know I have missed many here and have not touched on the earlier performers who helped influence and shape the beginnings. Hope this all makes some sense as I try to differenciate the term Rock n' Roll.

RR6 :4:

So does that mean you don't think Michael Jackson is a Rock n Roll Artist? :ciappa:

But yeah, that seems a sensible explanation to me.... There are clearly multiple types of 'Rock' and classifying who falls into what category can get tricky (especially since Artists don't always stick to just one type of Rock (or music in general) for an entire album, much less a career)....

[Ajani]

Nirvana - Nevermind....Yeah, I said it. I grew up with it. It dominated culture unlike anything since...

I'd have to agree, Nirvana dominated my teenage years.... Though to be honest, every time I hear 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', I automatically start singing Weird Al's 'Smell Likes Nirvana' instead....

[Swish]

Maybe not the "Greatest Rock Album" but a very underrated album IMO is Ten Years After "A Space In Time". This has a permanent place in my top 25 anyway.

I have that on vinyl (like that's a big deal) and haven't listened to it in years. I will be doing that today though...One of these days boy!

Nice call!

P.S. Still digging those blues comps you sent me. I got some of that stuff, but not more than 25%, and it's all good.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I have that on vinyl (like that's a big deal) and haven't listened to it in years. I will be doing that today though...One of these days boy!

Nice call!

P.S. Still digging those blues comps you sent me. I got some of that stuff, but not more than 25%, and it's all good.

Alvin Lee's still Rockin' these daze, have you heard his '07 album 'Saguitar'. Alvin never got the accolades he deserves. Very underrated, he ranks up there with the best IMO (listen to Uncle Jam).

[RoadRunner6]

So does that mean you don't think Michael Jackson is a Rock n Roll Artist? :ciappa:

But yeah, that seems a sensible explanation to me.... There are clearly multiple types of 'Rock' and classifying who falls into what category can get tricky (especially since Artists don't always stick to just one type of Rock (or music in general) for an entire album, much less a career)....

IMO Michael Jackson is not a rock n' roll performer (I hate the term artist for singer/songwriters). I would classify him as a kiddie rock n' roll performer. :wink5:

This discussion could go on forever and with many levels of rock classifications. Agree with you Ajani, many performers or groups as I mentioned might have been into rock n' roll at some time in their career, usually early on like the Beatles and Stones. Some even switched from rock n' roll to R & B to blues in the same album.

RR6

[RoadRunner6]

On a thread like this there's been a few notable absences (forgive me if I didn't see them)...someone should probably mention The Doors by now. Don't think I've seen any Beatles, either.

Who's Next is a great pick I can't argue with.

Shame on you Kex for missing my earlier comment (you lose two Kexticles):

RR6 stated: "..........Of course I have to mention the greatest pop/rock group of all time, The Beatles. There are a number of choices and it is almost impossible to decide. So I'll list three of my favorites:

... A Hard Day's Night

... Help

... Abbey Road.........."

(I don't put the usual picks at the top like White Album/Sgt Pepper/Revolver)

RR6 :9:

[Gerall]

I too put DSOM up at the top with Fleetwood Mac Rumors, and Beatles White.. But we all seem to have favorites that bring back memories, for one reason or another. While not really rock and roll, my all time sentimental favorite, is Black Sabbath Paranoid. Still remember crusing in 68 Roadrunner listening to the 8 track of Paranoid. I still have a pristeen collection of 8 track, cassette, vinyl, and cd of that album. Unfortunately, sold the RoadRunner in 73 :-(

[Sugar Beats]

Yea! I'm glad to see someone else post re: Fleetwood Mac Rumors.

[Luvin Da Blues]

....While not really rock and roll, my all time sentimental favorite, is Black Sabbath Paranoid. Still remember crusing in 68 Roadrunner listening to the 8 track of Paranoid. I still have a pristeen collection of 8 track, cassette, vinyl, and cd of that album. Unfortunately, sold the RoadRunner in 73 :-(

Maybe not R&R but most definitely ROCK. Real decent SQ, on vinyl anyway. Great album.

[emesbee]

Shame on you Kex for missing my earlier comment (you lose two Kexticles):

RR6 stated: "..........Of course I have to mention the greatest pop/rock group of all time, The Beatles. There are a number of choices and it is almost impossible to decide. So I'll list three of my favorites:

... A Hard Day's Night

... Help

... Abbey Road.........."

(I don't put the usual picks at the top like White Album/Sgt Pepper/Revolver)

RR6 :9:

I have a soft spot for 'Rubber Soul'. Some great songs, such as 'Drive My Car', 'Nowhere Man' and 'In My Life'. I reckon they were starting to sound more mature on this album, but it was before the experimentation which started with Revolver.

[kexodusc]

Shame on you Kex for missing my earlier comment (you lose two Kexticles):

RR6 stated: "..........Of course I have to mention the greatest pop/rock group of all time, The Beatles. There are a number of choices and it is almost impossible to decide. So I'll list three of my favorites:

... A Hard Day's Night

... Help

... Abbey Road.........."

(I don't put the usual picks at the top like White Album/Sgt Pepper/Revolver)

RR6 :9:
Ooops...sorry to overlook your post...lucky for me I have ample Kexticles of the self-regenerating variety.
Abbey Road is one of the few I kinda like. I think I'm just too young to dig the Beatles seriously or something. Though, without question, I respect their massive contribution to the evolution of rock, right down to influencing so many musicians I dig today.

[ForeverAutumn]

I think I'm just too young to dig the Beatles seriously or something. Though, without question, I respect their massive contribution to the evolution of rock, right down to influencing so many musicians I dig today.

That's how I felt up until last year. I always just wrote them off as pop fluff that I heard too much of on the radio and in elevators. But then, spurred on by a few folks on this board, I picked up a couple of CDs and really listened. I was suprised at how much I actually enjoyed the music and even picked up a few more disks.

Then again, I do have a little over 10 years on you. :smilewinkgrin:

[kexodusc]

That's how I felt up until last year. I always just wrote them off as pop fluff that I heard too much of on the radio and in elevators. But then, spurred on by a few folks on this board, I picked up a couple of CDs and really listened. I was suprised at how much I actually enjoyed the music and even picked up a few more disks.

Then again, I do have a little over 10 years on you. :smilewinkgrin:
Believe me, I've tried to get into them....I bought a dozen CD's I do listen to them, don't hate them, moderately enjoy it, but I've been compromised by time I think.

I didn't really start appreciating anything other than top 40 music until the early 90's...learning to play instruments lead me to the music of the 80's, 70's, 60's etc...I did it in reverse order.
I really believe I'd heard so much stuff that had the Beatles in their music that by the time I got to the Beatles there wasn't much "new" or enough excitement left.

Dunno.
I love Neil Young and Johnny Cash though and they've been around forever....

Still, from time to time, the Beatles hit my rotation. I find Dylan, Hendrix, or even Crosby, Stills, and Nash, etc far more interesting though.

[bobsticks]

Believe me, I've tried to get into them....I bought a dozen CD's I do listen to them, don't hate them, moderately enjoy it, but I've been compromised by time I think.

I didn't really start appreciating anything other than top 40 music until the early 90's...learning to play instruments lead me to the music of the 80's, 70's, 60's etc...I did it in reverse order.
I really believe I'd heard so much stuff that had the Beatles in their music that by the time I got to the Beatles there wasn't much "new" or enough excitement left.

Dunno.
I love Neil Young and Johnny Cash though and they've been around forever....

Still, from time to time, the Beatles hit my rotation. I find Dylan, Hendrix, or even Crosby, Stills, and Nash, etc far more interesting though.

ditto.

I'll listen to Floyd, Hendrix, Johnny Cash, and Neil Young all day...the Beattles, meh.

[GMichael]

I like a lot of the music from The Beatles and appreciate all the influences they've brought us. Most of it's entertaining and can even get my feet tapping. But I've never really loved their music. It's just ok. It's rare that I would listen to one of their CD's more than once before reaching for something else.
I would however put them much higher on my list than names like, The Doors, The Who or even The Stones.

[Auricauricle]

Kinda reminds me of my life in mid-eighties Japan, where a friend of mine and I were distainful of a crowd of Beatle-Maniacs (snotty f*****ers called "Little America". Hmph!). While they cavorted to the likes of "She Loves You (Yeah, Yeah)", Jerry and I were cerebral, listening to Brian Eno, Tangerine Dream, PF, The Doors, Peter Gabriel etc. Making matters more interesting was a local bar, called "Strawberry Fields", where Little America would occasionally hang out and sing John and Paul songs until the whole neighborhood was in tune. Meanwhile Jer' and I had our own lair, "The Pumpkin", situated appropriately accross the alley, where we could groove on Deep Purple, Steppenwolf, etc. I seem to remember getting blotto on large quantities of their signature drink, Mojo and sneering at the insipidness of the crap on the other side of the street.

Ironically, I have given a bit more berth to the Beatles' music. While I still have a difficult time digesting some of their light-hearted singles, I have begun appreciating much of their songcraft, if not their persona which really was something to behold. I realise that the element attracted to the Beatles was and is different than those die-hard fans of "deep" music. But this doesn't detract from the fact that the Beatles occasionally spun a decent song or two. It was the song, "A Day in the Life" that turned me over, and convinced me that Paul and John might have more in between their ears than cotton candy.

[nobody]

Ringo was the best Beatle. He made that really great caveman movie.

[Davey]

Obviously ... Le Chat Bleu by Mink DeVille.

[BradH]

I realise that the element attracted to the Beatles was and is different than those die-hard fans of "deep" music.

That's just nonsense. I can't think of any kind way to describe it. They weren't just pop or just deep, they had both aspects and every level in between. It's a rare combination you don't see too often - The Police had it and, to a lesser extent, Steely Dan and Supertramp, maybe a few others. The Beatles attracted plenty of heavy musos in the 60's, tons of 'em. Every prog rock act in the U.K. flourished under their wings. It's a fact. Right from the Beatles first recording years they were doing something new and radical. Dylan talked about hearing them the first time on a car radio with his buddies. They were laughing at the lyrics ("She Loves You") and he laughed with them but he listened to the chords they were playing and inside he knew these guys were damned good.

There are a lot of people on this forum who would agree with you but, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks The Beatles (or The Police for that matter) weren't "deep" can get a clue. And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.

So, today the Best Album In Rock History is Rubber Soul.

[02audionoob]

To this day, Lennon-McCartney still reign supreme as the co-kings of the pop song.

[nobody]

I just don't enjoy listening to much Beatles. I pretty much think they started off great with I Saw Her Standing There and went steadily downhill. But, that's probably because I tend to not enjoy too much complicated rock stuff from that era. And, when I hear a later song I do like, it's usually followed-up with something I can't get into. I could probably enjoy a custom compilation CD of theirs quite a lot. But, as far as dragging out all the albums, they just don't do it for me.

[Davey]

So, today the Best Album In Rock History is Rubber Soul.

Right behind Le Chat Bleu!

But it's no fun when you include the Beatles, I mean how can anyone top the near perfection of Rubber Soul?

[emesbee]

It seems odd reading some of the comments about the Beatles here. To me, the Beatles were unique and innovative. No other band sounds the same. In seven short years they wrote and recorded dozens of great songs. I love their music, have all their albums and frequently play them. No matter what else I listen to, whenever I play a Beatles album, all is right in the world!

[Luvin Da Blues]

I could probably enjoy a custom compilation CD of theirs quite a lot.........


A quick thread jacking. This might to it for you....

1. The Beatles - Taxman (2:39)
2. The Beatles - The Word (2:43)
3. The Beatles - Yer Blues (4:01)
4. The Beatles - Think For Yourself (2:19)
5. The Beatles - Sexy Sadie (3:15)
6. The Beatles - Nowhere Man (2:44)
7. The Beatles - I Am The Walrus (4:37)
8. The Beatles - I've Got A Feeling (3:37)
9. The Beatles - Savoy Truffle (2:54)
10. The Beatles - Run For Your Life (2:18)
11. The Beatles - I'll Be Back (2:20)
12. The Beatles - In My Life (2:27)
13. The Beatles - And I Love Her (2:31)
14. The Beatles - One After 909 (2:55)
15. The Beatles - Ticket To Ride (3:12)
16. The Beatles - Things We Said Today (2:38)
17. The Beatles - Drive My Car (2:30)
18. The Beatles - Get Back (3:14)
19. The Beatles - Don't Let Me Down (3:34)
20. The Beatles - A Day In The Life (5:33)
21. The Beatles - Cry Baby Cry (3:10)
22. The Beatles - While My Guitar Gently Weeps (4:45)
23. The Beatles - I'm Looking Through You (2:27)
24. The Beatles - I'm So Tired (2:03)

Just a CD for the car of stuff that still works for me. If you or anyone is interested let me know.

[BradH]

I could probably enjoy a custom compilation CD of theirs quite a lot

I'm sure J could fix you up. Or me. (EDIT: Didn't see LDB's post in time.)

I'd probably just send the new Star Club boot from Purple Chick.

Just don't turn into a hippie like J. He's been listening to Can...


But it's no fun when you include the Beatles, I mean how can anyone top the near perfection of Rubber Soul?

Well there's....umm.....

Oh hell, you forgot about Night Ranger! DUDE!!!

[MindGoneHaywire]

That's Mr. Hippy to you, peon.

Could you do me a favor & throw Finchy a Kleenex? I think I hurt his feelings.

Wait. Was that in this thread?

I'm confused.

The Beatles? They were okay, but it's not like anybody's going to be listening to that in 40 years.

[BradH]

Wait. Was that in this thread?

I'm confused.

After nine years it's all one thread. Fuggit.

I saw Journey in '77. I thought they guzzled llama schlong but I appreciate their contribution to hair metal.

Oh, that's done it...

[nobody]

Thanks, but any Beatles comp for me would be heavy on early songs. I think they should have stuck to the suits...very sharp. I have always found the White Album and Abbey Road particularly annoying. Sgt. Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour not far behind.

You two need to start playing nice.

[MindGoneHaywire]

No.

Did I not send you a comp I made for a similarly anti-Beatles partisan that I titled "Remedial Beatles Appreciation?"

I think this thread has been hijacked enough. I do think it's worth mentioning that Thriller strikes me as a damn good choice. Loaded with hits. But, I do wonder how much the otherwise whatever-esque Steve Lukather brought to that project that he may not have gotten enough credit for.

I think about these things.

[BradH]

I do think it's worth mentioning that Thriller strikes me as a damn good choice.

But then you get into Thriller vs. Purple Rain and which one was really rock.


I think about these things.

HaHa! That's just weird.

Hey, who do you think made the greatest album recorded in London on 16-track by an engineer with sideburns and drinking Earl Grey? There can't be that many.

Anyway, back on track.

The Greatest Album in Rock History is Sly & The Family Stone - Stand!

[nobody]

I prefer Off The Wall to Thriller.

No, never sent me the remedial Beatles. But trust me, my lack of appreciation is not due to lack of hearing them.

Kinda like Journey.

[emesbee]

Thanks, but any Beatles comp for me would be heavy on early songs. I think they should have stuck to the suits...very sharp. I have always found the White Album and Abbey Road particularly annoying. Sgt. Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour not far behind.


Nah, it was when they got rid of the suits that they got really interesting. Revolver, Sgt Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour was when they were at their best. The White Album was a bit of a mish-mash, consisting of a lot of songs thrown together, but still has a lot of great material. Abbey Road was actually the last album they recorded, but not the last they released, which was Let It Be. Apparently they became dissatisfied with Let It Be while they were recording it, so shelved it and did Abbey Road. They only released Let It Be later.

[MindGoneHaywire]

No way, daddy-o.

I'm only doing this because Finch thinks I think I'm cool.

I should have put this up against Dark Side Of The Moon sooner, but...


http://www.bartemon.net/galerie/img/2f_1_b.jpg

[nobody]

We gonna move out of the strictly rock world, and I'm gonna nominate Marvin Gaye: Whats Going On.

Too late on hijacking concerns...this place is trashed already.

[BradH]

Too late on hijacking concerns...this place is trashed already.

It's Finch's fault for nominating Journey.

Yeah.

[nobody]

I would blame myself...but it was totally not my fault.

[BradH]

I should have put this up against Dark Side Of The Moon sooner, but...

Okay, I'm not saying that's not rock but you look at that cover and you just know drugs got a lot better after that.

[nobody]

Oh...we wanna rock...

<img src="http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drc600/c668/c66876r2205.jpg">

[MindGoneHaywire]

Is that what explains Wilco & Porpushead?

[nobody]

What did the Deadhead say when the acid wore off?



Damn, this music sucks.

[BradH]

Is that what explains Wilco & Porpushead?

Ya darn tootin'.

DSotM too.

Dadgummit.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Elitist.

[BradH]

Elitist.

Not so much. The goal has always been to do something new to stand out from the crowd.

I can just see Roy Orbison in West Texas saying, "Hey, I'll do the same thing that's always been done. It'll be awesome!"

He had sideburns.

[emesbee]

Not so much. The goal has always been to do something new to stand out from the crowd.

I can just see Roy Orbison in West Texas saying, "Hey, I'll do the same thing that's always been done. It'll be awesome!"

He had sideburns.

The only problem is that if everybody tries to stand out from the crowd, they become the crowd.

[BradH]

The only problem is that if everybody tries to stand out from the crowd, they become the crowd.

It never works that way because most artists suck. Only a few can make innovation actually work. Once everyone sees how it's done they follow. Then followers follow those followers, etc. until you end up with Journey.

Oh...I see what you're saying.

The way I see it, true innovation in pop culture moves around. In the 30's it was the movies, in the 60's it was in rock, now it's in videogames, eventually it will move again. That might be bs but I'm sayin' it anyway.

I gotta run before Finch gets here and I don't have time to erase all the Jerny references.

[MindGoneHaywire]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DTxZs-pRZ_M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DTxZs-pRZ_M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[bobsticks]

. And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.


I don't know that I agree with that sentiment, Brad. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that I appreciate their contributions out of a show of respect...respect for the influence they held over legions of fans and artists alike, respect for obvious talent, and an observance of their artistic growth.

I can appreciate all those things and still not particularly care for the music that resulted from them picking up instruments and playing.

[BradH]

I can appreciate all those things and still not particularly care for the music that resulted from them picking up instruments and playing.

But it's sort of damning with faint praise. "She's not attractive but has a great personality." A lot of people who don't like the Beatles feel the need to comment negatively or positively on the influence they had or huge bs cultural baggage surrounding that band. I don't know how anyone can comment positively on their legacy while not liking their music, it just totally escapes me. If I didn't like someone then I would prefer they had no influence and failing that, I say they suck and move on. The thing I'm getting at is the music is what matters and I'm tired of non-fans saying, "They certainly were a phenomenon" or whatever like they can understand it while, in reality, they don't know why they were a phenomenon, like it was a fluke of marketing or something.

I don't know if that made sense or not.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I'm easily amused. Swish already posted the St. Sanders clips, and that was the funniest thing I saw the whole summer. This slays me.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlI_-ItMQVA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlI_-ItMQVA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[MindGoneHaywire]

See...once I get started...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ym-X6NhZ1g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ym-X6NhZ1g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[bobsticks]

I don't know if that made sense or not.

Kinda sorta.

I have an analogy based on sports dynasties and 16 year-old girls wearing player jerseys but it's not really that entertaining or worth the effort...except in as far as that I'm not a 16 year-old girl but as both a musician and a fan of music I can recognise that in a chronological sense what they played was both revolutionary and evolutionary...and I still don't like the tonal q....they influenced alot of futur....nevemind.

Let's just agree that Finch must be stopped.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I like to say that what they did, and what is not easily understood, is that they made complex music that sounded simple, to go along with some simple music that sounded simple.

One of the bugaboos about rock, blues, and pop, is that there's simple music that sounds simple, especially "the blues"...and complex music that sounds complex, ala garden variety prog. The art of making complex music sound simple is deceptive & something that does tend to go over a lot of people's heads. But though I have repeated this like a mantra on this board over the course of several years, I believe it's key to understanding why they could influence later artists in so many areas of the general genres as they were known prior to the splintering that inevitably resulted in the niche pop culture that we have today. I do think that the Beach Boys were the best ever, I should say Brian Wilson, at making complex music that sounded simple as hell. Naturally, prog music is complex music that sounds complex; listen to, say, Muddy Waters, and you get a sense of limitation, as far as instrumental ability. Of course, that was all that band needed to get those songs across. Prog bands--say ELP--they wrote to showcase their ability, and they got every last note, every last part, every last iota of musicality they could squeeze out of what they did. The Beatles were, for better or worse, the first pop act to be taken seriously by musicologists & established figures such as Leopold Stokowski & Leonard Bernstein, who ruffled some feathers by embracing pop music. There's a rather pedantic deconstruction of their music, song-by-song, utilizing theory & charts that shows just what they were doing & how most of it was considered advanced relative to the other pop music of the day. (Aolian cadences & whatnot as written up by the 'serious' music critic at the Times in 1963)

I can link it if you want. It's trivial in a way, yet it makes sense. The Beach Boys were the Beatles' only real competition, and we all know how that turned out for Brian Wilson. The Rolling Stones chased their tail, but the period where they really started firing on all cylinders was still before Brian Jones was gone & the Beatles were pretty much over by that time. But even when they had Beggar's Banquet, arguably the start of their greatest run, they were upstaged at their own listening party when Paul McCartney brought the single for Hey Jude. Point being, unlike all the rock bands that came just afterward...the Beatles experimented, rocked, wrote ballads, used exotic instruments, had killer vocal harmonies, solos that fit the songs they were only there to enhance...and they did all this while maintaining an x-factor that, for the most part, the "rock" bands that came afterward didn't have. One of the most important requirements for success in the music industry: they never stopped being able to make HITS even while they had pretty much full artistic control & experimented all day long while all the record companies wanted out of other outfits was...hits. But everybody wanted to experiment, which was great, but hits? As a general rule...no. When the album became the standard for the industry, there developed a void among 'rock' acts to deliver hit singles. It wasn't what the Who or Zeppelin or Pink Floyd were shooting for (or Beefheart, Zappa, or the Velvet Underground, for that matter). It became all about the album. Which is fine, except it was a business built on 45s. And the Beatles still delivered even as that model underwent a huge shift in a period of less than 5 years.

So it's always seemed to me that those not exactly impressed yet willing to acknowledge legacy can't hurt themselves by seeing that there's a legitimate reason to investigate furrther, to listen again, in spite of that you've hit a brick wall in the past. I don't quarrel with your position as much as Brad, because I believe it to be sincere; but it's just kind of difficult to put into words what jumps out at us from the music. I think we probably listen with a bias because we do measure it against what was around at the time the stuff was released & it shows just how ahead of their time they were. Of course, most bands who are ahead of their time are relegated to cult status. The Beatles are probably the best example of a band who were not only ahead of their time, but incredibly successful in spite of that. Sure, Elvis was, too, and Sinatra, etc, but they were more performers than creators & mostly didn't write their music. The BBs? Absolutely, except they were too dysfunctional at a key time to avoid not being to able to roll with major changes that were going to be difficult for them to navigate.

I was talking to Sport Murphy tonight about this. I say that if SMiLE had come out on time, he thought it would be a worse flop than Pet Sounds was, but I think they would've toured that record, someone would've wanted to go along who would've seen the brilliance & wanted to be a part of the experience of bringing that to the public. Which means that Sgt. Pepper might well have been very different. This is all fantasy, almost pointless speculation. But you know what? If they hadn't canceled Monterey, who's to say otherwise?

But what happened, happened...yet the Beatles never fell out of vogue. Even though they tried hard with Magical Mystery Tour. But, heck. You put I Am The Walrus on an ep & you just can't be written off. Mount Vernon & Fairway, it wasn't.

Bottom line, I don't have the chip Brad is laying on this thread. I understand it, but if you tell me you're sincere, that's fine. However...if there's a band that's worth listening to with a different perspective, it's the Beatles. It's one of those things where the rep is well-deserved enough to not embrace the anti- side just because it feels right 'cause it ain't doing it for you.

I think Wanda Jackson is going into the rock and roll hall of fame. About friggin' time.

[kexodusc]

And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.

Sorry that doesn't fly here. I never once said I dislike the band, clearly stated I listen to them now and then, but I'm not a huge fan, they wouldn't make any desert island lists of mine, and get considerably lower playtime than a lot of other acts from that generation. But every now and then I pop them in.

I don't have to have a school-girl crush on the band to recognize that dozens of musicians I am crazy about really dug these guys. Objectively I can study their music, look at what was out there at the time, what's been done since, and put two and two together. Subjectively, I'm at a disadvantage because I can compare them to exponentially greater alternatives than people exposed to them in the 60's, 70, or 80's. By the time I got to them, the bar had been raised so much that their music didn't generate the same response in me that it otherwise might have had I lived through it. How much do I have to like them before I pass your test of "understand how good they were"?

Would you similarly pan someone who stated they didn't care for Beethoven but recognize the impact his works had on music? I would suggest you don't have to have the emotional involvement of "getting" the music or even liking the music to see that others do and respect that it is relevant. Especially in the case of the Beatles where there's so much evidence, and the mere fact they're still legends almost 50 years later...




Bottom line, I don't have the chip Brad is laying on this thread. I understand it, but if you tell me you're sincere, that's fine. However...if there's a band that's worth listening to with a different perspective, it's the Beatles. It's one of those things where the rep is well-deserved enough to not embrace the anti- side just because it feels right 'cause it ain't doing it for you.

I think Wanda Jackson is going into the rock and roll hall of fame. About friggin' time.

A much fairer assessment (and a very interesting post) Though again...just because the Beatles aren't in your top 10 favs doesn't mean you're anti-Beatles. I'd sooner listen to the Beatles than the Rolling Stones, for example.

The two positions aren't mutually-exclusive.

[nobody]

I prefer Wanda to the Beatles.

She is a Fujiyama Mama after all.

[BradH]

Subjectively, I'm at a disadvantage because I can compare them to exponentially greater alternatives than people exposed to them in the 60's, 70, or 80's.

Whether the alternatives are "exponentially greater" is a highly debatable can of worms. I would argue that they are not. That's probably because I put a high premium on innovation, possibly too much, and nobody, nobody, pulled ahead of the crowd in their time farther than the Beatles. There's not even a close second. But you bring up a great point about subjectively listening to music within its timeframe. It's an extremely difficult thing to do for someone coming along later. It doesn't come naturally to go back and listen to, say, older jazz and automatically understand who was really good, who were the innovators and who were the followers. In fact, by the early 70s, the Beatles were considered old-hat for the vast majority of teenagers who were wowed by Alice Cooper or Black Sabbath.


By the time I got to them, the bar had been raised so much that their music didn't generate the same response in me that it otherwise might have had I lived through it. How much do I have to like them before I pass your test of "understand how good they were".

Judging from that statement, I would say you would have to realize the bar had not been raised at all.


Would you similarly pan someone who stated they didn't care for Beethoven but recognize the impact his works had on music?

No. I listen to classical music and, in fact, that's exactly my situation with Beethoven. I recognize and acknowledge the impact but I don't understand it because I don't understand his music. See the difference? It's not just a matter of semantics. Half the problem is realizing that something is great, in part, because it simply didn't exist before it existed. It's tough to get the full artistic and emotional impact of something when it was new by looking backwards through history and comparing it to a newer guitarist who used more distortion or a newer drummer who played faster or whatever. I see people do that all the time and they miss the point.

The thing is, Beethoven doesn't have a ton of cultural baggage surrounding his legacy and the Beatles do, so I'm always disappointed and a little suspicious when people feel they have to acknowledge the legacy even though they don't like the music.

[GMichael]

That's just nonsense. I can't think of any kind way to describe it. They weren't just pop or just deep, they had both aspects and every level in between. It's a rare combination you don't see too often - The Police had it and, to a lesser extent, Steely Dan and Supertramp, maybe a few others. The Beatles attracted plenty of heavy musos in the 60's, tons of 'em. Every prog rock act in the U.K. flourished under their wings. It's a fact. Right from the Beatles first recording years they were doing something new and radical. Dylan talked about hearing them the first time on a car radio with his buddies. They were laughing at the lyrics ("She Loves You") and he laughed with them but he listened to the chords they were playing and inside he knew these guys were damned good.

There are a lot of people on this forum who would agree with you but, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks The Beatles (or The Police for that matter) weren't "deep" can get a clue. And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.

So, today the Best Album In Rock History is Rubber Soul.

I really do understand why they were influential. I lived through it in the 60's. Watched them on the Ed Sulivan(sp) show the first time. I just never fell in love with them like my sister did. I like them, own a few of their CD's and understand very well why they were influential.

[nobody]

I have to admit I do find it a bit off putting when for some reason Beatle fandom is somehow seen as mandatory. I've heard more than once the remark...if you don't like the Beatles, you just don't like music, for example.

It's like somehow people get really annoyed or confused if you don't like the Beatles. I mean, I can sorta understand that as many bands I really like just seem so obvious that it is hard for me to understand how anyone can listen and not just instantly get it on a real basic level and just dig the tunes and all that. But, some people just don't. And if I can understand, or at least accept, that some people say don't really dig the Ramones...why isn't it OK for people to not really dig the Beatles?

Seems many people just have a low tolerance for differences in opinion concerning certain bands. And the Beatles seem to top this list from what I've seen.

[kexodusc]

Whether the alternatives are "exponentially greater" is a highly debatable can of worms. I would argue that they are not. You misunderstand, not greater in quality (which is subjective anyway, I agree and I wouldn't open that can of worms :) ), but exponentially greater in quantity of good musicians...perhaps I didn't explain clearly - I went in reverse, so I had the luxury of listening to time's greatest bands from early 2000's back, before I ever took the Beatles seriously...and in so doing, I wasn't comparing them to just the pre-1960's stuff, or the Beatles-era peers, but to everything before, during, and after the Beatles. There's been a helluva lot of good music the last 50 years and IMHO some of what Rock evolved into is better than some of what it used to be. Not that the old stuff doesn't retain its charm.


That's probably because I put a high premium on innovation, possibly too much, and nobody, nobody, pulled ahead of the crowd in their time farther than the Beatles. There's not even a close second. But you bring up a great point about subjectively listening to music within its timeframe. It's an extremely difficult thing to do for someone coming along later. It doesn't come naturally to go back and listen to, say, older jazz and automatically understand who was really good, who were the innovators and who were the followers. In fact, by the early 70s, the Beatles were considered old-hat for the vast majority of teenagers who were wowed by Alice Cooper or Black Sabbath.
I can't argue your first statement, but you don't need to be a Beatles fan-boy to see they dominated their era...

Judging from that statement, I would say you would have to realize the bar had not been raised at all.
A little condescending...
Relatively speaking, the competition to the Beatles is much stronger if we expand the time period to include subsequent decades, rather than restrict it to the time they were active. Music became far more diverse. Simple math..there's just more good music to choose from so the Beatles get less play time at Kex mansion. That brings the average up, raises the bar...History has a great bias when it comes to music...few remember all the crap that also ran with legends of any particular era, so when someone samples the past, they're generally only sampling the survivors, the artists whose music endures.

Also, I don't believe Rock reached its peak with the Beatles and that everything since has been 2nd best to their works. In terms of the number of hits, albums and success they had, there aren't many who could compete quantitatively or qualitatively.


No. I listen to classical music and, in fact, that's exactly my situation with Beethoven. I recognize and acknowledge the impact but I don't understand it because I don't understand his music.

See the difference? It's not just a matter of semantics.
No, I'm sorry, I don't see what your point in all this is other than to dictate to me what comments I can make.
You started this by ordering that I "stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap."
I am afraid you continued by invoking some requirement to understand their music at some arbitrary level before having any moral authority to comment on their contribution to music..."If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential." That's BS. I'll appreciate what I wish, for whatever reason I choose. I don't believe I have to understand why they were influential to know that they were in order to give them that respect, even if I do understand why they were influential.

For the record, again, I have stated I like them somewhat, enough to pay for their music and continue to spin it on occassion. I've stated "but I like other bands more.."
The disconnect is that you have implied I don't understand their impact on music...guess I'm just not fit to join the club. Why can't I like the Beatles, like other bands more, and understand why they were influential? And how much I have to like the Beatles before I can understand why they were influential...Do they have to be in my top 10 favorite bands of all time? My top 5? What's your benchmark here so I know what I have to do to reach the appropriate level of musical enlightenment?


Half the problem is realizing that something is great, in part, because it simply didn't exist before it existed. Hells Yeah! And this is a big reason I can respect what they did...though I may prefer other musicians, I recognize they were pioneers and that rock as I know it today wouldn't have evolved into what it is without them.


It's tough to get the full artistic and emotional impact of something when it was new by looking backwards through history and comparing it to a newer guitarist who used more distortion or a newer drummer who played faster or whatever. I see people do that all the time and they miss the point. On this we can agree...in an unfair way, it becomes "less original" when you hear their art in the works of other musicians first, even if chronologically they were the original. Actually, that was my point.


The thing is, Beethoven doesn't have a ton of cultural baggage surrounding his legacy and the Beatles do, so I'm always disappointed and a little suspicious when people feel they have to acknowledge the legacy even though they don't like the music.
You're probably right here, but to this guy the image and cultural stuff is completely a non-factor. I don't put much value on that stuff for current music, well I suppose on some level we all do subconsciously, but I can only evaluate the music because I don't have the luxury of living through the times to use the culture to put the music into perspective. Which furthers my point - without the context of the culture of the day, it's harder for me to like them...but there's lots of other music from decades ago that I don't need cultural context in order to get in to.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I fill my room to 90+ dB when I play Helter Skelter.:3: <== Is that Elvis? That's not Elvis is it? I hated Elvis.

[GMichael]

How could you hate Elvis? He was one of the most influential artists of all times!

Ok, you got me. I was just joking.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Elvis stole Jerry Lee Lewis's thunder (but not his 13 y/o wife... or was that cousin... or both? :yikes: )

[GMichael]

You're just jealous because your 13 year old cousin turned you down.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Well, that's either mediocre satire or poor history. Dislike of Elvis aside, is this actually what you believe?

[GMichael]

Put me down for option number 1.

[nobody]

I pretty much feel about Elvis the way some others feel about the Beatles. How could you hate Elvis? Isn't it just obvious from listening that he was amazing?

He topped the charts from beyond the grave he was so awesome.

[GMichael]

And he makes even more money now than he did when he was alive. Go figure.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I didn't like Elvis myself for a long time, though my exposure to him was limited & I grew up in a rock-hating household, one where any and all rock was considered equally worthless on every level. I liked the Beatles from childhood. But I eventually heard Elvis while trying to hear it with different ears, sort of what I suggested above. That I heard the Sun Sessions whereas before all I'd really heard was some of the weaker 70s material along with bites from the early RCA hits made a big difference. I can't see anyone who claims to appreciate rock denying the Sun Sessions, but to each their own.

It was the comment about Elvis relative to Jerry Lee that I was curious about. Elvis was topping the charts many months prior to Jerry Lee Lewis showing up at Sun, so I'm wondering if there's any backup for that statement, or if it was meant as a joke. I've encountered people who've said similar things and actually believed it to be true, otherwise I'd just dismiss it as a weak joke.

If someone legitimately dislikes Elvis but loves Jerry Lee Lewis that strikes me as odd, but I have no issue with it.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well, that's either mediocre satire or poor history. Dislike of Elvis aside, is this actually what you believe?
My mind is more haywire than yours my friend...

[BradH]

...but you don't need to be a Beatles fan-boy to see they dominated their era...

If I was a Beatles fan-boy I would say everything they did was great. But I think the Let It Be album sucks.


What's your benchmark here so I know what I have to do to reach the appropriate level of musical enlightenment?

Beats me. A Beatles wig maybe? Seriously, to me it just stretches the bounds of credulity to think someone who doesn't like their music is going to recognize that influence in all the places it exists.


Seems many people just have a low tolerance for differences in opinion concerning certain bands.

Seems you have a low tolerance for anyone expressing a positive opinion about the Beatles in particular. If someone explains at length why they were great, you'd complain about Beatles fans going on and on. If they say fine, you either get it or you don't, you'd say that was cult-like and quasi-mystical nonsense. We've been down this road before so it's less time consuming for me to just tell everyone to get a clue. Because no matter how many long ass posts J or I do on this subject it isn't gonna make anyone listen with fresh ears.

[nobody]

Probably just goes back to certain groups or artists eliciting strong reactions and coming with a lot of baggage. Almost impossible to have a discussion about say The Beatles, Elvis, or other such mega-stars without dragging a whole bunch of pre-determined feelings into the thing and drawing on a whole pile of past conversations, writings, etc...

[Troy]

What was the question again?

Oh yeah, a self choking masturbator is a person that chokes themselves while masturbating . . . oh, wait.

I like the B-eatles a lot. So much great music, so much of it directly influencing all the crap being passed off as "new" rock today. I aint blind tho, "Let it Be" and more than half of the "White Album" is crap. It's just hip to hate the Beatles today. This is the cycle of such things. All geezers like us can do is to sit on our porch, nurse our can of PBR and shake our ancient, palsied fists at the insolent kids playing on our lawn who think their generation invented everything.

[BradH]

All geezers like us can do is to sit on our porch, nurse our can of PBR and shake our ancient, palsied fists at the insolent kids playing on our lawn who think their generation invented everything.

HaHa! Maybe that's what sticks in my craw. Imagine the kid on the lawn saying, "You look like crap in that rocker but I appreciate how you were a badass in your day."

HA!

[Auricauricle]

That's just nonsense. I can't think of any kind way to describe it. They weren't just pop or just deep, they had both aspects and every level in between. It's a rare combination you don't see too often - The Police had it and, to a lesser extent, Steely Dan and Supertramp, maybe a few others. The Beatles attracted plenty of heavy musos in the 60's, tons of 'em. Every prog rock act in the U.K. flourished under their wings. It's a fact. Right from the Beatles first recording years they were doing something new and radical. Dylan talked about hearing them the first time on a car radio with his buddies. They were laughing at the lyrics ("She Loves You") and he laughed with them but he listened to the chords they were playing and inside he knew these guys were damned good.

There are a lot of people on this forum who would agree with you but, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks The Beatles (or The Police for that matter) weren't "deep" can get a clue. And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.

So, today the Best Album In Rock History is Rubber Soul.

When I posted my thoughts concerning the Beatles and their "significance", I did not mean to imply that they were musically uninteresting or uninspired. Far from it, I think that the crew was very talented, and their music was, in many cases, crafted with great expertise. In using the word, "significance", I was referring to their influence on music in general, which has been touted as one of the most enduring of any rock group in history.

If my note has any trace of a denigrating tone, it pertains to my perceptions of the Beatles' music when I was quite younger and not as canny to their offering. I still am not a great believer, but I know talent and ability when I hear it, and these guys were the real deal.

As pertains to their "deepness", this is more a comment regarding perceptions of music listeners I have known, in general, and not a reflection of my sensibility of the music as such. The pubs described point to this dichotomy: There simply is a difference between Beatle Maniacs and Dead Heads. Yes, the Beats were heavy at times, but they were, I think, a feel-good band, as opposed to Deep Purple, Iron Butterfly and others who appealed to a different crowd.

Then again, if you listen to "Strawberry Fields" and say to yerself, "Whoa, that's heavy, man....", I guess there's nothing more to say, is there?

[ForeverAutumn]

... I grew up in a rock-hating household, one where any and all rock was considered equally worthless on every level. ...

Wow. I've gotta say, with your vast knowledge of rock history, that surprised the hell out of me.

[BradH]

Yes, the Beats were heavy at times, but they were, I think, a feel-good band, as opposed to Deep Purple, Iron Butterfly and others who appealed to a different crowd.

But the likes of Deep Purple and Iron Butterfly had a much, much more narrow range and were not in the ballpark when it came to making new music that opens new possibilites. And I actually like that sort of post-psych, pre-prog era in the late 60's inhabited by Floyd, Soft Machine, Family, the Moodys, Iron Butterfly, tons of stuff. But all that was done against the background radiation of what the Beatles had been throwing down every few months for years. I think the people who said the Beatles didn't rock hard enough just had a stricter view of what rock was supposed to be.

[emesbee]

But the likes of Deep Purple and Iron Butterfly had a much, much more narrow range and were not in the ballpark when it came to making new music that opens new possibilites. And I actually like that sort of post-psych, pre-prog era in the late 60's inhabited by Floyd, Soft Machine, Family, the Moodys, Iron Butterfly, tons of stuff. But all that was done against the background radiation of what the Beatles had been throwing down every few months for years. I think the people who said the Beatles didn't rock hard enough just had a stricter view of what rock was supposed to be.

Late 60s and early 70s is my favourite era (I was a teenager then, so that probably explains it). There were loads of great bands around, doing lots of different styles of music. A lot of really great stuff came out of those few years. It all got rather boring after that, though. (and has remained so ever since, in my opinion).

[RoadRunner6]

Late 60s and early 70s is my favourite era (I was a teenager then, so that probably explains it). There were loads of great bands around, doing lots of different styles of music. A lot of really great stuff came out of those few years. It all got rather boring after that, though. (and has remained so ever since, in my opinion).

You can say that again, Emesbee. Listen to Bob Dylan's All Along The Watchtower and then listen to Jimi Hendrix's cover of the same. I love both versions.

RR6

[bobsticks]

It was around post 100 or so when Kex "poo-poo'd" it, I "meh'd" it and Auri dropped the "pbab" down...and look what's happened to this thread.



HaHa! Maybe that's what sticks in my craw. Imagine the kid on the lawn saying, "You look like crap in that rocker but I appreciate how you were a badass in your day."

HA!

Well that's exactly it. Kex deftly explained that inherent in the generational gap is, well, a generational gap. If one experiences something first it will tend to leave a longer lasting impression. Besides, by the end of it you have to admit there was a little too much Yoko Special Sauce in the stir fry.

Further, it's gotta be said that, content aside, certain works can come off as rather archival.If Resident Loser were around I'm sure he would extoll the virtues of listening to A.M radio feeds or mono recordings, but he's not.Listening to the Beattles is like checking in with Robert Johnson or Edward R. Murrow. Sounds great, was that tupperware?

It's not that folks don't recognise that it was solid stuff, there's just things that many would prefer to listen to. No hatin' necessary. Besides, we know how great they were...you guys keep reminding us. Kurt Loder alone makes mention of it once a month, on the off weeks when Oasis isn't the King of the Hill.

This I believe.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Shouldn't you be asleep? I know I should.

Please keep in mind that we're not 'there is no good music anymore,' Resident Loser types. I think it's a matter of keeping things in context. I'm usually on the other side of this argument, and I'm not one to believe that any one creative work can be empirically 'better' from individual to individual. You will end up banging your head against the wall because a kid will prefer Fall Out Boy to Bob Dylan, or because someone else will prefer Crunk to Beethoven. It's the individual response of the listener that matters, so I have no quarrel with that, though I am not afraid to make my own judgments.

I do think a pretty strong case can be made that nobody in the last 50 years of popular music did as many things as they did as often as they did, as well as they did it, for as long as they did it. Thus my point about how they managed hits in spite of being ahead of their time. It's a point I do think is worthy of thought even though I know damn well hits don't necessarily have to mean anything. But it means something in this discussion, because it's the one thing that separates them from so many other artists who did so much great work for so long and were ahead of their time. You can deny the importance of this by pointing to any general top 40 list at virtually any given time to make a case that it's all crap, but it does mean something. And it means a lot here.

The thing is, I don't usually harp on it & I don't remember the last time I wrote posts that actually took a defensive posture on the subject. It's not necessary because everyone is entitled to their likes & dislikes & there's absolutely nothing superior in that I think I hear something that someone else may not. I also know damn well that everyone posting on this board is going to hear something I'm not in a given favorite recording.

I was listening to Paul McCartney being interviewed on the Howard Stern show this morning. He has a record out, Fireman. Sounded darned good, especially considering how little he's put out in the past 30+ years that didn't eat donkey dung.

nobody, I'm getting off a disc to you asap. PM me if your info has changed.

[BradH]

Besides, by the end of it you have to admit there was a little too much Yoko Special Sauce in the stir fry.

OMG, don't get me started on that mess. I never said Lennon wasn't batsh!t crazy.

[emesbee]

If I was a Beatles fan-boy I would say everything they did was great. But I think the Let It Be album sucks.


The Let It Be album was compromised. I reckon John Lennon made a great mistake when he got Phil Spector to add all those strings and choirs. All the same, there were some great songs on that album.

The Let It Be Naked version (who chose that title?) is much better, in my opinion. At last, we get to hear the Long and Winding Road as it always should have been, a simple ballad, without all that Phil Spector pollution. The remix has really lifted the audio quality too. I just wish they would do something similar for the White Album.

[kexodusc]

It's not that folks don't recognise that it was solid stuff, there's just things that many would prefer to listen to.
No hatin' necessary. Besides, we know how great they were...you guys keep reminding us. Kurt Loder alone makes mention of it once a month, on the off weeks when Oasis isn't the King of the Hill.

This I believe.
You have such a diplomatic way of paraphrasing...3 Kexticles for you
@@@

Seriously, this has become one of the more interesting threads in some time, and look the, subject was fairly typical web-forum stuff. I hope nobody's taking my posts as accusations of Beatles snobbery (does that even exist?), but it's a bit baffling that one can enjoy the music, but less than Dylan, and be accused of being a Beatles hater? I'm equally baffled that I can somehow like them, but not enough to really understand their influence. Sounds like my dad telling me how much I don't appreciate the value of a dollar, and how Coke ain't the same...

I wonder if gospel and rag-time fans crap on the jazz afficianados today for not really getting the music?

[Rich-n-Texas]

You have such a diplomatic way of paraphrasing...3 Kexticles for you
@@@
What am I, chopped freakin' liver??? :incazzato: Spread the luv Beatle squisher!

I wonder if gospel and rag-time fans crap on the jazz afficianados today for not really getting the music?
Maybe not, but I'll bet rap fans crap on rock fans and vice versa for the same reason.

[Swish]

But the likes of Deep Purple and Iron Butterfly had a much, much more narrow range and were not in the ballpark when it came to making new music that opens new possibilites. And I actually like that sort of post-psych, pre-prog era in the late 60's inhabited by Floyd, Soft Machine, Family, the Moodys, Iron Butterfly, tons of stuff. But all that was done against the background radiation of what the Beatles had been throwing down every few months for years. I think the people who said the Beatles didn't rock hard enough just had a stricter view of what rock was supposed to be.

...in the Beatles argument. They were leaders and the rest were followers. That's not to say the rest didn't merit or have any of their own ideas, but everything revolved around the blokes from Liverpool, akin to fashion trend-setters (that's another area where they influenced people...fashion and hairstyles). While this isn't the case in recent times, I've read tons of record reviews in the past that would describe the music as 'Beatle-esque', and how some bands were deemed the second-coming of the Beatles, (Badfinger, Klaatu...) like that was every going to happen.

[GMichael]

You have such a diplomatic way of paraphrasing...3 Kexticles for you
@@@

Seriously, this has become one of the more interesting threads in some time, and look the, subject was fairly typical web-forum stuff. I hope nobody's taking my posts as accusations of Beatles snobbery (does that even exist?), but it's a bit baffling that one can enjoy the music, but less than Dylan, and be accused of being a Beatles hater? I'm equally baffled that I can somehow like them, but not enough to really understand their influence. Sounds like my dad telling me how much I don't appreciate the value of a dollar, and how Coke ain't the same...

I wonder if gospel and rag-time fans crap on the jazz afficianados today for not really getting the music?

Coke sure ain't the same. Duh....

[Swish]

What am I, chopped freakin' liver??? :incazzato: Spread the luv Beatle squisher!

...and need to be punished for this Cardinal sin. Now drop and give me twenty!

[Rich-n-Texas]

No problem Swish! What has to touch the ground first, my nose or my belly? :ihih:

[GMichael]

...and need to be punished for this Cardinal sin. Now drop and give me twenty!

Nice play on bird words there my non-feathered friend.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Right on the ball, as per usual, GM.

[GMichael]

Just starting to come out of the fog that was my holiday season.

[BradH]

The Let It Be album was compromised.

The main problem is it was lame to begin with. There's a reason they shelved it in '69 and moved on. I never heard the Nekkid version but I've got a pro sounding boot of the original mix Glyn Johns did that year. It's better but it's totally uninspired as a whole, especially compared to Abbey Road a few months later.

Q: What's the difference between naked and nekkid?

A: Depends on what you're doing.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Just starting to come out of the fog that was my holiday season.
Glad to hear it. You didn't describe what the sickness was, but at least you have AR.com to take your mind offa things ya know?

[GMichael]

Glad to hear it. You didn't describe what the sickness was, but at least you have AR.com to take your mind offa things ya know?

Just a high fever that lasted two weeks. Even after I got "better" I still didn't feel right. :arf:
Feel about 90% better now.:thumbsup:

[Auricauricle]

....about the same time 'e started sniffin' roses....

[GMichael]

You just miss looking into my eyes.

[Rich-n-Texas]

You just miss looking into my eyes.
Me too. :cryin:

[GMichael]

Now you get to look at my flower in all it's blooming glory.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I did NOT need that mental image! :vomit:

But to get back OT, WOW! Glyn Johns. He was a producer right? I'm certain I'd seen that name on many albums in years past right?

[Auricauricle]

Ack!!

[BradH]

But to get back OT, WOW! Glyn Johns. He was a producer right? I'm certain I'd seen that name on many albums in years past right?

Who's Next immediately comes to mind.