Greatest Album in Rock History...

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.