|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 13, 2017 14:32:50 GMT -5
Here is another article/slide show ranking like the Top 106 Albums of the Rock/Blues Era by: "PrettyFamous, an entertainment data site by Graphiq, ranked all of the albums in its database by Album Score — a customized statistic out of 100 that aggregates album ratings from external sources, including AllMusic, Metacritic, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and many more." www.msn.com/en-us/music/gallery/ranking-the-best-albums-of-all-time/ss-BBztgs2?ocid=spartandhp#image=1The Beatles have the most albums of any one group or artist which is cool but I am appalled that the Fabs' highest showing under this formula is #11. There is no Solo Beatles in this list, not even John's POB! I was very pleased though to see Bob Dylan in the Top 10 not once but twice and especially with one of those being Blood On The Tracks! The #1 album is no surprise and might be Paul McCartney's own choice if being honest so we cannot summarily dismiss this List as blatantly fraudulent! Scan through and share your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 13, 2017 14:34:57 GMT -5
I am hoping that this list, compiled from the data that it was, is not indicative of a sliding popularity of The Beatles! Especially if we want more Beatles Box Sets like what we are getting for Pepper!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Apr 13, 2017 16:08:55 GMT -5
These lists are really nothing more than a snapshot of opinion. I am guessing that this is just a similar survey of a narrow choice of opinion from AllMusic, Metacritic, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork etc.
With the passage of time, more modern artists are often over represented as younger people simply don't know of older artists and older people tend to forget all but the very best artists and albums from a bygone age
This one I find a bit odd though. There are many artists I have not really much familiarity with. Seems to be far too much Miles Davis and Clash in there. I like the Clash and I don't particularly listen to Miles Davis. So I maybe would have London Calling in there but adding one of their compilation albums is just cheating. I only flicked through but the Pet Shop Boys discography is another such album and Anthology of American folk artists?? In that case I'd say the Beatles Red and Blue albums and even '1' should also be in there. If the Pet Shop Boys are in there then why no Oasis or Blur?
No 'Dark Side of the Moon' from Pink Floyd. I don't remember any Bowie album. Nothing by Queen or The Police. Did I see any Who, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Squeeze, ELO or Kinks albums? British rock royalty seriously under represented. Nor did I see Ireland's U2, Canada's Rush, Australia's INXS or American bands like Van Halen, Bon Jovi, The Eagles, Blondie, The Cars...... and well the list just goes on. Does Michael Jackson not count either? Was he too pop? Whilst Prince makes the list.
Of course I may been slightly unobservant. I also probably missed many other favourites of other people that could be on the list. It's all about opinions at the end of the day and ultimately proves little.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 13, 2017 17:22:55 GMT -5
The #1 album is no surprise and might be Paul McCartney's own choice if being honest so we cannot summarily dismiss this List as blatantly fraudulent! Scan through and share your thoughts! My thoughts are that this is a blatantly fraudulent list that means absolutely zilch. And should not be taken seriously. There are sometimes efforts to undermine The Beatles and knock them off their throne. This can never be done.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 13, 2017 17:27:33 GMT -5
These lists are really nothing more than a snapshot of opinion. I am guessing that this is just a similar survey of a narrow choice of opinion from AllMusic, Metacritic, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork etc. With the passage of time, more modern artists are often over represented as younger people simply don't know of older artists and older people tend to forget all but the very best artists and albums from a bygone age This one I find a bit odd though. There are many artists I have not really much familiarity with. Seems to be far too much Miles Davis and Clash in there. I like the Clash and I don't particularly listen to Miles Davis. So I maybe would have London Calling in there but adding one of their compilation albums is just cheating. I only flicked through but the Pet Shop Boys discography is another such album and Anthology of American folk artists?? In that case I'd say the Beatles Red and Blue albums and even '1' should also be in there. If the Pet Shop Boys are in there then why no Oasis or Blur? No 'Dark Side of the Moon' from Pink Floyd. I don't remember any Bowie album. Nothing by Queen or The Police. Did I see any Who, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Squeeze, ELO or Kinks albums? British rock royalty seriously under represented. Nor did I see Ireland's U2, Canada's Rush, Australia's INXS or American bands like Van Halen, Bon Jovi, The Eagles, Blondie, The Cars...... and well the list just goes on. Does Michael Jackson not count either? Was he too pop? Whilst Prince makes the list. Of course I may been slightly unobservant. I also probably missed many other favourites of other people that could be on the list. It's all about opinions at the end of the day and ultimately proves little. I noticed too much Miles Davis too. I can't listen to most jazz. Dark Side should definitely be up there and high (no pun intended). Ziggy Stardust was listed. They had Michael's Off the Wall.
I really didn't get any sense of "better, better, better..." as I went up the list. The top ten did have some good albums but the Beatles should had been there.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 13, 2017 17:34:04 GMT -5
I counted 36 albums that I own, 37 if I count Songs in the Key of Life, that I only own on LP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 19:17:16 GMT -5
I can't take this list seriously, The Rolling Stones are in it 5 times.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 13, 2017 19:47:02 GMT -5
Here is another article/slide show ranking like the Top 106 Albums of the Rock/Blues Era by: "PrettyFamous, an entertainment data site by Graphiq, ranked all of the albums in its database by Album Score — a customized statistic out of 100 that aggregates album ratings from external sources, including AllMusic, Metacritic, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and many more." www.msn.com/en-us/music/gallery/ranking-the-best-albums-of-all-time/ss-BBztgs2?ocid=spartandhp#image=1The Beatles have the most albums of any one group or artist which is cool but I am appalled that the Fabs' highest showing under this formula is #11. There is no Solo Beatles in this list, not even John's POB! I was very pleased though to see Bob Dylan in the Top 10 not once but twice and especially with one of those being Blood On The Tracks! The #1 album is no surprise and might be Paul McCartney's own choice if being honest so we cannot summarily dismiss this List as blatantly fraudulent! Scan through and share your thoughts! April Fool's Day was 12 days ago....
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Apr 13, 2017 23:37:18 GMT -5
“These ratings are pulled from an album’s Wikipedia page, so in the event that an album does not have a page, or its page does not have ratings, it will not appear on this list.”
The basis of the list is flawed from the start. There is no consistency in the way that album ratings appear on Wikipedia, even when they do exist. Some pages only feature a few reviews, others might have ten, or perhaps more. Beyond that, different sources of review appear on different album pages. One page might feature an assessment from, say, Q magazine, while another will not. One site displays a rating from Rolling Stone magazine, while the next shows that from the Rolling Stone Album Guide.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Apr 13, 2017 23:48:21 GMT -5
These lists are really nothing more than a snapshot of opinion. I am guessing that this is just a similar survey of a narrow choice of opinion from AllMusic, Metacritic, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork etc. With the passage of time, more modern artists are often over represented as younger people simply don't know of older artists and older people tend to forget all but the very best artists and albums from a bygone age This one I find a bit odd though. There are many artists I have not really much familiarity with. Seems to be far too much Miles Davis and Clash in there. I like the Clash and I don't particularly listen to Miles Davis. So I maybe would have London Calling in there but adding one of their compilation albums is just cheating. I only flicked through but the Pet Shop Boys discography is another such album and Anthology of American folk artists?? In that case I'd say the Beatles Red and Blue albums and even '1' should also be in there. If the Pet Shop Boys are in there then why no Oasis or Blur?No 'Dark Side of the Moon' from Pink Floyd. I don't remember any Bowie album. Nothing by Queen or The Police. Did I see any Who, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Squeeze, ELO or Kinks albums? British rock royalty seriously under represented. Nor did I see Ireland's U2, Canada's Rush, Australia's INXS or American bands like Van Halen, Bon Jovi, The Eagles, Blondie, The Cars...... and well the list just goes on. Does Michael Jackson not count either? Was he too pop? Whilst Prince makes the list. Of course I may been slightly unobservant. I also probably missed many other favourites of other people that could be on the list. It's all about opinions at the end of the day and ultimately proves little. Right. It is ridiculous to include compilation albums on a list like this. Where do you draw the line? If you are going to include them for some then you have to consider them for everyone. What about artists whose catalogues include multiple compilations that do not differ much? A separate compilations only list might be more sensible.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 14, 2017 0:15:24 GMT -5
Pet Sounds is a legitimate candidate for number 1. I did not say it is an automatic choice for #1 but a legit choice. Sir Paul would agree with me.
Dylan certainly deserves one or even two top 10 but I agree that the comps were bizarre and not legit picks, at least the ones picked. And yes Fabfour, the Stones deserve 5 albums in a top 106! Easily.
The Beatles clearly deserve at least one, if not two or three, in the Top 10.
John Lennon's POB has to be in any Top 100 greatest albums and I would argue Top 50. There was at least one Bowie album in there.
One thing is clear, the days of Pepper being a sure #1 in Best Album polls are over! That seems true for most of these polls. There was a time Revolver(UK version) surpassed Pepper in these Polls but it seems Revolver's time in the sun is fading.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 14, 2017 5:23:50 GMT -5
Pet Sounds is a legitimate candidate for number 1. I did not say it is an automatic choice for #1 but a legit choice. Sir Paul would agree with me. I don't care what Sir Paul thinks. I have tried listening to PET SOUNDS at least three times now and I find it a dull bore except for "Wouldn't It Be Nice", "God Only Knows" and maybe "Sloop John B". It has become my #1 all right -- my #1 LP whenever the topic of MOST OVERRATED ALBUMS OF ALL TIME is put on the table. Well that's only a matter of people trying to be different, trying to shake things up and be revolutionary. The Beatles deserve to have several albums in the TOP 10 , but what fun is that for everyone else who's not a Beatles fanatic, year after year? The album called SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND is not my personal favorite of theirs, however it deserves to be #1 on GREATEST ALBUMS OF ALL TIME lists forever. It is the most innovative and influential Pop/Rock Album Of All Time. Always has been, always will be.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 14, 2017 5:25:52 GMT -5
April Fool's Day was 12 days ago.... Very true. John S Damm is almost 2 weeks late with this joke!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 14, 2017 11:31:59 GMT -5
Hey what is this shooting the messenger stuff?! I could say Joe your writing on Pet Sounds is an April's Fools joke as that album is as legitimately sainted as they come, right with Pepper and always has been. The article is food for thought, that's all, and I realize these polls are entirely subjective but the consistency which Pepper is now no longer the presumed #1 startles me!
I am certainly not gloating about it. I personally was thrilled in the late 1990's and early 2000's when Revolver surpassed Pepper in these type of Polls as #1. Hey, if Pepper was no longer the presumed #1 how cool that it was replaced by another Beatles' album! Revolver better represents all four Beatles.
I am more angry about the omission of POB from this list of the Top 106 albums of the Rock/Blues Era!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 15, 2017 5:51:14 GMT -5
I could say Joe your writing on Pet Sounds is an April's Fools joke as that album is as legitimately sainted as they come, right with Pepper and always has been. That's why I called it "My #1 -- that is, My #1 Most Overrated". I couldn't call it overrated if it didn't typically get glowing accolades now, could I? Just as PEPPER has had its share of slams in recent years, so too has PET SOUNDS gotten bashed. Over at the Vinyl Community on YouTube, there is no shortage of music fans who agreed with me in the discussions section that PS is largely a pile of incoherent and messy junk. I found out I was not alone. Why should it startle you? It's all part of the expected game of trying in vain to knock the "big guy" off his pedestal (in this case The Beatles, and more specifically SPLHCB). It isn't based on any kind of history or factual evidence, it's just like some fresh new young owners trying to change up an old tired menu on some ancient restaurant just for the hell of it. I seriously think that when the 50th Anniversary re-release of PEPPER arrive very soon, it's gonna be big. REAL big. While I personally prefer REVOLVER to PEPPER, it does not have the same historical distinction of changing the music world and influencing all other contemporary musicians of that time. PEPPER deserves the #1 slot for its innovations, influence, and psychedelic ambience, for ushering in the 1967 "Summer of Love", etc .
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 15, 2017 12:46:55 GMT -5
While I personally prefer REVOLVER to PEPPER, it does not have the same historical distinction of changing the music world and influencing all other contemporary musicians of that time. PEPPER deserves the #1 slot for its innovations, influence, and psychedelic ambience, for ushering in the 1967 "Summer of Love", etc . While Pepper was good, what it influenced was utter crap so-called psychedelic music! Yuck, the birth of Pink Floyd and that awful genre known as "Progressive Rock!" Barf! The Stones got burned and quickly retreated; Dylan hated Pepper from the first as did the Velvet Underground and Zappa and Rock and Roll finally got back to its senses as did the Beatles who got burned on the MMT film! Then it was "Lady Madonna/Hey Jude/Revolution" and back to the basics with the White Album. Revolver does not get the Pepper hype solely because of the different versions released in the U.K. and the U.S.A. Had Revolver been the same around the world in 1966, we would have Revolvermania and that would be the most famous album of them all! Same with Rubber Soul, it got nuked in the U.S.A. with songs from HELP! tagged on!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 16, 2017 5:54:29 GMT -5
While Pepper was good, what it influenced was utter crap so-called psychedelic music! Yuck, the birth of Pink Floyd and that awful genre known as "Progressive Rock!" I think a lot of people might disagree with you on this. And would also call PEPPER "great", not merely "good". Yes, SGT. PEPPER was a one-shot album with a different approach. That's what makes it different from other Beatles records, both before and after. And that is just perfectly fine. Sure, after that it was back to Rock basics, but so what? Are you attempting to deny that SGT PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND was an innovative and landmark masterpiece which changed the music world? The Stones don't matter, as they were never in the same league as their masters, The Beatles - and they were always the Beatles' little brothers. Lou Reed was a jerk. So much for Velvet Underground. Why does it matter what Bob Dylan thought? Many people despised his religious albums, and now his Frank Sinatra homages. 1.) I don't buy your theory that REVOLVER gets jilted sometimes because of different UK and US variations. It just was not as world-changing as PEPPER. 2) We've been over this before, but many fans (myself among them) feel the US version of RUBBER SOUL is far superior with the "Help!" songs tagged on. It makes it a true folksy album -- and it was the US version which influenced Brian Wilson to do PETS SOUNDS, which then inspired PEPPER. So great to get rid of "What Goes On" and "Drive My Car" with the American Capitol LP. "I've Just Seen A Face" and "It's Only Love" deserved a better fate than just being tossed onto a haphazardly arranged Side 2 of a UK HELP! movie soundtrack .
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 16, 2017 7:23:41 GMT -5
Pet Sounds is a legitimate candidate for number 1. I did not say it is an automatic choice for #1 but a legit choice. Sir Paul would agree with me. I don't care what Sir Paul thinks. I have tried listening to PET SOUNDS at least three times now and I find it a dull bore except for "Wouldn't It Be Nice", "God Only Knows" and maybe "Sloop John B". It has become my #1 all right -- my #1 LP whenever the topic of MOST OVERRATED ALBUMS OF ALL TIME is put on the table. Well that's only a matter of people trying to be different, trying to shake things up and be revolutionary. The Beatles deserve to have several albums in the TOP 10 , but what fun is that for everyone else who's not a Beatles fanatic, year after year? The album called SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND is not my personal favorite of theirs, however it deserves to be #1 on GREATEST ALBUMS OF ALL TIME lists forever. It is the most innovative and influential Pop/Rock Album Of All Time. Always has been, always will be. I have one interjection in this...only between Pet Sounds and Pepper. While I disagree that Pet Sounds is overrated-it is difficult IMO to compare it to Pepper because the music was performed by studio musicians (both rock and traditional) whereas Pepper was for the most part performed by the Beatles themselves (except for traditional-strings, horns, etc.)You can compare the music, but you can't compare the performances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 9:54:21 GMT -5
I sometimes think Pepper is over rated .
I always think Pepper is over produced, a claim G.Martin liked to level at Spector, probably because Phil's role had George's voided.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 9:56:26 GMT -5
And another thing, The Rolling Stones, on record, have been shite since the Beatles broke up, why is that, no one else to copy.
That list is a joke.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 16, 2017 14:25:23 GMT -5
And another thing, The Rolling Stones, on record, have been shite since the Beatles broke up, why is that, no one else to copy. That list is a joke. The Stones' best albums are generally considered to be Sticky Fingers and Exile on Mail Street, release in '71 and '72, well after the Beatles' broke up. But then again, I think they are overrated. I prefer Some Girls and Goats Head Soup, '78 and '73.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 16, 2017 19:00:17 GMT -5
Why is Pepper often considered top dog?
You had to be there when it was first released in June 1967. I was 12 years old.
There was a reason Jimi Hendrix learned the album and was performing some of it 48 hours after it came out.....
And Brian Wilson was speechless.
I am willing to bet no album in the history of recorded music was played as much repeatedly over and over again in it's first month of release than Pepper was worldwide.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 16, 2017 20:53:16 GMT -5
The Stones don't matter, as they were never in the same league as their masters, The Beatles - and they were always the Beatles' little brothers. Lou Reed was a jerk. So much for Velvet Underground. Why does it matter what Bob Dylan thought? Many people despised his religious albums, and now his Frank Sinatra homages. Spoken like a true Stonesophobic, often a Beatles fan always looking over his or her shoulder and putting the Rolling Stones down, scared deep down that maybe the Stones were as good and important as the Beatles, especially with the Stones' incredible string of classic albums starting with Beggars Banquet to Goats Head Soup. Yeah, "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Ob La Di, Ob La Da"(which two of the four Beatles hated, and probably Ringo too) is so, how did you say it Joe, masterful compared to late 60's and early 70's Stones!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 17, 2017 5:47:19 GMT -5
The Stones don't matter, as they were never in the same league as their masters, The Beatles - and they were always the Beatles' little brothers. Lou Reed was a jerk. So much for Velvet Underground. Why does it matter what Bob Dylan thought? Many people despised his religious albums, and now his Frank Sinatra homages. Spoken like a true Stonesophobic, often a Beatles fan always looking over his or her shoulder and putting the Rolling Stones down, scared deep down that maybe the Stones were as good and important as the Beatles, especially with the Stones' incredible string of classic albums starting with Beggars Banquet to Goats Head Soup. LOL! That's the best you can do? Nice try.. however, I must burst your bubble and inform you that you don't know what you're talking about in my case, since The Rolling Stones are my #2 favorite British band after The Beatles. I have tons of 1960's vinyl albums by them, most of their early stuff. (I own both US and UK versions of many of their albums). I also like and own later albums by them from the 1970's. I am a huge fan of the songs "Emotional Rescue" and "Undercover Of The Night", even. I also like and own TATTOO YOU and STEEL WHEELS. -- But when it comes to paying any serious mind to Mick and the others (after all, it's only about Mick - and to a lesser extent, Keith) I recognize that they were never in the Beatles' league music-wise or power-wise (to quote John Lennon). They always resented this, and they always wanted to be The Beatles. But they never were and still are not nearly as renowned, even having been recording now something like 54 years as compared to The Beatles' 7 years. So nice try in hopping on today's all-too-instantaneous leap at the "o-phobe" or "--cist" kneejerk reaction just because there is some criticism involved. But to play along -- it's not about me being so-called " Stonesophobic", though there are a great many Stones diehards who are extremely Beatlephobic. There are a number of things I will say here to debunk you: First - sure, there are a few tiny exceptions to the overall rule. Therefore, citing out those exceptions is a moot point. Second - While I sometimes cringe at Paul's so-called "Granny Music", there is a brilliance behind a song like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" in the sense that it is actually a horribly sick account of a mass murderer. The fact that it is sung gleefully like some macabre waltz around the mulberry bush makes it all the more disturbing. As for "Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da" -- like it or not, it IS a classic. And often considered the best-known and most popular "hit" off The White Album. Also was the theme song for a TV show, I believe. Third - "Maxwell" is followed on the album by the gut-wrenching, vocal-chord shredding powerhouse that is "Oh! Darling" - something Mick Jagger could never match with his vocal approach. So even if a listener had no use for Paul's "Maxwell", he completely redeems himself going right into "Oh! Darling". Fourth - Mick and Keith could only dream about having the talents to write catchy melodic tunes like "Maxwell" and "Ob-La-Di". Fifth - As a Beatles fan yourself, one would think that all of the above would require no explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 17, 2017 6:54:24 GMT -5
Why is Pepper often considered top dog? You had to be there when it was first released in June 1967. I was 12 years old. There was a reason Jimi Hendrix learned the album and was performing some of it 48 hours after it came out..... And Brian Wilson was speechless. I am willing to bet no album in the history of recorded music was played as much repeatedly over and over again in it's first month of release than Pepper was worldwide. Yes. Standard BEATLES FANDOM 101 .
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 17, 2017 7:22:14 GMT -5
Spoken like a true Stonesophobic, often a Beatles fan always looking over his or her shoulder and putting the Rolling Stones down, scared deep down that maybe the Stones were as good and important as the Beatles, especially with the Stones' incredible string of classic albums starting with Beggars Banquet to Goats Head Soup. LOL! That's the best you can do? Nice try.. however, I must burst your bubble and inform you that you don't know what you're talking about in my case, since The Rolling Stones are my #2 favorite British band after The Beatles. I have tons of 1960's vinyl albums by them, most of their early stuff. (I own both US and UK versions of many of their albums). I also like and own later albums by them from the 1970's. I am a huge fan of the songs "Emotional Rescue" and "Undercover Of The Night", even. I also like and own TATTOO YOU and STEEL WHEELS. -- But when it comes to paying any serious mind to Mick and the others (after all, it's only about Mick - and to a lesser extent, Keith) I recognize that they were never in the Beatles' league music-wise or power-wise (to quote John Lennon). They always resented this, and they always wanted to be The Beatles. But they never were and still are not nearly as renowned, even having been recording now something like 54 years as compared to The Beatles' 7 years. So nice try in hopping on today's all-too-instantaneous leap at the "o-phobe" or "--cist" kneejerk reaction just because there is some criticism involved. But to play along -- it's not about me being so-called " Stonesophobic", though there are a great many Stones diehards who are extremely Beatlephobic. Kind of a long answer, someone is defensive! And Keith Richards, "to a lesser extent?" Keith is not the lead singer but to say he is not as important as Mick in the band is absurd. Written like a Stonesophobe! I scored some more points with a long and winding defense of "Maxwell!" A song two, probably three, of the other Beatles HATED! As a Beatles fan one would think you knew that! Speaking of macabre, I'd argue that "Helter Skelter" is the best known song off the White Album, a fact recognized by Capitol Records when it perversely made the song the B-Side to "Got To Get You Into MY Life" in 1976! A bad TV show using "Ob La Di" as the themes song, with a bad cover" is no ringing endorsement. Tony Orlando(of Dawn fame) use to sing it at the end of his TV show and he would always get a laugh by sitting in some old guy's lap and sing a verse! Cringe-worthy! Paul's "Oh! Darling" is overwrought as sung, John Lennon said so. It sounds like Paul Anka! Mick and Keith wrote at about the same time "Wild Horses," more melodic than your examples! I feel someone is getting nervous!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 17, 2017 8:45:03 GMT -5
LOL! That's the best you can do? Nice try.. however, I must burst your bubble and inform you that you don't know what you're talking about in my case, since The Rolling Stones are my #2 favorite British band after The Beatles. I have tons of 1960's vinyl albums by them, most of their early stuff. (I own both US and UK versions of many of their albums). I also like and own later albums by them from the 1970's. I am a huge fan of the songs "Emotional Rescue" and "Undercover Of The Night", even. I also like and own TATTOO YOU and STEEL WHEELS. -- But when it comes to paying any serious mind to Mick and the others (after all, it's only about Mick - and to a lesser extent, Keith) I recognize that they were never in the Beatles' league music-wise or power-wise (to quote John Lennon). They always resented this, and they always wanted to be The Beatles. But they never were and still are not nearly as renowned, even having been recording now something like 54 years as compared to The Beatles' 7 years. So nice try in hopping on today's all-too-instantaneous leap at the "o-phobe" or "--cist" kneejerk reaction just because there is some criticism involved. But to play along -- it's not about me being so-called " Stonesophobic", though there are a great many Stones diehards who are extremely Beatlephobic. Kind of a long answer, someone is defensive! Again - that's the best you can do? So a "long answer" is not good? Would you have preferred a simple "Oh Yeah??" from me instead? No, mine was just an intelligent, well-thought-out retort. It also nullifies everything you alleged about me and The Stones, though you conveniently ignored the proof rather than concede the truth. That is your choice. The Beatles require all Four to truly be The Beatles. The Stones require only Mick and (to a lesser extent) Keith. Though I'd still argue that - as the main singer 99.999% of the time - the Stones are largely a one-front man show. Not only doesn't "Oh! Darling" sound a thing like Paul Anka (whose hits I enjoy anyway), but I don't rely on things any of The Beatles say to form my own personal opinion. (Just like people constantly pointing to Paul loving PET SOUNDS, as though it means that we must, too). John Lennon also said every single Beatles song needed to be re-recorded.. and I didn't agree with him there, either. Maybe you should consider changing your "It's Only Love" avatar, since Lennon hated that song too. I would disagree with that subjective opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But I would like to remind you that "Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da" was also a separate A-Sided 45 in 1976. If being passionate and well-spoken and full of valid observations = "nervous" in your world, then go for it. Truth be Beatles Fans are the last people in the world that need to be nervous or defensive about anything; the Beatles' power and status remains intact and unshakable. Now, to Stones fans -- well, this is an entirely different matter. They have been frustrated and uptight about living in the Beatles' shadows for decades. Hey John - ever think of quitting the Beatles forum and running a Rolling Stones Forum? The world could use a couple of those, and I think you'd be perfect as chief moderator. Heck, maybe you can even be the first to start StonesFest.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 17, 2017 9:39:54 GMT -5
Joe, don't get so nervous, the Beatles legacy is secure as the world's best Pop band! The Stones get to claim being the world's best Rock and Roll Band which is a narrower genre.
I am sorry I hit some nerves and the "facts" you cite are just opinions, like us arguing which is more melodic, "Maxwell" or "Wild Horses."
A fan can love both bands. The Beatles vs. Rolling Stones is very 1965! The bands were actually friends as we know and pushed each other. Back to the start of my first post, the Stones got burned following the Pepper path because though Pepper is a good album, it was an ultimate dead end and that is not even controversial.
The Beatles returned the favor and followed the Stones and got back to where they once belonged by Hey Jude/Revolution and the White Album, going back to the basics. That is just one example.
I am sure the Stones are happy not to have a Stonesfest(although I am sure there is something) as one need only look at some of the geeky Beatles fans at Beatlefest(or whatever it is called these days) and one could rightfully think one is at Star Trek Fest or Eddie Munster Fest, not to mention that peace and love flies out the door there as fans fight over flea market items in a very greedy, capitalistic way!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 17, 2017 10:03:14 GMT -5
I saw this somewhere else but it is a June 13, 1968 article from The Michigan Daily on the bad influence Pepper had on Pop music. It is not so hard on Pepper itself but just the aftermath of it when music went bad with all of that trippy stuff:
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 17, 2017 17:19:20 GMT -5
I saw this somewhere else but it is a June 13, 1968 article from The Michigan Daily on the bad influence Pepper had on Pop music. It is not so hard on Pepper itself but just the aftermath of it when music went bad with all of that trippy stuff: That's fine. Some people even thought the Beatles, Elvis, or Rock N Roll in general were abominations and stains on Popular Music in general. Everyone's got an opinion.
|
|