Alexander Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Regarding some of the above conversation: I'm a big Ray Davies/Kinks fan. Never understood the whole "either/or" mentality ("Ray Davies was better than Lennon/McCartney, etc."). Lennon/McCartney were good. Ray Davies was good. Mick and Keith were good. Brian Wilson was good. Why choose? Why not just enjoy them all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Why not just enjoy them all? Exactly. Why not just enjoy Robert Goulet? Why not just enjoy Jerry Vale? Why not just enjoy Al Martino? They are all just as great as the Beatles. All artists are equally great - none are any better than another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Regarding some of the above conversation: I'm a big Ray Davies/Kinks fan. Never understood the whole "either/or" mentality ("Ray Davies was better than Lennon/McCartney, etc."). Lennon/McCartney were good. Ray Davies was good. Mick and Keith were good. Brian Wilson was good. Why choose? Why not just enjoy them all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Why not just enjoy them all? Exactly. Why not just enjoy Robert Goulet? Why not just enjoy Jerry Vale? Why not just enjoy Al Martino? They are all just as great as the Beatles. All artists are equally great - none are any better than another. You're missing the point,he is not saying to enjoy all the artists without criticism, he's against the manichean vision that if you like the Kinks , you have to hate the Beatles, you have to be a Stone or a Beatle etc. You can do comparaisons of course but if it is in the objective of doing the equivalent of a Survivor tv show, where you dismiss and eliminate completely certain groups to end up with only one, you might be missing something in the long run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I understand. My point, which was not clear, had to do with the fact that the Beatles' contemporaries were and in many ways still are completely overshadowed by the Fab Four. As a result, their contributions often get overlooked. That's all. Of course, we can enjoy them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I understand. My point, which was not clear, had to do with the fact that the Beatles' contemporaries were and in many ways still are completely overshadowed by the Fab Four. As a result, their contributions often get overlooked. That's all. Of course, we can enjoy them all. And i completely agree, the Kinks never got the recognition nor the hype that the aforementionned groups had Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldB3 Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Regarding some of the above conversation: I'm a big Ray Davies/Kinks fan. Never understood the whole "either/or" mentality ("Ray Davies was better than Lennon/McCartney, etc."). Lennon/McCartney were good. Ray Davies was good. Mick and Keith were good. Brian Wilson was good. Why choose? Why not just enjoy them all? Oh totally, just saying that as a little kid I was a huge Beatles/Beach Boy's fanatic but for pop's Ray Davies was THE man. We both agreed on Miles and Monk so that was cool. Funny thing was this was around the early 80's so I guess our tastes were retro even back then. If you make that cd, let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I understand. My point, which was not clear, had to do with the fact that the Beatles' contemporaries were and in many ways still are completely overshadowed by the Fab Four. As a result, their contributions often get overlooked. That's all. Of course, we can enjoy them all. And i completely agree, the Kinks never got the recognition nor the hype that the aforementionned groups had Hey, didn't I cover this with "Just because there's no such thing as Kinksmania, that's no reason to talk smack about 'em."? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Wasn't talking smack.......just reacting to Spanking the Monkey's "unclear" point. Yet, I don't recall Jimmy Page having to play John or George's guitar parts in the studio! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Nobody recommending "Revelution In The Head"????? :unsure: I think it's amazing. Definitely discussion of this book way upstream the thread. I agree--I've probably read it (in toto) about three times now. I just finished my fourth reading. I was going to recommend the book but Cliff beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 (edited) I don't recall Jimmy Page having to play John or George's guitar parts in the studio! That's because Paul handled most of them when John or George couldn't cut it. Edited September 27, 2009 by Teasing the Korean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I don't recall Jimmy Page having to play John or George's guitar parts in the studio! That's because Paul handled most of them when John or George couldn't cut it. And Ray couldn't handle them when Dave couldn't. Let's face it, there was no "Kinksmania" because they just weren't in the same league as the Beatles, or Zep, or whoever. They had a slight resurgence thanks to Eddie VH and David LR, but that's about it. I enjoy 'em as much as the next guy, but there's just not that much there. And btw, Paul's guitar playing was NOT as good as John's or George's. The reason he took over the bass for Stu Sutcliffe was because HE was the least of the three. Still waiting to hear about you. And no, I was not part of the "happy bottom quarter". I happened to have attended one of, if not THE best public high school in America. Whatchugot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 (edited) Whatchugot? I may possibly have better grammar, based on the clumsy construction of your second-to-last sentence: I happened to have attended one of, if not THE best public high school in America. On the subjects of the Beatles, Kinks, and using one's alleged credentials to bully others, how about we agree to disagree and move on? Edited September 27, 2009 by Teasing the Korean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Nobody recommending "Revelution In The Head"????? :unsure: I think it's amazing. Definitely discussion of this book way upstream the thread. I agree--I've probably read it (in toto) about three times now. I just finished my fourth reading. I was going to recommend the book but Cliff beat me to it. Reading it right now. MacDonald is clearly VERY bright and an incisive critic. He's also a bit...well...grumpy in parts. He really comes down on George for his singing and playing at times. Now, I have often made the point that George was the least of the Beatles in the beginning (not too surprising...he WAS a freakin' kid at the time), but I don't treat it like a personal failing. John and Paul were a force to be reckoned with. And Ringo was an experienced professional when the other three were just getting their feet back in Liverpool and Hamburg. That George had to hustle to keep up at times is only natural. And he developed quickly under the constant pressure to prove his worth in the band. "Abbey Road" is the first and only time that I feel like all four were really operating as equals (or at least near equals) as vocalists and songwriters. With "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" George had FINALLY written something that was every bit as good as anything Jon and Paul could come up with, without qualifiers or reservations. And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer, had developed a confidence in his voice that allowed him to perform "Octopus's Garden" with something more than just his usual zest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 That George had to hustle to keep up at times is only natural. And he developed quickly under the constant pressure to prove his worth in the band. "Abbey Road" is the first and only time that I feel like all four were really operating as equals (or at least near equals) as vocalists and songwriters. With "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" George had FINALLY written something that was every bit as good as anything Jon and Paul could come up with, without qualifiers or reservations. Agreed. And in the Anthology documentary, which I've been viewing in installments again lately, both Paul and George confirm this point. As George put it, "John and Paul had by the mid 1960s already written their bad songs," or something to that effect. And while I agree with your point about "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" I would also add to that some of the earlier alternative cuts of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (namely, the ones featured on Anthology 3 and Love) serve as a testament not only to George's progression in songwriting but also his musical talents by the time The Beatles (e.g. The White Album) was recorded and released in 1968, even if his contributions were kind of squeezed out of that one on the whole for probably a variety of complex factors. These alternative cuts of WMGGW nevertheless send shivers down the spine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 The Beatles were the typical whole will be greater than each individual part. Couldn't agree more. If the Beatles decided that they could sell more records as the Beatles instead of as solo artists in 1970, just from the best songs off the solo albums & singles from 1970 (some might be from 71) you would have pretty good Beatles record. Something like: Side 1: Mother It Don't Come Easy Another Day Maybe I'm Amazed My Sweet Lord Working Class Hero Side 2: Instant Karma Beware of Darkness Every Night All Things Must Pass Awaiting On You All Junk God I think I might have to make that CD! So I compiled this playlist as a CD today (which I called "Beatles '71") and it works AMAZINGLY well. It really does flow like a Beatles album. Thanks for the idea! The only amendment I made was adding "Love" to the second "side," slipping it between "All Things Must Pass" and "Awaiting You All" to break up the George a bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Amusing to read all these posts by so many folks not around with money in hand when the stuff was originally released. Not a value judgment, just and observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Amusing to read all these posts by so many folks not around with money in hand when the stuff was originally released. Not a value judgment, just and observation. The reality of why this person who wasn't around at the time is posting is this sad fact: I am 100x more confident in my rock music judgment than I am in my jazz judgment. It's hard to explain, but rock is something I've grown up with, it's my first memory of music, and I feel that I "know" this music on a level that I don't know jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 ...And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer... Alexander, imo, you're going a little overboard with these Beatles lectures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Englewood Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Nobody recommending "Revolution In The Head"????? :unsure: I think it's amazing. Definitely discussion of this book way upstream the thread. I agree--I've probably read it (in toto) about three times now. I just finished my fourth reading. I was going to recommend the book but Cliff beat me to it. Reading it right now. MacDonald is clearly VERY bright and an incisive critic. He's also a bit...well...grumpy in parts. He really comes down on George for his singing and playing at times. Now, I have often made the point that George was the least of the Beatles in the beginning (not too surprising...he WAS a freakin' kid at the time), but I don't treat it like a personal failing. John and Paul were a force to be reckoned with. And Ringo was an experienced professional when the other three were just getting their feet back in Liverpool and Hamburg. That George had to hustle to keep up at times is only natural. And he developed quickly under the constant pressure to prove his worth in the band. "Abbey Road" is the first and only time that I feel like all four were really operating as equals (or at least near equals) as vocalists and songwriters. With "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" George had FINALLY written something that was every bit as good as anything Jon and Paul could come up with, without qualifiers or reservations. And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer, had developed a confidence in his voice that allowed him to perform "Octopus's Garden" with something more than just his usual zest. Yes, more believers for the "Revolution In The Head" :tup I agree with the grumpy assesment, I think I said something similar earlier on in the thread, and I agree with the point that he does seem a bit harsh on George throughout the book. Many times I would read some of his analysis of the Harrision tunes and think "fucking hell, give the guy a break, I'm sure he was doing his best". But in fairness he gives credit where credit is due and "Something" is a good example, I really like his last line, "If McCartney wasn't jealous, he should have been". He also pretty much slates anything George did for the "White Album" except "Long, Long, Long", calling it, "at last - the real George" and his "finest moment" on the album, which I think is pretty much bang on. I love the book because he's obviously gotten access that only an Apple insider would have gotten but he doesn't approach it like an Apple insider, he's much more objective and smashes a few legends in the process, eg that the "Abbey Road" sessions were a big hug fest, they weren't, they still had the nastiness toward each other. I picked up the stereo MMT the other day and I have to say I was very disappointed with it in comparison to the mono version, anyone else have both and care to comment, or is it just me??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Amusing to read all these posts by so many folks not around with money in hand when the stuff was originally released. Not a value judgment, just and observation. I was able to scrape 75 cents together when the Let it Be single was out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Whatchugot? I may possibly have better grammar, based on the clumsy construction of your second-to-last sentence: I happened to have attended one of, if not THE best public high school in America. On the subjects of the Beatles, Kinks, and using one's alleged credentials to bully others, how about we agree to disagree and move on? Highly doubtful on the grammar front. I was typing while at work with 2 kids nipping at my heels. Enough with the pissing contest. It's easy to make bold, blanket statements while hiding behind your anonymity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 ...And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer... Alexander, imo, you're going a little overboard with these Beatles lectures. To each his own. You certainly don't have to read them. Someone else on this thread has said that they are "more confident of their rock knowledge than their jazz knowledge", or words to that effect. Well, that's kind of how I feel about the Beatles. I've literally been listening to them my whole life. Not passively listening either. This is music I know as well as I know myself. They are probably the one artist that I REALLY feel qualified to discuss. Now the flip side of this is that I can come off as a bit of a know-it-all. A few years ago, my wife and I were in the car when a Peter and Gordon single came on the radio (one of the songs Lennon/McCartney had written for them. Possibly "World Without Love," I'm not exactly sure). She asked me, "Is this the Beatles?" I said no, it's Peter and Gordon, but it's a song the Beatles wrote for them. She asked me, "Are you sure?" To which I replied, "Look who you're talking to. Of course I'm sure." I will put my Beatles knowledge (lyrics, trivia, etc.) on the line against anyone else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 ...And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer... Alexander, imo, you're going a little overboard with these Beatles lectures. To each his own. You certainly don't have to read them. Someone else on this thread has said that they are "more confident of their rock knowledge than their jazz knowledge", or words to that effect. Well, that's kind of how I feel about the Beatles. I've literally been listening to them my whole life. Not passively listening either. This is music I know as well as I know myself. They are probably the one artist that I REALLY feel qualified to discuss. Now the flip side of this is that I can come off as a bit of a know-it-all. A few years ago, my wife and I were in the car when a Peter and Gordon single came on the radio (one of the songs Lennon/McCartney had written for them. Possibly "World Without Love," I'm not exactly sure). She asked me, "Is this the Beatles?" I said no, it's Peter and Gordon, but it's a song the Beatles wrote for them. She asked me, "Are you sure?" To which I replied, "Look who you're talking to. Of course I'm sure." I will put my Beatles knowledge (lyrics, trivia, etc.) on the line against anyone else's. Watch out, A. People around here do not like bravado. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 I like it. And I'm pretty sure the only Peter and Gordon hit written by the boys was World Without Love. I actually used to own the 45. Can't remember the flip - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.