What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Beatles (1 Viewer)

going to try & get rubber soul & let it be today (& look into past masters volumes, especialy one with hey jude... mccartney was great at super bowl a few years ago)...

this thread is an instant classic... RBD & DAD were FFA classics for different reasons, but this is one of the most informative, insightful & best written i've ever had the pleasure to read here...

 
Revolver is so good it isn't funny.

So many GREAT tracks that rarely get mentioned....For No One, She Said She Said, Doctor Robert, I'm Only Sleeping....

Yellow Submarine is a little out of place, but I generally like the song and it doesn't upset the flow that much.

 
Revolver is so good it isn't funny. So many GREAT tracks that rarely get mentioned....For No One, She Said She Said, Doctor Robert, I'm Only Sleeping....Yellow Submarine is a little out of place, but I generally like the song and it doesn't upset the flow that much.
See, to me, I can't hear the album without Yellow Submarine. Love the sound effects. Song is goofy, but it's funny. I can't help but smile when John starts with the "Sky of blue, sea of green..." stuff. Also, near the end, it sounds more like a bar sing a long song than a kids song. A big part of the Beatles, IMO, was their sense of humor. This song is the personification of that. If the album had 3 or 4 songs like this, it would be too much, but stuck between the jaw dropping beauty of Here, There, and Everywhere and the acid rock of She Said She Said, it works. The fact that it's between these two songs is kind of funny in and of itself. It just proves again that the Beatles can do whatever they want and they are still the Beatles. Along with everything else the Beatles contributed to music, if you think about it, the Beatles contributed an original, timeless children's song to the world. What other rock and roll band can say that?
 
not sure if this authoritative sounding review of relative merits of mono/stereo posted yet...

ordered the mono box to compare mixes... could be a while, but no longer "limited"... amazon has note that even new orders will be fulfilled...

5.0 out of 5 stars

A Cheapskate's (Relatively) Guide To The Mono and Stereo Re-Issues, September 10, 2009

By James N. Perlman - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

Introduction: The following is pretty much a full review of both the mono and stereo reissues largely written in real time as a series of e-mails to an old friend who once owned a legendary record store here in Chicago. The story of the reissues really comes down to the technical limitations of two-track, four-track, eight-track, etc. recordings and the relative complexity of the music of the Beatles. Listening occurred on what would be considered an audiophile system with Quad 988's as the speakers.

Please Please Me: The sound on the mono is just amazing. You can hear the echo in the room as John sings Anna. The vocals just soar. Ringo was just so good, even at this early stage and so was Paul. They supported and framed the songs so perfectly. And just think, in twenty-one minutes, or so, Twist And Shout! Stereo can't hold a candle to this, if for no other reason than the left/right "stereo" found later in With The Beatles, Rubber Soul and Revolver.

With The Beatles: As with Please Please Me, the mono sounds so, so, nice. As the stereo has that annoying left/right "stereo," no contest: mono hands down.

A Hard Day's Night: Seems better and more enjoyable in stereo. I think the reason is that they now had four tracks so George Martin could do proper stereo mixes and still have a mostly fresh first generationish sound. Remember, there were only two track available for Please Please Me. However, when they got to Rubber Soul and Revolver, four tracks weren't enough, which required, in some instances, numerous dubs of the four tracks to another four track tape, merging the four tracks to one track, thereby opening up three new tracks. While this degraded the sound somewhat it also made it difficult to back-track and do the after-thought stereo mixes, which is why we have the atrocious "stereo" of Rubber Soul and Revolver. Consequently, the reason the monos of these albums rule has mostly to do with technical limitations. While the mixes on A Hard Day's Night are true stereo mixes, they carry George Martin's idiosyncratic, but really right, decision to put the vocals in the center, the rhythm section to the left and the other instruments to the right. I always have loved how Martin took care to isolate the brilliant work of Ringo and Paul so many times instead of just following the convention of placing the drums in the center. This is why one of Martin's memoirs is entitled: "All You Need Is Ears."

The Beatles For Sale: Comments, preference and reasons for preference similar to A Hard Day's Night.

Help: Well, thank God we have three different versions to compare to make life ever so easy. First, mono is the definitive mix, that's a plus. As a minus, while it sounds richer, it is also a bit muddy compared to the stereo mixes. As for the stereo mixes, the remaster of George Martin's '87 remix does show some limiting in this new incarnation. A bit a hard to dial in the right volume. Sounds fuller, but that's the limiting. Not sure I care for this version too much. As for the `65 stereo version, that comes on the same disc as the mono version, as this album is somewhat acoustic, the absence of the limiting that was done to the new stereo remix/remaster is a plus. The delicacy is there in I Need You. Overall, the "old" stereo is prettier than the "new" stereo. One can argue over whether the "new" stereo or the ""old" stereo is better, I come down on the side of the "old" stereo, I like pretty. But as you get both the mono and the "old" stereo on the single mono disc, the cheapskate in me screams if you had a pistol to your head and only had to purchase one version of Help, it would be the "mono" disc.

Rubber Soul: Mono over stereo, if for no other reason than the left/rt channel mix that plagued Please, Please Me, With The Beatles and Revlover.

Revolver: There is a section of I Want To Tell You where Ringo is just so muscular and explosive in the mono that is missing in stereo and this is before we get to the issue of the left/right "stereo" of the stereo mix. Plus, there is just this overall richness of sound to the mono that is missing in the stereo. That said, it is a bit cooler to hear Tomorrow Never Knows in stereo. But, overall, mono.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: The things you have heard are correct about the mono mix, the clarity and control over the notes, instruments and vocals is all there. Overall, it just sounds better, fuller and richer than the stereo, plus it is what the boys intended. Oddly, the thing that was most breathtaking was She's Leaving Home; just a full, gorgeous, sound. In stereo, it just sounds relatively wrong; thin compared to the mono. That said, because Day In The Life is such a mind-f the stereo is the definitive version of this song.

Magical Mystery Tour: While Pepper's sounded better in Mono, MMT sounds better in stereo.

The Beatles (The White Album): Both versions have their merits, you need both. If you can only go for one, it's the stereo.

Abbey Road: The defining moment of these reissues, and why it took four years, may be found on AR's I Want You (She's So Heavy). Because they couldn't take the tape hiss out without compromising the sound, they didn't. But when it came to John's final "she's so heavy" which was over saturated and clipped previously, they were able to take the clipping out, and for the first time, you can hear all of John's vocal. Second side now, Here Comes the Sun and now Because. Wonderful sound throughout. Can't wait for Ringo at the end.

Let It Be: It is what it is. I prefer the Naked in vinyl.

Mono Past Masters: Right now, listening to the The Inner Light, which I hate, but it sounds so, so, so good in mono that I may actually like it. And, look out, Paul's bass piano notes in Hey Jude are right there as is Ringo's tambourine. Can't wait for Revolution plus the mono songs from Yellow Submarine. The mono Past Masters would have been perfection if they had added a stereo Let It Be and The Ballad Of John and Yoko. After all, the "stereo" Past Masters is actually a mixture of stereo and mono.

So kids, here's where we end. Your core, oddly enough, should be the mono box set. Augment this with the stereo Hard Day's Night, The Beatles For Sale, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Magical Mystery Tour, The Beatles, Abbey Road, Let It Be and stereo Past Masters.

Addendum: As I live in Chicago, and have access to one of the country's remaining great stereo stores, that also boast three incredibly knowledgeable owners and an original Sgt. Peppers British Stereo pressing, following posting this review I went over there to compare the original vinyl with the two new CD reissues. We listened to the reference system, Naim Audio electronic and Quad speakers. There was total agreement on what we heard. First, Pepper's mono CD had better tonal balance than Peppers stereo CD. Pepper's stereo CD had better coloration than the mono, but this was defeated by the harshness of the sound (more on harshness shortly). Thus, overall, between the two CD's we preferred the mono CD. All that said, the stereo original British vinyl pressing crushed both. It had both tonal correctness and coloration.

Now as to the harshness issue, please be mindful that I have listened to these discs on two audiophile systems. Something like harshness is likely to be more prevalent the higher up you get in the stereo food chain. Thus, someone who doesn't have an audiophile system may not experience the harshness at all, but it really is there. This may render some of the stereo CDs more listenable for these people than they were for me, at least when it comes to Pepper's.

9/12/09 THANKS TO ALL: The past few days, following the posting of my review, have been a lot of fun. So many people have taken the time to write me, quite a number saying the review was flat-out the best review of any sort they have read. Others shared memories and feelings about how important this music is to them. Amazingly, two brother, one in Boston one in Paris, found they were reading the same thread and were kind of amazed by the co-incidence. All in all, it has been a very rewarding experience. I thank Amazon for providing this opportunity, and those of you present and future who have/will take(n) the time to play.

 
A big part of the Beatles, IMO, was their sense of humor.
[sarcasm]But....but...saintsfan, you can't have fun and make serious music! I mean, art in music is supposed to come from tortured genuises like Cobain & Reznor, or it's supposed to be "intellectual" like Yes & Jackson Browne or (God forbid) David Bowie, or head-up-your-###-serious like Iron Maiden & the Eagles (who damned near turned Joe Walsh into a curmudgeon - an ultimate R&R sin).

[sarcasm done]

One of the great things about the (especially, early) Beatles was the sheer joy in playing their music. The smiles come sailing through the speakers on so many of their hits, sometimes from the lead singer (Paul, most often in this case) & almost always from the background harmonies - those earsplitting "woo"s are the sounds of young men who are having the time of their lives. A lot of this good humor got lost later on (for tons of reasons), but would suddenly surface in unexpected places when you can tell THE BEATLES had fallen back to being just the Beatles. I heard "One After 909" the other night on the radio - is this the one Paul wrote in the 50s? - and, my God, they blew away any bar band I've ever heard on this throw-away tune. The Beatles having a blast was evident; there's no self-consciousness at all.

 
I would have kept Yellow Submarine on the album, but put it at the end. Like what they did on Abbey Road, going out on a lighter note.

 
a couple interesting posts on an amazon thread regarding the stereo/mono debate, below...

until recently, i had thought of mono exclusively in terms such as quaint & retrograde... :)

but after thinking about it (& much talk here on the thread about how the mono mixes were the ones signed off on by the beatles... had not idea about that previously), it isn't obvious why stereo would be INTRINISCALLY superior (except for maybe tasteful employment of panning across the soundscape/swirling-type effects?)... at a concert, you don't necessarily hear certain instruments in the left & right ear, or vocals vs. instruments... but everything in both your ears...

at least in my mind, i think in retrospect it had a negative connotation associated with having a sound mix in which the instrument (& vocal) separation was non-existent or smushed together in a sort of indistinct blur or soup...

the real issue for me is separation... i used to have some great magnaplanar speakers, probably the best i've ever had in terms of delineating as many as 10 instruments on a polyrhytmic feast such as miles #####es brew... but with only 2 speakers, & still an outstanding job of separation (& that was incidentally recorded around '69-'70, close to abbey road & the white album) with that many instruments in the sonic pallette (multiple drummers, keyboardists, horns), separation (at least in that instance) seemingly speaks more to the recording/engineering mix, as well as the playback equipment...

i do find it interesting though not surprising that different people are hearing & therefore reporting different things... it is routine in the SP for different people, looking at the exact same highlights of a given prospect, to come up with starkly different interpretations (note doubt based on subjectively different impressions, attending to different facets out of probably potentially thousands, variably delimits perceptions)...

* some of my favorite ENGINEERED music in my collection was some acid jazz on the prestige label from the late '60s-early '70s by rudy van gelder (like akilah! by melvin sparks & black talk by charles earland... on which can be found an excellent instrumental beatle's cover :) )... you could hear all the instruments (usually bass, guitar, drums, organ, sax & trumpet) clearly in the mix... i chalked up the phenomenal sound to a few things... mic placement, room acoustics, & van gelder at the recording console (they were in stereo, BTW)... i'd give similar praise to the engineering & instrument delineation on a much later recording like bill laswell's hallucination engine (capturing an eclectic mix of talent, including bootsy & bernie worrell from p-funk, wayne shorter from miles & weather report, a battery of world class african/indian/middle eastern percussionists, & even the kitchen sink... a spoken rap on one song by naked lunch author william s. burroughs!)...

_________________

James Beeler says:

"I was long hoping for a complete remix of the Beatles Stereo albums from Sgt. Peppers on.

Stereo was still in its infancy when these albums were made and at least Sgt. Peppers and The While Album were mixed in a way that I do not think does the songs full justice--all the vocals were in the right speaker and all the instruments were in the left speaker. This became readily apparent to me in 1976 when listening to Sgt. Peppers on cassette in my car when the left speaker was out--I was treated to an instrumental version of Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club band; there were no vocals whatsoever. Once stereophonic sound was perfected by the time Led Zeppelin came along, the bass, drums and lead guitars came out of both speakers giving the song a much fuller sound. Whilst even the hardest Beatle-songs (Helter Skelter, Everybody Got Something To Hide Except Me And My Monkey, Yer Blues, Back In The USSR...) are not on a par in sheer hardness to Led Zeppelin, I always thought they would sound MUCH better, MUCH fuller if they were mixed in a similar manner to the Led Zeppelin albums.

When I first heard about the Beatle albums being remastered, I thought this was what they were going to do but from reading these posts, it appears that is not what was done."

J. McLean says:

"I've listened to mono versions of Revolver, Sgt Pepper & The White Album and can tell you that the sound is substantially fuller than the stereo versions. Listening to Taxman, for example with a stereo mix, it is striking how the left channel only contains vocals while the music is on the right. With the mono version, the drums and bass, especially, being on both channels, makes the sound so much fuller than the stereo version. Same story with Back in the USSR. Big difference in favor of mono. I always was bothered by the thin sound of some songs, especially on Revolver and the White Album and now understand all the fuss about mono versions of these albums. Abby Road is perfectly done in stereo. Problem with earlier releases, again especially Revolver, Sgt Pepper and the White Album is the way drums and bass are just on one channel."

& a rebuttal (advocating the primacy of stereo)...

ross.5.1 says:

"The fab four just got more fab but why only get half pregnant?

Firstly for James Beeler - are you sure it wasn't your ears that weren't on the blink? Then again citing replaying a Beatles cassette as your source material is hardly definitive no matter what car you were driving! However, to claim all the vocals to Sgt. Pepper and The White Album were on the right and all the instruments were located to the left channel is just complete and utter rubbish. Anyway not only are vocals appearing over both albums featuring lead vocals as mainly centred, but in a song like Happiness Is A Warm Gun you not only have John Lennon starting out lead centred, but then his vocal goes right while the distinct "group" backing vocal is located left and instrumentation also suitably spread.

Sgt Pepper - but more particularly A Day In The Life might have been quickie mixes in the conventional sense given stereo's more esoteric status in UK back then - but from the very first listen when I bought the album on its first day of release - the stereo mix at that time, particularly the stereo panning underpinning the bridge of Paul's "got out of bed" was revelatory and I wasn't even smoking anything. The mono mixes might have been lavished with all due care in the mix down up to Pepper as claimed by the engineers, but don't tell me the stereo Beatles aren't infinitely more listenable to the mono versions even from A Hard Day's Night onwards. This ridiculous notion that mono is somehow truer to authentic sounding Beatles is bunkum when you don the headphones, let alone sit in a sizeable room with a decent sound system and listen to the congealed mass that mono represents.

For those like myself who listen to so much music via heaphones whether on the move or sat in a comfy chair or lying in bed in the dark or whatever, the spectral fidelity of having The Beatles coming at you from three different aural aspects (left, right and centre) far outshines the fab four mixed in mono like concrete. Phil Spector is guilty of many things some of which even impinge on The Beatles, but for all his pop genius his "bring back mono" movement was one of the lamest ideas ever foisted on popular music. Not only do I want all my Beatles in their brand new significantly enhanced stereo state, but when are we going to have the unadulterated pleasure from at least Sgt Pepper onwards, of hearing the second half of their recorded cannon in 5.1 surround? Anyone who has heard the DVD Anthology mixes of such songs as All You Need is Love, Stawberry Fields and A Day In The Life doesn't need to be convinced as to how spectacularly wonderful they sound in surround.

So by all means celebrate these new masters where even the tinny stereo of the early albums sound fab in their rustic left-right simplicity, but spare me all this purist mono gibberish. Like DK Pete I couldn't agree more that now we have the ultimate stereo mixes pertaining to how the albums were mixed at the time (albeit I'm not sure of the stereo ancestry of the first two albums) how about letting us in the not so distant future hear the Beatles remixed. As already occurs with the 5.1 Anthology remixes and more so the Love album which actually dared to do a little reinterpretation with cross mixes etc, and sounds just fine for the experiment. This mixing never lost sight of the originals but the harmony at work in giving us a new slant on what had gone before was a breath of fresh air.

Now I've got that off my chest can Van Morrison get to grips with Astral Weeks and not just give it a serious state of the art remaster but mix it into 5.1 so I can die reasonably content - and for that I will even take off my headphones! Why the major labels won't go to town on seriously presenting all the classic albums of the last four to five decades where even Elvis can get the 5.1 treatment, completely escapes me. Considering you now have literally tens of millions of homes world-wide with the full cinema DVD surround sound set up installed. Roxy Music's Avalon is one of my top 10 greatest albums and to hear it in 5.1 has been a revelation - and I have no fear that hearing the Stones Sticky Fingers or anything by Radiohead and all Pink Floyd aside from the existing Dark Side of the Moon 5.1 is screaming out for such attention.

So here's to the Beatles in their brand spanking new remastered stereo glory - and to all those lucky enough to be really only beginning to hear their greatness for the first time - how I envy you."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Revolver is so good it isn't funny. So many GREAT tracks that rarely get mentioned....For No One, She Said She Said, Doctor Robert, I'm Only Sleeping....Yellow Submarine is a little out of place, but I generally like the song and it doesn't upset the flow that much.
See, to me, I can't hear the album without Yellow Submarine. Love the sound effects. Song is goofy, but it's funny. I can't help but smile when John starts with the "Sky of blue, sea of green..." stuff. Also, near the end, it sounds more like a bar sing a long song than a kids song. A big part of the Beatles, IMO, was their sense of humor. This song is the personification of that. If the album had 3 or 4 songs like this, it would be too much, but stuck between the jaw dropping beauty of Here, There, and Everywhere and the acid rock of She Said She Said, it works. The fact that it's between these two songs is kind of funny in and of itself. It just proves again that the Beatles can do whatever they want and they are still the Beatles. Along with everything else the Beatles contributed to music, if you think about it, the Beatles contributed an original, timeless children's song to the world. What other rock and roll band can say that?
Oh, I don't disagree and have no problem with Yellow Submarine as a song. It's the Beatles' song that my kids ask for when we get in the car. I had Revolver on while I was getting dressed for work last week and YS came on...my 2-year-old comes scurrying down the hall to my room with a big grin on his face so he can listen. As someone else suggested, I think I might like it placed at the end of the record. But was it the last song on the A side originally? If so, that makes more sense.
 
Revolver is so good it isn't funny. So many GREAT tracks that rarely get mentioned....For No One, She Said She Said, Doctor Robert, I'm Only Sleeping....Yellow Submarine is a little out of place, but I generally like the song and it doesn't upset the flow that much.
See, to me, I can't hear the album without Yellow Submarine. Love the sound effects. Song is goofy, but it's funny. I can't help but smile when John starts with the "Sky of blue, sea of green..." stuff. Also, near the end, it sounds more like a bar sing a long song than a kids song. A big part of the Beatles, IMO, was their sense of humor. This song is the personification of that. If the album had 3 or 4 songs like this, it would be too much, but stuck between the jaw dropping beauty of Here, There, and Everywhere and the acid rock of She Said She Said, it works. The fact that it's between these two songs is kind of funny in and of itself. It just proves again that the Beatles can do whatever they want and they are still the Beatles. Along with everything else the Beatles contributed to music, if you think about it, the Beatles contributed an original, timeless children's song to the world. What other rock and roll band can say that?
Oh, I don't disagree and have no problem with Yellow Submarine as a song. It's the Beatles' song that my kids ask for when we get in the car. I had Revolver on while I was getting dressed for work last week and YS came on...my 2-year-old comes scurrying down the hall to my room with a big grin on his face so he can listen. As someone else suggested, I think I might like it placed at the end of the record. But was it the last song on the A side originally? If so, that makes more sense.
Only one problem.I can't hear ANYTHING following Tomorrow Never Knows.Yellow Submarine, originally, didn't end Side One. She Said She Said did. YS was the song before She Said She Said.
 
the anthology DVD set was amazing*...

started with first two DVDs on netflix (& saw last one on VH1), & ended up getting it...

best music documentary & music DVD i've ever seen...

staggering scope... no idea they had so many whole song performances from various concerts (while they still toured)...

* monumental better describes my initial impression...

** it would have been cool if yoko ono, sonny bono & bono of u2 connected musically (the bono ono bono project)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the anthology DVD set was amazing*...started with first two DVDs on netflix (& saw last one on VH1), & ended up getting it...best music documentary & music DVD i've ever seen...staggering scope... no idea they had so many whole song performances from various concerts (while they still toured)...* monumental better describes my initial impression...** it would have been cool if yoko ono, sonny bono & bono of u2 connected musically (the bono ono bono project)
they could get Chastity Bono to join and call it the Bono,Ono,Gee I Don't Know Project. (apologies for referencing an old Bob Saget joke)
 
If you know any Beatles fans with newborns, I highly recommend Trio Rococo's tribute album. I've listened to this CD every night for the past 18 months and haven't tired of it yet - a great lullaby album. I haven't seen it available for download anywhere unfortunately.

 
The woman who was the inspiration for "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" died recently. I saw here obituary in the WaPo.

Lucy Vodden, 46, who provided the inspiration for the Beatles' classic song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," has died after a long battle with lupus.

Her death was announced Monday by St. Thomas' Hospital in London, where she had been treated for the chronic disease for more than five years, and by her husband, Ross Vodden. Britain's Press Association said she died Sept. 22. Hospital officials said they could not confirm the day of her death.

Mrs. Vodden's connection to the Beatles dates to her childhood friendship with schoolmate Julian Lennon, John Lennon's son.

Julian Lennon, then 4 years old, came home from school one day with a drawing, showed it to his father and said it was "Lucy in the sky with diamonds."

At the time, John Lennon was gathering material for "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," a landmark album released to worldwide acclaim in 1967. He seized on the image and developed it into what is widely regarded as a psychedelic masterpiece, with its haunting images of "newspaper taxis" and a "girl with kaleidoscope eyes."

Rock music critics thought the song's title was a veiled reference to LSD, but John Lennon insisted that the phrase came from his son, not from a desire to spell out the initials LSD in code.

Mrs. Vodden lost touch with Julian Lennon after his parents divorced and he left school. But they were reunited in recent years when Julian Lennon, who lives in France, tried to help her cope with the disease.

He sent her flowers and vouchers for use at a gardening center near her home in Surrey in southeast England, and he often sent her text messages in an effort to buttress her spirits.

"I wasn't sure at first how to approach her," Julian Lennon told the Associated Press in June. "I wanted at least to get a note to her. Then I heard she had a great love of gardening, and I thought I'd help with something she's passionate about, and I love gardening, too. I wanted to do something to put a smile on her face."

Mrs. Vodden said that she enjoyed her link to the Beatles but that she was not particularly fond of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

"I don't relate to the song, to that type of song," she told the Associated Press in June. "As a teenager, I made the mistake of telling a couple of friends at school that I was the Lucy in the song, and they said, 'No, it's not you, my parents said it's about drugs.' And I didn't know what LSD was at the time, so I just kept it quiet, to myself."

 
The woman who was the inspiration for "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" died recently. I saw here obituary in the WaPo.

Lucy Vodden, 46, who provided the inspiration for the Beatles' classic song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," has died after a long battle with lupus.

Her death was announced Monday by St. Thomas' Hospital in London, where she had been treated for the chronic disease for more than five years, and by her husband, Ross Vodden. Britain's Press Association said she died Sept. 22. Hospital officials said they could not confirm the day of her death.

Mrs. Vodden's connection to the Beatles dates to her childhood friendship with schoolmate Julian Lennon, John Lennon's son.

Julian Lennon, then 4 years old, came home from school one day with a drawing, showed it to his father and said it was "Lucy in the sky with diamonds."

At the time, John Lennon was gathering material for "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," a landmark album released to worldwide acclaim in 1967. He seized on the image and developed it into what is widely regarded as a psychedelic masterpiece, with its haunting images of "newspaper taxis" and a "girl with kaleidoscope eyes."

Rock music critics thought the song's title was a veiled reference to LSD, but John Lennon insisted that the phrase came from his son, not from a desire to spell out the initials LSD in code.

Mrs. Vodden lost touch with Julian Lennon after his parents divorced and he left school. But they were reunited in recent years when Julian Lennon, who lives in France, tried to help her cope with the disease.

He sent her flowers and vouchers for use at a gardening center near her home in Surrey in southeast England, and he often sent her text messages in an effort to buttress her spirits.

"I wasn't sure at first how to approach her," Julian Lennon told the Associated Press in June. "I wanted at least to get a note to her. Then I heard she had a great love of gardening, and I thought I'd help with something she's passionate about, and I love gardening, too. I wanted to do something to put a smile on her face."

Mrs. Vodden said that she enjoyed her link to the Beatles but that she was not particularly fond of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

"I don't relate to the song, to that type of song," she told the Associated Press in June. "As a teenager, I made the mistake of telling a couple of friends at school that I was the Lucy in the song, and they said, 'No, it's not you, my parents said it's about drugs.' And I didn't know what LSD was at the time, so I just kept it quiet, to myself."
I read about this in the paper, also.Julian's a good man. Interesting to think about what he and John's relationship would have been like had John lived. There were hints that they were getting closer. Unfortunately, John never got to make it up to Julian and Julian never got to forgive his father.

Tragic, really. Imagine dying before you got to tell your child how much you love him. I'm sure that was one of the things going through John's mind in his last few moments.

Hug your kids and tell them you love them. You never know when it'll be too late.

 
Julian's a good man. Interesting to think about what he and John's relationship would have been like had John lived. There were hints that they were getting closer. Unfortunately, John never got to make it up to Julian and Julian never got to forgive his father.Tragic, really. Imagine dying before you got to tell your child how much you love him. I'm sure that was one of the things going through John's mind in his last few moments.Hug your kids and tell them you love them. You never know when it'll be too late.
Or in other words, don't be a self-indulgent ####### and treat your kids like ####. Lennon was a great artist and made an impact on the world, but he really screwed over his son.
 
For those of you that are interested in the stereo CDs but haven't bought them yet, I stumbled across a sweet deal at Target. The discs are on sale for $11.98 each, and you get a $5 gift card if you buy two at once. So, if you're cheap and dedicated enough, you can end up with the entire catalog for around $150 including tax (White Album and Past Masters cost $4 more than the other CDs).

I still need Sgt. Peppers, Magic Mystery Tour, With the Beatles and Yellow Submarine to complete the collection. After listening to the ones I've bought, I have to say that Revolver is incredible. Can't believe I didn't have it in the first go around. I've also grown to appreciate the non-drug Beatles way more than I did before.

Most of this is directly attributable to this fantastic thread. Thanks!

 
For those of you that are interested in the stereo CDs but haven't bought them yet, I stumbled across a sweet deal at Target. The discs are on sale for $11.98 each, and you get a $5 gift card if you buy two at once. So, if you're cheap and dedicated enough, you can end up with the entire catalog for around $150 including tax (White Album and Past Masters cost $4 more than the other CDs).I still need Sgt. Peppers, Magic Mystery Tour, With the Beatles and Yellow Submarine to complete the collection. After listening to the ones I've bought, I have to say that Revolver is incredible. Can't believe I didn't have it in the first go around. I've also grown to appreciate the non-drug Beatles way more than I did before.Most of this is directly attributable to this fantastic thread. Thanks!
awesome, thanks bentley!! going to buy them tomorrow!!
 
For those of you that are interested in the stereo CDs but haven't bought them yet, I stumbled across a sweet deal at Target. The discs are on sale for $11.98 each, and you get a $5 gift card if you buy two at once. So, if you're cheap and dedicated enough, you can end up with the entire catalog for around $150 including tax (White Album and Past Masters cost $4 more than the other CDs).I still need Sgt. Peppers, Magic Mystery Tour, With the Beatles and Yellow Submarine to complete the collection. After listening to the ones I've bought, I have to say that Revolver is incredible. Can't believe I didn't have it in the first go around. I've also grown to appreciate the non-drug Beatles way more than I did before.Most of this is directly attributable to this fantastic thread. Thanks!
awesome, thanks bentley!! going to buy them tomorrow!!
The catch is that the gift card is only good on the next visit. So, you have to buy 2 one day, then 2 the next, then 2 the next, etc. to get the full benefit. They're still only $12 a piece if you want to forego the gift cards and spend the extra $35.
 
maybe it was because i was listening on headphones (formerly atypical, but more routine since i got an ipod), but listening to abbey road & sgt. peppers was like a spiritual experience...

not only heard many sounds i never did before, but even the way the whole song/s was/were organized, with the different elements in relation to each other was a revelation to me (like mr. kite, for instance)... the old CDs were sort of like taking your favorite meal (& drink) & than pureeing it... :yes:

i am beginning to have an appreciation for what saintsfan alluded to with the beatles (& george martin's) pioneering "studio as instrument" work arguably being unsurpassed TO THIS DAY (i'd add to that the brilliant avant garde orchestral arrangements in a day in the life)... you can hear so much more of it...

i'd also echo the sentiment that i had underestimated pre-sgt. peppers stuff, like revolver & rubber soul... almost working my way back in reverse chronological order (like a sonic archaeological dig :) ), with nothing prior to rubber soul... but that will be soon remedied with the mono box set, which amazon said will be shipping soon...

 
maybe it was because i was listening on headphones (formerly atypical, but more routine since i got an ipod), but listening to abbey road & sgt. peppers was like a spiritual experience...

not only heard many sounds i never did before, but even the way the whole song/s was/were organized, with the different elements in relation to each other was a revelation to me (like mr. kite, for instance)... the old CDs were sort of like taking your favorite meal (& drink) & than pureeing it... :)

i am beginning to have an appreciation for what saintsfan alluded to with the beatles (& george martin's) pioneering "studio as instrument" work arguably being unsurpassed TO THIS DAY (i'd add to that the brilliant avant garde orchestral arrangements in a day in the life)... you can hear so much more of it...

i'd also echo the sentiment that i had underestimated pre-sgt. peppers stuff, like revolver & rubber soul... almost working my way back in reverse chronological order (like a sonic archaeological dig :) ), with nothing prior to rubber soul... but that will be soon remedied with the mono box set, which amazon said will be shipping soon...
Entertainment Weekly did an article several years ago titled something like "Do The Beatles Still Matter?". They interviewed several modern artists and it was amazing how many people working in different genres revere the Beatles. No so much for the musicianship/composing (though many acknoledged excellence there too) but for the studio craftmanship. One hip-hopper (forgot who) talked about the 4- & 8-track recording the Beatles did and how it still blew him away decades later. Searched for the article & found it, but not the sidebar which must have been where the other musicians were quoted.I always pay attention when musicians talk about other musicians glowingly, even if they're artists I have little use for like Sting or David Byrne. The almost universal love the Beatles get from other artists is - to me - testament to their greatness and proof that their continuing popularity isn't based on nostalgic hype.

BTW, stumbled across this book on Amazon & am gonna get it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Entertainment Weekly did an article several years ago titled something like "Do The Beatles Still Matter?". They interviewed several modern artists and it was amazing how many people working in different genres revere the Beatles. No so much for the musicianship/composing (though many acknoledged excellence there too) but for the studio craftmanship. One hip-hopper (forgot who) talked about the 4- & 8-track recording the Beatles did and how it still blew him away decades later. Searched for the article & found it, but not the sidebar which must have been where the other musicians were quoted.

I always pay attention when musicians talk about other musicians glowingly, even if they're artists I have little use for like Sting or David Byrne. The almost universal love the Beatles get from other artists is - to me - testament to their greatness and proof that their continuing popularity isn't based on nostalgic hype.

BTW, stumbled across this book on Amazon & am gonna get it.
looks great...your link prompted me to check out the best selling books on the beatles at amazon... i think i am going to get the two volumes by winn... sounds like the successor to the authoritative but unfortunately now OOP book by lewisohn (sp?), who writes an intro...

 
For those of you that are interested in the stereo CDs but haven't bought them yet, I stumbled across a sweet deal at Target. The discs are on sale for $11.98 each, and you get a $5 gift card if you buy two at once. So, if you're cheap and dedicated enough, you can end up with the entire catalog for around $150 including tax (White Album and Past Masters cost $4 more than the other CDs).I still need Sgt. Peppers, Magic Mystery Tour, With the Beatles and Yellow Submarine to complete the collection. After listening to the ones I've bought, I have to say that Revolver is incredible. Can't believe I didn't have it in the first go around. I've also grown to appreciate the non-drug Beatles way more than I did before.Most of this is directly attributable to this fantastic thread. Thanks!
awesome, thanks bentley!! going to buy them tomorrow!!
The catch is that the gift card is only good on the next visit. So, you have to buy 2 one day, then 2 the next, then 2 the next, etc. to get the full benefit. They're still only $12 a piece if you want to forego the gift cards and spend the extra $35.
If they're good for the next visit, you can just go 8 times in one day.Even if they're good only the next day rather than the next visit, you can go 4 times on Monday (and get 4 gift cards), then go 4 more times on Tuesday (using one gift card each time).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those of you that are interested in the stereo CDs but haven't bought them yet, I stumbled across a sweet deal at Target. The discs are on sale for $11.98 each, and you get a $5 gift card if you buy two at once. So, if you're cheap and dedicated enough, you can end up with the entire catalog for around $150 including tax (White Album and Past Masters cost $4 more than the other CDs).I still need Sgt. Peppers, Magic Mystery Tour, With the Beatles and Yellow Submarine to complete the collection. After listening to the ones I've bought, I have to say that Revolver is incredible. Can't believe I didn't have it in the first go around. I've also grown to appreciate the non-drug Beatles way more than I did before.Most of this is directly attributable to this fantastic thread. Thanks!
awesome, thanks bentley!! going to buy them tomorrow!!
The catch is that the gift card is only good on the next visit. So, you have to buy 2 one day, then 2 the next, then 2 the next, etc. to get the full benefit. They're still only $12 a piece if you want to forego the gift cards and spend the extra $35.
If they're good for the next visit, you can just go 8 times in one day.Even if they're good only the next day rather than the next visit, you can go 4 times on Monday (and get 4 gift cards), then go 4 more times on Tuesday (using one gift card each time).
Next day only. Personally, it's easier to stop off at Target after work eight times over the course of a couple weeks rather than going four times in a day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanx for the heads up, bentley...

working my way earlier from rubber soul...

i think amazon & borders are selling these for $13.98 ea, so you also save a few bucks on each one...

my closest target was pretty picked over, but got help & hard days night (they also had please, please me)...

will try & pick up for sale & with the beatles at another nearby target today...

* while watching the extras on the anthology DVD set, i didn't realize what the CD companion was about before... i assumed it was a greatest hits... since it reveals alternate tracks in progress & previously unreleased live material (i think they didn't have too much officially released live material), i'll be chcecking this out, as well...

 
Julian's a good man. Interesting to think about what he and John's relationship would have been like had John lived. There were hints that they were getting closer. Unfortunately, John never got to make it up to Julian and Julian never got to forgive his father.Tragic, really. Imagine dying before you got to tell your child how much you love him. I'm sure that was one of the things going through John's mind in his last few moments.Hug your kids and tell them you love them. You never know when it'll be too late.
Or in other words, don't be a self-indulgent ####### and treat your kids like ####. Lennon was a great artist and made an impact on the world, but he really screwed over his son.
No doubt. In a moment of honesty, John would admit as much. Cynthia said as much. It really bothered John that he wasn't more a part of Julian's childhood, but John had no idea how to be a father. His father ran out on him, so he didn't have any good examples.Obviously, John realized his mistakes, because he was a good father for Sean, which leads me to believe he would have repaired his relationship with Julian. He just never had a chance.
 
Listening to Beatles for Sale right now

Amazing
I have gone through the entire catalogue about 3 times in the last few weeks since I got the remasters, but I've probably listened to Beatles For Sale 10 times.It's almost like I'm hearing it again for the first time. I can't believe how much better it sounds in stereo and remastered.

I'm gonna call it, the album most positively impacted by the remastering is Beatles For Sale. It's always been kind of a favorite of mine because I can hear hints of Rubber Soul on the album. IMO, it's vastly underrated. Maybe now that it has quality sound, people can discover it.

The album might be almost flawless if Leave My Kitten Alone had been put on it over Mr Moonlight. I still can't understand Mr Moonlight being on that album. It just seems out of place.

 
Would it be a waste of money to buy the remasters if I'm just going to rip mp3s and listen to them on my Ipod?
Why do you have to rip them as mp3? I have mine on my iPod as lossless files.Assuming, however, that the old CDs are also mp3 on your iPod, then new ones will be better sounding mp3s.
 
I just read this long article on a guy named Tony Sheridan.

His is a name that seems to have been lost to history, but he had a profound influence on the Beatles.

They were his backing band on their second trip to Hamburg in 1960.

He is described as being exceptionally gifted, particularly his singing and stage presence.

The Beatles had far away idols like Buddy Holly and Little Richard, but Sheridan was the first guy that totally bowled them over, and they developed a lot of their playing stage by mimicking him.

Odd, that he never really hit it big anywhere.

 
Huge, awesome, amazing thread.

My fiancee has always been into the Beatles. And when I say that I mean that much of our living room is decked out in Beatles gear. I liked some of their singles that everyone hears growing up, but was mostly ignorant of their story and the rest of their catalog. One night I played Beatles Rock Band at a friend's place and coincidentally stumbled on this thread a day or two later. I read the entire thing (fascinating stuff btw, thank you!) and found that I could NOT get their music out of my head. I stole my fiancee's Love CD and listened to it nonstop for two weeks... then broke down and bought the new stereo remasters for myself, which were originally going to be HER Christmas present, lol.

So, basically, I've been listening to the Beatles' catalog for 6 weeks straight and my fiancee is quickly becoming annoyed that I may be a bigger fan than her now. :hifive:

 
Huge, awesome, amazing thread.My fiancee has always been into the Beatles. And when I say that I mean that much of our living room is decked out in Beatles gear. I liked some of their singles that everyone hears growing up, but was mostly ignorant of their story and the rest of their catalog. One night I played Beatles Rock Band at a friend's place and coincidentally stumbled on this thread a day or two later. I read the entire thing (fascinating stuff btw, thank you!) and found that I could NOT get their music out of my head. I stole my fiancee's Love CD and listened to it nonstop for two weeks... then broke down and bought the new stereo remasters for myself, which were originally going to be HER Christmas present, lol.So, basically, I've been listening to the Beatles' catalog for 6 weeks straight and my fiancee is quickly becoming annoyed that I may be a bigger fan than her now. :goodposting:
I'm glad you enjoyed the thread and as far as discovering the music, it will last you a lifetime. Enjoy it!!!!
 
Would it be a waste of money to buy the remasters if I'm just going to rip mp3s and listen to them on my Ipod?
Why do you have to rip them as mp3? I have mine on my iPod as lossless files.Assuming, however, that the old CDs are also mp3 on your iPod, then new ones will be better sounding mp3s.
My GF bought the remastered Stereo Set. Ive only listened to Please Please Me, Abbey Road and SGTP, sound great. But how do rip them to iTunes as lossless files? Is that done automatically when I import the CD in? Also are the Mono Remasters worth having? I dont think i've ever experienced the albums in Mono, I grew up on the Stereo versions.
 
Sundays Rule said:
Would it be a waste of money to buy the remasters if I'm just going to rip mp3s and listen to them on my Ipod?
Why do you have to rip them as mp3? I have mine on my iPod as lossless files.Assuming, however, that the old CDs are also mp3 on your iPod, then new ones will be better sounding mp3s.
My GF bought the remastered Stereo Set. Ive only listened to Please Please Me, Abbey Road and SGTP, sound great. But how do rip them to iTunes as lossless files? Is that done automatically when I import the CD in? Also are the Mono Remasters worth having? I dont think i've ever experienced the albums in Mono, I grew up on the Stereo versions.
You go into the iTunes Preferences and change it from MP3 to Apple Lossless.I'm pretty sure it's under the Import tabI have heard the Mono remasters and they sound really good. However, I grew up with the Stereo and I think they sound better. I like the Mono better on the first two albums, other than that, I think the Stereo is the way to go. Most of the differences between the stereo and mono exist on Revolver, Sgt Pepper, and the White Album. Personally, I don't think any of the differences are so much that I need the mono. Having said that, I have most of the mono stuff on my PC, but it's from the old mono LPs. I rarely listen to them.
 
Sundays Rule said:
Would it be a waste of money to buy the remasters if I'm just going to rip mp3s and listen to them on my Ipod?
Why do you have to rip them as mp3? I have mine on my iPod as lossless files.Assuming, however, that the old CDs are also mp3 on your iPod, then new ones will be better sounding mp3s.
My GF bought the remastered Stereo Set. Ive only listened to Please Please Me, Abbey Road and SGTP, sound great. But how do rip them to iTunes as lossless files? Is that done automatically when I import the CD in? Also are the Mono Remasters worth having? I dont think i've ever experienced the albums in Mono, I grew up on the Stereo versions.
You go into the iTunes Preferences and change it from MP3 to Apple Lossless.I'm pretty sure it's under the Import tabI have heard the Mono remasters and they sound really good. However, I grew up with the Stereo and I think they sound better. I like the Mono better on the first two albums, other than that, I think the Stereo is the way to go. Most of the differences between the stereo and mono exist on Revolver, Sgt Pepper, and the White Album. Personally, I don't think any of the differences are so much that I need the mono. Having said that, I have most of the mono stuff on my PC, but it's from the old mono LPs. I rarely listen to them.
:confused: There are some interesting differences between the mono and stereo versions but I prefer the stereo mixes with a few exceptions. One that instantly pops into mind is the mono version of "She's Leaving Home" on Sgt. Pepper. The pitch is too high on the stereo and the mono version is superior.
 
Sundays Rule said:
Would it be a waste of money to buy the remasters if I'm just going to rip mp3s and listen to them on my Ipod?
Why do you have to rip them as mp3? I have mine on my iPod as lossless files.Assuming, however, that the old CDs are also mp3 on your iPod, then new ones will be better sounding mp3s.
My GF bought the remastered Stereo Set. Ive only listened to Please Please Me, Abbey Road and SGTP, sound great. But how do rip them to iTunes as lossless files? Is that done automatically when I import the CD in? Also are the Mono Remasters worth having? I dont think i've ever experienced the albums in Mono, I grew up on the Stereo versions.
You go into the iTunes Preferences and change it from MP3 to Apple Lossless.I'm pretty sure it's under the Import tabI have heard the Mono remasters and they sound really good. However, I grew up with the Stereo and I think they sound better. I like the Mono better on the first two albums, other than that, I think the Stereo is the way to go. Most of the differences between the stereo and mono exist on Revolver, Sgt Pepper, and the White Album. Personally, I don't think any of the differences are so much that I need the mono. Having said that, I have most of the mono stuff on my PC, but it's from the old mono LPs. I rarely listen to them.
:coffee: There are some interesting differences between the mono and stereo versions but I prefer the stereo mixes with a few exceptions. One that instantly pops into mind is the mono version of "She's Leaving Home" on Sgt. Pepper. The pitch is too high on the stereo and the mono version is superior.
Isn't it just the opposite?? The mono version is the faster She'd Leaving Home. I thought that was the one with the higher pitch.
 
There are some interesting differences between the mono and stereo versions but I prefer the stereo mixes with a few exceptions. One that instantly pops into mind is the mono version of "She's Leaving Home" on Sgt. Pepper. The pitch is too high on the stereo and the mono version is superior.
Isn't it just the opposite?? The mono version is the faster She'd Leaving Home. I thought that was the one with the higher pitch.
Quit correct. What I meant to say is the pitch on the stereo is too low on the stereo mix and the mono is superior. Thanks for catching that...
 
Godsbrother said:
There are some interesting differences between the mono and stereo versions but I prefer the stereo mixes with a few exceptions. One that instantly pops into mind is the mono version of "She's Leaving Home" on Sgt. Pepper. The pitch is too high on the stereo and the mono version is superior.
Isn't it just the opposite?? The mono version is the faster She'd Leaving Home. I thought that was the one with the higher pitch.
Quit correct. What I meant to say is the pitch on the stereo is too low on the stereo mix and the mono is superior. Thanks for catching that...
Yeah. I like the mono version better on that one as well. I, also, prefer the mono Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds. The vocal is dreamier.Overall, though, I'd still rather have the stereo. A Day In The Life, for example, has so much space in stereo. It blows away the mono, IMO.

 
took my wife to the beatle's show (love) at the mirage while at the FBG staff writer's summit recently, and we really enjoyed it. got the seats at the internet discount rate ($150 seats a little over $100), even though i called in reservations. glad we were able to get short notice seats during the consumer electronics convention weekend.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the opinion of John as a guitar player?

I was reading about Stu Sutcliffe, and how after his death Paul took on the bass even though he was a much better player than John because he knew that John would never accept a "subservient" role in the band.

In those days, the least talented guy was the bass player. Paul changed that, obviously.

I have read that John was a "capable", "better than average", "decent" rhythm guitar player.

 
What is the opinion of John as a guitar player?I was reading about Stu Sutcliffe, and how after his death Paul took on the bass even though he was a much better player than John because he knew that John would never accept a "subservient" role in the band.In those days, the least talented guy was the bass player. Paul changed that, obviously.I have read that John was a "capable", "better than average", "decent" rhythm guitar player.
Technically, Paul was certainly the better guitar player. John was a very distinct and unique player though. I think it worked out for the best. Paul got to put all that talent to use and redefine the role of a bass player.John REALLY dominated the Beatles in those early years. I could see John getting his way on that.
 
What is the opinion of John as a guitar player?I was reading about Stu Sutcliffe, and how after his death Paul took on the bass even though he was a much better player than John because he knew that John would never accept a "subservient" role in the band.In those days, the least talented guy was the bass player. Paul changed that, obviously.I have read that John was a "capable", "better than average", "decent" rhythm guitar player.
Technically, Paul was certainly the better guitar player. John was a very distinct and unique player though. I think it worked out for the best. Paul got to put all that talent to use and redefine the role of a bass player.John REALLY dominated the Beatles in those early years. I could see John getting his way on that.
Technically John was not a great guitar player but he had a style. His mother taught him how to play a banjo and George & Paul used to tease John when he played guitar because he would only play 5 strings. Obviously he overcame that handicap and became a capable guitar player.George and Paul were much better guitar players. Really when it came to playing instruments Paul was the most talented of all the Beatles.Hey Saints Fan, I did finally get the Beatles Remastered Box set (stereo)! Actually my wife got me it on the usb Apple instead of CDs and it is awesome. It offers the music in both MP3 and FLAC format. Obviously I was able to easily load the MP3 format on my iPod. Now I need to figure out how best to play it in FLAC -- I understand the quality is much better than a standard CD.
 
John was a very distinct and unique player though.
In the solos in "The End" I have read that John's playing is distinctive because of all the "bends" in the notes, that his part really sticks out.
John's solos in "The End" are most notable for the heavy distortion. I think you might be mixed up. Humming them in my head, I don't really think John did any noticeable "bends" in those solos.
 
What is the opinion of John as a guitar player?I was reading about Stu Sutcliffe, and how after his death Paul took on the bass even though he was a much better player than John because he knew that John would never accept a "subservient" role in the band.In those days, the least talented guy was the bass player. Paul changed that, obviously.I have read that John was a "capable", "better than average", "decent" rhythm guitar player.
Technically, Paul was certainly the better guitar player. John was a very distinct and unique player though. I think it worked out for the best. Paul got to put all that talent to use and redefine the role of a bass player.John REALLY dominated the Beatles in those early years. I could see John getting his way on that.
Technically John was not a great guitar player but he had a style. His mother taught him how to play a banjo and George & Paul used to tease John when he played guitar because he would only play 5 strings. Obviously he overcame that handicap and became a capable guitar player.George and Paul were much better guitar players. Really when it came to playing instruments Paul was the most talented of all the Beatles.Hey Saints Fan, I did finally get the Beatles Remastered Box set (stereo)! Actually my wife got me it on the usb Apple instead of CDs and it is awesome. It offers the music in both MP3 and FLAC format. Obviously I was able to easily load the MP3 format on my iPod. Now I need to figure out how best to play it in FLAC -- I understand the quality is much better than a standard CD.
What do you think of the remastered sound?
 
Really when it came to playing instruments Paul was the most talented of all the Beatles.
:excited: Paul would've been the best drummer, keyboardist, bassist, rhythm, or lead. And he was the best singer too.
For the most part I agree with you, except the singing. Paul has the best voice in a conventional manner, but something about John's voice... I don't know. It just goes through you. There are moments on record with John singing that give me chills in a way that Paul doesn't.I think the beginning of A Day In The Life has the most chilling vocal in rock and roll. Just goes straight through you. Most of John's best vocals affect me that way. I've heard great cover versions of McCartney songs, most of them not as good as McCartney, but good none the less. I haven't heard too many good of Lennon songs, however because they are missing the key ingredient, namely, Lennon himself. His presence is SO strong. Something like Imagine just sounds ridiculous in any one else's voice.Maybe it's because Lennon's voice is so unique. Really, who else sounds like him??
 
I'll take John if nothing else for the superior solo catalog. But yeah Paul was insanely talented. Two guys like that in one band, plus George was no slouch himself.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top