taxman Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Besides' date=' what the heck...[i']All things must pass[/i] is the best solo album by an ex-Beatle ! Second best. "John Lennon Plastic Ono Band" is impossible to beat. Even John couldn't come near it with his later efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan 58 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I always was a John person BUT buy far the best solo album was "Band On The Run"!!!! Stan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicester35 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Second best. Where's this fit into the hierarchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Man, I worry about those Hairy legs! Now if Barbara was straddling his shoulders, at least the Cover would be cooler (or, is that "hotter?). CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Where's this fit into the hierarchy? "Ringo The Fourth"? I guess fourth. "John Lennon Plastic Ono Band" "All Things Must Pass" "Band On The Run" "Ringo The Fourth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicester35 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 "Ringo The Fourth"? I guess fourth. Cool...! I bet Macca would be well chuffed that Ringo the 4th has made it on to our hit parade and Flowers in the Dirt hasn't. Still there is other solo work to consider...Frog Chorus, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWANG Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I gotta go with nelson. some of you may not appreciate stuff that's not in the norm, but that doesn't make it crap. All the tunes mentioned that people see to think are crap, are tunes I like. in the road and maxwell and bungalow bill..my god those to me are funny light hearted gimmick tunes that I get a kick out of hearing everytime. I don't see drug use having anything to do with the quality of their writing at all. you can't expect someone to open their mind to new things and then do the same thing they were doing. take another look.. Frank Zappa thought I am The Walrus was an incredible work. .but at the time it was labelled as a hippie drug crazy song by a lot of people. Me, I'm gonna hope carnival is better done that rev 9 was, but I know people who still like that a lot, to this day..... I'm glad they experimented, and I don't see rev 9 as a failure. I'm reminded of Buddy Rich, who constantly bragged on how great jazz and classical were, and who consistently knocked rock and country and rolk.. and even blues to a large extent. There's no sistine chapel in rock.. rock is the chapel. along with the beautiful paintings, there's a little dust in the cracks, uncomfortable seating, and droning priests. Me, I still turn Louie Louie up when it comes on the radio. Sometimes I think we miss the point of their huge success.. that it's so incredibel that THOSE four guys got together at all.. meaning four guys with such diverse taste and interest as well as similar. go ahead. pull certain tunes out of the great list.. but along with that you have to pull that portion of their psyche out.. without road or maxwell or yellow sub or ob la di.. you'd probably be missing much much more of many other songs. they aren't machines. TWANG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron G Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I'm gonna bet that the "lost track" is something that should remain lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Yeah, they were..at the risk of sounding melodramatic/gushing...a "miracle" at a time when we desperately needed one. Why DID that happen? What caused such a world wide amazement, and LOVE...for 4 guys from Liverpool. The music, sure...but I think there was just something... well...miraculous, about it...."cosmic," " a gift from God," whatever you choose to believe. Growing up, with their music, I was often amused, at what some would call their "junk" songs...but, I knew they were experimenting, and having a laugh, too. That's cool! But, that kind of freedom, and experimentation, is what allowed what is universally accepted as their "Best work" to be born, so to speak. And...they were ALL critical, to the group, IMHO. Ringo, amazingly to some, even got the most fan mail. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
layboomo Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I'm gonna bet that the "lost track" is something that should remain lost. What are you....A Beatle hater or something? Everything they did was great and if you don't agree then you just don't have the intellect to appreciate it. Take a couple hits of acid and it will all make perfect sense.....and Timothy Leary was a genius too! (I agree BTW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron G Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 What are you....A Beatle hater or something? Everything they did was great and if you don't agree then you just don't have the intelect to appreciate it. Take a couple hits of acid and it will all make perfect sense.....and Timothey Leary was a genius too! I might reconsider if the "lost Track" is at least as good as You Know My Name (Look Up The Number) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johno Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 If Ringo, Olivia and Yoko have agreed on keeping it unreleased all these years it must really suck. Like that horrible "Snore and a Toot" LA in home studio jam from 1974 with John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Harry Nilsson and Bobby Keyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicester35 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Yeah' date=' they were..at the risk of sounding melodramatic/gushing...a "miracle" at a time when we desperately needed one. Why DID that happen? What caused such a world wide amazement, and LOVE...for 4 guys from Liverpool. The music, sure...but I think there was just something... well...miraculous, about it...."cosmic," " a gift from God," whatever you choose to believe. Growing up, with their music, I was often amused, at what some would call their "junk" songs...but, I knew they were experimenting, and having a laugh, too. That's cool! But, that kind of freedom, and experimentation, is what allowed what is universally accepted as their "Best work" to be born, so to speak. And...they were ALL critical, to the group, IMHO. Ringo, amazingly to some, even got the most fan mail. CB[/quote'] I respect your opinion CB, and I do understand what you mean... Personally, I have always way preferred this mob to the Fab Four: A liitle of it might be influenced by cultural/regional perspectives (within England)...after all I'm originally from down south and the Stones are a London band through and through...however, virtually all of it is definitely a straightforward matter of artistic opinion - Paint it black sounds (to my ears) light years ahead of any of the Beatles' stuff from 1966...and Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed and Exile on Main St. are a sort of heavyweight triumvirate of albums that one can never really imagine being bettered, and which seem as relevant today as they did when they were recorded. But you're quite right: there is a unique affection for the Beatles which is not extended to their peers (including the Stones, the Who, the Kinks etc) - however respected those other bands may be. I think I first became aware of it in the '90s, with Oasis driving a sort of Beatles' Renaissance. Also, of course, the Beatles drew their last (collective) artistic breath back in 1970, whereas the Stones have ended up as aged-looking men, in a stadium, still rocking...which detracts from the mystique a little, perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Hey, I love the "Stones," too! It's funny though...I never did, even as a kid, compare the two bands, or any of the other "British Invasion" bands to the Beatles, or even to each other! I liked/loved, what they all contributed, on their own...their own sound, mystique. It's still the way I think, even now. "I ain't no school boy, but I know what I like!" LOL! There is so much (and always has been) "catagorizing," and putting into neat little compartments... and "this is better than that," that I just got, and still get bored, with all that, you know? Comparisons, for differences in style, and content, is fine! But...anything else, is just one's opinion. The Beatles themselves, loved a lot of the other British and American bands, that were their peers. They all influenced each other... and Dylan influenced them all, as well. Damn, it's chilly up on this soapbox...think I'll get down, now. ;>) As to the Stones still "rocking!" Absolutely! I really enjoyed "Shine A Light!" Mick has to be one of the more energetic performers, STILL. He's what, in his mid 60's! I loved the line that Keith said, when asked (by a reporter) what he "thought" about when he was on stage... "I don't think, I feel!" That just about says it all! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshWink182 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 "I don't think' date=' I feel!" That just aboutsays it all! CB[/quote'] :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Someone wrote years ago and I forget who but the quote was " You could love the band and not love all of them but you couldn't love one and not love the band. To me thats their brilliance. I can't think of any other group where you hear " I'm a Paul guy or I was always a John guy. There was something there for everyone. I also think there was such respect from other bands because they wrote their own stuff. Mick has even said in interviews that until they saw what the Beatles were doing, writing songs wasn't such a big deal, because they were mainly doing covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.