The Beatles

Come Together has a bad rap these days

http://www.clickhole.com/video/incredible-man-can-name-all-beatles-1055

tbh considering how much the beatles recorded in so short a time period it's kind of remarkable how generally high-quality their material generally is. like, they had barely finished sgt pepper when they were back in the studio making magical mystery tour. even if you dislike (say) three songs from every album, that's still an incredibly good record.

Otm

As a friend observed, early on John and Paul were often writing these songs under chaotic circumstances - parties, hotel rooms, studio hustle and bustle -and then band would get something like three days to make an album in between commitments. Even when the band took longer (I think Rubber Soul took a month, Revolver three months) there was so much other stuff going on.

Even when the band took longer

Its esp impressive to think they pulled shit like writing & recording Rubber Soul, Revolver, Day Tripper/We Can Work it Out and the Paperback Writer/Rain singles in the span of 9 months (in between crazy tours, death threats and Jesus statements).

I haven't even cleaned my closets in the last nine months.

It's really no surprise that they looked absolutely fucking shattered on the sleeve to Beatles For Sale, thinking about it.

Come Together is an amazing song, hilarious self-portrait

Yup. Truly awesome bass and drum interplay intro too.

one thing about the beatles i think that keeps them out there is the records just *sound* so good...like the drum sounds, bass, guitar sounds, just really good sounding records

Yeah, apart from their able to generate songs, their records sound good, they knew how to play together and they knew how to arrange a pop record properly.

The only problem with The Beatles is that I have to clear off a layer of cold ejaculate off my leg every time I listen to them - they are that fucking good.

✓

tbh considering how much the beatles recorded in so short a time period it's kind of remarkable how generally high-quality their material generally is. like, they had barely finished sgt pepper when they were back in the studio making magical mystery tour. even if you dislike (say) three songs from every album, that's still an incredibly good record.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:35 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Especially amazing given that two of the strongest songs on MMT (the LP version) are the first two things they recorded for Pepper's! They were just unbelievably productive for a very sustained period of time, it's natural that there are clunkers in there but the overall quality is, as most folks have noted, super super high.

one thing about the beatles i think that keeps them out there is the records just *sound* so good...like the drum sound....

slowly gathering a few mono vinyl re-ish's and the drums on "tomorrow never knows" are so so **cking glorious sounding it's incredible (even sans pristine mono alanog mastering, but)

That latest Lewisohn book, btw, is some sort of masterpiece. So many things had to go right in the Beatles story, and after all the jostling and coincidences and hard work, in the end they still had to write great songs.

It is amazing how much better their records sound than even most of their peers'. And that isn't just down to them having more money/power/time to use in the studio - though that definitely helped by the mid-sixties, however hurried for time they were - since even the early stuff sounds pretty damn good, most of it anyway. I think George Martin, Geoff Emerick & co were just really good at what they did and maybe also kind of perfectionists, in Martin's case maybe not wanting to do pop records unless he could at least make them sound good. But I'm kinda speculating there.

No, I think its well established fact, that.

yakky, cross the dakky

'63 to '66 beatles haven't aged a day imo.

But '62 was shit, right? When was the first album, cuz I'm pretty sure that's what I was listening to (enduring) yesterday - and, Jesus, that stuff has aged decades. I've got to give them their due though, the vocals were stunningly good, much better than Adam Faith or even Frank Ifield.

'63 was the first album.

I am not a Beatles fan.

First album arguably the most 'dated' in this sense but I don't think that's a problem when the material is as strong as "I Saw Her Standing There," "Misery," and "Twist and Shout." I'll allow that "Love Me Do" and a couple others fall to yakky-dakky Merseybeat status but I'm not beyond the reach of their charms and they're short, anyway.

imho With The Beatles sounds more dated than Please Please Me

Don't want to open a can of worms here, but are those the American albums? So basically, compilations of the British ones + singles?

No - "With" is British, "Meet" is American.

American releases have v different mixes, also, not just reshuffled tracklists

*opens can of worms*

No.

Please Please Me album was called "Introducing The Beatles"

With The Beatles album was called "Meet The Beatles"

xpost. * 4

I hate the concept of 'dated' anyway

Maybe I misread you then, re: "aged decades"?

Please Please Me and the White Album are probably the two Beatles albums I listen to the most.

(xp) That was flippant response to the statement that it 'hadn't aged a day' when in fact it sounds like it was released in 1963

No - "With" is British, "Meet" is American.

― Doctor Casino, Friday, October 3, 2014 11:48 AM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"Meet" is murder iirc

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F0JZ90BAAVI/UQ7PgWyIzzI/AAAAAAAAGog/X7uD7E8NhDU/s400/meat%2Bthe%2Bbeatles.tiff

Yep, Shipper to blame

But '62 was shit, right? When was the first album, cuz I'm pretty sure that's what I was listening to (enduring) yesterday - and, Jesus, that stuff has aged decades

'63 was the first album.

haha you're both right -- please please me was recorded in '62 and released in '63.

This stuff sounds like it has aged exactly five decades.

John, Paul, George, Ringo and Yakky.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/83/ba/29/83ba296314ed6dbb2d504807b18f3f2f.jpg

Yakky Ono

American releases have v different mixes

Don't think so. Different mastering, yes.

I like Gerry and the Pacemakers. Used to own Canadian Capitol copies of the albums and wish I still had 'em. (They were the same covers and track listings, I think, as the British albums.) "Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying" and "Ferry Cross the Mersey" are both top notch George Martin-produced ballads. Also really like "It's Gonna Be Alright" as far as rockers go. Marsden wrote that one. Just really good rock and roll imo.

Wouldn't mind hearing this again, either. All the Liverpool artists that ended up recording for Decca:

http://www.discogs.com/Various-Mersey-Sounds/release/3126128

Can someone point me to a comprehensive list of the best Beatles mastering/remastering jobs? I feel like I'd be a lot more into them if I could weed out all the awful mixes of their music.

Download the Purple Chick deluxe versions. Sourced from pristine OG vinyl + bonus tracks.

mono white album

I am not a Beatles fan.

http://thesoundla.com/2015/10/the-beatles-release-restored-video-for-revolution/