Tusk Vs The White Album

The production/mix on this record is quite shoddy in places, definitely.

quite quite, old bean

George Martin wasn't always around; the record's mostly self-produced.

flappy bird OTM throughout this thread.

you could take TWA apart, rearrange it, decontextualise it, critique its individual songs qua songs and argue (like Turrican) that there's nothing remarkable about it. Fact is, it exists as it does, as a first-of-its-kind genre-hopping double-album experimenting with a huge range of styles and textures following off the back of a series of increasingly idiosyncratic and musically border-pushing albums. And yes it is creepy and it is original and to people who care about the Beatles it is a great record.

I mean, Tusk has some lovely songs and Sara is beautiful and I love the riff on What Makes You Think You're The One, but it doesn't quite evoke that headlong, 'throw-it-all-at-the-wall and if it doesn't stick, keep it' rush that TWA does. It's a fairly safe-sounding record on the whole. 'That's All For Everyone' could be off The Beach Boys' 'Sunflower' album. The only time they get to being a bit daring is on the title track and it's not even the full song. Don't get me wrong, I like the songs and it is a classic but it's Rumours 'unpacked', innit?

If there's a 2018 remix of TWA (I think there will be?) it might do wonders for the clarity of sound but it might do away with the claustrophobia which I think is the source of creepy vibes that some of us are hearing on the otherwise throwaway or chirpy tracks.

There was a flurry of excitement after some comments by Giles Martin in June that suggested it was next - unfortunately he clarified that no, it's not happening. Idk I really hope he was covering his ass after spilling secrets.

Two 10/10 records, but it seems to me like anybody saying that only one of them (TWA) features some at-times-"shoddy" (or whatever) mixing has never even listened to Tusk. And certainly not on headphones. That's not a knock on Tusk, either!

George Martin wasn't always around; the record's mostly self-produced.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, October 30, 2017 4:07 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Indeed, and you can absolutely tell.

At least Tusk sounds like they spent a lot of money making it. The production team on that record really worked hard to make everything sound the best it possibly could, even on the Lindsey stuff.

this is like if geir became fixated on recording budgets instead of chord changes

Paul's stuff on The Beatles basically covers the same ground he would in his solo career. The token rocker, the token granny music one, the token acoustic ballad etc.

John and George's stuff is far narrower - mostly basic rock or blues with the exception of a couple of deviations from that.

lol Doc

xp

you left out token rocksteady jam

mostly basic rock or blues with the exception of a couple of deviations from that.

lol yes Revolution No. 9 just a "deviation"

"Goodnight" eh just a slight "deviation"

"Bungalow Bill" just another deviation

why am I bothering

the totally rocking blues progression of "Julia"

let's not forget poor Ringo's lone bluegrass contribution

The only flaw with Tusk is on the drums to 'Walk a Thin Line', otherwise it's impeccable. The flaws of The Beatles? Shit, where do I start?

Well yeah, 'Revolution 9' and 'Good Night' are the exceptions, but I said as much days ago.

'The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill' is nothing more than a bad campfire song with rock backing. One of Lennon's worst and utterly silly.

I wasn't arguing about song quality

it just seems weird to deny the sprawling genre experiments of TWA

I'm surprised George didn't sneak an Indian one onto the record, but he went all "back to basics" as was the fashion in '68.

"The Inner Light" would've worked

If you play "Savoy Truffle" backwards, it sounds like a boss raga (iirc).

This period is basically the beginning of John wanting to do stripped down rock music, George rediscovering the guitar and Paul's solo career.

Tusk is my favourite record of all time so this isn't particularly close for me but dog latin's last post there really nails the appeal of the White Album. The sequencing really does enhance it.

The big similarity with these albums is the relation they both have to the couple of records that came before them - the sense of a loosening up, a withdrawal from something, a blurring of the edges which yeah, does sound sloppy at times but in a pleasing way. I love them both a lot but TWA just has a handful of songs I've got no time for.

they also both signal the beginning of the end - two more relatively safe records by the same lineups, and then a split

I remember when I first heard The Beatles - I actually found it quite disappointing. It felt that they'd just thrown everything on there whether it was any good or not. One of the first things I did was try and condense it down to a single LP that I felt was of the same quality as Rubber Soul or Revolver. I still think that some of the bands worst songs are on The Beatles.

Abbey Road, on the other hand, blew my mind on first listen and is still one of my favourite LP's of all time, Beatles or otherwise.

It's not that The Beatles an unsafe record, it's just patchy.

*is

is sexy sadie basic rock or blues

It's a typical Lennon song performed with piano, guitar, bass and drums. Psychedelic or avant-garde it ain't.

ah

so why is this discussion happening again

there’s one avant garde song on this record. super weird that none of the other songs are avant garde

Well observed!

i just think you’re bad at listening to and describing music

like who gives a shit if you think the white album is patchy. that’s part of its appeal for the ppl who love it

I think you're bad at reading, comprehending and drawing conclusions.

But since you asked, this discussion is happening because some folks have read far too much into The Beatles' self titled album from 1968.

I'd much rather be talking about how great Tusk is, but there you go.

As far as I'm aware, The Beatles was generally considered to be a patchy record on release. So I guess this is like Gaucho in the sense that people got it right in the first place.

The Gaucho was Paul, BTW.

-----George Martin wasn't always around; the record's mostly self-produced.

Geoff Emerick was though, the sound/roughness is all as intended.

Brad totally otm above

Not even Geoff Emerick was around all the time.

divining intent re: "sloppiness" is a fool's game

Luckily we have a fool to hand.

quite

Guys, it's 2017 and not all of you are baby boomers clinging onto the notion that things were, like, soooooo much better back in the day - it's fully acceptable to admit that not everything The Beatles did was/is great and you can call out these records for what they are instead of listening to 'em through the layers of bullshit mythology that's accumulated over the decades.

Spoken like a true Fleetwood Mac fan.

hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Aside from 'Revolution 9', 'Good Night' and 'Piggies', that's just a series of folk or rock songs.

― Gholdfish Killah (Turrican), Friday, October 27, 2017 3:20 PM (three days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

come on dude you can say this about literally any album

tusk? that's just a series of pop songs.
a love supreme? that's just a series of jazz songs
to pimp a butterfly? that's just a series of rap songs

Well, y'know, I don't think about the break-up's and affairs when I listen to Rumours or Tusk - the music stands strong apart from all that backstory stuff, as great music should.