I like all the Beatles eras for diff reasons, but i'm gonna go for:





when they went fucking weird

I'm a big fan all the way around. I don't think I could pick an era that I liked more than another. I enjoy all their music.

somewhere in between mod hipster and psychedelic freaks...when they were still silly and irreverent, but when they started hoisting the freak flag.

Anxiety said:

nicely put

there's at least four other eras if we're being picky, i've got a fondness for "bitter imperial hippy end phase" Beatles. I think my least favourite would be...well..."Help" Beatles.

LittleSmedley said:

i'm not crazy about the dirty grumpy hippie phase, but i do like the white album, abbey road and (kinda) let it be...i just think they all looked fug.

I'd have to say circa The White Album.

Anxiety said:

i'd accuse you of being beard-ist, but u've aquitted yourself many a time with your posts on BeardSexy era Prince.

LittleSmedley said:

it wasn't just the beards...it was the stringy hair, the dumpy suits. i know that whole natural/dirty armpits look was "in" at the time, but good grief.

I think I like the last period (beginning with The White Album, which comes after Psychedelic Freaks, in my mind. I'd call it Soulful Classic Rockers) the best, which is really unfortunate because it means they still had a lot of great stuff in them, which became diluted in their solo work.

As great as I think All Things Must Pass & Platic Ono Band are, I don't think they're as good as Beatle albums. Close, but not quite as well rounded musically.

The later albums, though I like their style best, are marred by the feelings that caused the coming breakup. I just dig the sound, the fairly modern sounding rock with a soulful edge & better production. Plus the songs were still top notch.

But for pure unspoiled genius & magic, I'd have to go with middle period--Rubber Soul-Magical Mystery Tour

The middle two.

For me - Most of it from 'Rubber Soul' to the end, really.

I'm not mad on some of the 'White Album' tracks, and a couple of the lesser tracks on 'Magical Mystery Tour', but I like 'Let It Be' quite a lot, due to its overall loose, fun feel.

'Abbey Road' and 'Sgt Pepper' are probably my faves. Put 'Strawberry Fields Forever', 'Penny Lane' and maybe 'I Am the Walrus' onto Pepper (the first two tracks were recorded at the start of the Pepper sessions anyway), and imo you've got one of the best psychedelic pop albums of all time.

I'm also fond of certain earlier Beatles tracks like 'I Saw Her Standing There' and 'I'll Follow the Sun' .

To be mildly controversial, I also like the first '90s 'comeback' single, 'Free As a Bird'. A nice effort, given the circumstances, and oddly sounding like a possible next step after 'Abbey Road' (as well as quite like ELO of course, due to Jeff Lynne's involvement as producer; but it's good even so ). The second '90s song, 'Real Love', is weaker, but has some lovely slide guitar from Mr G. Harrison.
[Edited 7/30/07 12:09pm]

Miles said:

That's the crazy thing. Strawberry Fields & Penny Lane are really Sgt. Pepper songs, timewise. Imagine how amazing that album could have been with its lead singles still on it!

Psychedelic freaks, please.

NDRU said:

Exactly, (though I'm not sure where I'd place them on a revised 'Sgt Pepper' tracklist. )

I find it almost incomprehensible why it is that all the Beatles albums haven't been remastered, with all the relevant singles, B sides and other oddments of interest like cool alternate versions/ takes etc from the 'Anthology' sets, with nice sleevenotes and extra photos, artwork etc.

If I were in change, I would even consider giving them a new, respectful, stereo remix, as sacreligious as that may sound to George Martin's original mixes, which imo now often sound wierd, and lack 'ummph', especially on headphones. Last year's awesome sounding 'Love' album mixes opened my eyes to how great the Beatles catalogue could sound, were modern mixing an mastering technology to be applied - respectfully and sensibly, purely to improve the sound quality and add more punch and/or definition where needed.

Maybe they could even release decent priced 2 CD sets, with one CD the mono/ G.Martin original stereo mix and the other CD the new stereo mix.

But, like the idea of Prince '80s remaster albums with loads of bonus tracks, these ideas are too great to likely see the light of day, in this topsy-turvy, contrary world we live in.

Miles said:

Maybe SFF after Mr Kite and Penny Lane after When I'm 64?

The remasters have to happen someday. But I guess they figure, why fix what ain't broke, as the Beatles records are sacred and continue to sell well. I'd love to hear them get remixed & remastered to where I could hear the bass & drums on the early discs, and maybe give them a decent stereo panning.

Miles said:

The Beatles back catalogue won't be remastered until the originals have stopped selling well. Wait another 20 years!!!!

Psychedelic Freaks

I also dug their hippie look....but really they're the freakin' Beatles, they were cool during all their phases.

emilio319 said:

they were basically setting the bar at whatever they did

Anxiety said:

I love the hippie phase. The Abbey Road album cover wouldn't have looked right if they were clean cut.

The thing that got me about this group is.. how fast the era's changed.. usually it takes years to go through those.. they happen to go through 4 or 5 "stages" in a period of 5-6 years.. and their music reflected their fresh personality traits.. I personally prefer their experimental stage. White album is still pure at heart with me.. I love just about everything, Rubber soul is perfect. The strong arm of music that came through their career still blows my mind. Most of their music sounds like it will never fade with time..

Sdldawn said:

Co-Sign!

I love the early songs cuz it's what I was raised on.

But the Rubber Soul/Revolver era is where it's at.

Anxiety said:

I totally agree. I love the psychedelic stuff, but it is a tad more interesting coming from yet relatively demure English lads rather than full-on dashiki-wearing hairniks types.

psychadelic freaks... and later rock gods (abbey road, white album, let it be)

Sdldawn said:

The eras changed quickly because there were lots of product. Now it takes about three years for an artist to release a followup album. Can't go through multiple changes if there is nothing out there.

sextonseven said:

Another possible reason why the Beatles changed and developed so fast was because they had some great competition, from the likes of Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys, Motown, Jimi Hendrix, the Byrds, etc.

Also, popular music in the '60s evolved so fast, burning up styles like nobody's business. Just look at how fast genres like soul, funk, hard rock evolved, and then there were similar things happening in Jamaica with Ska, rock steady evolving into early reggae. Audiences deeply loved their music. Modern Pop was young as a genre and as a business, and the appetite for new things was massive back then.

Compare with now, when most of what can be done with rock, soul etc, has probably been done (at least twice), and you can partly see why the current scene is so incredibly stagnant imo, with most modern bands and artists being hyped up as the next whoever, and found wanting, often taking years to bring their next set of slightly altered counterfeits of past classics . But most of today's mainstream acts seem to be pretty pathetic retreads of superior older stuff imo.

I'm gonna shuffle off now, and play my beloved Louis Armstrong cylinders .

I like their Charlie Manson's Muse period: White Album - Abbey Road.

Miles said:

god yes! I guess culture itself was changing, though. I can't even think of an important musical trend that's happened in the last ten years. But 1965 was completely different from 1967.

NDRU said:

In the last ten years I can think of the following trends:

crunk
screwed
electroclash
new rave

Are any of them important? Probably not.