mynameisnotsusan said:

Number 9, number 9, number 9

That one is a bit much, but it does grow on you. I just don't play it in the dark...

silverchild said:

mynameisnotsusan said:

Number 9, number 9, number 9

That one is a bit much, but it does grow on you. I just don't play it in the dark...

Much like a boil grows on ones behind.

That #9 shit makes me go to sleep.

Timmy84 said:

silverchild said:

Timmy84 said:

That #9 shit makes me go to sleep.

It is a dud. But I've learned to take it for what it is. Just a long-winded sound collage interlude. But it does get boring after a while. [Edited 6/13/12 10:51am]

I'm thinking the Beatles got bored with their music (and with each other) and just made up shit as they went along. It makes sense considering how quickly they broke up. That's why I never take much of their post-1966 music seriously (well I don't take some of their 1962-1966 work seriously either ). I always thought they were going through the motions and trying their way to figure out how to make albums high and this is the result of what happens when you're doped up on heroin, cocaine, acid, weed and LSD.

Timmy84 said:

silverchild said:

Timmy84 said:

I'm thinking the Beatles got bored with their music (and with each other) and just made up shit as they went along. It makes sense considering how quickly they broke up. That's why I never take much of their post-1966 music seriously (well I don't take some of their 1962-1966 work seriously either ). I always thought they were going through the motions and trying their way to figure out how to make albums high and this is the result of what happens when you're doped up on heroin, cocaine, acid, weed and LSD.

True point. I do think something funny happened between Rubber Soul and Revolver in which they felt that they had to experiment to go to the next level musically, but what I do admire about their post-1966 albums is that they reinvented themselves and broke the sonic mold. The White Album is where I think they came back down to earth and figured that they had to get back to those guitar hooks and go to their roots because the whole Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Magical Mystery Tour trip was too overwhelming for them.

I actually think their reinvention was the problem. They were getting tired of being called talentless pussies... lol so they felt "we gotta prove we ain't wusses"...

Timmy84 said:

just take that "Number 9" track and replace it with "Hey Jude"..

and then.. perfect.

the White Album.. excellent, masterpiece, no less.

.

[Edited 6/14/12 6:06am]

although I think The Beatles were the greatest creative pop musical force EVER so far, I like the song Kashmir better than any one song on the White Album.

I do wish Hey Jude had actually been on the album.

ufoclub said:

although I think The Beatles were the greatest creative pop musical force EVER so far, I like the song Kashmir better than any one song on the White Album.

I do wish Hey Jude had actually been on the album.

the Beatles always had that problem. I don't know who's the one to blame (Epstein, Martin, Paul or John), but I've never understood why they didn't use the singles to "complete" the albums.

The White Album should have included Hey Jude and Lady Madonna...

JoeTyler said:

ufoclub said:

although I think The Beatles were the greatest creative pop musical force EVER so far, I like the song Kashmir better than any one song on the White Album.

I do wish Hey Jude had actually been on the album.

the Beatles always had that problem. I don't know who's the one to blame (Epstein, Martin, Paul or John), but I've never understood why they didn't use the singles to "complete" the albums.

The White Album should have included Hey Jude and Lady Madonna...

I saw the tracklistings of "Sgt. Pepper's" and "The White Album" and couldn't believe how disorganized the albums seem to be. Like I said I think they were going through the moods. I was shocked when I found out "Hey Jude" wasn't even on The White Album! I can understood they didn't want people to think they were a singles act but goddamn, a hit single or two wouldn't have undermined the albums! Sheesh. They didn't put "I Am the Walrus" (as much as I can't stand that song), "All You Need is Love" or "Hello Goodbye" on Sgt. Pepper's either. The fuck? "Abbey Road" by comparison was a better sequenced album.

thedance said:

just take that "Number 9" track and replace it with "Hey Jude"..

and then.. perfect.

the White Album.. excellent, masterpiece, no less.

I like Revolution 9, and don't think it needs to be replaced.

I like the fact that not all of their singles were on the albums. Not only did you get a new b-side when you bought the single but you also often got an a-side that was unavailable elsewhere. Better value.

Timmy84 said:

JoeTyler said:

the Beatles always had that problem. I don't know who's the one to blame (Epstein, Martin, Paul or John), but I've never understood why they didn't use the singles to "complete" the albums.

The White Album should have included Hey Jude and Lady Madonna...

I saw the tracklistings of "Sgt. Pepper's" and "The White Album" and couldn't believe how disorganized the albums seem to be. Like I said I think they were going through the moods. I was shocked when I found out "Hey Jude" wasn't even on The White Album! I can understood they didn't want people to think they were a singles act but goddamn, a hit single or two wouldn't have undermined the albums! Sheesh. They didn't put "I Am the Walrus" (as much as I can't stand that song), "All You Need is Love" or "Hello Goodbye" on Sgt. Pepper's either. The fuck? "Abbey Road" by comparison was a better sequenced album.

I admire Sgt.Pepper because, for me, it has the best album-tracks of their entire carrer. I definitely think that songs like Hello Goodbye or Penny Lane would have been a distraction. I prefer dark/freaky/sad songs like She's Leaving Home or Benefit or Mr.Kite than Penny Lane, for example. That's why I also love Revolver, it does include the single Eleanor Rigby/Yellow Submarine but the rest of the album is cohesive, even a bit underrated. But I do agree that The White Album was just a bunch of (from excellent to just-ok) songs...

And yeah, despite the turmoil of the 69/70 era, Abbey Road and Let It Be actually sound like natural, cohesive albums, unlike The White Album or Magical Mystery Tour...

rialb said:

I like the fact that not all of their singles were on the albums. Not only did you get a new b-side when you bought the single but you also often got an a-side that was unavailable elsewhere. Better value.

Johnnie Taylor also sometimes released non-album singles when he was on Stax. So did James Brown.

rialb said:

I like the fact that not all of their singles were on the albums. Not only did you get a new b-side when you bought the single but you also often got an a-side that was unavailable elsewhere. Better value.

ok, but it's kinda odd that popular songs like She Loves You, Wanna Hold Your Hand, From Me To You, Penny Lane, Hey Jude, Lady Madonna, Ballad of John and Yoko etc, are only available on compilations...

JoeTyler said:

rialb said:

I like the fact that not all of their singles were on the albums. Not only did you get a new b-side when you bought the single but you also often got an a-side that was unavailable elsewhere. Better value.

ok, but it's kinda odd that popular songs like She Loves You, Wanna Hold Your Hand, From Me To You, Penny Lane, Hey Jude, Lady Madonna, Ballad of John and Yoko etc, are only available on compilations...

It was common at the time to release singles separate from albums. Many small labels released few albums or none at all. A lot of doo wop and girl groups were singles only. Albums wasn't really the focus, with some just being built around a song that became popular like Chubby Checker or Motown. 45 singles were cheap compared to albums, so good for teens. The LP was more of an adult market with jazz and showtunes, where singles weren't important. In the US though, The Beatles singles were on the albums.

[Edited 6/14/12 9:16am]

MickyDolenz said:

JoeTyler said:

ok, but it's kinda odd that popular songs like She Loves You, Wanna Hold Your Hand, From Me To You, Penny Lane, Hey Jude, Lady Madonna, Ballad of John and Yoko etc, are only available on compilations...

It was common at the time to release singles separate from albums. Many small labels released few albums or none at all. A lot of doo wop and girl groups were singles only. Albums wasn't really the focus, with some just being built around a song that became popular like Chubby Checker or Motown. 45 singles were cheap compared to albums, so good for teens. The LP was more of an adult market with jazz and showtunes, where singles weren't important.

yeah, that's true

I guess The Doors (perhaps unconsciously) changed the rules, at least in the US: hit singles released from strong LPs...

JoeTyler said:

MickyDolenz said:

It was common at the time to release singles separate from albums. Many small labels released few albums or none at all. A lot of doo wop and girl groups were singles only. Albums wasn't really the focus, with some just being built around a song that became popular like Chubby Checker or Motown. 45 singles were cheap compared to albums, so good for teens. The LP was more of an adult market with jazz and showtunes, where singles weren't important.

yeah, that's true

I guess The Doors (perhaps unconsciously) changed the rules, at least in the US: hit singles released from strong LPs...

Not only the Doors but a lot of the Motown acts (Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, the Four Tops, the Miracles, The Temptations) and Aretha Franklin actually became the first acts to have more than two top 40 singles on one album. That was a rarity back then. Three was the most and the Supremes, Aretha Franklin, the Miracles and Marvin Gaye at the time were the only acts to have three or four singles hit the top 40 with three hitting the top 10 for some of their albums at the most part. Aretha had three top ten singles on Lady Soul and prior to that and afterwards, two top tens for every other album until 1972.

[Edited 6/14/12 9:41am]

Timmy84 said:

JoeTyler said:

yeah, that's true

I guess The Doors (perhaps unconsciously) changed the rules, at least in the US: hit singles released from strong LPs...

Not only the Doors but a lot of the Motown acts (Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, the Four Tops, the Miracles, The Temptations) and Aretha Franklin actually became the first acts to have more than two top 40 singles on one album. That was a rarity back then. Three was the most and the Supremes, Aretha Franklin, the Miracles and Marvin Gaye at the time were the only acts to have three or four singles hit the top 40 with three hitting the top 10 for some of their albums at the most part. Aretha had three top ten singles on Lady Soul and prior to that and afterwards, two top tens for every other album until 1972.

[Edited 6/14/12 9:41am]

yeah, that's true, many people downplay the Motown LPs of the 60s thinking that they're full of filler, but acts The Temptations, Four Tops, Marvin Stevie, etc were releasing strong album-tracks ALREADY in the 60s. Aretha's I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You is as strong as any great album of the 70s or 80s...

[Edited 6/14/12 9:49am]

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

Not only the Doors but a lot of the Motown acts (Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, the Four Tops, the Miracles, The Temptations) and Aretha Franklin actually became the first acts to have more than two top 40 singles on one album. That was a rarity back then. Three was the most and the Supremes, Aretha Franklin, the Miracles and Marvin Gaye at the time were the only acts to have three or four singles hit the top 40 with three hitting the top 10 for some of their albums at the most part. Aretha had three top ten singles on Lady Soul and prior to that and afterwards, two top tens for every other album until 1972.

[Edited 6/14/12 9:41am]

yeah, that's true, many people downplay the Motown LPs of the 60s thinking that they're full of filler, but acts The Temptations, Four Tops, Marvin Stevie, etc were releasing strong album-tracks ALREADY in the 60s. Aretha's I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You is as strong as any great album of the 70s or 80s...

[Edited 6/14/12 9:49am]

Exactly. Motown actually put out GREAT albums in the '60s and for the most part, you could tell with the original material, they all work hard to get that sound. I always loved Marvin's That Stubborn Kinda Fellow album for example because every song had strength and life, which Marvin brought to these songs. His M.P.G. album from '69 and In the Groove from '68 were also great albums and his first Tammi duet album, United, is a masterpiece. As for Aretha, man, lots of great albums, no filler on most of them especially the 1967-73 albums. I Never Loved a Man, Lady Soul and Aretha Now are probably three of the greatest soul albums of all time.

JoeTyler said:

silverchild said:

JoeTyler said:

yeah, that's true, many people downplay the Motown LPs of the 60s thinking that they're full of filler, but acts The Temptations, Four Tops, Marvin Stevie, etc were releasing strong album-tracks ALREADY in the 60s. Aretha's I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You is as strong as any great album of the 70s or 80s...

[Edited 6/14/12 9:49am]

I'll even add Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, Isaac Hayes, and Curtis & The Impressions to that list as well.

Yup! Otis Blue, Dictionary of Soul, Night Beat, Ain't That Good News, Hot Buttered Soul, Keep on Pushing... R&B artists were starting to get their niche then and not in the '70s as is often mentioned.

Timmy84 said:

silverchild said:

JoeTyler said: I'll even add Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, Isaac Hayes, and Curtis & The Impressions to that list as well.

Yup! Otis Blue, Dictionary of Soul, Night Beat, Ain't That Good News, Hot Buttered Soul, Keep on Pushing... R&B artists were starting to get their niche then and not in the '70s as is often mentioned.

well, I didn't even mention Otis because I consider him to be the God of Soul,lol I consider that ANY song of Otis is basically GOOD, lol

and James Brown never released a bad song either, even his "lesser" songs flow perfectly, the guy always created a "groove" from start to finish...

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

Yup! Otis Blue, Dictionary of Soul, Night Beat, Ain't That Good News, Hot Buttered Soul, Keep on Pushing... R&B artists were starting to get their niche then and not in the '70s as is often mentioned.

well, I didn't even mention Otis because I consider him to be the God of Soul,lol I consider that ANY song of Otis is basically GOOD, lol

and James Brown never released a bad song either, even his "lesser" songs flow perfectly, the guy always created a "groove" from start to finish...

lol yeah, you're right about Otis. As for James, as much great grooves he created, he couldn't create a decent album unless it was live (and even then, you wonder how much was "live"). Now that guy was truly all over the place.

NDRU said:

Tough comparison, because I have known the White Album my whole life, and only got PG about five years ago.

They are both really fantastic albums. The White Album feels like more than a double album to me. Each disc has like 17 songs on it! It's a tougher listen for more conservative Beatles fans, but still full of classic tracks. It almost feels like a bootleg collection.

PG is less all over the place, and disc one is classic Zeppelin. Disc 2 is more experimental, but still quite easy to listen to IMO. When people dismiss Zeppelin as mere ripoffs of the real blues artists, I refer them to Night Flight, and ask which Willie Dixon song they stole that from. Kashmir is the essential Zeppelin sound. If they did nothing but covers & ripoffs, I would still call them one of the greatest bands of all time.

I would say that for range, and classic songs, I would go with the White Album. To think the same man sang Helter Skelter and I Will, and the same man wrote Good Night and Revolution 9, and that they are all on the same album is something I don't think we've ever seen the likes of before or since.

But I am biased. And in the end art is not a competition. Physical Graffiti is an awesome achievement.

What? Have I been listening to an abridged version of the White album all these years, and just too much of a casual fan to know it?

Timmy84 said:

lol yeah, you're right about Otis. As for James, as much great grooves he created, he couldn't create a decent album unless it was live (and even then, you wonder how much was "live"). Now that guy was truly all over the place.

Sydney Nathan wasn't interested in albums, so that wasn't the focus of King Records anyway. The equipment at King studio wasn't great either, so the records sound quality varied.

Timmy84 said:

JoeTyler said:

well, I didn't even mention Otis because I consider him to be the God of Soul,lol I consider that ANY song of Otis is basically GOOD, lol

and James Brown never released a bad song either, even his "lesser" songs flow perfectly, the guy always created a "groove" from start to finish...

lol yeah, you're right about Otis. As for James, as much great grooves he created, he couldn't create a decent album unless it was live (and even then, you wonder how much was "live"). Now that guy was truly all over the place.

hmm, but the thing I like about Brown is that his personal/extreme take on soul/funk works very well because of the groove; I'll never be a TOTAL fan of genres like pop/rock/folk/country because the filler is boring AND you can't escape it due to the verse-chorus form, which FORCES you to "listen" the song, but a "bad" Brown song flows and you don't even notice it, it's not necessary to skip it, lol

I actually prefer artists focused on the "groove" and not the verse-chorus shit (Brown, Marley, Parliament-Funkadelic, etc). If you're a verse-chorus artist, you know that you're gonna release some crappy filler sooner or later (Bowie, Elton, the Stones, etc), hell that's why Exile on Main Street is their best album, it's their "groove" album, same with 1999, that's Prince's "groove" album...

[Edited 6/14/12 10:18am]

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

lol yeah, you're right about Otis. As for James, as much great grooves he created, he couldn't create a decent album unless it was live (and even then, you wonder how much was "live"). Now that guy was truly all over the place.

hmm, but the thing I like about Brown is that his personal/extreme take on soul/funk works very well because of the groove; I'll never be a TOTAL fan of genres like pop/rock/folk/country because the filler is boring AND you can't escape it due to the verse-chorus form, which FORCES you to "listen" the song, but a "bad" Brown song flows and you don't even notice it, it's not necessary to skip it, lol

I actually prefer artists focused on the "groove" and not the verse-chorus shit (Brown, Marley, Parliament-Funkadelic, etc). If you're a verse-chorus artist, you know that you're gonna release some crappy filler sooner or later (Bowie, Elton, the Stones, etc), hell that's why Exile on Main Street is their best album, it's their "groove" album, same with 1999, that's Prince's "groove" album...

[Edited 6/14/12 10:18am]

Well you got a point with that.