best early period and initial run of hits: Beatles vs Stones vs Who vs Kinks

Beatles

http://www.webtvwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/quantum-leap.jpg

idgi

The Who. But then, I only like this era of The Who whereas I like the other bands more once they got past their initial sound.

L-R: Dean Stockwell, ILM

FWIW, "A Legal Matter," "La-La-La Lies" and "The Kids Are Alright" were released by producer Shel Talmy without the Who's (or their management's) consent because he was pissed at the Who for breaking their contract.

Judging by those groups of songs, The Who.

For these early runs, Who > Stones > Beatles > Kinks

Beatles
Who
Stones
Kinks

I feel like things moved fast, which puts the Who at an advantage even if it's only a year or two. So The Who for this, but it's a little unfair. Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere is way, way out front of the competition sonically.

Oddly, I find myself listening to the Kinks more than any of the others from these runs.

Probably worth adding that these days I listen to most Kinks and early Who reasonably regularly, Beatles just to make my son happy, and Stones rarely.

It's Kinks vs Who based on this list alone, but Beatles would take it easily if it were their 64-66 output, they're sort of weighed down here a bit by "Love Me Do" etc. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" go a long way though.

The Who

Beatles > Stones > who the fuck cares?

(I really hate My Generation and it's effectively poisoned The Who for me).

feel inclined to go with the Who here, oddly

The Who's run is definitely the most consistent. The Kinks made two crappy singles before hitting their stride, some Stones records missed the mark, and "Do You Want To Know A Secret" is the least-charming of those Beatles singles. Also, Keith fucking Moon.

L-R: Dean Stockwell, ILM

― a SB-in' artist that been in the game for a minute (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:14 AM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark

isdgi

for me it's Who > Beatles > Kinks > Stones

partly it's that i don't know a lot of those Stones songs, in a way they were the latest bloomers because their first really iconic song, "Satisfaction," came right at the end of their first 2 years on the charts

does anybody else think that the chorus for "The Kids Are Allright" bites the verses for "All My Loving"

Holy crap, never noticed that before!

Had the Who released their maximally-bland R&B covers as singles like the others, their list would have the same weak spots.

Holy crap, never noticed that before!

Suggest Ban Permalink
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:05 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is sarcasm? (i'm sorry; i don't remember hearing anyone ever mentioning it?)

the who easy, kinks second, beatles third, stones last

(kind of pissed that Play With Fire just missed the cut for the Stones' list; that's the first song of theirs I like)

b-side, wasn't it?

Beatles > Stones > who the fuck cares?

― Matt DC, Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:29 AM (46 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

About your lack of taste? I sure dont.

The Who, because they're the only band on the list who peaked this early.

(kind of pissed that Play With Fire just missed the cut for the Stones' list; that's the first song of theirs I like)

― Oh Shit People Like Your Ballads Oh Nooooo (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:14 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

"Play With Fire" was before "Satisfaction" and in their first 2 years on the charts so it counts, I think just cut it because I wanted to list exactly 10 songs from each act

Bill Magill otm

Had the Who released their maximally-bland R&B covers as singles like the others, their list would have the same weak spots.

― bendy, Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:07 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

some of my favorite early Who stuff is those James Brown covers!

oh well

thinking about going with the Beatles...The Who stuff is okay, but the only songs from that list I really love are "Kids are Alright" and "Substitute", whereas "Please Please Me" and the run from "I Want to Hold Your Hand" to "Twist and Shout" is unfuckwithable...

The Who, because they're the only band on the list who peaked this early.

― Pop is superior to all other genres (DL), Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:17 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is kind of rong in a well-meaning way. Out of all these bands, I think the Who probably peaked last; I just think they had the best songwriting chops of all the bands in here that are not the Beatles...

I just really rate the Who as a punchy, primal rock'n'roll band and less so as concept-loving Serious Artistes (a handful of later singles aside).

I like "well-meaning" though. "Dude, you're talking shit but you obviously mean well."

As songwriters go, I'd say Pete barely > John/Paul, Ray (tie)

The Who, easy. Those early singles are a thing of weird beauty.

xp yeah but I was voting Beatles

I definitely think that 70s Who >>>>>>>>>>> 70s Stones, even with Exile and Sticky Fingers...

I think the Who too.

If this had been a "first three albums poll" I think the Who would have walked it.

what were the first 3 Who albums? Sings My Generation, Happy Jack, Sell Out?

Beatles, no doubt. I feel people underrate their early material. Those singles were all magic.

xp I would prolley vote Beatles in that poll too, though the Who are a great band, probably better overall than the Beatles...

lol I was just thinking that early Beatles are underrated and then Geir came in :P

Xposts yeah, or as we would have it:

My Generation, A Quick One, and The Who Sell-out.

oh I forgot about A Quick One...I probably would vote for the Who in the 'first 3 albums' poll. But I just want to say that A Hard Day's Night rules, and that the vocal harmonies on "If I Fell" are fucking next-level...

The Who, by a head from the Kinks. But let's be honest, the ground had been cleared for them by the Beatles and the Stones showing the world that original material was the way to go. Of the actual songs on the list, it's toss-up between Substitute and See My Friends.

As an aside, I bought the Who BBC Sessions for a fiver in Fopp the other day: some stellar versions on there. Nice to hear songs so familiar sounding different.

this is sarcasm? (i'm sorry; i don't remember hearing anyone ever mentioning it?)

It's definitely not sarcasm; having listened to both songs for 30+ years, I'm a little embarrassed that I never picked up on that before.

"See My Friends" is kind of the big enigma here. I loved the Gravenhurst cover of that song but I don't think I've ever heard the original...just from that cover, it's hard to imagine it at some British Invasion single...

The Who and The Kinks I feel were a bit too raw in their early material, both would become much better later on. The Kinks were at their best from 1965 until 1969 while The Who were at their best from 1967 to 1973.

The Beatles and the Stones would of course also become better later, but voting for Stones is out of question for me here anyway, whereas The Beatles were magic already on their third single.

The first time I heard the song, it was a cover version by a 'Beatles' not-tribute act (i.e. dressed and musically like them but not as far as doing their songs) called "The Pleasers", so the similarity was manifest for me.

xposts the song being "The Kids are Alright" obv.

I just really rate the Who as a punchy, primal rock'n'roll band and less so as concept-loving Serious Artistes (a handful of later singles aside).

I have trouble making that distinction; Quadrophenia is punchy and primal, and I love the concept behind "I'm A Boy" (set in the future, families are allowed to choose the sex of their children; couple orders four girls, gets three girls and a boy, hilarity ensues)

xpost That's what's great about See My Friends it's miles away from being a British invasion single (and Gravenhurst's version was great too).

^otm. Sounds almost like a more atonal Hollies or something...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCSzxkbMri8&feature=related

this is tough

Satisfaction > I Can't Explain > Please Please Me/She Loves You/I Want to Hold Your Hand/From Me to Your > See My Friends

still voted Beatles since their run was most consistent

See My Friends>The Kids are All Right>I Saw Her Standing There>Substitue>Please Please Me>You Really Got Me>>>>Satisfaction

Isn't See My Friends like the first British pop song that mimics raga melodies?

yes.

when did See My Friends come out?

1965, but still pre-Rubber Soul

I'll also vote for the Who, since their first few years were amazing after which they descended into arena-rock (some of it admittedly good). "Meaty, Beatty, Big & Bouncy" is an amazing compilation album of their initial mid-to-late '60s singles. I also prefer early Kinks to their mid- and late-period recordings, but at least they remained interesting.

Beatles early stuff is great of course (save for "Love Me Do" which is an astonishingly weak first single given what they proved capable of), but late stuff is better, and they peaked in between. Stones by far the most consistent of these four bands, good stuff through 1981 anyway. Interesting how the Beatles, and to lesser an extent the Kinks and Who, completely overhauled their sound throughout their career, whereas the Stones stuck with a similar sound throughout, only modestly updating it (save for an occasional excursions into other styles like psychedelia ("Dandelion" etc.) in 1967 or some country-tinged tracks in the '70s).

Would be interesting to compare these to the best American groups of this period, like the Byrds (who IMO peaked early, although they remained great for the first half of their career) and the Beach Boys (whose early '61-'63 hits, fun as they were, were trounced by their peak mid-sixties recordings which were as amazing as anything the Beatles did in that era, and were concurrent to the first Who records)

Who > Beatles > Kinks > Stones

M&K don't really get going until the last two singles. Kinks' a bit patchy, only those three big songs there. Beatles/Who both put out strong material, but the latter take it for me because the songs are more interesting.

these are the Stones' singles that influenced all the garage-rockers and Nuggets crew aren't they?

set in the future, families are allowed to choose the sex of their children; couple orders four girls, gets three girls and a boy, hilarity ensues

what in the world

Did this reading of the song come from a Townshend interview or something? Cause I don't see it in the lyrics. I thought it was just "crazy mother wanted all girls, cross-dresses her boy"

Yeah, it was part of an opera he wrote (or maybe just conceptualized) at the time called "Quads." He's quoted in Dave Marsh's Before I Get Old about the idea behind the lyrics.

Not to often where I'd be voting against the Beatles, but as defined here, the Who easily. I'd probably even vote the Kinks second, the Rolling Stones third, and the Beatles last; I don't really start loving them until "Eight Days a Week" and "Ticket to Ride."

This is hard as fuck. The Who run is brutal, the early Beatles are magic but hard to hear with fresh ears, The Kinks start out average then blow-up like nitro. The Stones run is the one I choose. The r'n'r covers are as as sexy as the originals (even more so in the case of the dionysian Not Fade Away) and the early Keith/Mick songwriting is already demonic ( Tell Me, Heart of Stone, The Last Time, the omitted Play With Fire)

I don't think there has been anything as goddam noisy as the RS' version of "I wanna be your man", not for another 15 years at least.

The Who

Looking like a landslide, barring a bunch of dissenting lurkers.

i'm going for the kinks. "love me do" sucks, half of those who songs suck, the stones just weren't cuttin it yet. the kinks, all those are classics.

Looking like a landslide, barring a bunch of dissenting lurkers.

Permalink
― The Louvin Spoonful (WmC), Tuesday, 29 March 2011 19:28 (12 minutes ago)

kind of early to call it yet dontchathink?

probably, but I don't have any prophetic cred to ruin, so what the hell

None of these runs is perfect. I mean A Legal Matter? Happy Jack's always seemed like scribble to me. Then you get these pure moments of pop genius like Pictures of Lily, and revolutionary stuff like ANyway..
I'm assuming these are US releases. 'Do you want to Know a Secret' was never a single here, for instance. that dilutes their contribution considerably if we are looking for era-defining songs.

The Who's run, as listed in the poll, is the UK run; "La-La-La Lies" and "A Legal Matter" weren't released as singles in the US. As I posted above, "A Legal Matter" was released as a dick move by Shel Talmy; the Who didn't conceive of it as a single, so while it's inclusion is technically correct, none of the singles by the Stones/Beatles/Kinks were released as a result of the dickishness of a spurned producer.

The Who

The Who's run, as listed in the poll, is the UK run; "La-La-La Lies" and "A Legal Matter" weren't released as singles in the US. As I posted above, "A Legal Matter" was released as a dick move by Shel Talmy; the Who didn't conceive of it as a single, so while it's inclusion is technically correct, none of the singles by the Stones/Beatles/Kinks were released as a result of the dickishness of a spurned producer.

― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Tuesday, March 29, 2011 4:04 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark

i don't have any problem w/ those songs and didn't have any idea of the circumstances of their single releases when i made the poll. the Beatles wiki discography lists all the 'Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers' singles alongside their official Beatles releases but those stuck out like a sore thumb and i made sure to remove them from the lists for this thread.

i like a legal matter, good song.

it's okay

whereas the Stones stuck with a similar sound throughout, only modestly updating it

This I don't agree with actually

1963-1965: Rootsy and raw R&B
1966-1967: Still R&B oriented in 1966, but slowly starting to sound more like The Beatles, then, in 1967, they were The Beatles more or less.
1968-1974: More or less defined generic rock. The blues influence more evident than in 1967, but considerably less so than in 1964. Plus a good bit of country influence added, and it wasn't until this period that the trademark rhythm section interplay of Watts, Wyman and Richards was developed.
1976-1980: Flirtation with disco
1981-1986: Going back to the generic rock sound in 1981, and then adding more and more synths and electronic effects to create a very 80s sounding style on the next albums
1989: Back to a generic rock style and have stayed there until now. Obviously sounding more retro than in 1971 though.

Geir you're right but in the wrongest way possible...

beatles: great stuff, but yeah, a lot of it hard to hear with fresh ears.
stones: the self-titled debut prob my favorite debut ever, but their best early stuff wasn't usually the singles.
who: yeah, my favorite who era by far, they were never this good again.
kinks: had to go with them, love all these songs dearly except the first two.

who>beatles>kinks>stones (if we were doing albums for this period i'd reverse the order)

Based on the singles above, The Who over the Beatles by a bit.

Shocked that the primitive Stones sides were so... underwhelming. Relatively.

Admission: I have a smattering of releases by all of them but most of my knowledge & listening of them is radio.

The Who, by a lot.

Thing that changed the Stones was Keith Richards meeting Ry Cooder in the late 60s and learning the tuning that he then used on every song for a decade, the one everyone thinks of as the classic Stones sound.

One thing that tips the scales even more towards the Who for me is "Circles," the B-side of "Substitute," which is as great or greater than any of their early A-sides. Not sure if the other three have any great B-sides hidden away ("Yes It Is" and "Rain" come later), and I realize that's a separate issue.

The Who as the best initial run and The Beatles as the worst one. The Who, The Kinks and The Rolling Stones had already started to define their trademark sound while the Beatles didn't really reach it until Rubber Soul.

i dunno, The Beatles had several trademark sounds and songs like "She Loves You" and "I Saw Her Standing There" definitely epitomize one of them imo

Well, yes. There isn't really a trademark Beatles sound as they kept shifting their style but I think the early Beatles singles weren't too eager about masking or evolving the sound of their influence. They had a 'thing' but it wasn't really that different from the other 'thing' that existed at the moment.

All of the Who songs are good, which isn't true of anyone else here

All of the Who Kinks songs are good, which isn't true of anyone else here

The Who > The Beatles/The Kinks > The Rolling Stones

"Long Tall Sally" isn't good (xp)

The Who >>>>> The Kinks >>> The Stones > The Beatles

Good point. My eyes managed to gloss over that one. Yeh, LTS stinks pretty bad. Don't know if it stinks as bad as A Legal Matter tho.

Nothing wrong with "A Legal Matter", ask Richard Thompson!

RTs version on that Popular Music CD is better than the Who version by a long shot, but it might be just better by context. I loved the premise of that CD/concert so I'm kinda biased.

I think it fits his voice really well. In fact similar voices in some ways, Townshend + Thompson, Thommo better obv.

The Who or the Kinks or The Who or the Kinks or The Who or the Kinks

Fuck it, the Who.

It is a bit unfair on the other three however, they sort of broke down the barriers so a band like the Who could be allowed to put out original material instead of some crappy cover version, I mean the Beatles first single is 1962 after all!

Not sure if the other three have any great B-sides hidden away ("Yes It Is" and "Rain" come later), and I realize that's a separate issue.

The b-sides of that particular run for the Beatles: "PS I Love You," "Ask Me Why," "Thank You Girl," "I'll Get You," "This Boy," and "You Can't Do That." (Fewer titles because some of the listed songs in the poll were A and B sides of one single.)

xp Yeah agreed- The Who were capitalising on advances made by the other 3 and other bands too. The q was about the run of singles, though.

find this really hard. stones last for sure, though.

still don't get the quantum leap jpg!

yeah it's the Who - kind of shocking to look at their early stuff and think how clever & rich it seems next to the other stuff up there

stones just weren't cuttin it yet.

― blank

xxxxpost: have you heard "i wanna be your man"?

Feel like the Beatles should get extra credit here for tossing "I Wanna Be Your Man" to the Stones.

Thanks for the Beatles B-sides. The one I love is "This Boy" (actually don't recognize a couple of the titles, though I must have heard them somewhere along the way).

Well, yes. There isn't really a trademark Beatles sound as they kept shifting their style but I think the early Beatles singles weren't too eager about masking or evolving the sound of their influence. They had a 'thing' but it wasn't really that different from the other 'thing' that existed at the moment.

You'd struggle very hard to find anything from before 1963 that sounds anything like "From Me To You", "She Loves Your" or "I Want To Hold Your Hand". Sure, you can find the melodic and harmonic elements in the music of, say, Del Shannon and you can find the rawness in a lot of 50s R&B/rock'n'roll. But the combination of those two elements isn't found in anything pre-Beatles.

Geir OTM!

i don't have any problem w/ those songs and didn't have any idea of the circumstances of their single releases when i made the poll. the Beatles wiki discography lists all the 'Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers' singles alongside their official Beatles releases but those stuck out like a sore thumb and i made sure to remove them from the lists for this thread.

― ★ Project Pat ★ What Cha Starin At ★ I Ain't A Mirror ★ (some dude), Tuesday, March 29, 2011 4:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think they're great songs, and definitely belong in the poll. I was just pointing out the circumstances behind some of the releases for everyone who felt "A Legal Matter" (or the underrated "La-La-La Lies") was the low point in that run. All things being relative, the Who's "low point" is still streets ahead of about half of the singles runs of the other bands.

but the beatles' high point is many more streets ahead of the who's

I think those early Beatles singles were absolutely revolutionary in terms of sound, structure, etc. (there's that famous Dylan quote where the says their chords were "outrageous"). I just don't like them as much as what they start doing from "Help!" onwards.

The chords had been used before, particularly in non-rock genres, but the key changes were pretty much outrageous. Del Shannon did some sophisticated stuff too (like switching between minor and major, which is an easy trick but very effective), but The Beatles more so.

Who b-sides: "Bald Headed Woman," "Daddy Rolling Stone," "Shout & Shimmy," "Circles," "Instant Party" (Talmy-produced version of "Circles"), "The Ox," "In The City," "The Good's Gone," "I've Been Away," "Doctor Doctor."

"Happy Jack" is such a smart little firecracker

http://gallery.lost-media.com/albums/userpics/10268/normal_iSawyer.PNG

If one were to poll all of their 10 singles from the beginning of 1965 onward, it def gets much tighter:

The Beatles: Ticket to Ride, Help!, Yesterday, We Can Work it Out, Day Tripper, Nowhere Man, Paperback Writer, Rain, Eleanor Rigby, Yellow Submarine (counting a few double a sides here)

Rolling Stones: The Last Time, Play With Fire, Satisfaction, Get Off My Cloud, As Tears Go By, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Paint it Black, Mother's Little Helper, Lady Jane, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Standing in the Shadows?

The Who: I Can't Explain, Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere, My Generation, Substitute, A Legal Matter, The Kids Are Alright, I'm A Boy, Happy Jack, La-La-Lies, Pictures of Lily

The Kinks: Tired of Waiting for You, Ev'rybody's Gonna Be Happy, Set Me Free, See My Friends, Who'll Be the Next in Line, A Well Respected Man, Till the End of the Day, Dedicated Follower of Fashion, Sunny Afternoon, Dandy

Not really, The Beatles in a walk, followed by The Kinks, then the Who (same list as before?) and the Stonz flollop behind.

Ten Small Faces singles, though....

I'd call that one a 4-way tie.

For the revolutionary nature of some of those early Beatles singles, read Revolution in the Head. Particularly good on I Want to Hold Your Hand - a song that begins in the middle!

I'd still pick the Who, but not without reservations. Interestingly, their single that followed "Pictures of Lily" was their cover of "The Last Time" b/w "Under My Thumb."

Their first stinker to date

Yeah, I mean, the presence of Moon prevents it from sucking completely, but that's about it.

But The Last Time/Under My Thumb was a sort-of charity single wasn't it? Dashed off in support of the Stones at the time of the drug bust. Therefore it is exempt from the aesthetic rules governing "real" singles.

yeah i made a point not to include that in the frame of this discussion

65 onward is seriously impossible except that I am sure the answer is not the Kinks.

yeah, the Kinks don't really hit their stride until Sunny Afternoon imho

And I say that as a huge Kinks fan, but even I can't deny that those other bands were doing better stuff on their singles.

But The Last Time/Under My Thumb was a sort-of charity single wasn't it? Dashed off in support of the Stones at the time of the drug bust.

Indeed it was:

"Special Announcement: The Who consider Mick Jagger & Keith Richard have been treated as scapegoats for the drug problem and as a protest against the savage sentences imposed on them at Chichester yesterday, The WHO are issuing today the first of a series of Jagger/Richard songs to keep their work before the public until they are again free to record themselves."

Never knew this existed, must research. (Neither song on youtube.) I can hear Ray's voice in my head singing these.

You mean Roger's voice.

No it's Ray, because the Kinks recorded a tribute to the Who tribute after Keith Moon got a parking ticket.

Ha, must learn to read better, no wonder those "Kinks" covers weren't googlable! Somehow the Who covering them doesn't hold the same level of interest for me.

Not really, The Beatles in a walk, followed by The Kinks, then the Who (same list as before?) and the Stonz flollop behind.

I'd contest this; I'm pretty much over Satisfaction, but it's dece. In the post-65 list, everything the Stones did after Play With Fire is straight fire, and would get my vote...

Play With Fire, Satisfaction, Get Off My Cloud, As Tears Go By, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Paint it Black, Mother's Little Helper, Lady Jane

name another run on this list that is this unstoppable...

you don't like Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Standing in the Shadows?

I'm assuming the Beatles list come partly from a chronology of U.S. hits? Because it's the first five proper singles but then it gets a little random.

xp can't vouch for it gospodin; if i've heard it, it's been a long time...

refresh your memory then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWYWVBBsBLs

I'm assuming the Beatles list come partly from a chronology of U.S. hits? Because it's the first five proper singles but then it gets a little random.

― timellison, Wednesday, March 30, 2011 1:26 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

i went w/ wikipedia but iirc included some b-sides that charted as a-sides etc.

fwiw the general parameters of this thread are intended to be "any song that was any kind of single or hit within 24 months of the band's first appearance on the UK charts," the songs i listed at the top of the thread were more of a guideline than the definitive definition of what songs fall under that umbrella.

xpost - yeah, I took it from the U.S.

The British singles from 1965 onward is even more formidable:

Ticket to Ride/Yes it Is
Help!/I'm Down
We Can Work it Out/Day Tripper
Paperback Writer/Rain
Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby
Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane
All You Need is Love/Baby You're a Rich Man
Hello Goodbye/I Am the Walrus
Lady Madonna/The Inner Light
Hey Jude/Revolution

sorry - I thought that post was in response to my hypothetical 1965 poll

The British singles from 1965 onward is even more formidable:

Losing a bit of steam towards the end of that run I'd say.

The strongest Beatles run would rather be from 1964 onwards:

Can't Buy Me Love/You Can't Do That
A Hard Day's Night/Things We Said Today
I Feel Fine/She's a Woman
Ticket To Rid/Yes It Is
Help!/I'm Down
We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper
Paperback Writer/Rain
Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby
Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane
All You Need Is Love/Baby You're a Rich Man

I don't know. There's something to be said for "Please Please Me" as the first knockout and then the one-two punch of "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand." That was Beatlemania right there.

^right

as for post '65 Beatles I love Paperback Writer and Ticket to Ride, but I don't really like We Can Work It Out or Yellow Submarine, and despise Eleanor Rigby like nobody's business...

I find it incredible that someone can not like We Can Work It Out.

really? I think Rubber Soul is 90% shit--does that help?

I'm not that keen on about half of Rubber Soul either but I think We Can Work It Out is pretty much a perfect record.

Sleeper on this Who list is "La-La Lies."

^ this

So crunchy, and with a snareless snare drum!

"Rubber Soul" is kinda as if "before they added the overdubs" that Revolver and Pepper got.

yeah, the Kinks don't really hit their stride until Sunny Afternoon imho

^ He crazy

Speaking objectively, without involving personal taste, I don't see why The Who shouldn't take this. If we isolate each one of these bands the only one that really hitted its prime at an early stage is them.

Whereas the Kinks started hitting it on Face to Face, the Beatles on A Hard Day's Night and the Rolling Stones on Aftermath.

xxxp actually, outside of She Said, TNK, and Your Bird Can Sing, and maybe Love You To, not really that big a fan of Revolver either, though I like it better than Rubber Soul.

Speaking objectively, without involving personal taste, I don't see why The Who shouldn't take this.

If you don't involve personal taste, any poll including The Beatles will be won by The Beatles.

If you don't involve personal taste, what's left? Random choice?

The Canon. I.e. The Beatles.

Well, dammit. 'personal taste' was the wrong word to use... what I meant is that we should forget about what we think of them and judge their run in contrast with their own discography and then, on the one from the competition... if we objectively separate these four bands and put their records on a graph highlighting their whole career the only ones who spike on their initial run are the Who.

I'd actually rank them in terms of personal taste: The Kinks > The Rolling Stones > The Beatles > The Who but in this particular poll my answer would be The Who > The Kinks > The Rolling Stones > The Beatles

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this.

The Canon. I.e. The Beatles.
--You're Twistin' My Melody Man! (Geir Hongro)

So other people's personal taste.

Speaking objectively, without involving personal taste, I don't see why The Who shouldn't take this. If we isolate each one of these bands the only one that really hitted its prime at an early stage is them.

― Moka, Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:52 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

For some reason, when I read this, I capitalized the T in them, so that Van Morrison's group was the only band that really hit its prime at an early stage. I got to thinking, how about a similar Them-Yardbirds-Animals poll?

Do it, I vote Yardbirds.

Them vs. Yardbirds Vs. Animals Vs. Troggs Vs. Pretty Things Poll

(I think I voted Yardbirds too, Bill)

Thanks drugs. BTW, Im about to get bbq'd over on the Hard Rock thread so any help you can give me would be appreciated. Then again you may disagree completely with what I said.

irl LOLs--see what I can do

sorry man I don't know enough about Priest or post-Ozzy Sabbath to really be much help...

yeah, the Kinks don't really hit their stride until Sunny Afternoon imho

^ He crazy

He not crazy. He think Dead End Street, Waterloo Sunset, Death of a Clown, Autumn Almanac, Starstruck, Village Green, Shangri-La, et all are better tunes than what's listed above.

Kinks' best ten single run should at least start early enough to include "Dedicated Follower Of Fashion", but I do agree those mentioned there are better than the earliest stuff.

He crazy if he thinks "You Really Got Me," "All Day And All Of The Night," "Tired Of Waiting For You," "Set Me Free," "See My Friends," aren't at least as good as their later singles

Fuck a "Sunny Afternoon" btw, booooooo-ring

sorry dude late 60's Kinks is more my thing but whatever

It's more my thing too, but those early singles are awesome. Albums aren't great.

He crazy if he thinks "You Really Got Me," "All Day And All Of The Night," "Tired Of Waiting For You," "Set Me Free," "See My Friends," aren't at least as good as their later singles

They aren't. The first two aren't even close (boring R&B without any of the typically English trademarks that made them so great later on), whereas the next tree shows them developing their style into what would become very great in 1966-68.

(Although they did at least make their first great song in 1964, but that one was just an album track - "Stop Your Sobbing")

how are the stones and who (and the kinks but maybe to a slightly lesser degree) not just a big in the "canon" as the beatles?

Because they had a much more limited musical palette. Particularly the former two. They appealed first and foremost to "rock" fans whereas Beatles could also do very light and melodic pop.

the beatle appeal first and foremost to rock fans!

the kinks are just as melodic as the beatle, nukka!

early kinks are totally part of the cannon, my friend.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/2845667.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834D5161D0644D50439A298036F8E332B1CB5223CE6E4BAF89B1

Geir, you REALLY think "You Really Got Me" and "All Day And All Of The Night" sound like R&B?

the kinks are just as melodic as the beatle, nukka!

At least they were in around 1965 to 1969. But their musical palette was limited in other ways, like they never were into experimenting with sitars, electronic effects etc in 1967-68 when everyone else was.

(At least they used cembalos though)

Because they had a much more limited musical palette. Particularly the former two. They appealed first and foremost to "rock" fans whereas Beatles could also do very light and melodic pop.

It's true. The Who never did any "light and melodic pop." They never recorded "Sunrise" or "I Can't Reach You" or "Tattoo" or "Mary Anne With The Shaky Hand."

whooo

or pictures of lily or armenia city in the sky

i thought you hated experimental stuff geir?

like they never were into experimenting with sitars

christ don't you ever get tired of being wrong

Rolling Stone: "See My Friends" moves from those chords to something closer to an Indian drone.
Ray Davies: I got that idea from being in India. I always like the chanting. Someone once said to me "England is gray and India is like a chant". I don't think England is that gray but India is like a long drone. When I wrote the song, I had the sea near Bombay in mind. We stayed at a hotel by the sea, and the fishermen come up at five in the morning and they were all chanting. And we went on the beach and we got chased by a mad dog - big as a donkey.
Rolling Stone: It sounded as if you were singing about an English river.
Ray Davies: I think it was the Indian Ocean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb855M1p_i4

i thought you hated experimental stuff geir?

I love experimental stuff that keeps within the boundaries of melody and harmony. Which is something most of Beatles' experimental stuff did. At least before 1968.

Regarding Kinks it has been said that Ray Davies never cared much about psychedelia, but the fact that they never quite went there may as well have to do with the fact that they were on a very small label and as such had to put up with very tight recording budgets.

Really, I love Kinks (at least their 1965-69 work) and I am not going to use a lot of energy speaking against them. But they are not up there with Beatles. Only Beatles haters could possibly claim that they - or anyone else from that era - were.

Kinks > Who > Stones > Beatles

gut instinct was to go with the Stones but those first four singles are weak---the last 3 are so strong that I was initially willing to overlook that.

At first I was like lol Kinks b/c I have a pretty ambiguous relationship with them (esp. their singing) but "See My Friends" is a monster & "You Really Got Me" is like, some songs are just carved into the joints of the Rock & this is one of them, like it's weird to me that someone actually wrote it. Check out this take on it from Paris in 1965: so slapdash, "I don't give a fuck", & the gig feels like it's going to explode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6yFYzkuVn8

'...really just wanna know which band's early period you like best overall, as a sound or whatever."

The WHO

Nicky Hopkins needs to be mentioned ITT as a common thread through three of the bands' work. He's on two of the Who singles in the OP -- is he specifically credited on any of the Kinks or Stones songs?

uh the Kinks wrote a whole fucking song about him

oops sorry didn't realize you were referring to the original post

I don't think Hopkins is on any of those

I never knew this, so I looked into it a little. He was on some later period albums. what a talented guy.

1966 Face to Face, The Kinks........................................Piano, Melodica, Harpsichord
1967 Something Else, the Kinks......................................Harpsichord, Piano, Organ
1967 Their Satanic Majesties Request, The Rolling Stones............Keyboards, Piano
1968 White Album, Beatles...........................................Piano
1968 Village Green Preservation Society, Kinks......................Keyboards
1968 Beggars Banquet, The Rolling Stones............................Piano, Keyboards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHf74T-BSk8

always thought this came off more as bitchy/satirical than as a loving tribute but what do I know

x-p damn. nice resume

Correction, he's on three of those Who singles, not two : Anyway Anyhow Anywhere, Legal Matter, La La La Lies

Ah, I didn't realize that was him on "Revolution," so that thread runs through all four bands.

kind of think davies excels at walking the bitchy/satirical + affectionate/witty line, right?

Hopkins is all over the My Generation album (dig his playing on "The Ox"), and contributed mightily to Who's Next.

kind of think davies excels at walking the bitchy/satirical + affectionate/witty line, right?

he's more or less made a career out of it

I remember when I was first getting into the Kinks I had an argument with a friend of mine about how sad/depressing their mid-period material was - since it deals so much with loss, nostalgia, failure, etc., but there's also this sort of hard-scrabble sarcasm undercutting a lot of it

Beatles: Nine times out of ten I'll take them over any other band but there are album tracks off the first three records I like a LOT more than most of these singles so I can't really justify voting for them on the basis of this particular set of songs. If I was going on the bands' early eras in general, they'd win.

Stones: Eh, a mixed bag and yeah, the stuff they did soon afterwards does put these in the shade a bit. I absolutely love 'Not Fade Away' though.

Who: Wow, ok, apart from 'A Legal Matter' and maybe 'Happy Jack' (which I still quite like), these are all gold. Plus although their more ambitious stuff came later (and I love Tommy and everything), you really get the best of both Shiny Pop Who and Hard-Edged Rock Who here.

Kinks: Looking at their list it strikes me how versatile they were as a band this early on. There's a flawless run of six songs here but the first two aren't that good and the last two are just ok. They get second place.

Nicky Hopkins needs to be mentioned ITT as a common thread through three of the bands' work.

The best of them didn't need him though.

c'mon dude he played keys on "revolution"

That said, all of these runs have their flaws. I have never liked "You Really Got Me" nor "My Generation" nor "Love Me Do". And I don't really like any Stones single before "Paint It Black".

You didn't need that SB, but you just got it anyway. xxp

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Perfect order and distribution of votes!

Not at all. The Who didn't become all that interesting until 1967.

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/strenco_steam_robot_1.jpg

ha this is pretty close to accurately depicting my opinion

Am I the only person here that thinks early Beatles >>>> mid-period Beatles?

Help! is a really good album.

I haven't heard Help! but I'm willing to believe any album w/ Ticket to Ride and Hide Your Love Away on it is better than Rubber Soul (and maybe Revolver)

Mid-period Beatles is full of gems; my favorite Beatles song is Rain. But a lot of the musical/songwriting cred grabs that the Beatles start indulging in around this time kind of bores me to tears, esp. before it pays off in the experimental later songs, when the band develops this sort of surreal interior mythology...

musical/songwriting cred grabs that the Beatles start indulging in

I think the bigger problem with mid-period Beatles, honestly, was that they became a little decadent and lethargic.

i can't even get my head around how those 2 adjectives make any sense in that context

I had no idea there were so many who fans on ilx

maybe cause I don't click on who threads cause the who suck

kinks should have won this in a landslide

yeah what are the odds 50 people on a music message board are into "My Generation" and "I Can't Explain"

Amazing to listen to Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere, and consider just how raw and out of control it sounds. More savage (yet poppy! those backing vocals!) than most anything in the next 45 years of music combined.

As soon as i saw this thread I thought "Christ, of course it's the Who!" and then i saw the results and yep that makes sense.

Sound of the early Beatles fucking rules except for the guitar solos. Last time i heard "Twist and Shout" i got all excited and turned it up and was just listening to John Lennon screaming the most amazing bloody rock n roll singing ever. Then the guitar solo comes in. Dink. Da-da-da-dink. Da-dink-dink-dink. Da-da-da-dink.

timellison is otm--decadent is a bit of a stretch, but lethargic is otm. The early rush of Beatlemania winding down, they're smoking pot, even good songs on RS, like Nowhere Man & If I Needed Someone, sound sleepy as hell. Meanwhile, they're turning away from the teenage kicks of r'n'r to more 'classic' subject matter: Yesterday, In My Life, Michelle. Trying to beat Tin Pan Alley at their own game. Still makes me yawn.

A few good things came from this: Lennon having the smarts to be inspired by Dylan, leading to folky-confessional songs like Hide your Love and Norwegian Wood, and McCartney having the smarts to be inspired by James Jamerson.

The Who didn't become all that interesting until 1967.

The Who got really, really interesting in 1967 with Who Sell Out, then they were never as interesting as pre-1967 again. (Who's Next possibly excepted.)

Been a long time since I listened to Revolver, but wasn't super impressed with it; there is a kaleidoscopic effect which kind of relieves the saminess, but the lethargy is still there, with an added layer of pomposity (coming from someone who would know). Still there are some great songs imo; I also really liked Love You To, and Taxman is like a sloppier Drive My Car...

Has anybody done the TS: Sell Out vs. Tommy poll yet?

I have to believe Sell Out would win that resoundingly...I hope it would, anyway.

That would be a tough choice. Their strengths are so different.

It might be

Kind of feel like the Who remained interesting p much throughout the 70s but tbh I haven't been interested enough to check any of it out to confirm whether or not I'm right...

I do know this: We're Not Gonna Take It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rael (with I Can See for Miles)

*(with I Can See for Miles somewhere in between)

70s Who is basically Genesis if they were good

earlier tonight I was going to write that those early Who singles encompass everything in music that mattered to me.

Later I'm feeling like I should have read the Rolling Stones list better, because "Tell Me", "Heart of Stone", and "Time Is on My Side" encompass (WTH does that word even mean?) something too.

also, I love 70's The Who and all the little guitar leads and synth parts and the clever self-loathing lyrics. Also, Tommy bootlegs.

I'm not upset that the Who didn't win, but the Kinks should easily of come in second.

I had no idea there were so many who fans on ilx

I don't think you have to be "fan" as such to see that their early run of singles is pretty hard to beat

Am I the only person here that thinks early Beatles >>>> mid-period Beatles?

I love early Beatles. Already in 1963, they completely revolutionized the way pop music was supposed to sound, combining raw rock'n'roll energy with melodic and harmonic sophistication.

The only Beatles era that is a tad overrated is 1968 onwards. Although "Abbey Road" was a great album.

If you wanna ring-fence the White album, Go ahead.

also, I love 70's The Who and all the little guitar leads and synth parts and the clever self-loathing lyrics. Also, Tommy bootlegs.

― none thanks (Zachary Taylor), Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:57 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I love the '70s Who, especially Quadrophenia. Plus any live stuff from that era utterly kills.I'm still blown away by Live at Leeds, even though I've heard it probably a thousand times.

Plus some of the boots from 70-76 are crushing.

70s Who albums are just too MOR Classic Rock for me. I love the crunch and lo-fi attack of the early records. I love how sometimes what Moon is doing overtakes the whole band. I love all the little distortion. It seemed like they hated being saddled with Shel Talmy's poor equipment, but I think it really added alot to those early singles.

"The Who Sell Out" has my favorite songs, but nothing in their catalog can beat the lineup on "Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy".

As for overrated Beatles eras, I'd say "Help" to "Rubber Soul". John Lennon's Fat Elvis period. Everyone starting to smoke weed and do drugs, slacking in the studio, slacking in live performance. You did get some of the best original material but the other stuff tends to be lazy filler, with lackluster performances. I mean it all works because they were THE FUCKING BEATLES and had this natural chemistry and charm that comes across even when they are screwing around. But still.

"RubSoul" seems to me to be the "unfinished" one, like they couldn't be arsed. I'm ceratin that's untrue/unfair, but it did seem that they had to put more in from that point onwards.

70s Who albums are just too MOR Classic Rock for me.

I dunno, Terry Riley homages and songs about alcoholism and/or amphetamines don't really strike me as MOR. I do think the focus of "classic rock" radio on three or four 70s Who songs has created unnecessary (and largely false) distinctions between 60s and 70s Who. Thing is, in the 70s, they were still funny.

I agre. Who By Numbers was some pretty dark shit.

I was gonna say, Squeezebox has just as much charm as anything they did in the 60s. Is that on By Numbers?

Yes, it's not really representative of the rest of the album however, which was described as Townshend's "suicide note".

Which obviously didnt turn out to be the case.

I'm talking about pure sound. The sound of 70s who is total classic rock.

I'm not saying they weren't funny or that the lyrics became syrupy. I mean, Who lyrics have always been pretty weird, full of cross-dressers, masturbators, perverts, and speed addicts.

Mods for ya. Gotta love em.

I'm talking about pure sound. The sound of 70s who is total classic rock.

I have trouble hearing it like that, but maybe it's contextual: when I heard 70s Who it was before (only about two years before, but before nonetheless) the emergence of "classic rock" as a radio format or even as a commonly-used phrase. So I only associate them with that radio format because they're played on those stations, but their songs always stick against those of their contemporaries and also-rans. The Who By Numbers is a very dry production, and sure, Who's Next is a large-sounding record, but it was also the first (or only) studio album that came close to capturing their live sound (and as far as the band themselves were concerned, nothing -- not even Live At Leeds -- captured their live sound). In other words, they were too big for contemporary production styles, which had to change to adapt to them, and were then applied to shore up the weaknesses of other bands. Or something like that.

*stick out

I associate 70s Who with Classic Rock probably because when AOR stations played the Who it tended to be stuff from Who's Next, along with later songs like "Who Are You" and "You Better You Bet". But Qaudrophenia doesn't feel like the same because the Classic Rock stations hardly ever played anything off it. I think the first time I heard "The Real Me" was a cover version by W.A.S.P.

I think the first time I heard "The Real Me" was a cover version by W.A.S.P.

^^haha me too, i didn't even know it was a cover until years later.

listening to live at leeds right now, what a fucking awesome band

finally heard the other live show that's been tacked onto the latest reissue of live at leeds. band was on fire at that point in a way that maybe no other band has been on fire.

I still need to check out the performance of "See Me Feel Me" from the Woodstock movie...

I think Who's Next holds up pretty well. In high school, it was one of my three or four favourite albums ever--it gets played to death by mullethead stations, unfortunately, so "Won't Get Fooled Again" is dead for me. ("Baba O'Riley," not as dead, suprisingly, especially the last minute.) "Behind Blue Eyes" is getting there. But that still leaves "Bargain" and "My Wife" and a couple of others that rarely get played on the radio.

It's the two big doubles that I'm not as interested in anymore. But "We're Not Gonna Take It" I still enjoy hearing.

I think there is enormous evidence to suggest that the Who may have been the best live band ever...

Is that new Live at Leeds really worth it? I have the mid 90s sorta expanded version & it's my fav Who document by a long shot...but I have the Isle of Wight show too & it just doesn't pop the same way as Live at Leeds, so I've been skeptical of the new Live at Leeds. I dunno what it is about the production of Live at Leeds but I love that sound, so spacious for such pummeling.

They were still pretty impressive when I saw them in '79, even though Moon's gone and Daltrey's well into his open-chested he-man phase by then. To see them in '66 or '67 would have been awesome.

Or maybe I mean "open-shirted." No heart surgery was ever performed during the show.

i um, didn't pay for the new live at leeds. i feel justified since i've bought it twice already. previously unreleased live show at hull is fucking amazing, so that's worth hearing. same set as Leeds, but just fun to hear the little differences.

I dunno what it is about the production of Live at Leeds but I love that sound, so spacious for such pummeling.

It's being indoors as opposed to in an outdoor arena. You hear the guitar bouncing off the walls and it has that cavernous natural reverb sound! My dad pointed this out when he was educating me and my brothers in the Who School Of Rock when we were kids. Leeds and Sell Out were the main discs we used to listen to. The Sell Out bonus edition is an embarrassment of riches.

yeah the leeds sound is so great -- definitely like being in the front row, getting all the room ambiance.

the hull show might actually technically be a better recording, but it doesn't quite have the same magic in terms of sounds/performance.

not exactly live but:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0l8xRRDAOQ

^^yeah that clip is unbelievable. the look on townshend's face during the end...seems like he realizes how much they killed and is so relieved/happy.
click here http://ow.ly/4zvSq

and the Live at Leeds version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN6ZpEpVU18&feature=related

I have to defend Rubber Soul and Revolver here just cuz both albums are the last artifacts of The Beatles truly operating as a rock band AND Lennon/McCartney reaching their peaks in tandem.

And I seriously have to question accusing them of laziness when they wrote/recorded the following songs in the course of nine months:

And Your Bird Can Sing
Girl
Norwegian Wood
We Can Work it Out
Got to Get You Into My Life
She Said She Said
Paperback Writer
In My Life
I'm Only Sleeping
Day Tripper
Drive My Car
If I Needed Someone
Tomorrow Never Knows
For No One
The Word
Taxman
Nowhere Man
Here There and Everywhere
Eleanor Rigby

lazy slackers!

The Hull show on the new Leeds set (recorded the very next night) is essential -- with this era of Who, it's like collecting Coltrane. I dare say it's the best Moon has ever been recorded. He's very front-and-center in the mix, and you can't keep your ears off him.

I read an interview with Entwistle where he talked about the time he and Moon heard Leeds for the first time. They were on tour in the states when the record came out, and as they listened to it in their hotel room, they exchanged stunned glances of disbelief: "What? Is...is this us?!" They had never heard themselves recorded live, and literally didn't know how good they were.

ha, that's great

xxp not lazy, lethargic and samey, and 50% of those songs have already been namechecked under 'scattered gems' and you didn't include 'Rain' and 'The Word' is the Beatles' worst song, utt3r dogsh1t

Thanks for the link, tyler: you are forgiven.

Can you imagine playing those shows without any decent monitor systems? I bet Moony learned how to play along with the others just by watching Daltrey's head bobbing up and down.

having seen this now it looks like ground zero for the Who being mistaken for classic rock dinosaurs in a way I can't readily explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaWzyoJqlPo

"The Word" is the best song on "Rubber Soul". At least 20 years ahead of its time. Also the birth of the Lennon-as-messiah meme.

"The Word" is the best song recording on "Rubber Soul".

http://images.mix.com.au/2009/04/08/163879/jesus-look-a-likes-mix-2-600x400-600x400.jpg

I think this is from Live at Leeds, throws "We're Not Gonna Take It" in there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51M-DposBR0

(yikes! forgot about the 'rape' line!)

(I'm done btw, I just wanted to encourage discussions about how the Who were bringing space-shattering cataclysms for 10+ years!)

so Jesus moonlights as the morning dj at some Australian radio station? xpost

who knew?

Can you imagine playing those shows without any decent monitor systems? I bet Moony learned how to play along with the others just by watching Daltrey's head bobbing up and down.

― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:28 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

With Townshend and Entwistle's massive rigs -- which they needed to match Moon's volume -- I don't think that was an issue. Daltrey, on the other hand, had to make do with either no monitors at all, or with side-stage monitors. Also, the stages they played were relatively small, and the guitar and bass rigs were right next to Moon.

xxp sorry I got mixed up: I'm thinking of "What Goes On", not "The Word" (which is okay, maybe even better than I remember, though not a favorite)

Oh yeah "What Goes On" is hilariously bad. Everyone must have been way too stoned when they recorded that. You even hear them drop the tambourine at one spot.

both albums are the last artifacts of The Beatles truly operating as a rock band

I actually don't agree with that. Sgt. Pepper features the Beatles operating as a rock band as much as Revolver, really.

XP to be fair, there's not THAT much difference between the two:

"WHAT GOES OOOOONNN IN YOUR HEART"

"IT'S THE WOOOOORRD, LOVE!"

iirc "What Goes On" was a cavern-era tune they had to dust off to meet their 14 track quota

and I still don't hear the "samey" qualities in either RS or esp. Revolver outside of RB containing 4 ballads and being a bit Byrds influenced

my last post offers a clue

so two out of 30 songs both contain held out notes in the chorus. thanks for your insight

Also George Harrison in the Beatles Anthology says they're pretty much part one and two of the same album.

30 songs on RS?

Girl
Nowhere Man
I'm Only Sleeping
In My Life

^you don't think these are lethargic, like, at all? esp compared to bennie rush of their 63-64 stuff?

Bummed that I missed the poll....I think I'd have voted The Who. Beatles run is flawless and I love them beyond measure, Stones run of songs are all huge personal favorites, the Kinks are gods to me.

But that run of Who songs? it's an attack. I can't get past that.

I thought we were talking about the Rubber Soul/Revolver era in general hence the 30 song reference.

And yes, I'll concede that the songs you list have a lethargic energy. I was more or less trying to challenge the idea that the mid-period Beatles were producing homogenous-sounding recordings. I mean Hard Day's Night and Let it Be are probably better examples of "samey" sounding material.

that may be true (I was going to quip that they have the same tempos)..I'll be honest, only real Beatles album I love p much front to back is Abbey Road, everything else is sort of on a song-by-song basis. RS & Revolver each have two-to-five songs I at least like--that's not a great ratio usually, but at the same time, I really like a lot of the singles/B-sides released around then, so yeah, it's a mixed bag. And you're right that early- and late-period Beatles are similarly mixed bags, but it seems that early Beatles overall has an incredible raw energy and a natural melodicism, whereas the later stuff it seems that they re-invent the wheel with almost every song.

OTOH the middle stuff--Help/Rubber Soul/Revolver--has a lot of great songs there, but too many of the songs don't manage to stick out for me, and the whole period seems to be kind of transitional, where it hews to the trite lyrical content of the early stuff (not so much on Revolver, admittedly) and a tentative pushing of the boundaries of that 'beat group' sound. It sounds to me like they're trying to re-format that sound to break out of the "kid-music" box and appeal to more mature sensibilities. Whilethere is some undeniable grooviness to it, it just sounds to me like a step down from the adrenaline powerpop of the early years. This stuff I think is v important to the band and what they became, but I don't have a lot of use for it.

But I'm the guy who hates "In Rainbows", so...

The crazy thing is the Beatles released like 2LPs worth of material every year they were a band, and even the 'lazier' 'filler' songs are still classicX1000.

see I think that's what makes the difference between 'Beatles fan' and ' casual listener who recognizes their rightful place at the top of the rock-crit canon'

Fair enough, Drugs A. Money.

For me, the growing pains of the middle period were the most fascinating (I think 65-66 might be the only time that Harrison and McCartney's songs could sit next to each other on a playlist so comfortably). I also prefer Lennon's stoned destruction of ego phase more than any other.

On a totally different note, it just occurred to me that "Ticket to Ride" may anticipate "Mother" by five years if you imagine John subconsciously directing the lyrics towards his deadbeat mom rather than an object of romance.

that's a fairly radical interpretation; anything supporting it? (love that song btw, lethargy or no)

I fully agree with you about John

If you wanna ring-fence the White album, Go ahead.

The white album was overrated. The "Let It Be" album was overrated. "Get Back" and "The Ballad Of John and Yoko" were overrated. Even "Come Together" is heavily overrated, but that is largely the only "Abbey Road" track that is. (Well, OK, "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is also slightly overrated - in fact more or less everything written by John Lennon between 1968 and 1972 is, apart from the ballads on the "Imagine" album)

in fact more or less everything written by John Lennon between 1968 and 1972 is, apart from the ballads on the "Imagine" album

get out

(right about Get Back, wrong as hell about Come Together)

(Get Back was Paul, correct?)

by the end it's p much whoever's singing wrote it right?

yeah I just forgot

actually i'm not super versed on beatles minutia, besides the basic history of it, but did they ever really *actually* collaborate on songs or was it always just individually written stuff billed as "lennon/mccartney"?

yeah they def did, esp the early stuff

yes they "actually" collaborated, especially early on. but there are numerous later period examples where they would finish each other's songs by adding middle eights, bridges, other elements.

bridge section of Day in the Life is Paul, for example. John wrote the middle 8 for We Can Work It Out, etc.

ah ok what point does the co-written stuff drop off and it become more individual?

bridge section of Day in the Life is Paul, for example. John wrote the middle 8 for We Can Work It Out, etc.

― in my world of ugly tribadists (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:18 PM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i guess i knew that, but am i wrong to say that it was pretty separate songwriting in general by the later period?

post Sgt Pepper's I think yeah that's true for the most part.

I don't think there was a single drop off point, more like a general trend.

Even towards the end they would sometimes collaborate on the arrangements, which was also partly why they still continued sharing the songwriting credits even when they were mostly at each other's throats all the time.

It seems like they were so used to working that way that even when they hated each other they sort of couldn't help it. Like someone leaving an unfinished crossword puzzle

that's a fairly radical interpretation; anything supporting it? (love that song btw, lethargy or no)

nah, just my own wild speculation

It's completely astounding to me, after reading You Never Give Me Your Money, how they managed to be in the same room together without killing each other, to say nothing of collaborating. Dudes knew how to compartmentalize shit, apparently.

It seems like they were so used to working that way that even when they hated each other they sort of couldn't help it. Like someone leaving an unfinished crossword puzzle

Their solo material also rather obviously showed they were missing each other. Maybe particularly McCartney was missing Lennon, because Lennon - at least initially - started writing in a completely different way and changed his musical style so radically, McCartney's ideas probably wouldn't have fit in anyway.

well there's that great story about Lennon & McCartney working on Hey Jude, when McCartney runs through the song with Lennon and says 'the movement you need is on your shoulder' is just a placeholder til he finds the right words, and Lennon says no leave it, it works. Lennon brought the right brain stuff more often than not, and McCartney could drive straight down the line with his lyrics (to a fault), but also on a musical level, McCartney's knowledge was incredibly broad, and he had a feel for what notes worked in what way or what instrument worked and what didn't...that kind of an intangible doesn't show up so much in the history now, I think that's part of what hurt McCartney in comparisons to Lennon, that people didn't ever see that side but they saw Lennon's lyrical influence more clearly.

whoa long. Sorry.

I don't even know what point I was making. lol

There is some great insight into the Lennon/McCartney writing process in this article http://informalflick.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/watching-beatles-compose/

Wow that's cool...god they could be so symbiotic in those days, huh...I really need to read that book, I'm very behind on my beatleiographies

Martha My Dear by Paul, on the White album, is an absolutely astonishing piece of music. The way he barely touches on & moves between so many diff't styles of music is incredible. Lennon gets a lot of credit for doing the stream-of-consciousness and cut-up stuff (I am the Walrus, Happiness is a Warm Gun) but Paul outdoes him on that song.

It's kind of interesting to just look at the first ten UK top 10 hits that each band had. I think the Who clearly lose that race, and it basically reaches the end of their run while the other three bands still had more in them.

Beatles: Please Please Me, From Me To You, She Loves You, I Want to Hold Your Hand, Can't Buy Me Love, A Hard Day's Night, I Feel Fine, Ticket To Ride, Help, We Can Work It Out (+Day Tripper, double A side)

Stones: Not Fade Away, It's All Over Now, Little Red Rooster, The Last Time, Satisfaction, Get Off Of My Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Paint It Black, Have You Seen Your Mother..., Let's Spend the Night Together

Who: I Can't Explain, My Generation, Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere, Substitute, I'm a Boy, Happy Jack, Pictures of Lily, I Can See For Miles, Pinball Wizard, Won't Get Fooled Again

Kinks: You Really Got Me, All Day and All of the Night, Tired of Waiting for You, Set Me Free, See My Friends, Till the End of the Day, Dedicated Follower of Fashion, Sunny Afternoon, Dead End Street, Waterloo Sunset

What style of music is "Martha My Dear," anyway? I suppose it's Music Hall, which I know nothing about, but it would be interesting to know how much of it - the piano style, the strings, the brass band - comes directly from that.

I think I like "Honey Pie" just as much. I know it's supposed to be more of an American old-time style, but the stylistically evocative stuff in it is just as mysterious to me.

I'm not smart enough to elucidate everything I hear in there, but I hear chamber music rear its head, and maybe Gershwin in there too...?

"Martha My Dear" has been one of my five favourite Beatles songs the past few years. Glad it's got some fans out there.

Totally mindblowing somg from somebody who couldn't read sheet music

I want to talk more about Lennon's stoned destruction of ego phase. I think it starts in 64 with the first three songs of Beatles For Sale.

Totally mindblowing somg from somebody who couldn't read sheet music

He did learn it at some stage (obviously could before "The Liverpool Oratorio"), but I guess he didn't yet by 1968.

I figured you would know better than me Geir

I thought McCartney never learned to read music and still worked with a partner who notated his ideas.

As recently as 2007, McCartney claimed to still be unable to read sheet music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca_GCvApODg

I want to talk more about Lennon's stoned destruction of ego phase.

You pretty much have it; it starts in '64 with him smoking for the first time, it's in Beatles For Sale's "I'm A Loser" and then in "Help!" and they do acid a year later. By the time 1967 rolls around John Lennon is tripping permanently on insane doses of high grade 60s English Pop Star LSD. A part of him has more or less checked out of the Beatles by then, and Paul steps in to take the reigns with Sgt. Pepper & MMT.

Get "Two Virgins" and "Life With the Lions" and the first couple of Plastic Ono Band records. Ono's influence was more or less a catalyst for Lennon's ego death/anti-authoritarian tendencies. If anything about the Beatles is underrated, it is her influence on him, and through him, on the Beatles. Some noise has been made in the past few years about Paul McCartney's avant garde credentials but where is his record of guitar feedback and banshee bleating?

you think stuff like Lennon's negative-creep anthem "Run For Your Life" is worth talking about in here...?

I heard it was Dylan who first got them high; when would that have happened?

Some noise has been made in the past few years about Paul McCartney's avant garde credentials but where is his record of guitar feedback and banshee bleating?

It's "Carnival Of Light," still unreleased. And while Paul never made a record like Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band or played with John Tchicai, he was listening to AMM and Albert Ayler while Lennon was saying "avant-garde is French for bullshit." In fact, I'm pretty sure McCartney introduced Lennon to Yoko in 1966. But McCartney couldn't walk it like he talked it; he didn't like "Revolution 9" because he didn't think it was good enough for what it was (himself being versed in Stockhausen), but he never attempted a response to it (although it may be because he felt 9 was itself a tepid response to Carnival).

Paul also got into experimental home movies but somehow none of that stuff has ever surfaced either. Lennon/Ono on the other hand, have lots of wonderful strange films they made together. Sorry im on this kick but i just saw a projection of "Apotheosis" last week and it was amazing!

according to ST Erlewine, from Allmusic (w/ added bolds)

"It was inevitable that the constant grind of touring, writing, promoting, and recording would grate on the Beatles, but the weariness of Beatles for Sale comes as something of a shock. Only five months before, the group released the joyous A Hard Day's Night. Now, they sound beaten, worn, and, in Lennon's case, bitter and self-loathing. His opening trilogy ("No Reply," "I'm a Loser," "Baby's in Black") is the darkest sequence on any Beatles record, setting the tone for the album. Moments of joy pop up now and again, mainly in the forms of covers and the dynamic "Eight Days a Week," but the very presence of six covers after the triumphant all-original A Hard Day's Night feels like an admission of defeat or at least a regression. (It doesn't help that Lennon's cover of his beloved obscurity "Mr. Moonlight" winds up as arguably the worst thing the group ever recorded.) Beneath those surface suspicions, however, there are some important changes on Beatles for Sale, most notably Lennon's discovery of Bob Dylan and folk-rock. The opening three songs, along with "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party," are implicitly confessional and all quite bleak, which is a new development. This spirit winds up overshadowing McCartney's cheery "I'll Follow the Sun" or the thundering covers of "Rock & Roll Music," "Honey Don't," and "Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey!," and the weariness creeps up in unexpected places -- "Every Little Thing," "What You're Doing," even George's cover of Carl Perkins' "Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby" -- leaving the impression that Beatlemania may have been fun but now the group is exhausted. That exhaustion results in the group's most uneven album, but its best moments find them moving from Merseybeat to the sophisticated pop/rock they developed in mid-career."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILdBDOPoEDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmxg0JnQX8U&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rkz5zdfg_A&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O6gX0FCwpU&feature=related

I want to talk more about Lennon's stoned destruction of ego phase.

I think it's interesting how Lennon's style of singing morphed over the coarse of this phase. In just a few years, his rasp was replaced by a hollow-eyed, ghostly voice devoid of melisma. The voice I hear on "A Day in the Life" is one that sounds like it spent waaaaaaaaay too much time in a dark room staring at colored lights.

I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure Dylan and the Beatles hooked up on the summer of 1964 in New York.

when did Dylan get big? BIABH & H61R were both 65 was it not? He was big before then?

11 Bob Dylan The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan Album May 1964
15 Bob Dylan The Times They Are A-Changin' Album Jul 1964
8 Bob Dylan Another Side Of Bob Dylan Album Nov 1964

right on

according to Wiki, they met and got high with Dylan in Aug 1964, probably right about the time they started the For Sale sessions...

also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles_for_Sale#.22I.27m_a_Loser.22

Dylan was shocked that they'd never tried it before, and misheard "I can't hide" in "I Want To Hold Your Hand" as "I get high."

^yeah I remember that story

(& also I love your dn)

I remember hearing that when they all got high, they made Ringo smoke first like a guinea pig.

And McCartney discovered the meaning of life, which he made Mal Evans write down. The next morning Mal said, "Hey, do you want to see what you wrote?" "THERE ARE SEVEN LEVELS."

(and thx DAM xp)

Did anyone else see the other Beatles things on that blog?

http://informalflick.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/beatles-1966-69-influences/

A solid look at their influences during their experimental phase.

this video is streaming on Netflix and is pretty excellent. focuses on the songwriting from 66 to 69

http://cdn-3.nflximg.com/en_US/boxshots/gsd/70108953.jpg

i knew that even if i left this poll open for like 2 weeks it'd still be active well after the results :)

But that run of Who songs? it's an attack. I can't get past that.

This was the reason I had to hold my nose and not vote for The Beatles, and vote for The Who instead.