DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: nimrod on October 14, 2014, 11:07:24 PM
-
In your honest opinion, and looking at all the solo albums made, how do they stack up against recognised singer/sonwriters
Im talking people like Neil Young Bob Dylan Cat Stevens or your particular favourite
-
An interesting question Kev. While it comes down to opinion, I actually tried recently to evaluate this somewhat objectively one rainy weekend when I had too much time on my hands.
My premise was, if the Beatles had never existed, and all we had was the solo careers of the main three, how would they be viewed today compared to other artists of the era.
I started by looking at single chart success in the US from 70 to 79. Looking at Number 1s, Top 10s, top 40 etc it showed that Paul was up there with Elton John and Stevie Wonder as a successful solo artist in that era. John and George had similar success to artists such as Paul Simon, James Taylor, Cat Stevens and Eric Clapton.
Below them in terms of single chart success were other artists such a Don McLean and Carly Simon
So looking from that angle, John and George would have been significant artists of the era and still be remembered today as such. Paul would be considered a superstar.
I haven't looked at album success yet. That analysis awaits another rainy day. As an indication though, George I think went US top 10 with all his solo albums until Thirty Three and a Third (which got to No 11) in 1976. And returned to the top ten with George Harrison in 78. Pretty decent success by any definition.
This of course has nothing to do with critical acclaim. But in terms of how we might remember them today based on their 70s careers it's a bit of a pointer.
-
But the impossible to answer question is
Would they have had that success if they had not been Beatles ?
-
But the impossible to answer question is
Would they have had that success if they had not been Beatles ?
When, Kev? In the 1960s or the 1970s?
I think Paul might have had some success as a solo artist in the early 1960s. John too, to a slightly lesser extent. He would have surpassed Paul in the late 60s when psychedelia was the rage.
In the 1970s, Paul would have made it easily. Just the way he did it with Wings.
But it didn't happen that way at all. We'll never know.
-
When, Kev? In the 1960s or the 1970s?
I think Paul might have had some success as a solo artist in the early 1960s. John too, to a slightly lesser extent. He would have surpassed Paul in the late 60s when psychedelia was the rage.
In the 1970s, Paul would have made it easily. Just the way he did it with Wings.
But it didn't happen that way at all. We'll never know.
No Baz Im talking about the solo albums they made after The Beatles
How do they compare to other singer/songwriters of the day
-
I see, Kev. Paul would have been most successful as a solo artist even if he didn't have a Beatle past. He knew how to appeal to whatever audience he wanted to. And he appealed to teenyboppers the best. As he aged, he could still be successful rolling out his oldies and come up with some love songs aimed specifically at his contemporaries.
I think he proved it well in his long solo recording and touring career. An amazing and talented artist for sure!
-
But the impossible to answer question is
Would they have had that success if they had not been Beatles ?
Since it's impossible to answer I didn't try to answer that ;)
I certainly find the best of the three's solo material up there with the other singer songwriters of the day. As patchy as his albums were I'm more than happy to do a playlist of George solo material as I am of Dylan or other artists.
The big issue with the Beatles as solo artists is that it didn't compare with their Beatle output. Even george who was clearly ascending as the Beatles finished could never top Something and Here Comes the Sun.
-
:o May I jump in, joined awhile ago, have a post or two..... As much as I like Many bands and genre's of music I find M'self returning Home again and again to the magical sound that first thrilled Me as I started listening to "serious" music.
The Beatles were genius pure and simple. What blows My mind is the fact (at least for Me) , that the four separate were just as brilliant. I cite songs, just off the top of My head- "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", "Jet", "Another Day" by McCartney...." Cold Turkey", How do You Sleep", "Mother", by Lennon...." Dark Horse", My Sweet Lord", What is Life" by Harrison..... "Photograph", "It don't Come Easy". "Get Back Boogaloo" by Starr. I could name so many more for each of the four that I feel is brilliant in it's own right. But yes, as My subjective opinion I'd say that each of the Lads performed material that was world class and as good as Anything playing, and I am a Huge fan of all the other classic rock of that era, including those old scalawags, those rock and Rolling Stones. All the Best, Old Brown Shoe
-
:o May I jump in, joined awhile ago, have a post or two..... As much as I like Many bands and genre's of music I find M'self returning Home again and again to the magical sound that first thrilled Me as I started listening to "serious" music.
The Beatles were genius pure and simple. What blows My mind is the fact (at least for Me) , that the four separate were just as brilliant. I cite songs, just off the top of My head- "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", "Jet", "Another Day" by McCartney...." Cold Turkey", How do You Sleep", "Mother", by Lennon...." Dark Horse", My Sweet Lord", What is Life" by Harrison..... "Photograph", "It don't Come Easy". "Get Back Boogaloo" by Starr. I could name so many more for each of the four that I feel is brilliant in it's own right. But yes, as My subjective opinion I'd say that each of the Lads performed material that was world class and as good as Anything playing, and I am a Huge fan of all the other classic rock of that era, including those old scalawags, those rock and Rolling Stones. All the Best, Old Brown Shoe
another old brown shoe ?
:P
-
another old brown shoe ?
:P
Shoes work best in pairs.
Unless your Paul's ex-wife.
-
Can't be, there's only one oldbrownshoe, that's me!
The real oldbrownshoe's answer is that 'McCartney' is as good as any post-60s record made by anyone i.e. it's right up there with the artist I consider to be the benchmark for this subject.....Nick Drake.
-
I think this comes back to why I like Paul's solo stuff more so then the others. I think of Paul as I do the Stones in that most of their albums are a mismatch of stuff with some filler, but theres usually always that one or two songs that just floor you. Of course they had exceptions with solid albums all the way through (or most of the way), but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.
Getting back on topic, more then a few times, my buddy and I have listened to 70's Elton John and I sat there and said, none of the Beatles solo stuff has ever been this good. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's how I feel. Could it be that I'm just so used to the lads solo stuff and can no longer give it a fair shake? Who knows.
In conclusion - I think Paul would have been a pretty big star in the 70's according to his solo output. He has enough variety and legendary songs that would push him into the forefront.
John, had a few legendary songs, but damn it if I don't feel like almost most of his solo stuff sounds all the same. He wrote Imagine so he would be remembered for that. The rest of his solo stuff? Not a lot there in my opinion.
I enjoy George Harrison solo records, but i'll be the first to admit that most of it is boring, twangy, and sounds a lot alike. He wrote enough stuff to be remembered, but I doubt he would be associated with anything huge or mind blowing. Throw him in the James Taylor category.
Ringo had a few hits, and a string of albums I thought were excellent, but I have a big gripe with Ringo and its that he always needs outside help to get a product made. Lets face it, he struggles with songwriting chores. Nothing to be ashamed of, but it happens. Hell, tons of musical stars out there never wrote a song in their lives. Ringo would merit some mention due to some air play with 'It Don't Come Easy' and 'Photograph', but it starts to slide pretty drastically after that. The 'No No Song' would have gotten some play too. I'd give him props for being somewhere in the hierarchy of a 10cc or Climax.
-
I'd give him props for being somewhere in the hierarchy of a 10cc
Dream on Todd
10cc had 4 top quality songwriters/singers
Ringo is neither of these
-
I think this comes back to why I like Paul's solo stuff more so then the others. I think of Paul as I do the Stones in that most of their albums are a mismatch of stuff with some filler, but theres usually always that one or two songs that just floor you. Of course they had exceptions with solid albums all the way through (or most of the way), but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.
Getting back on topic, more then a few times, my buddy and I have listened to 70's Elton John and I sat there and said, none of the Beatles solo stuff has ever been this good. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's how I feel. Could it be that I'm just so used to the lads solo stuff and can no longer give it a fair shake? Who knows.
In conclusion - I think Paul would have been a pretty big star in the 70's according to his solo output. He has enough variety and legendary songs that would push him into the forefront.
John, had a few legendary songs, but damn it if I don't feel like almost most of his solo stuff sounds all the same. He wrote Imagine so he would be remembered for that. The rest of his solo stuff? Not a lot there in my opinion.
I enjoy George Harrison solo records, but i'll be the first to admit that most of it is boring, twangy, and sounds a lot alike. He wrote enough stuff to be remembered, but I doubt he would be associated with anything huge or mind blowing. Throw him in the James Taylor category.
Overall I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Paul always saw his job as a hit songwriter. He had a professional attitude to it and his success in the 70s was testament to it.
John and George suffered from thinking they had a mission beyond making good music. They still had their great moments in solo careers. But not too many. I like George's solo material. He's the ex-Beatle I listen the most to. But I admit it's a personal taste thing. Not because I think he's an underappreciated genius or anything. I think placing him in the James Taylor/ Cat Stevens category is about right. A good singer songwriter with a few really good to great tunes and the rest a matter of taste. One advantage of George to me was his post Beatle guitar work. He succeeded in developing a personal, recognisable style that I think adds to his appeal.
I don't talk much about Ringo. His two best post Beatle tunes were written by George (although George eschewed credit for It Don't Come Easy).
-
Overall I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Paul always saw his job as a hit songwriter. He had a professional attitude to it and his success in the 70s was testament to it.
John and George suffered from thinking they had a mission beyond making good music. They still had their great moments in solo careers. But not too many. I like George's solo material. He's the ex-Beatle I listen the most to. But I admit it's a personal taste thing. Not because I think he's an underappreciated genius or anything. I think placing him in the James Taylor/ Cat Stevens category is about right. A good singer songwriter with a few really good to great tunes and the rest a matter of taste. One advantage of George to me was his post Beatle guitar work. He succeeded in developing a personal, recognisable style that I think adds to his appeal.
I don't talk much about Ringo. His two best post Beatle tunes were written by George (although George eschewed credit for It Don't Come Easy).
I concur with your summation Moog
Paul was more interested in chart success than any of the others in the 70's
Hardest working as well
John just lost his desire for it all when he, started tripping/met yoko
He could still knock out the odd good tune when he really tried but that wasnt often
Theres a hell of a lot of solo singer/songwriter LP's I put higher than solo Beatle ones though.
-
I'd give him props for being somewhere in the hierarchy of a 10cc
Dream on Todd
10cc had 4 top quality songwriters/singers
Ringo is neither of these
10cc had 2 songs played here in America and that's it. 2. "I'm Not In Love" and "The Things We Do For Love". Other then those two songs, nobody knows who the hell they are. Hardly an awesome feat for 4 top quality songwriters and singers. Ringos solo stuff is more well known.
-
10cc had 2 songs played here in America and that's it. 2. "I'm Not In Love" and "The Things We Do For Love". Other then those two songs, nobody knows who the hell they are. Hardly an awesome feat for 4 top quality songwriters and singers. Ringos solo stuff is more well known.
HaHa, thats only your country Todd, America is only 1 country, 10cc had numbers 1 hits (that they wrote) all over the world, Ringo cant write and cant sing, he is big only because of John & Paul, no other reason, if they handt have hired him he would still be playing in Butlins cabaret.
so you never heard of the songs "Heart Full of Soul", "Evil Hearted You" and "For Your Love" for The Yardbirds, "Look Through Any Window" and "Bus Stop" for The Hollies and "No Milk Today", "East West" and "Listen People" for Herman's Hermits. Dreadlock Holiday, Im Mandy Fly Me
All written by 10cc members, when did Ringo write songs as good as these? All the 10cc guys are tremendously respected musicians/writers
I cant believe youve never heard this ;D
10 CC - DREADLOCK HOLIDAY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q659IaXrS3Y#)
or this
Wall Street Shuffle - 10cc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kShTUmYRyCw#)
and Hits before they were 10cc
The Mindbenders - A Groovy Kind Of Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddcIunulJi4#ws)
-
HaHa, thats only your country Todd, America is only 1 country, 10cc had numbers 1 hits (that they wrote) all over the world,
How in the hell am I supposed to base an opinion? Of course my opinion is coming from what I hear and know in my own country, and the fact is 10cc isn't sh*t over here.
Ringo cant write and cant sing, he is big only because of John & Paul, no other reason, if they handt have hired him he would still be playing in Butlins cabaret
.
What does that have to do with anything? All I know is he has a few solo songs that got airplay and were recognized (like 10cc).
so you never heard of the songs "Heart Full of Soul", "Evil Hearted You" and "For Your Love" for The Yardbirds, "Look Through Any Window" and "Bus Stop" for The Hollies and "No Milk Today", "East West" and "Listen People" for Herman's Hermits. Dreadlock Holiday, Im Mandy Fly Me
I've heard most of those, but not all. Whats your point? The Hollies, Hermans Hermits, and Yardbirds are well known acts with many more songs in their catalog that people recognize then just those that you listed.
All written by 10cc members, when did Ringo write songs as good as these? All the 10cc guys are tremendously respected musicians/writers
Who gives a rats ass who wrote the songs? How great of a songwriter was Elvis? We all know him and his songs. What about Motown? Does anybody give a sh*t that Holland-Dozier-Holland wrote a bunch of songs for the Supremes? No. All they know is that the Supremes sang them. Hell, half the population probably thinks 'Twist And Shout' is a freaking Beatles song. Justin Bieber and Britney Spears couldn't write a song if their life depended on it, but everybody knows who they are.
I cant believe youve never heard this ;D
10 CC - DREADLOCK HOLIDAY ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q659IaXrS3Y#[/url])
or this
Wall Street Shuffle - 10cc ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kShTUmYRyCw#[/url])
and Hits before they were 10cc
The Mindbenders - A Groovy Kind Of Love ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddcIunulJi4#ws[/url])
I've heard 'A Groovy Kind Of Love' before, because I'm familiar with the Phil Collins version. The other two I have never heard in my life.
Maybe I missed the point of this thread. I thought it was to rate how the Beatles solo career would be if the Beatles hadent existed. I was rating them off of their finished work that they already have. I didn't know we we're dissecting them down to the very smallest detail and talent that they had. If that's the case, George Harrison probably wouldn't have made any impact either, because he wouldn't have had his time to study the songwriting craft under Paul and John.
-
Here's another example. I love Bob Dylan songs,,,,,,but only when other people sing them. I've never heard a cover that wasn't better then his originals. Out of all his output, I only really like 'Tangled Up In Blues' and 'Hurricane'. I could care less if I ever heard any of his other songs. In that aspect, Dylan receives way more accolades for writing then he does actually singing and playing the songs. I guess that would hold true with the members of 10cc too.
-
ok keep yer hair on you grumpy sod ha2ha
-
Erm.....I care who wrote the various Tamla-Motown songs.
And please, not that old chestnut about covers of Dylan's stuff being better than his own!
Exactly which version of 'Desolation Row' is better than Dylan's version of 'Desolation Row'? I must have missed than one.
-
Erm.....I care who wrote the various Tamla-Motown songs.
I would have to say that you are in the minority, wouldn't you agree?
And please, not that old chestnut about covers of Dylan's stuff being better than his own!
Sorry, but that's how I feel. Hate Dylans singing. I hate it so much that he sang two songs at a Paul Simon concert and I left. That's how bad he is. Let me list a few of his songs I think other people do better.
Cripes, they are all better. Here's the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artists_who_have_covered_Bob_Dylan_songs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artists_who_have_covered_Bob_Dylan_songs)
Exactly which version of 'Desolation Row' is better than Dylan's version of 'Desolation Row'? I must have missed than one.
I don't like the song so I doubt I would listen to it regardless of who covered it.
-
I've learned to find time and place for both Lennon and McCartney solo. The former's highs are higher I think, his best songs can hit you harder when you're expecting the least. I usually take him in smaller quantities. I think only POB and Imagine hold up as albums from beginning to end, while the rest of his output works better if listened to in terms of individual songs. The compilations work better than most of his albums too, sometimes I think of Lennon as a singles artist - Cold Turkey, Instant Karma, Mother, Imagine, Happy Xmas, Woman is the black person of the World, Mind Games, #9 Dream, Stand By Me, Starting Over, Woman. That's a pretty good run if you ask me.
McCartney wins when it comes to quantity and overall accessibility. I can listen to his songs anytime, anyplace. Well-written, well-arranged, well-played, well-sung, memorable pop tunes. I love pop and am not embarrassed to admit it. He carried on the Beatles tradition of genre-hopping and diversity which I just love. I do find many parallels between with and the aforementioned Elton John, another one of my favourite artists. And goddamn it, his music can be emotional, even if the lyrics are about nothing. Things like Little Lamb Dragonfly or Uncle Albert are just heartbreaking. But then again, I don't think he has something as powerful, original and intense as Lennon's 'God' in him.
But that's fine, really. There's room for both and it's not like they are diametrically opposed - there's plenty of cheesy, substance-free songs in Lennon's catalog as there are emotionally-gripping melodies in McCartney's. I'll take them both.
Haven't heard much of George and Ringo's stuff yet.
-
And I must be crazy, but there's not a single Dylan cover that I prefer over the original. I do like Hendrix's 'All Along the Watchtower' a lot, but it's so different from the original that I don't think the comparison is fair.
-
I can't readily think of a "singer-songwriter" I'm mad keen on to be honest... bits of Elton John, David Bowie, Neil Diamond, Cat Stevens, Neil Young, Paul Simon, Neil Sedaka, Carol King, Joni Mitchell...are very good. Would struggle to sit through an entire album by any of them though. Dylan - awesome canon of work but as Todd says, invariably covered better by other artists. Great songwriter, awful singer (there's a reason that some cliches are "old chestnuts" - they've been demonstrably true to too many people for too many years to be ignored!)
Regarding the "singer" part of the equation, both John and Paul blew all those mentioned out of the water for me.
Regarding the "songwriter" element, again, Lennon and/or McCartney when on fire were better overall than any of them (including Dylan) with such astonishing breadth and style.
And yet... as solo artists ALL four Beatles slightly disappoint if I'm honest - always felt they were rarely firing on all cylinders (with the exception of a few albums) but perhaps that's because I know what they were capable of when their talents combined. I always felt each of their post-Beatle extremes would have been balanced, curbed and channelled by the input/presence of the others.
Paul was the most versatile and prolific, and the keenest live performer, he would have been up there with the best in my opinion. But he spent too much of his early solo career trying too hard to please an audience desperate for "Beatle-lite" product in the vacuum of the 70s. And when I say "solo" career it's ironic how he - arguably with the greatest all round capability of the four - needed the supportive cocoon of a group around him for a full decade after the split.
John was such a magnetic, eccentric, unpredictably gifted individual (and a better musician than sometimes credited) I think he'd have been a big success in the singer-songwriter mould. Conversely to Paul, he didn't care enough about his listening public though, preferring to eschew commercial/accessible radio-friendly hits (which he could've written standing on his head) for ever more personal material which sometimes hit the mark perfectly but often went way wide. John wasn't the lazy Beatle, he was the restless one; when he got bored of "Beatles", pop records or even fame he just jettisoned them and moved on and if you didn't like it, tough!
George wasn't in the same league as Lennon or McCartney as a vocalist. For a time he could more than hold his own as a songwriter (though never on the scale of consistent quality achievable by those two) yet even more than John, he wanted to use his fame and success as a stepping stone to abandon populism (for much of the 70s at least) and urgently preach his own philosophy to the listener. Very chequered output then; at his best, a credible singer/songwriter but a mostly reluctant performer not interested enough in wanting to be one to be honest.
Ringo personified the bonhomie which helps to carry a live show and whilst lacking the talent of, say, Stephen Stills, Eric Clapton or James Taylor, had more "presence" and star quality than the three of them put together. Very limited both as a singer and a songwriter, he relied on a web of support and if it wasn't for the fact he was a Beatle - his passport to immortality - wouldn't seriously figure in the debate alongside those artists already mentioned. Still made some belting records though!!!!
-
Ringo personified the bonhomie which helps to carry a live show and whilst lacking the talent of, say, Stephen Stills, Eric Clapton or James Taylor, had more "presence" and star quality than the three of them put together.
How do you mean MrM?
I mean Clapton filled the Royal Albert for 14 in a row nights in the 90's and he fills huge venues all over the world, how is Ringo blessed with more star quality than that?
-
I think the best way I can sum it up is... you know that frisson of recognition when you see somebody really famous? That little inward sort of "Oh My God!" gasp? Well I think Ringo (like the other three fabs) had and still has that kind of aura (and no, I haven't met him, but his - as I say - "presence" - just seems to shine through, even from a TV screen). I don't think Clapton has that - it's different to popularity; I'm not surprised how he can fill the venues like you say. He's a terrific musician who has released some wonderful songs but - well, to me he'll always be a glorified session musician. Musically very accomplished (no great singer mind!) but somehow not a "star"...I dunno, almost bland. It's a charisma thing I think. Ringo seems to have it by the bucketload.
But then again, I'm biased ;)
-
I know exactly what your talking about Mr.M. Clapton has the star presence of drying paint. All the talent in the world, but a front man he is not. He is better suited sitting on a stool and taking his leads when the time comes while somebody else arouses the crowd. Ringo can light up a room while Clapton is the one sitting in the corner.
-
I know exactly what your talking about Mr.M. Clapton has the star presence of drying paint. All the talent in the world, but a front man he is not. He is better suited sitting on a stool and taking his leads when the time comes while somebody else arouses the crowd. Ringo can light up a room while Clapton is the one sitting in the corner.
I guess it's hard to boogie around flashing peace signs with both hands and play guitar at the same time...
Cream - White Room (Royal Albert Hall 2005) (17 of 22) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCc00pX_pFA#ws)
-
I think the best way I can sum it up is... you know that frisson of recognition when you see somebody really famous? That little inward sort of "Oh My God!" gasp? Well I think Ringo (like the other three fabs) had and still has that kind of aura (and no, I haven't met him, but his - as I say - "presence" - just seems to shine through, even from a TV screen). I don't think Clapton has that - it's different to popularity; I'm not surprised how he can fill the venues like you say. He's a terrific musician who has released some wonderful songs but - well, to me he'll always be a glorified session musician. Musically very accomplished (no great singer mind!) but somehow not a "star"...I dunno, almost bland. It's a charisma thing I think. Ringo seems to have it by the bucketload.
But then again, I'm biased ;)
I have absolutely no idea what your talking about, how many solo artists could fill the Royal Albert Hall every night for 14 nights?
Im sure superstar Ringo couldnt (or maybe you honestly think he could?)
he even has to lure people in for one night with an all star band
Eric is one of the biggest name solo artists in the world, you dont need to dance around the stage singing pub songs like Your Sixteen or Photograph to a bunch of old women to be a star, some people prefer real music.
To be honest I think you and Todd are talking through your respective arses (nothing new for Todd but expected more of you Mr M ha2ha)
-
To be honest I think you and Todd are talking through your respective arses (nothing new for Todd but expected more of you Mr M ha2ha)
partypeople
-
I have absolutely no idea what your talking about
Yes you do. I've already said it once and Todd's underlined it. So this time, I'll spell it out:
C-H-A-R-I-S-M-A
Very tricky to define, but to be sure Ringo has loads of it, Clapton hasn't.
That's very different to saying Clapton hasn't got talent - clearly he has, that's why he fills the Albert Hall with people like yourself who appreciate "real" music (whatever THAT'S meant to mean). But the man himself's a bore. Call me shallow but I'm still impressed by old fashioned STAR quality. If only slowhand had a fraction of Ringo's charisma.... he'd be Jimi Hendrix ha2ha
Eric is one of the biggest name solo artists in the world
Because he's a very talented virtuoso musician.... but with about as much personal magnetism as the anonymous mini cab driver dropping some of those people off at the RAH.
you dont need to dance around the stage singing pub songs like Your Sixteen or Photograph to a bunch of old women to be a star
...but you DO need to do more than stand there, play three hour riffs and mumble out of key to an arena full of middle aged Cream wannabes to be LOVED.
Clapton is widely admired.
He'll never be LOVED the way Ringo is.
And you know it if you're honest Kev, so stop being obtuse :P ;)
-
The way I read your post Mr M is like this
your a Ringo fan
your not a Clapton fan
ie
blinkered
I really dont understand how you can rate Ringo a better singer than Clapton
Your not right about Ringo, he is a pub singer, he cant write songs, he's famous because he used to be in The Beatles
Clapton was the star man in John Mayalls Bluesbreakers (when he was known in London as God)
Clapton was the star man in the Yardbirds
Clapton was the star man in Cream
He is a renowned songwriter, one of the best guitarists in the history of rock, he is also a great singer, listen to him sing Crossroads or Tears In Heaven
Ringo is a bit of a joke, the way he gets people clapping like its a singalong in a pub, most of his concerts are done/sung by others, anyway as I said I think your talking tripe and I think deep down you know it.
Its fair enough not being a Clapton fan, I can easily dig that, but to say Ringo has more talent than Clapton is a complete joke. You have lost all credibility in my eyes as a knowledgeable music fan.
-
I reckon blues artists struggle to have charisma. Maybe that's why they sing the blues...
Cream - Crossroads (Royal Albert Hall 2005) (15 of 22) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DES2KOq5SoE#ws)
Cream - Strange Brew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hftgytmgQgE#)
This 15 year old kid also suffers from Charisma Deficit Disorder...
Buddy Guy and Quinn Sullivan - Strange Brew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS99FzxrFlc#ws)
-
"Eric Clapton, glorified session musician" deary me someone give that person what said that a pill or a smack around the head or something, they clearly need it.
Of course you'd have to take live appearances into account and during the 70's Paul was the only one who went out regularly on 3 or 4 tours. Then George had the Bangladesh shows and the 74 Tour and John had a few impromptu things as well as a few proper shows. Ringo was nowhere (except Bangladesh).
Now I don't know, maybe I'm incorrect but I'm sure the likes of Elton and Bowie were a fair bit more active in that regard.
I've been struggling to think in cohesive sentences lately so please forgive if what I say makes little sense.
-
Now I don't know, maybe I'm incorrect but I'm sure the likes of Elton and Bowie were a fair bit more active in that regard.
Yeah. Now those guys had charisma alright...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gwmrW97XNyE/T4M63g49j8I/AAAAAAAABEQ/9VdXe31d3Do/s1600/elton.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OMfvSBzTfRo/UV29J_QIfmI/AAAAAAACku8/DjOrsnbZbvQ/s1600/mick-david-bowie-ziggy.jpg)
-
I'm not in a position to comment on most of this stuff because I don't and have never listened to it, and I don't care a jot about anything after the 60s.
Elton John in a jump suit, I ask you!
However......Bob Dylan in the 60s.....different story.
Now, I can see how, if younger, in the middle of the 60s fans of The Beatles had rivalries with school-friends over The Stones and vice-versa, and I can see that Dylan may have appealed to a less 'poppy' crowd, and more to older brothers/6th Formers than to the young girls who loved John and Paul, but......in 2014......the notion that someone who claims to like The Beatles can't stand Dylan's voice is, sorry, absolutely ridiculous.
That's HISTORY. It's like saying you don't like the colour of the aircraft that got man to the moon!
Dylan's impact on The Beatles is vital and it's difficult to imagine the 60s without him. Indeed I'd argue it's more difficult to imagine the 60s without Dylan than it is to imagine the 60s without The Beatles. The crowd at Woodstock is more made in Dylan's image than Paul McCartney's.
By the way, the obsession about who wrote and played on soul tracks in the 60s is probably more of a British thing but, rest assured, over here many, many people are fully aware who wrote and performed on all the Tamla-Motown and Stax songs.
-
Its fair enough not being a Clapton fan, I can easily dig that, but to say Ringo has more talent than Clapton is a complete joke. You have lost all credibility in my eyes as a knowledgeable music fan.
As far as I can see -but I'm getting a bit shortsighted getting into the middle ages- MrM is talking about charisma, not about talent.
-
I guess it's hard to boogie around flashing peace signs with both hands and play guitar at the same time...
Cream - White Room (Royal Albert Hall 2005) (17 of 22) ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCc00pX_pFA#ws[/url])
Cream was lucky to have Jack Bruce as the front man. RIP Jack.
-
As far as I can see -but I'm getting a bit shortsighted getting into the middle ages- MrM is talking about charisma, not about talent.
Yes Cor I keep hearing the word but honestly I dont know how it relates to music, yes he gets middle aged ladies singing photograph in the aisles , but then he has to hand over to Roger Hodgson or Greg Lake to sing a number, then the lady from Prince's band to show him how to play drums
Could Ringo with all his c-h-a-r-i-s-m-a fill the Royal Albert Hall EVERY NIGHT for 14 nights, every ticket sold?
Im sure Clapton could do that anytime he feels like it, even though he is an uncharismatic bore who doesnt have a song and dance routine like Mr Charisma who btw plays much smaller venues than the Albert
-
Cream was lucky to have Jack Bruce as the front man. RIP Jack.
Thats nonsense Todd, Jack wasnt the front man, Clapton was THE star of that band, and every band he;s been in.........what happened to Jack after Cream? how many No 1's did he write or sing, how many stadiums did he fill, didnt he just keep trying to reform Cream with an Eric soundalikes like Gary Moore and a few others, never quite worked though. Whereas Clapton became bigger than Cream with more records sold.
I liked Jack a hell of a lot but he wasnt the front man at all, Eric sang just as many Cream songs as Jack, I think you dont like Eric and you dislike for him is shining through your posts
-
I love Claptons music and his playing, but i'll be honest and admit that I passed up two concerts of his purely due to the fact that I didn't want to spend that kind of jack and be bored for half the show. I know I would have been. Others not.
Clapton has more talent then Mick Jagger, but Mick can grab a crowd and have them eating out of the palm of his hands in a way that Clapton could only dream about. That's what a great frontman does. I don't care how much more talent Clapton has then Ringo, he will never have his personality and presence. In the big scheme of things, that doesn't mean anything except for the point I was trying to make.
-
The way I read your post Mr M is like this
your a Ringo fan
your not a Clapton fan
ie
blinkered
I really dont understand how you can rate Ringo a better singer than Clapton
When and where have I ever said that?
Your not right about Ringo, he is a pub singer, he cant write songs, he's famous because he used to be in The Beatles
Here's what I actually said:
"Ringo personified the bonhomie which helps to carry a live show and whilst lacking the talent of, say, Stephen Stills, Eric Clapton or James Taylor, had more "presence" and star quality than the three of them put together. Very limited both as a singer and a songwriter, he relied on a web of support and if it wasn't for the fact he was a Beatle - his passport to immortality - wouldn't seriously figure in the debate alongside those artists already mentioned."
Don't you read posts properly?
Clapton was the star man in John Mayalls Bluesbreakers (when he was known in London as God)
Which means a lot to "serious" music fans like yourself... less so to many, many others. Call me blinkered by all means but like it or not I'd argue that being an esteemed part of JMB just doesn't carry the same WOW factor as "He was one of The Beatles!!!"
Clapton was the star man in the Yardbirds
That says it all. Arguably the most faceless/least starry group of the 60s.
Clapton was the star man in Cream
Possibly true but very debateable.
He is a renowned songwriter, one of the best guitarists in the history of rock, he is also a great singer, listen to him sing Crossroads or Tears In Heaven
Songwriter and guitarist agreed, singer I disagree. I have listened to those tracks - vocally unremarkable. He never was or will be a great singer, nor will Ringo.
Ringo is a bit of a joke, the way he gets people clapping like its a singalong in a pub, most of his concerts are done/sung by others, anyway as I said I think your talking tripe and I think deep down you know it.
From your lofty, opinionated, sneering perch you might think Ringo's a joke. I don't. He knows how to work a crowd, is aware of his serious limitations and, as I've already said, does trade heavily on his Beatle past. Why shouldn't he? OK so his tongue is firmly in his cheek when he gets 'em all giggling along to "Octopus's Garden"...it's called FUN, Kevin, harmless FUN Ringo is an entertainer who is comfortable with his limits and doesn't try to live up to an embarrassing epithet like "God" (give me strength!!!)
Its fair enough not being a Clapton fan, I can easily dig that, but to say Ringo has more talent than Clapton is a complete joke.
Dear me, there you go again, completely misquoting me. I don't mind some of Clapton's stuff. PLEASE read the last paragraph of my original post again. Charisma and talent ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!
You have lost all credibility in my eyes as a knowledgeable music fan.
I won't lose any sleep over that since you've fallen even further in my estimation than I have in yours.
When you resort to telling people who dare to have a different opinion (actually not so different if you'd have the courtesy to read my posts properly) that they are talking through their arse, any credibility you might have had is gone.
Bobber gets it, tkitna gets it, how come you don't?
I'll stop talking through my arse when you get your head out of your own.
-
I love Claptons music and his playing, but i'll be honest and admit that I passed up two concerts of his purely due to the fact that I didn't want to spend that kind of jack and be bored for half the show. I know I would have been. Others not.
Clapton has more talent then Mick Jagger, but Mick can grab a crowd and have them eating out of the palm of his hands in a way that Clapton could only dream about. That's what a great frontman does. I don't care how much more talent Clapton has then Ringo, he will never have his personality and presence. In the big scheme of things, that doesn't mean anything except for the point I was trying to make.
I really dont see this, any crooner can do a singalonga show, Ringo has become a parody of himself over the years, he's a bit of a joke with his constant peace signs (which are empty & meaningless) his public announcements that he wont sign any more autographs which gave him huge bad worldwide press and he insulted every citizen of Liverpool by saying he doesnt miss it one iota, I dont even think he's very welcome there
They even cut his head off they dislike him so much
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2008/07/ringo-gets-beheaded-or-maybe-someone-just-forgot-to-water-him/ (http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2008/07/ringo-gets-beheaded-or-maybe-someone-just-forgot-to-water-him/)
anyway enough of this, I'll shut the f*** up now.
-
I'm not in a position to comment on most of this stuff because I don't and have never listened to it, and I don't care a jot about anything after the 60s.
Careful OBS, you'll be called "blinkered" in a minute! ;)
Now, I can see how, if younger, in the middle of the 60s fans of The Beatles had rivalries with school-friends over The Stones and vice-versa, and I can see that Dylan may have appealed to a less 'poppy' crowd, and more to older brothers/6th Formers than to the young girls who loved John and Paul, but......in 2014......the notion that someone who claims to like The Beatles can't stand Dylan's voice is, sorry, absolutely ridiculous.
That's HISTORY. It's like saying you don't like the colour of the aircraft that got man to the moon!
I think you're missing the point though. Nobody's denying the influence Bob had on The Beatles. They could appeal to that younger, pop crowd (he couldn't) but they could also appeal to the rock crowd who appreciate Dylan, they never stopped growing and exploring. With respect you're talking nonsense in claiming that someone can't like The Beatles and at the same time dislike Dylan's voice. I'm one among many who provide living proof of this fact! Your Apollo analogy is silly and wrong. Nothing to do with bending history either by the way, just because someone dislikes the colour of the space vehicle doesn't mean they don't accept the importance of the vehicle's essential role.
Or are you saying that the voice (like the colour) doesn't matter much anyway, it's all about the overall equipment? In a singer-songwriter context I'd say the voice matters! And plenty like me think Bob's is rubbish. But we still love The Beatles. You don't subscribe to that way of thinking, fair enough.
Dylan's impact on The Beatles is vital and it's difficult to imagine the 60s without him. Indeed I'd argue it's more difficult to imagine the 60s without Dylan than it is to imagine the 60s without The Beatles. The crowd at Woodstock is more made in Dylan's image than Paul McCartney's.
For me and I suspect millions of others it's not impossible to imagine the 60s without Bob. He was a very important part of it and I've already acknowledged his considerable influence on The Beatles (would you not agree they in turn influenced him?). But he was just one of myriad influences upon them; they distilled so much into the fabric of what made them the personification of the 1960s (and come on, they were). To imagine the 60s without The Beatles is, frankly, ludicrous. Wouldn't dispute your point about Woodstock but for me Shea Stadium screams "1960s" louder than Woodstock ever could, being as how the 60s were very 70s-ish by August '69 ;)
-
Kevin left because of this thread? I don't know what to say. Can we not have differentiating opinions about music? Sheesh. I didn't think it got that bad that people were getting offended, but I didn't read all of it.
And just when I was about to mention how Clapton was the worst guitarist in the Yardbirds. ha2ha
-
Thats nonsense Todd, Jack wasnt the front man, Clapton was THE star of that band, and every band he;s been in.........what happened to Jack after Cream? how many No 1's did he write or sing, how many stadiums did he fill, didnt he just keep trying to reform Cream with an Eric soundalikes like Gary Moore and a few others, never quite worked though. Whereas Clapton became bigger than Cream with more records sold.
I have to comment on these posts. I never was trying to downplay Clapton in Cream. Everybody knows he was the main attraction, but I have always considered Jack Bruce to be the frontman of that band. He sang the most and easily wrote the most music. That's all I was saying. Was he as important a player in the makeup of the band as Clapton? No, and everyone knows that. Who cares what he did after Cream. He did enough within that band the become respected by his piers in writing, singing, and his bass playing for sure. Ginger Baker is a legendary drummer too, but he didn't do a whole lot either besides Cream. I guess Blind Faith if you want to consider that.
I liked Jack a hell of a lot but he wasnt the front man at all, Eric sang just as many Cream songs as Jack, I think you dont like Eric and you dislike for him is shining through your posts
You couldn't be more wrong. We were all talking about solo careers in a thread that you started and a couple different aspects of the topic came to light, and you have a problem with it for some reason. Clapton has a fantastic career. One of the biggest in popular music and nobody is disputing that, but he isn't a very engaging presence. Is that so bad. I don't think anybody was questioning or comparing Claptons solo career with Ringo's because that's silly. We were merely talking about personality and mannerisms. I just cant see the big deal here.
-
Sorry you left because of this, Kevin. Really unnecessary.
-
Kevin left because of this thread? I don't know what to say. Can we not have differentiating opinions about music?
Agreed, I don't get it either. But maybe we all need a break once in a while. Hopefully Kevin comes back.
-
Geez. I turn my back on a thread for a couple of days and this happens.
Ringo clearly inspires deep passions.
Hopefully Kevs just having a smoko.
-
If it means I don't have to listen to all the stuff after the 60s, then I'm blinkered, no, blinkered x 10, no blinkered x 100, frankly, anything it takes.
Not going to wade through all the above comments re: Clapton, and wasn't going to mention it again following the recent news about Jack Bruce, but the group who 'completely' enveloped the 60s (I hate pretty much everybody afterwards as you know) who I most 'don't get' is Cream.
WAY AHEAD of their time, they were making 1976 soft rock (in awful clothes as well - check out the Albert Hall!) when everyone else seemed to be doing 'Blonde on Blonde', 'Are You Experienced' and 'Safe as Milk'. I've never been more disappointed with an L.P. than when I got the record out of that Martin Sharp psychedelic sleeve, and started to play it.
Going back to the beginning re- 'Blinkered'.....make that x 1000.
-
Agreed, I don't get it either. But maybe we all need a break once in a while. Hopefully Kevin comes back.
I like Kev too and I hope he comes back, but man, you need to have thicker skin then that.
-
Hopefully Kevs just having a smoko.
I hope so.
-
Just my thought on "charisma" vs "talent." Charisma has a couple of meanings:
1. A compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.
2. A divinely conferred power or talent.
Thus, charisma and talent are not two different things. A better choice of terms to debate would be "talent" vs "showmanship."
-
Just my thought on "charisma" vs "talent." Charisma has a couple of meanings:
1. A compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.
2. A divinely conferred power or talent.
Thus, charisma and talent are not two different things. A better choice of terms to debate would be "talent" vs "showmanship."
I suppose all of this is in the eye of the beholder. There's certainly talented artists who I wouldn't consider have enormous charisma. Richard Thompson could be one example. Excellent guitarist and songwriter. But not personally charismatic as far as I'm aware.
Although some would say that their talent itself gives them charisma. So defining it as you've done with respect to showmanship is helpful. Certainly Ringo has lots of showmanship. If he didn't his post Beatle career would have been quite short, given his limitations in actual performance beyond his drumming.
Is Clappers a showman of that order as well? He probably let's his music do the talking more than anything else.
But I think we can agree on:
1. Eric is a better guitarist than Ringo.
2. Ringo is a better drummer than Eric.
3. They each have their appeal to what are likely very different audiences.
-
I don't even know how this thread came to comparing Ringo and Clapton in any aspect, but Kevin did have some merit in what he was saying about Ringo's solo gig. I have no desire to go see another All-Star Band concert with Ringo and his buddies. I cant take the same old 5 Beatle tunes and Ringo's few patented solo hits anymore. I want to see him with the Roundheads playing songs off of his last 5 or 6 albums. That's never going to happen so i'll probably never see him again. He does try to make it fun when he performs though and theres something to be said for that.
-
I don't even know how this thread came to comparing Ringo and Clapton in any aspect, but Kevin did have some merit in what he was saying about Ringo's solo gig. I have no desire to go see another All-Star Band concert with Ringo and his buddies. I cant take the same old 5 Beatle tunes and Ringo's few patented solo hits anymore. I want to see him with the Roundheads playing songs off of his last 5 or 6 albums. That's never going to happen so i'll probably never see him again. He does try to make it fun when he performs though and theres something to be said for that.
I'm sure the All Stars would be quite fun. But it's hardly high on my concert going list.
-
I don't even know how this thread came to comparing Ringo and Clapton in any aspect
Furore erupted on DM's Beatles Site recently when forum loudmouth Mr Mustard had the cheek to suggest he finds Ringo Starr more of a magnetic personality than Eric Clapton, once famously nicknamed "God".
But Mustard was quick to protest his remarks had been taken out of context:
"I'm not saying that Ringo's better or greater or comparing Ringo with Eric as a talent or God the musician or whatever it is....I just said what I said and it was taken wrong and now it's all this...."
(http://i61.tinypic.com/fut9p0.jpg)
;) ;D
Come back Kev, no hard feelings on my part :-*
-
ha2ha
Nice photoshop work there Mr.M.
-
HaHa, thats only your country Todd, America is only 1 country, 10cc had numbers 1 hits (that they wrote) all over the world, Ringo cant write and cant sing, he is big only because of John & Paul, no other reason, if they handt have hired him he would still be playing in Butlins cabaret.
so you never heard of the songs "Heart Full of Soul", "Evil Hearted You" and "For Your Love" for The Yardbirds, "Look Through Any Window" and "Bus Stop" for The Hollies and "No Milk Today", "East West" and "Listen People" for Herman's Hermits. Dreadlock Holiday, Im Mandy Fly Me
All written by 10cc members, when did Ringo write songs as good as these? All the 10cc guys are tremendously respected musicians/writers
I cant believe youve never heard this ;D
10 CC - DREADLOCK HOLIDAY ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q659IaXrS3Y#[/url])
or this
Wall Street Shuffle - 10cc ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kShTUmYRyCw#[/url])
and Hits before they were 10cc
The Mindbenders - A Groovy Kind Of Love ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddcIunulJi4#ws[/url])
I'm partial to Life Is A Minestrone from The Original Soundtrack!
http://youtu.be/eP2yxRgnR8Q (http://youtu.be/eP2yxRgnR8Q)
-
Here's another example. I love Bob Dylan songs,,,,,,but only when other people sing them. I've never heard a cover that wasn't better then his originals. Out of all his output, I only really like 'Tangled Up In Blues' and 'Hurricane'. I could care less if I ever heard any of his other songs. In that aspect, Dylan receives way more accolades for writing then he does actually singing and playing the songs. I guess that would hold true with the members of 10cc too.
I'm a huge Dylan fan but, I too, often prefer covers of his songs. During my college days I used to think of Bob as the greatest demo artist of all time b/c so many other acts covered his songs better and had commercial success w/ them.
-
I'm a huge Dylan fan but, I too, often prefer covers of his songs. During my college days I used to think of Bob as the greatest demo artist of all time b/c so many other acts covered his songs better and had commercial success w/ them.
Relevant to Beatles as solo artists, I think George did Dylan stuff well. He seemed to get the phrasing while having a more pleasant voice. If Not For You, I Don't Want To Do It and Mama You've Been On My Mind are all nice versions. It helped that George could throw his guitar licks in too.
-
.....so if it's smoothness you want, do you think that all those Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Slim Harpo, Bo Diddley and Jimmy Reed songs were better done by other people?
-
I actually don't mind Dylan's voice in many cases. And he can actually sound quite good on some tunes. Particularly softer songs. Eventually his vocal mannerisms became almost self parodying.
-
reply to number 10: sorry, didn't mean to "step on any toes".
-
oldbrownshoe here.
No problem Old Brown Shoe.
In fact it means that I might be able to put forward some less than appreciated views, and then pass them off as yours!
Here's one:
Have the recent 'Basement Tapes' elevated Bob Dylan to the position of the most important recording artist ever?
Above Elvis, above Hendrix, above The Stones, and, whisper it, even above The Beatles?
I suggest this because, with the best will in the world, the various Beatles' out-takes that appeared on 'Anthology' showed that the group released the best versions of their takes 99% of the time, and had little else in the can apart from run-throughs, stutters, etc.
Dylan, however, appears to have bucket-loads of unreleased stuff, some every bit as good as the material that got released, and, just the other day, another cache of 150 (150!) songs were apparently discovered from 1969!
Quite apart from anything else, if we just look at the 60s (i.e. the time when both acts were active), in 30/40 years time Dylan may be seen to have record four or five times more material than The Beatles, and it will probably all be available.
Erm.....Old Brown Shoe said all of the above.....
-
Have the recent 'Basement Tapes' elevated Bob Dylan to the position of the most important recording artist ever?
ha2ha ahem! NO
Above Elvis
You're joking, right?
above Hendrix
Maybe....
above The Stones
Probably (but who cares?)
and, whisper it, even above The Beatles?
Get a grip on yourself!!!! :laugh:
Bob will certainly be remembered as the years fall away.
He'll go down in history as the joint-third most important Traveling Wilbury!!
(http://i57.tinypic.com/14wyczt.jpg)
-
Bob Dylan will never be more relevant than the Beatles (no one could be in the music world) but he certainly is more relevant than John, Paul, George or Ringo as individualities.
-
Bob will certainly be remembered as the years fall away.
He'll go down in history as the joint-third most important Traveling Wilbury!!
Joint-third most important with whom?
-
I didn't say Prince, Michael Jackson or George Michael, Mr. Mustard!!!!.....I said Bob Dylan.
You know, born 1941, wrote vaguely important songs like 'Blowin' In The Wind', 'A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall', 'Like A Rolling Stone'.
You must agree on one thing - Dylan's 'Bootleg Series', since the hit and miss of 'Anthology', has delivered live concerts, The Basement Tapes, and literally hundreds of unreleased tracks, and is a little bit more substantial than Apple's efforts ('Live at the BBC Volume 2' notwithstanding) on behalf of The Beatles in the same time-frame.
The 'Yellow Submarine' song-track (whatever a 'song-track' is), '1', 'Let It Be...Naked' and 'Love' look very slim pickings in comparison and, I suspect, aren't currently flying off the shelves.
It's surely time for Apple to pull their finger out.....would a similar Beatles' 'Bootleg Series' be out of the question?
-
I didn't say Prince, Michael Jackson or George Michael, Mr. Mustard!!!!.....I said Bob Dylan.
You know, born 1941, wrote vaguely important songs like 'Blowin' In The Wind', 'A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall', 'Like A Rolling Stone'.
You must agree on one thing - Dylan's 'Bootleg Series', since the hit and miss of 'Anthology', has delivered live concerts, The Basement Tapes, and literally hundreds of unreleased tracks, and is a little bit more substantial than Apple's efforts ('Live at the BBC Volume 2' notwithstanding) on behalf of The Beatles in the same time-frame.
The 'Yellow Submarine' song-track (whatever a 'song-track' is), '1', 'Let It Be...Naked' and 'Love' look very slim pickings in comparison and, I suspect, aren't currently flying off the shelves.
It's surely time for Apple to pull their finger out.....would a similar Beatles' 'Bootleg Series' be out of the question?
I doubt there's a lot to bootleg. The Beatles under George Martin were pretty efficient. They didn't dwell too much on things that weren't working. And most things that were shelved appears later on the Beatles solo albums anyway.
There were exceptions of course especially as they got more free time in the late 60s. . They did do the amazing number of takes of Not Guilty before canning it for instance. Carnival of Light seems to be the biggest unreleased track , but it doesnt sound like it would appeal beyond the crowd who think What's the New Mary Jane is the height of Lennons art. I suppose trawling through every minute of the Let it Be recordings might bring some stuff to the fore. I wouldn't hold my breath that itd have anything but curiosity value though.
-
But what about the Christmas flexis? They've not been officially re-released since the 1970 album have they?
Let start at the beginning - 'Bootleg Series Volume 1: 'The Beatles' Decca Audition''.
According to wikipedia (!), 'the master tape is believed to be in possession of The Beatles Apple Corps Ltd.'.
Has it ever been done properly either on vinyl or CD? I certainly only own the tracks on 'Anthology 1'.
15 tracks, early-60s sleeve design, photos of the West Hampstead location, Mark Lewisohn sleeve-notes, NO 'sweetening-up' or over-dubbing, £9.99.
-
Yeah, but I think the influence/importance is measured in the things that were actually released in their time. The new Basement Tapes will obviously be brilliant and I look forward to it, but as far as the influence those songs might have had, had they been released in 1967...well, we can only guess. I feel the same about Beach Boys' 'Smile'. It does show how far ahead of the game they were....but only, you know, 40 years later.
I do sense that Bob Dylan is a bit underrated on this forum and I'm a big fan as you know and can't stress his importance and influence highly enough, Basement Tapes or not. I find it hard impossible to rank the artists in terms of importance, so I'm not gonna go into that, but surely Bob Dylan is among the 10 greatest artists of the 20th century popular music.
-
Joint-third most important with whom?
Overrated Bob aligns with underrated Jeff Lynne; above Tom Petty but below Roy Orbison and obviously below George ;)
(I'm only jesting - I was teasing obs that's all)
Now to put my serious hat on:
Bob's influence was unarguably huge, but I think Moog's post nails it very well. Most (virtually all) of what needed to see the light of day from their recordings was put out by The Beatles. Good grasp of quality control by them & George Martin to my mind. Only a few exceptions like "Leave My Kitten Alone" and some of the live BBC stuff deserved to escape from the can IMO.
I'm not surprised to learn that Dylan was so prolific, and I'm genuinely happy for Dylan fans that there appears to be a treasure trove of decent quality material still surfacing.
Regarding "Biggest acts" I guess that has many subjective interpretations. By audited global record sales The Beatles outstrip the others. In terms of cultural impact (beyond just music, into the minutiae of everyday lives like fashion, hairstyles, attitudes etc) again I think circumstances combined into a perfect storm where the fabs were concerned - everything from timing and twists of fate/lucky breaks, chance meetings etc all combined at the right times in the right places to make them untouchable. I honestly think they then "took the ball" further, faster and in more new directions within the relatively short time fate allotted them, than anyone else before or since.
Only Elvis (without whom we should remember there would not have been a "Beatles") came close to rivalling their panoramic impact. But they obviously left him standing with regards to songwriting and musicianship. I think of Presley as the quake...massive, but only a foretaste of the all-swamping tsunami of The Beatles which followed it. They came closer to being all things to all men on so many levels than any other act I can think of, and that's really special.
-
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bob-dylan-album-with-beatles-and-rolling-stones-20141107?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=110714_16&utm_medium=email&ea=Y3Jscm9zZWxsQHlhaG9vLmNvbQ== (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bob-dylan-album-with-beatles-and-rolling-stones-20141107?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=110714_16&utm_medium=email&ea=Y3Jscm9zZWxsQHlhaG9vLmNvbQ==)
-
Interesting story, Todd. I wish they would have pulled that off. I can see why Keith was all in favor of the collaboration...
Cocaine Blues 1961 "Robert Zimmerman" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8a6eRME6po#)
Keith Richards - Cocaine Blues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJAwVu_ptew#)
-
Yeah. My kind of music. This is from my lesson tapes. The way Ian Buchanan taught me the piece...
Cocaine Blues - Ian Buchanan 1972 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pEO6yVbqg8#)
-
Yep, fair enough Mr. Mustard.
I thought I'd just throw it out there to see what the response was.
If the 'Anthology' series taught us anything I think it was that if there was a decision to be made at the time on the studio floor, The Beatles and their associates invariably made the right one.
-
Interesting story, Todd. I wish they would have pulled that off.
It would have been interesting, but I don't see anyway possible of it happening. The Beatles were on their last leg in 69' with them concentrating on Abbey Road and going out on a good note instead of the Let It Be fiasco, plus all the legal garbage going on. The Stones were dealing with Brian Jones's death, a tour and the 'Let It Bleed; album. Where would either have found the time?
-
Never under-estimate the huge amount of material these groups put out in the 60s.
Lily Allen, in a ten year career, has just released her 3rd studio album, Amy Winehouse managed just two.
Fairport Convention released three studio albums in 1969 alone.
Not only were these artists much better, they were also far more prolific.
-
Interesting story, Todd. I wish they would have pulled that off. I can see why Keith was all in favor of the collaboration...
Well. We eventually got the Travelling Wilburys. Not quite what They had in mind. But pretty good nonetheless.
-
Never under-estimate the huge amount of material these groups put out in the 60s.
Lily Allen, in a ten year career, has just released her 3rd studio album, Amy Winehouse managed just two.
Fairport Convention released three studio albums in 1969 alone.
Not only were these artists much better, they were also far more prolific.
They were certainly more prolific. But in the Beatles case I think the vast majority of the prolific activity ended up on their albums. Or eventually used in the solo years. It doesn't mean there's not stuff there. But it'll be mainly rough jams and rehearsals from Let it Be or the White Album sessions.
-
But what about the Christmas flexis? They've not been officially re-released since the 1970 album have they?
Let start at the beginning - 'Bootleg Series Volume 1: 'The Beatles' Decca Audition''.
According to wikipedia (!), 'the master tape is believed to be in possession of The Beatles Apple Corps Ltd.'.
Has it ever been done properly either on vinyl or CD? I certainly only own the tracks on 'Anthology 1'.
Both have been available in the bootleg section over here. I can upload them once again if you're interested.
-
Let start at the beginning - 'Bootleg Series Volume 1: 'The Beatles' Decca Audition''.
According to wikipedia (!), 'the master tape is believed to be in possession of The Beatles Apple Corps Ltd.'.
Has it ever been done properly either on vinyl or CD? I certainly only own the tracks on 'Anthology 1'.
This CD was released about seven years ago...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51a4Glf9Q7L.jpg)
The sound quality was OK
This was released last year...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51eGTf-32WL.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51h8KCkxwoL.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51sFXkUIuXL.jpg)
Sound quality improved!
And yes, oldbrownshoe, it's on vinyl too...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51u%2B-iUGIZL.jpg)
The Beatles - The Decca Audition Tapes
-
They were certainly more prolific. But in the Beatles case I think the vast majority of the prolific activity ended up on their albums. Or eventually used in the solo years. It doesn't mean there's not stuff there. But it'll be mainly rough jams and rehearsals from Let it Be or the White Album sessions.
Yeah, I was just thinking of what the Beatles had to offer. Paul and John had nothing. George had loads, but if it couldnt make Beatle albums, why would everybody get behind that for this one off record? Paul certainly wasnt going to give up his own stuff that he was going to be releasing on his solo record and John had nothing if we take Abbey Road into accordance. This wasnt the early 60's when they could just sit around and knock off 6 or 7 tunes in one setting. These guys were spent. The only way it could have worked is if the Beatles and Stones were merely back up bands for Dylan using his stuff. Like I said, an interesting idea, but doomed to fail from the start, and I havent even touched upon the ego's from both bands yet.
-
Well, anything that is semi-legit doesn't count.
I could name you all the Dylan 'Bootleg Series' and yet I hadn't heard about that Japanese version of the Decca Audition which appears to have the official Apple logo on it.
Perhaps if it wasn't an expensive Japanese import, had been universally released around the world, was still available (it isn't currently on Amazon despite being from only 2011), had been reviewed in the music press.....erm.....a bit like the Dylan 'Bootleg Series'!
Can't help thinking that Dylan's people are doing a better job than The Beatles' people, and that was my original point.
Isn't it about time that the 'Decca Audition', the 'Star Club' stuff from 1962, the Polydor recordings, 'Get Back', the Xmas LP were all put out under an umbrella title by Apple, culminating in The Beatles' own 'Basement Tapes', 'Carnival of Light'?
-
Coming back to big acts and their influence, I gave my 21 year old son a lift to the rail station today and en route I asked him, with no prompting or context or anything "Who do you reckon are the biggest popular music acts from, say 1950s to date?"
His briefly considered answer came back within thirty seconds:
"Sinatra, Presley, Beatles and Dylan".
Rather surprised me, to be honest. First because I suddenly realised I'd never asked him this before, secondly he's a big fan of Bowie and Queen and I thought he'd have slipped at least one of them in there!
-
Hell will freeze over before I own a Frank Sinatra record!
-
Yeah, I was just thinking of what the Beatles had to offer. Paul and John had nothing. George had loads, but if it couldnt make Beatle albums, why would everybody get behind that for this one off record? Paul certainly wasnt going to give up his own stuff that he was going to be releasing on his solo record and John had nothing if we take Abbey Road into accordance. This wasnt the early 60's when they could just sit around and knock off 6 or 7 tunes in one setting. These guys were spent. The only way it could have worked is if the Beatles and Stones were merely back up bands for Dylan using his stuff. Like I said, an interesting idea, but doomed to fail from the start, and I havent even touched upon the ego's from both bands yet.
It's hard to see how it would have worked. Especially as you say with the ego issue. Imagine if Keef and Bob had dissed a Paul grannie tune. Or Paul had suggested Bob make his lyric simpler. There would have been blood on the floor.
-
It's hard to see how it would have worked. Especially as you say with the ego issue. Imagine if Keef and Bob had dissed a Paul grannie tune. Or Paul had suggested Bob make his lyric simpler. There would have been blood on the floor.
I don't know, seems to me there is belief that Paul needed someone telling him that his sh*t sometimes stinks like everybody else
-
It's hard to see how it would have worked. Especially as you say with the ego issue. Imagine if Keef and Bob had dissed a Paul grannie tune. Or Paul had suggested Bob make his lyric simpler. There would have been blood on the floor.
If such friction had manifested onto the recordings themselves might there have been blood on the tracks? ;) ;D
-
If such friction had manifested onto the recordings themselves might there have been blood on the tracks? ;) ;D
Actually a possible title for the album might have been Let it Bleed on the Tracks. ;D
-
I don't know, seems to me there is belief that Paul needed someone telling him that his sh*t sometimes stinks like everybody else
Oh he definitely needed. Question is whether he'd accept it ;)
-
Exile On Abbey Street-Legal 61 Revisited?
GRRReat White Album Wonder?
We could be here all night Moog! :laugh:
-
Exile On Abbey Street-Legal 61 Revisited?
GRRReat White Album Wonder?
We could be here all night Moog! :laugh:
Magical New Morning in the Shade?
Rubber Blonde on Sticky Fingers?
You're right. Too much potential
-
Hell will freeze over before I own a Frank Sinatra record!
Hmmm. I own a box set of old blue eyes. Not much of a crooner fan eh, obs?
-
15 tracks, early-60s sleeve design, photos of the West Hampstead location, Mark Lewisohn sleeve-notes, NO 'sweetening-up' or over-dubbing, £9.99.
£11.31
Well, anything that is semi-legit doesn't count.
I could name you all the Dylan 'Bootleg Series' and yet I hadn't heard about that Japanese version of the Decca Audition which appears to have the official Apple logo on it.
Perhaps if it wasn't an expensive Japanese import, had been universally released around the world, was still available (it isn't currently on Amazon despite being from only 2011), had been reviewed in the music press.....erm.....a bit like the Dylan 'Bootleg Series'!
It's not Apple but it sure sounds good! But who knows? Maybe Apple will release it in the future. There's always a market for stuff like this.
-
Hmmm. I own a box set of old blue eyes. Not much of a crooner fan eh, obs?
I've got his Columbia and Capitol Years box sets. He knew how to sing!
-
Exile On Abbey Street-Legal 61 Revisited?
GRRReat White Album Wonder?
We could be here all night Moog! :laugh:
Magical New Morning in the Shade?
Rubber Blonde on Sticky Fingers?
You're right. Too much potential
You two will enjoy this thread: Beatles In My Pants (http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=3122.msg72357#msg72357)
-
You two will enjoy this thread: Beatles In My Pants ([url]http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=3122.msg72357#msg72357[/url])
ha2ha
The ones from The End had me laughing out loud.
-
Alas, tkitna, not much of a crooner fan no.
I leave it to bastions of Rock 'n' Roll like Bono and Elvis Costello to fly that particular flag.
-
I've got his Columbia and Capitol Years box sets. He knew how to sing!
Screaming girls can't be wrong!
-
Screaming girls can't be wrong!
(http://i62.tinypic.com/210egwp.jpg)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/22nvj4.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/16lgzg6.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/52m9y.jpg)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2qxql95.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/33ygmdv.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/jgky01.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/34isppk.jpg)
-
Screaming girls can't be wrong!
...And he knows what he's talking about folks!
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2l96ryx.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/312dyyu.jpg)
;) ;D
-
I liked the one you made for Kevin better to be honest. :)