It's been my experience that money can buy a lot of fun.  But not Love or happiness or self-esteem or whatever.  

Quoted from GreenApple

...Great stuff on it, but no way it's their best. I wish they had made it a single album, then did another single album later in '68 with other material.

It'd be a good idea: two albums in 68, but after all, they made a double (it could be two single albums too) because they had an EMI contract for some albums/songs and they wanted to finish it with the White Album. Sir George wanted a single album (I know we all know) but realized later that the guys wanted in this way because of business -and no artistic- whishes.
You could say: OK, but why didn't they make two single albums instead of a double one? One simple answer could be that at the time they were (end of the year: Christmas, etc...) and with the number of tracks they had it'd be stupid two single albums at the same time, remember that they begun to record too late to publish two single albums (one in summer and the other in Xmas time).

Quoted from raxo

It'd be a good idea: two albums in 68, but after all, they made a double (it could be two single albums too) because they had an EMI contract for some albums/songs and they wanted to finish it with the White Album. Sir George wanted a single album (I know we all know) but realized later that the guys wanted in this way because of business -and no artistic- whishes.
You could say: OK, but why didn't they make two single albums instead of a double one? One simple answer could be that at the time they were (end of the year: Christmas, etc...) and with the number of tracks they had it'd be stupid two single albums at the same time, remember that they begun to record too late to publish two single albums (one in summer and the other in Xmas time).

All very fair points, but it's still the case that they padded it out with lots of mediocre and un-Beatles songs - Birthday, Rocky Raccoon, Piggies, Revolution 9, for example. And, I know there's lots of acoustic stuff because they only had acoustic guitars in India, but those numbers just sound like John or Paul doing their own thing. It just seems to be too un-Beatles, in daft songs, or acoustic solo stuff to compare to the likes of Sgt. Pepper's or Abbey Road.

I'm slightly annoyed that TWA always gets fantastic acclaim. I wonder how it would have been if they'd not gone to India, but stayed in Britland. Maybe it would have made little difference, since the early 1968 tracks show that they'd left behind the psychedelia and musical complexity of 1967. Pity!

It's not my favourite album but I don't think it contains mediocre songs: some bad ones (yes) and some great ones (yes), the rest just good (yes)-exactly as any of the albums from the guys, only that each one has his/her preferences, in my case -a strange one- I love Beatles For Sale.
I don't think that the guys would continue with the psicodelia thing more than a few mounths, they were very much than a psychedelic band (remember: always a different work: Lp or film, and don't repeat yourself -if it's posible) and their friends Stones, Dyland,... were going to do the same: go on. Anyway Psicodelia was going to be an old-fashioned style in a very short of time (not more than two years).

Quoted from Wayne_L.

I voted yes because it is creatively, musically & artistically the Beatles true masterpiece with its back to basics rock & roll approach which defines them during the late 60's which is my favorite era of the band.

There is so much material on the White Album that isnt rock and roll that this statement is untrue. Out of 30 or so songs, I bet that not even 10 of them are considered rock songs. I'll have to check later.

This question is silly anyways. If the White Album is your favorite album than of course its their masterpiece. If its not then it isnt. Easy as that. For me personaly, I like Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, AHDN, Abbey Road, and Rubber Soul better.

It has its place, its sprawl is its charm, but a masterpiece not (imo of course). Its a good album from a time when lots of good bands were making good albums.
AHDN is a masterpiece (I think). Its unique - there is nothing in 1964 that even comes close. In fact I would say its beyond comparison. None else was making music as good as this. And its near perfect.

Quoted from GreenApple

I could never understand the fuss about TWA. Many have made it out to be the best of their albums. Adamzero is right; too many loose ends and un-Beatles stuff like Rocky Raccoon. Great stuff on it, but no way it's their best. I wish they had made it a single album, then did another single album later in '68 with other material.

I dont see how a song can be "Un-Beatle like stuff" If it is written by The Beatles.

Quoted from Mean_Mr_Mustard

I dont see how a song can be "Un-Beatle like stuff" If it is written by The Beatles.

I agree. What exactly is 'Un-Beatlelike stuff?' Its not my favorite album of theirs, but I still love the hell out of it, especially because of its diversity. They kept evolving and in 1968 this is where they were at, basically all over the place. And then what exactly is Beatle-like stuff? The songs you like?

Quoted from juniorsfarm

I agree. What exactly is 'Un-Beatlelike stuff?' Its not my favorite album of theirs, but I still love the hell out of it, especially because of its diversity. They kept evolving and in 1968 this is where they were at, basically all over the place. And then what exactly is Beatle-like stuff? The songs you like?

Of course, it's all personal taste and opinion, but I think a song like Rocky Raccoon has just wandered too far from Beatles sound.

Quoted from tkitna

There is so much material on the White Album that isnt rock and roll that this statement is untrue. Out of 30 or so songs, I bet that not even 10 of them are considered rock songs. I'll have to check later.

I counted 10 rock and roll songs

Quoted from juniorsfarm

I agree. What exactly is 'Un-Beatlelike stuff?' Its not my favorite album of theirs, but I still love the hell out of it, especially because of its diversity. They kept evolving and in 1968 this is where they were at, basically all over the place. And then what exactly is Beatle-like stuff? The songs you like?

Just again, to try and explain myself. The wandering they did on TWA, the diversity, which you admire - all respect to your view - just makes me personally want to listen to more mainstream Beatles sounding stuff. That's all I'm saying. So, I suppose I'm saying that I think some of that stuff sounds 'un-Beatles' in my view only. But, maybe others here agree with my view. And, maybe that's what George Martin meant by thinking it should have been a single album. I don't know. Anyway, just my view.  

Weird isn't it. I'm one of those who thinks its diversity is its strength. yet others see it as a flaw. It's a funny old world.

Quoted from raxo

Anyway Psicodelia was going to be an old-fashioned style in a very short of time (not more than two years).

But, then again, Pink Floyd made a long and fantastic career out of psychedelia.

Quoted from GreenApple

But, then again, Pink Floyd made a long and fantastic career out of psychedelia.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Out of psychedelia.

I'm here raxo! To debate TWA. Not much to add to what I said. I find it very sober, after the psychedelic stuff. Though I said I don't judge by albums, I just find it somehow wanton in it's scope. Maybe they felt so confident at that stage of their career, that they felt they could do music to please themselves, or there would be so many songs they could afford to play around with some of them. I never liked the title or the cover either. But the worst thing about it is that George was conned with only 4 songs out of 30!!! He didn't even get the 5 he was supposed to get!