Re: Beatles gag, AV Club

Klosterman: The Beatles

Good for a chuckle. Particularly like his dig at the Stones.

As someone who has always felt that the Stones topped the Beatles (and everybody else) with their '68-'72 run, I did not find that dig funny.

And yet......I also found it very funny (ironically).

It is funny reading Pitchfork use the remasters as an excuse to review all the Beatles albums. They gave Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Magical Mystery Tour (?!) a perfect score of 10.0 today.

As for Beatles: The Rock Band, or whatever the hell it is called, I'll repeat my sentiment: If you love the music and crave to reproduce it, get some buds together in your living room with a drum kit, a bass, a guitar, a microphone, and a 6-pack, and play your heart out. Put the damn video games away and live a little.

Went to the record store at lunch today and they were completely sold out of Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road, but had plenty of copies of the rest of them. Don't know if that's a reflection of the popularity of those albums or if the store just didn't get enough of them in.

Hey Ira, what's your opinion on the remastered Sgt Pepper? Should we be prepared to have our collective minds all blown again?

Rock Band is capitalism's version of air guitar. Rock on!

While I was at the record store at lunch, I saw that Cheap Trick has released a live CD/DVD of them covering Sgt. Pepper.

[www.cheaptrick.com]

Could Ira's love of Cheap Trick overcome his disdain for Sgt. Pepper? Or would they battle to a draw?

:::adopts heavy Liverpudlian accent:::

"The Beatles Rock Band video game is more popular than Jesus!"

Hey, I think everything they did but the Yellow Submarine soundtrack is some sort of masterpiece, and Magical Mystery Tour the most underrated of the lot. A few of Sgt. Pepper's songs don't hold up outside of the confines of the album, but in context, they're fine.

Amen, Brother Nosepail!

From All Music Guide news...

On the eve of the release of The Beatles: Rock Band, the Rolling Stones’ former guitarist Bill Wyman has come out against Rock Band and Guitar Hero, saying at an Abbey Road recording session, “It makes less and less people dedicated to really get down and learn an instrument. I think it’s a pity so I’m not really keen on that kind of stuff.” [NME.com]

I am glad to know I think the same way as the 72-year old (!) Wyman.

My nephew and niece are learning to play instruments AND they play Rock Band with their dad. Of course, they picked up the real thing before they started playing the game.

Post Edited (01-13-10 16:41)

Yeah, I knew I was being conservative on that one. The four of us would be eyeing the two bottles remaining in the pack like a wolf looks at a plump chicken. Make it a case.

Re klosterman’s facile and superficial “summaries’


A dig at the stones?

I missed it. Oh, you mean the stones’ 12x5, Now, out of our heads, and December’s children were mere apings of early beatles?

Has he heard Please Please LP? It sounds like aftermath?


As far as the stones’ drying up post let it be

I’d take sticky and exile over 40 let it be’s and abbey roads together.

Klosterman’s an awful stylist, horrible critic, and so jejune in his hurried state to score one liners (who the fuck thinks he’s funny btw? Paul is dead paul is dead paul is dead ahem) that analysis and purpose and insight are pushed aside for entertainment weekly-like grades and "pop" criticism

ugh

And giving everything an A is hardly discriminating or defining

Yesterday is a signature cut? Worse song on that LP


He gets paid to write this crap:

Will history ultimately validate Magical Mystery Tour as the band’s signature work? Only time will tell.


Jesus! that’s the same diction in a mag devoted to selena Gomez.

Yes, I find Klosterman funny. To a slight degree. He’s not a serious critic. He is a pop-culture writer. I think it’s absurd to revile him, or this piece in particular. It would be like getting upset over a Knock Knock joke, or a Letterman monologue.

As for the Stones, well, as a life-long music lover who avoided them for thirty-three years, I'll say this. I believe their albums from Banquet to Exile are absolutely essential. I too would keep Sticky Fingers and Exile over the Beatles' last two [I hate Abbey Road, though I love Let It Be.]

But what the Stones did after 1969 should be out of the equation. Had the Beatles stayed together, would they have made another album to match Exile? I put it at 50-50.

[Klosterman didn’t suggest the Stones “dried up” after the Beatles. He just said they stopped changing/innovating. They still made great music but it was all (to put it kindly) variations on a theme. (and I say that as someone with no problem for ‘70s Stones. My favourite post- Exile
work is the ballad side of Tattoo You .)]

But compared to the timeframe of the Beatles own recording-lifetime [just under eight years] no one else comes close to their growth, and overall quality of output. Even on their early, covers-heavy discs the Beatles made everything their own, infusing it with their energy and joy, and generally matching the excellence of the source material. The Stones first five albums are hardly remarkable and Jagger is often outright embarrassing. The Stones may not have been aping early Beatles, but they were (poorly) mimicking their R&B heroes. Unlike the Beatles, there wasn’t any alchemy going on.

I would gladly take any twenty songs at random from the Nuggets boxset over any of the Stones albums up to (and including) Aftermath .

You do realize that the article was a joke right? A breezy gag written from the perspective of someone who had never heard of the Beatles?

I'm almost inclined to read your post as a similar stab at humour. How else could you dismiss "Yesterday" as NOT a signature song. Granted, there are hundreds upon hundreds of songs I'd rather hear, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize "Yesterday" as a great song. The only reason I can see for outright disliking it is because it's popular- which is a retarded reason not to like something otherwise excellent.

Also, would it likewise be indiscriminate or ill-defined to give A-ratings to each of the Stones' '68-72 records?



Post Edited (09-13-09 21:52)

I believe Jimmy Guterman tried to do this sort of thing for Musician magazine the first time the CD's came out, and got pretty much the same reaction.

I think that the difference between the two bands is the difference between pop and rock; one is built on structure, the other built on a kind of "where the songs take you". The Beatles were the best pop ever, and the Rolling Stones the best rock band from about 66-72. Too bad the Stones couldn't build on Exile, and figure out a way to keep from becoming as stagnant as they seem on some of those 70's albums (Goat's Head Soup?).

I was talking to my wife about great collected works by artists, as I was downloading the Sinatra Concept Album box set onto my computer. The box actually says its the greatest run of albums ever made by an artist. Possibly true, given the awesomeness contained on them, but we then started trying to find comparisons, and hit on the obvious ones: Beatles 65-67, Stones 68-72, Costello 77-80, Dylan 64-68. Any others? I mean, I'd put the early Mothers of Invention LP's, from Freak out up to Weasels, Burnt and Uncle Meat, right up there with them.

Excellent Stones vs Beatles breakdown. I think we're all in agreement here (except perhaps on the comedic merits of Klostermann)

Some great runs that come to mind:

Duke Ellington: 29-74 (!)
Zep: 69-75
SY: 87-06
Stevie W: 71-76
Hank W: 47-52

I might actually argue that Bowie's run right from Man Of Words, Man Of Music through to Scary Monsters is the best consecutive string after the Beatles'.

And though I don't like some of the production, The Cure's run from Three Imaginary Boys to Disintegration is mightily impressive, and kinda overlooked. The sound gets in the way of the songs sometimes (often?) but as far as songwriting and stylistic breadth goes, they were pretty damn great.

This is a very interesting topic. While I believe Costello's run may not be matched, here are some of my favorite hot streaks:

Springsteen: 1975-82
Wire: 1976-80
The Jam: 1977-81
The Clash: 1970-82
Prince: 1980-87
The Replacements: 1981-84
REM: 1982-86
New Order: 1982-89
Spoon: 2001-07
The Hold Steady: 2004-08

The Who 65-75
John Martyn 71-80

By my calculations, you can pick up the entire (stereo) remastered catalog at Target for about 180 US dollars, and receive $35 worth of Target Gift Cards...

Now, if you want to go the mono route, things get a bit pricier.

I rarely tire of the Beatles, yet I was tired of Chuck Klosterman pretty much the same moment his first aphorism landed on the computer screen.

It's weird how, about every 10 years or so, The Beatles suddenly re-enter the public consciousness big time. I know a big part of it is the almost perfect narrative arc of their career -- not an original idea, but it's true. The Sex Pistols almost have as good a story, but they blew it by reuniting -- for the money!

Which I think is awesome. And the Dallas stop on the reunion tour wasn't bad. Steve Jones kept trying to get the crowd to chant "Grassy Knoll! Grassy Knoll!" It did not take.

blasmo wrote:

> It's weird how, about every 10 years or so, The Beatles
> suddenly re-enter the public consciousness big time.

Sorta like how Disney re-releases classic animated features like Cinderella every 10 years. Funny how that works.

I'm enjoying how the pundits who are in a rush to bury physical music are pointing to the Beatles re-issues as "the last big event of the CD era," which they also said about the rush on Michael Jackson CDs after his death, and they had previously said about Chinese Democracy.

I'm not saying that the CD isn't a dying form. It might be. But all this reminds me of the old man in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who keeps protesting that he's not dead. Every time the wise minds declare it dead, something comes along and the format reminds everyone it's not dead yet.

breno wrote:

> I'm not saying that the CD isn't a dying form. It might be. But
> all this reminds me of the old man in Monty Python and the
> Holy Grail who keeps protesting that he's not dead. Every
> time the wise minds declare it dead, something comes along and
> the format reminds everyone it's not dead yet.

Until the accuracy of most people's playback equipment exceeds the sound quality of the CD storage media--and given my experience this isn't going to happen any time soon--the CD will not really be dead, although the industry might wish it to be so given the ease with which the digital data from it may be copied.

Of course, The Beatles/Apple's steadfast refusal to release any of their stuff digitally plays a huge role in the success of this particular resurgence. It will be interesting to see where these discs end up on the charts for the week and the year.

I'm no audiophile, but the 7 Beatles stereo remasters I've listened to (Please Please Me, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, The Beatles/The White Album, and Abbey Road) really do sound vastly superior to the earlier CD versions. It seems like they brought back some of the weird stereo trickeration that was more pronounced on the vinyl versions, too.

There's nothing revolutionary (#1, #9 or otherwise) about anything I've heard, but if you've been consistently listening to these albums in one form or another your whole life, I think you'll find much to appreciate about the remasters.

This is exactly the kind of assessment I'm looking for. I don't have a complete set of Beatles albums, but I think I'll start picking up the remasters for the ones I like most and see how it feels.

"But what the Stones did after 1969 should be out of the equation. Had the Beatles stayed together, would they have made another album to match Exile? I put it at 50-50."

I know where you're coming from with this line of reasoning, but it's not out of the equation if you feel Exile tops any previous Beatles album, and feel the Beatles had peaked earlier ('65-'66). That's the way I have always felt about it - that for me, the Stones top records win out, even if they do not have the same amount of great records or those records do not cover as wide a musical terrain.

What always messes up the discussion with the Beatles and the Stones is the fact that The Beatles were making great albums as far back as '64, while the Stones were merely making great singles up until '68 (or '66 depending on how high you rank Aftermath, etc.)



Post Edited (09-14-09 13:52)

Roxy Music - debut through Siren
Eno - the "pop" albums
Kraftwerk - title track of Autobahn through Computer World
Talking Heads - 77 through Speaking in Tongues
Neko Case - Furnace Room Lullaby through Middle Cyclone
Mark Heard - final three albums before he dropped dead

Midnight Oil - Head Injuries --> Earth & Sun & Moon
Simple Minds - Real to Reel Cacophany --> Sparkle in the Rain
Bowie - Station to Station --> Scary Monsters

For me it's these 3 (with of course nods to Neil Young, Beatles , Dylan too) :

Stones 68-72

Costello - 77-81 : Best "first 5" of any Rock artist (I love Trust to death, I'll take Trust over any subsequent Costello record including Imperial Bedroom and Blood & Chocolate).

Mats' 84-'87

Kinks '66 to at least '69 and probably through 71/72 is an impressive run as well........



Post Edited (09-14-09 14:03)

Speaking of the Stones, how about this sad story?

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Wow, that story about Mick Taylor is unbelievably sad. The guitarist who brought us Sway and Moonlight Mile, two of the greatest rock songs in history, cant pay his water bill, while his old band-mates all have 9 digit bank accounts? Jesus.

Btw, can we not refer to Mick Taylor as a "virtuoso" ? He is not a virtuoso in ANY sense of the word. Damn good rock guitarist: yes. Virtuoso: no way.



Post Edited (09-14-09 23:29)