Len Cnut Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 The people i like don't make shit music, it's sort of why i like em The Beatles, flawless, Moon era Who, flawless, The Smiths, flawless, The Sex Pistols, flawless, Jimi Hendrix, flawless, Marvin Gaye, flawless, class is unerring as well as permanent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 The people i like don't make shit music, it's sort of why i like em The Beatles, flawless, Moon era Who, flawless, The Smiths, flawless, The Sex Pistols, flawless, Jimi Hendrix, flawless, Marvin Gaye, flawless, class is unerring as well as permanent Some would argue Let it Be wasn't flawless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 The people i like don't make shit music, it's sort of why i like em The Beatles, flawless, Moon era Who, flawless, The Smiths, flawless, The Sex Pistols, flawless, Jimi Hendrix, flawless, Marvin Gaye, flawless, class is unerring as well as permanent Some would argue Let it Be wasn't flawless.What are the objections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 The people i like don't make shit music, it's sort of why i like em The Beatles, flawless, Moon era Who, flawless, The Smiths, flawless, The Sex Pistols, flawless, Jimi Hendrix, flawless, Marvin Gaye, flawless, class is unerring as well as permanent Some would argue Let it Be wasn't flawless.What are the objections?Not my own objections, but I've read that basically, outside of a few songs, it's crap. That songs like "Dig It" are shitty throways, Maggie May and whatnot are filler, and the only real shining lights are the well known songs. That it was basically a cobbled together mess. Ask someone like Cardi, I know he has strong feelings about Let it Be. I always enjoyed Let it Be for what it is: It's The Beatles without all the studio glitz, just as Lennon wanted it to be. It's perfect in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 How do you feel about Naked over Spector? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) How do you feel about Naked over Spector?Mixed feelings. On one hand, this was Paul's vision, and thus it's really not a Beatles product; it's just Paul fucking around and remixing it the way HE wanted to hear it, so it's not really representative of what The Beatles as a group would've wanted. The fact that he waited until after John and George were dead to do it stands against it as well. But Spector, on the other hand, went a little overboard with the orchestras and shit. Not everything needed touching up. But he did have Lennon and Harrison's blessing from what I understand. But getting down to the nitty gritty, I genuinely prefer the Spector takes over the takes Paul uses on Naked. Like, I've Got a Feeling, I much prefer that version, for example. One area where Naked excels is the inclusion of Don't Let Me Down (one of my favorite Beatles songs, actually) but again, I hate the take Paul used, and the same is true for many of the songs--Spector just took superior takes of the songs, and the mixing is more honest. I mean, Paul attempted to 'modernize' The Beatles sound in the mixing of Naked, moving the bass and whatnot here or there and various things, which I don't like. It's really hard to say. Honestly, if someone could come up with a fan made mix of the Get Back album, like before Spector or anyone touched it and it was what The Beatles as a group and no one else was intending, that'd probably be perfect. I do, however, in both versions prefer its honesty over Abbey Road's artificial "let's go out on a happy note"-ness. Edited November 22, 2014 by Dr. Who Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Im all for the Spector version myself although i remember really liking Naked when it came out.And Abbey Road, funnily enough, is an album i been listening to tons lately, probably my least listened to Beatles album (although even its had a few hundred thousand spins) particularly that weird Townshendesque second half, really grown to appreciate and love it fully this year, been listening to it tons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) Im all for the Spector version myself although i remember really liking Naked when it came out.And Abbey Road, funnily enough, is an album i been listening to tons lately, probably my least listened to Beatles album (although even its had a few hundred thousand spins) particularly that weird Townshendesque second half, really grown to appreciate and love it fully this year, been listening to it tons.I'm not saying Naked is a bad album or anything, it's just, it sounds too new, if that makes any sense?I honestly think that whole medly could've been expanded on, and should've been. I love the "Carry That Weight" bit, that's my favorite, that and 'She Came in Through th Bathroom Window'. There's a lot of awesome ideas on that album, each track really stands out as just awesome. I just don't like the fact that they purposely went in to make a final album that would hit all the right beats and appease the fan base. Music should be about making stuff you want to hear, not doing fan service or ending on a happy note when everything is the total opposite. The songs are great, it's just the intent going in was disingenuous. Like, I'd rather hear a muddy Let It Be, which was an expression of how The Beatles were REALLY feeling, than Abbey Road where it's all forced smiles. Edited November 22, 2014 by Dr. Who Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Sounds too new, yeah, thats exactly what i reckon too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Nothing they've said about Abbey Road was forced smiles, maybe they put differences aside to work on the album. They always made uplifting songs but that doesn't mean they were intentionally writing radio friendly hits, any more than Frank Zappa wrote songs with a pop hook and had explicit lyrics. George was ready to move on out of any of them. Once he had a #1 song, what was the point of being the little brother continuing to seek approval for his songs? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 They slowed down their songs from Bay Area thrash to more, mid-tempo Heavy Metal, while streamlining their arrangements; there were also two ballads in there, 'Nothing Else Matters' and 'The Unforgiven'. There is no doubt that the Black Album had the potential for mass appeal which their prior discography did not. Whether they deliberately 'sold out' is debatable. They could have inadvertently wished to simply pursue this direction, however, it is interesting that they started to put out loads of singles (five), with accompanying music promos, at this time. Formally, they had confided themselves to just one promo ('One') and around one-two single releases per LP. I think the question is, would another thrash album in the RTL-AJFA style have been better than the stylistically different, Black Album? Another thrash album released 1991 may have been tired, or self-parody. The problem is not with trash. Not with the main genre they chose to express themselves. Whatever music you're making as a musician now is cool as long as it reflects you and it's honest. They took it pretty far with AJFA, it was progressive trash, and it was great imo.The Black album was still metal. Called Metallica not Trashtallica, even though I feel they don't sound as much as themselves when they don't do trash. After 4 great trash albums it makes sense.But The Black album wasn't as good as those 4 previous albums. Still pretty good and later on they tried blusier stuff so at least they didn't just stood still artistically speaking.St. Anger was kinda nu metal/trash and Death Magnetic was the first time they gave up for me. It went backwards and they tried to work with a familiar formula and kinda make a hybrid of what worked before, not really pushing themselves forward.i agree almost 100% with this.the problem with metallica and the black album was never speed. slayer went as fast and heavy as you could with reign in blood and sodom did it with obsessed by cruelty. they took thrash to the limit and border lined on what became death metal. slayer then released south of heaven which was much slower, more melodic and it was still a great album. the black album by metallica just seemed hollow and kind of devoid of any feeling. it wasnt so much an album they were ready to make, but an album they were molded to make(if that makes any sense) listening to the demos and the clips from the vh1 "classic albums" segment from years ago, they didnt sound like a band that was all that ready to slow down. i dont care what style metallica chose to do as long as it was what they felt and what they wanted to do creatively, im not sure that is the case with the black album(outside of the unforgiven) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.