Chat! culturecrossfire.slack.com

The Beatles thread

Kamala The Simp

Integral Poster
Astrid Kircherr, the German photographer who was engaged to Stuart Sutcliffe and was the Beatles best friend in Hamburg days, died.
 

Kamala The Simp

Integral Poster
Happy 80th Birthday Ringo Starr. He gets a lot of shit for being the "Least Important Beatle" but I don't think they would have been the same band with another drummer. And I honestly think his style works really well with the band (See "A Day in the Life". And the least important Beatle is still pretty fucking great! I'm enough of a Ringo fan that I even like some solo stuff. And he's the only Beatle to play in Maine!

peaceandlovepeaceandlovepeaceandlove
 

Kamala The Simp

Integral Poster
See a lot of the descriptions/criticisms I hear of Ringo's drumming (solid, nondescript workmanlike), I would use for Charlie Watts. Ringo, whether you like his style of playing or not, certainly has a unique way of playing the drums. I love love love The Stones and get closer each passing year to siding with them in the Beatles Vs Stones argument but there's not a Stones song where Charlie's drumming really impresses me.
 

Valeyard

Burn
It gets too different for me to take sides in a Stones vs Beatles debate. Easiest answer I remember hearing was the Beatles were a better pop band and the Stones were a better rock band, but even then I have trouble. Beatles wanted to hold hands, Stones wanted to fuck, the Who wanted to talk shit, and the Kinks just made fun of everyone from the corner of the room.
 

Kamala The Simp

Integral Poster
But Beatles had too many great rockers and Stones had too many great pop songs to put them in those respective pigeon holes. Also as Lemmy described, The Beatles were legitimately tougher than The Stones (who were kind of poseurs).
 

SFH

Integral Poster
Anytime one of my Music academic friends tries to corner me on "Column a" or "column b" and I can't give a satisfactory answer firm, I just assume my middle ground speaks to my ignorance. I like everyone @The Valeyard listed. I was never either/or with the Stones and Beatles. Why do we have to pick? The Beatles were fantastic, and still are. Hell even Elvis covered some of their stuff in his later career and I have the biggest music man crush on Elvis this side of the Mississippi. And The Stones were amazing to listen to in all eras. Music should unite, not divide, ideally.
 

Valeyard

Burn
It isn't a legit division, just discussion. People can like whatever they want. Both bands made great stuff, both made garbage. No act is infallible.

That being said, no act has ever had a double-shot like Rubber Soul and Revolver. That's nuts.
 

Kamala The Simp

Integral Poster
I would say The Beatles made the least amount of garbage of any band ever but that's easy when you only essentially last seven years. Even a lot of "bad" Beatles songs are still good compared to most music.

(That last sentence might've been the most boomer-y thing I have ever written)
 

Valeyard

Burn
Stones had more garbage by far, just because of longevity. I think, if you want to have that debate, it'd be deep cuts vs deep cuts from probably 1964 to 1970. Stones had better overall records to me because they paced everything really well and there's a lot less slow spots. Beatles low moments stick out hard compared to the good ones, but with amazing production. You can kind of see it when the White Album just runs out of steam by the end.

It's been a few years but I will say Their Satan Majesties Request was at least as good if not better than Sgt. Pepper.
 

Kamala The Simp

Integral Poster
New issue of Rolling Stone has a great article on the breakup of The Beatles. #StuffBoomersSay
 

Kamala The Simp

Integral Poster
Today would've been John Lennon's 80th birthday. If that ponce Mark David Chapman hadn't shot him, there's a fairly decent chance he'd still be alive today releasing music (that only me and @The Valeyard and a few other Beatles nerds care about and even that is a reach).
 

HarleyQuinn

Laugh This Off... Puddin'!
Staff member
One thing that's always intrigued me is whether The Beatles would've been as good if they had come along at a later time when songs started being pushed longer in length? I always got the vibe with a lot of the 1950s/1960s acts that their release production was so much precisely due to the great majority of their songs being between 2:00 and 3:00 in length. From a songwriting (and performance) perspective, it would seem that a shorter song means less overall time necessarily be given to performance/editing/etc. in comparison to say a 4:00 or 5:00 song.


A table in the above article shows The Beatles released 7 Albums in basically 4 years (97 Songs). As the songs started getting longer, they then released just an album a year with it being 3 Albums in 3 Years (60 songs ignoring Yellow Submarine).
 

BorneAgain

Integral Poster
I've seen talk that there will be some sort of re-release of Let it Be at the time time as Get Back, so there's a decent chance they'll get a dual release next August.
 

geniusMoment

Trailer Park Supervisor
If that hadn't been released Justin Bieber would be cleaning the bathrooms at a Buc-ee's somewhere in Florida and Ariana Grande would be working on season 50 of Sam and Cat.
 

Kamala The Simp

Integral Poster
I would have agreed that this feat is unmatchable 10 years ago but the way Billboard chart algorithims are these days with downloads and crap, I'm not sure if I still feel the same way. Drake's last few albums had like all 20 tracks show up in the Hot 100.

I will sure get spitting feathers mad though if and when some Gen Zer tries to claim Aubrey is better than Lennon/McCartney.
 
Top