Does anyone else face the same problem with this band as me?
Literally every album has at least two low points that prevent it from being a front-to-back "no skips" sort of listen. The highs on their albums from A Hard Day's Night through to the end of their career and most of their singles from the same period are genuinely some of the best pop music I've ever heard, but these faggots could not put together a single perfect album. Every single one has at least two stinkers that I either skip completely or am just extremely apathetic towards.
Pic related is the closest thing to perfect they ever got imo. Yellow Submarine is a brick fucking wall and I have to skip it, and Good Day Sunshine is a just okay track I can take or leave depending on my mood. The fact that these two songs occur right in the middle of the album make it even more annoying.
Everyone outside of Cred Forums seems to think their run from '65 to '69 is flawless, save for the White Album which gets the odd disparaging comment. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing what COULD be a flawless streak if it wasn't for Paul churning out granny shit, Ringo writing any songs, and leaving mind fuckingly good singles off of albums that they clearly belong on.
I'm with you. The best albums they've written are all 7/10. But there are 8/10 and even 9/10 songs on those albums, too.
Nicholas Stewart
The Sun King is one of my least favorite songs of all time, it's a disgrace that it made it's way on a Beatles album.
Btw, paul's "granny shit" is infinitely preferable to George's hindu nonsense and John's milquetoast blues knockoffs.
Isaac Turner
FUCK Doctor Robert. I don't know how anyone can think Revolver is their best album when arguably the worst song they ever did is on it.
James Sullivan
everything about this post screams 'shit taste' so good job
Joshua Harris
This. Paul's "granny shit" is so much fun, especially compared to George/John's weaker moments. Paul knew how to make chill, lighthearted tunes.
Bentley Stewart
They should've switched Yellow Submarine for Rain
Matthew Brooks
>Btw, paul's "granny shit" is infinitely preferable to George's hindu nonsense and John's milquetoast blues knockoffs.
Didn't mean to imply those were acceptable, just that Paul's granny shit is worse. Within You Without You is such a stain on Sgt. Pepper's. Love You To is a great take on Indian classical music because it effectively fuses it with pop rock (and the reversed guitar lean is a kickass effect), but Within You Without You is literally just Indian classical music.
I don't hate it THAT much. I think everything but the "well well well you're feeling fine" bit is a little dull and sort of retread-y. Probably the 3rd worst song on Revolver though.
Not that I have much super wrong with his light tunes, but they keep fucking showing up on albums that could otherwise be taken as excellent, serious works of art rock (especially Sgt. Pepper's).
Mr. Moonlight was such a mistake. Even the Beatles hated it.
Andrew Adams
"Chill" music is not "fun." It lacks motive and is only good background noise. "Chill" is in fact a bad descriptor for any music. Usually just there to fill up the silence
Christian Cooper
Sgt. Peppers could've been a 10/10 had they put in Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane, but no they put stupid shit like Fixing a Hole and When I'm Sixty Four
I agree with you OP, every albums has 10/10 highs, but one or two mediocre songs.
Although I find it weird that my favorite of theirs is the White Album which is just filler tracks, it actually kinda works on that album.
Justin Gomez
What irks me most about Revolver and pretty much all music pre-1967 is god awful guitar tone. No distortion (which is pretty much a prequisite for rock) and just overall very weak sounding. It's probably why I've always preferred their early acoustic stuff like I love her, norwegian wood and I'm only sleeping
They didn't get the rock sound right until the white album.
Easton Sanchez
the guitar tone on Revolver is god tier and fits the music perfectly case in point: she said she said
Matthew Price
That's a fair personal pet peeve, I suppose. I can't get enough of that guitar tone. Especially on She Said She Said and Rain. That shit's fucking mint.
James Wilson
Nigga the Beatles didn't even write it. Might as well say Act Naturally or What Goes On is their worst.
Thomas Campbell
>When I'm Sixty Four This. Those clarinets make me want to kill myself.
Isaac Martin
Revolver has objectively one of the best guitar tones ever.
Connor Collins
I have the same problem with all music. I hardly would complain about The Beatles, they make among the most consistent albums of all time.
I can barely think of one album that's lacks a bad song. I guess Master of Reality is as good as it gets for me. Maybe Tago Mago depending how you feel about the second LP.
Angel Peterson
OP here. Same. I can think of like... 4? albums I've ever heard that are totally flawless front to back. I'm not slighting the Beatles because they couldn't achieve what barely any artist could, I'm more just responding to the fact that the Beatles, more than any other band I can think of, are heralded for their amazingly consistent 10/10 albums in the latter half of their career, and I'm not seeing/hearing it. It's just slightly more egregious with them because, again, their highs are so great so it feels like a wasted opportunity.
Ryder Carter
Could it be that perfection is inherently unattainable, even for the Beatles?
Also recall that they were writing in the moment. They had no idea that half a century later (and long after 2 of them were dead) that their music would still be appreciated and analyzed.
Nolan Powell
Listen again. There is quite a bit of distortion/overdrive in the album. Too bad they didn't have the brut4l boss metal zones in the 60s, with the bass cranked and mids at 0, which surely would've made it so much better and powerful... Seriously though, I've always thought the tone was pretty good, and fitting.
Austin Ortiz
sgt pepper only has 6 good songs but those good songs are great so its ok i guess before you ask it's the first 4, lovely rita and a day in the life
Adrian Bennett
Wow you're right
Easton Bennett
I think the flaws of their albums like Paul's granny songs, Ringos qt singles, and George's traditional Indian music are more part of "The Beatles" than they are about making the album good. Their lack of 10/10s is a casualty from their prolificness. They never really "aimed" to make a great album in the sense of pouring all effort, and when they did, they still fell back on their talent of making really good, radio-friendly songs. Sgt. Pepper was supposed to be their best with the beginning and end tracks, but due to studios already giving them so much time (in the eyes of the industry in the 60s) they were sorta forced to fall back on their roots, granny songs and Indian music, but another effect of that was they had a wider appeal by including different genres in the album. So if you're the kind of person who enjoyed switching quickly between a wide variety of genres on the radio rather than sitting into half an hour of only rock or only country then their albums were 10/10s. Our conception of albums today is very different, and in an art sense, it's now about creating a single unique experience back to back.
Brayden Powell
Also another major part of The Beatles' success was in fact their image (John the sarcastic, Paul the romancer, Ringo the lovable, and George the mysterious). They were above and beyond aware of that (look at their first 2 films). Therefore their albums for commercial purposes required them to include their personalities in the tracks (George gets a weird track, Ringo has to be cute, Paul has to make something romantic, John needs to be edgy). They were more like projects that milked off their charisma in a sense.
Joshua White
Perfection is attainable. [See: The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds]
Also Abbey Road is probably perfection.
Levi Roberts
These are fair points. It's hard to say for sure whether or not what approach or mentality the Beatles had when making their latter career albums, but I'd be willing to accept your perspective.
But I don't think our modern day conception of albums is that different from the late 60s and on. People were turned onto making cohesive statements with their albums by then, and the Beatles could have been among them, but just decided not to be.
And my OP was me venting anger at the Beatles for being eclectic/prolific and more me venting anger at the Beatles for not being consistent in terms of *quality* when there were so many opportunities to BE consistent.
Liam Jones
Sgt. Peppers would be unreal if it included Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane instead of Good Morning and one of the other tracks no one cares about. They really fucked that up lol.
Gavin Myers
Abbey Road and Rubber Soul are the one that suffer the least of this. The worst song on Abbey Road is still pretty good, and that Ringo song on Rubber Soul is okay, I don't hate it I guess.
Easton Bailey
I think on Sgt Peppers they are all on the same page and geared to make a perfect album together (with Martin of course!).
The Ringo qt single is a legitimately triumphant song and the only good use of his voice ever. I can't really defend When I'm Sixty Four but it goes down easier than later stuff and feels well incorporated into the flow of the album. "She's Leaving Home" is on the short list of GOAT Paul songs, and elsewhere he's still on the top of his game, and at his most Lennon-esque ("Fixing a Hole", and of course the last track).
Also people talk shit about "Within You Without You" so perhaps it's just my opinion, but I adore it, a welcome moment of calm in the middle of all this dense material.
So I guess I would say Sgt Peppers has no bad songs and is their most perfect rec
Luis Cox
should also include It's All Too Much instead of Within You Without You
Evan Phillips
Abbey Road is their most overrated album. It's basically where the Beatles started branching out and incorporating new musical styles (funk, r&b, extended improvisation). The entry-level listener typically has their mind blown by this, because all they heard before was the Beatles doing more Beatlesque shit.
But of course many of these elements are weak tea on Abbey Road compared to the real thing. For example the drum solo and guitar solo in "The End" are totally rudimentary compared to what bands who really did this shit were doing (Iron Butterfly eg).
Ditto the whole "medley"/revisiting themes concept vs actual incipient prog rock like Yes and King Crimson.
Tyler Hill
I knew there was some sort of distortion in there, but it definitely didn't make up for the tone they got from the guitars. John played a Gibson I think? which feels far too twangy compared to the deeper sound of the Stratocaster.
Colton Myers
The Beatles were "incorporating new musical styles" since Rubber Soul. Abbey Road doesn't blow away people because they're impressed with the funk and improv elements, it impresses people because it is just a really fucking solid rock album.
Jacob Perry
what are some albums that have your favorite guitar tones?
Josiah Mitchell
>What Goes On
That was written by Lennon-McCartney
Andrew Moore
>funk, r&b, extended improvisation don't forget doom metal
Caleb Evans
>The Beatles were "incorporating new musical styles" since Rubber Soul. There are basically the same elements from Rubber Soul through White Album. Other than middle eastern / raga, it's all just variations on the same pop psych they are best known for. There are of course a few exceptions but come on, "Come Together" is a COMPLETELY different tonality than anything they had done before, whereas you can see precursors of Revolution 9 in Tomorrow Never Knows and that sort of thing.
And I agree that it's a solid rock album (although it has my very least favorite Beatles song on it), but for fuck's sake Rubbers through Magical Mystery just annihilate it on every level, and I have no other explanation for why Cred Forums is such a sucker for it
Fuck yeah, and that is my favorite song on the album too (along with Sun King and Something)
Samuel Foster
Jimi Hendrix - Band of Gypsys The Beatles - The Beatles The Who - Live at Leeds
Brayden Nguyen
Their later career albums are questionable I'll give you that. I think it's because the idea of a full experience (pop, I should've clarified) album like Pet Sounds was still new and yet to be explored. Sgt. Pepper was more of an early experiment in that sense by The Beatles to see if they can get away with making more interesting music than Help or A Hard Day's Night. After it's tremendous success they had the studio finally gave them more freedom after years of pressure to make what they wanted. Beatles for Sale was almost like a tantrum and very revealing of their frustrations. For the next albums this was their newfound strength and their ultimate popularity downfall. See what happened with reactions to the Magical Mystery Tour. So despite opportunities the right conditions simply never found the chance to push them to make something that was great, what they wanted, and what everyone else wanted. It's a very complicated triangle. Ehhhh, they didn't from what I saw of it. Revolver is where they really worked together. George was finally getting some breathing room as part of the songwriting duo, but that was all actually due to John pretty much stepping out of leadership that year. Immediately after you get Paul having the idea of Sgt Pepper and the majority of songs end up his with John's occasional home-brewed nostalgic jingle and George once again stuck with only a single song which he chose to make (no offense) very contrasting with the initial concept. Paul adding a laugh track at the end and continuing to When I'm Sixty Four feels like he was trying to make comic relief of George's work (which works with the "show" idea but also indicates trouble starting between them). Honestly I like Within You and Without You as a work on its own but once it comes on in the album I get uncomfortable knowing it's a negative sign of things to come.
Jack Gutierrez
Lennon-McCartney-Starkey
Brandon Sanders
...
Hudson Parker
I recommend reading the book A Day in the Life. The journalist who wrote it had access to the complete studio sessions, including all the banter between tracks, you get to a pretty clear idea of where they were at psychologically at each point.
I feel you that there is this ongoing narrative of George getting shafted, standing up for himself, The White Album being this democratic "everybody gets to do the same number of songs" notion that ended up kind of a disaster, etc.
I guess I would revise what I said to say that the John and Paul were more in sync here than they ever would be again (you can't imagine "A Day in the Life" happening before or after... you basically get it + "We Can Work it Out" and that's fucking it for their actual collaborative work!).
But anyway tl;dr you make good and valid points.
Liam Garcia
i think chill can mean a lot of things.
I can think of chill, fun music.
chill brah
Joseph Young
satisfaction came out in 65 and was one of the best uses of distortion ever in rock and roll music
Luis White
You are confusing the phenomenon of people using the word in obnoxious ways, with the meaning the term is actually intended to carry.
Nicholas Thompson
The Beatles just weren't interested in phat tone... Fresh Cream and Disreali Gears had already come out by the time White Album dropped
Michael Kelly
The Beatles never put out a bad song. I can listen to every album both U.S. and British from start to finish w/o skipping any songs.
Ian Scott
Might give that a read, thanks. Most of what I said was from personal speculation and reading a few things about the trouble leading to their breakup so it might help clarify the thoughts in my head.
Yeah A Day in the Life was definitely a reflection of their chemistry. The planets were pretty much aligned there. Too bad John and George weren't as into the project and participated like Paul and too bad they didn't have the time or ability to work out their issues and the album. Otherwise Sgt. Pepper would've been Revolver 5.0.
Also, another reason I think there isn't more personal collaboration between the two was because of (I hate to say this) Yoko fuckin Ono. But whatever, The Beatles happened and they had solid shit. Ima listen to them now. lol
Asher Evans
In a sense this is true, I can't get excited about a lot of their material but it's all solidly put together, well performed music (although in some songs they all sound like they're sitting down, but hey that's what the Stones are for!)
Christopher Powell
Yeah I wasn't trying to bring up that book in a "haha I know more than you" sense but just to say yeah, from what I've read I can corroborate what you are saying.