Favorite pressing of Sgt. Peppers ?

[jayswin]

So no more votes for Ob La Di, eh?

[Traditional_Ale]

The Beatles are like the original hipsters. Real men prefer the Stones.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The Beatles are like the original hipsters. Real men prefer the Stones.

funny you say that

this thread had me listen to Sgt's Pepper's then I moved to Revolver (a superior album) and then onto a master piece, Beggar's Banquet.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The Beatles are like the original hipsters. Real men prefer the Stones.

Wouldn't the Stones have been the original hipsters? The Beatles were a lot more poppy.

I think both are great, but McCartney is twice the musician against anyone in the Stones. Even looking at their post-70s output, McCartney has made some genuinely great albums (his last few including and since Memory Almost Full have been fantastic) whereas the Stones are still running on the nostalgia of "We're the Stones!"

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Wouldn't the Stones have been the original hipsters? The Beatles were a lot more poppy.

I think both are great, but McCartney is twice the musician against anyone in the Stones. Even looking at their post-70s output, McCartney has made some genuinely great albums (his last few including and since Memory Almost Full have been fantastic) whereas the Stones are still running on the nostalgia of "We're the Stones!"

A conversation as old as time.

One thing that amazes me about the Stones it their ability to survive and remain relevant (yeah I get it they ain't been in some years, but they are 100 yrs old now). It is a case of the sum being better than the parts.

Much like with athletes there is something to be said about longevity.

Often it comes down to personal taste when you discuss Beatles v Stones.

[PepsiFree]

The fact that the Stones are still together is amazing. Both from a typical band politics perspective and from a human health perspective.

[Harry Lime]

The seperation for me is that the Stones absolutely need each other in order to operate at such a high level, and the Beatles are individually geniuses. (there is a joke here about apple)

I read Keiths book 'Life', and all it did was convince me that Richards is the luckiest SOB who has ever lived. He backed into success so fully he somehow conned the devil.

[Traditional_Ale]

I prefer the Stones because they were a bunch of white British kids that played essentially their own take on black American blues. The Beatles, while more musically complex their compositions are firmly rooted in the white European tradition.

On this note, I would take Zeppelin, Queen, The Who, Cream, David Bowie, The Kinks, Pink Floyd, and hell, even Radiohead to a desert island over the Beatles.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I prefer the Stones because they were a bunch of white British kids that played essentially their own take on black American blues. The Beatles, while more musically complex their compositions are firmly rooted in the white European tradition.

On this note, I would take Zeppelin, Queen, The Who, Cream, David Bowie, The Kinks, Pink Floyd, and hell, even Radiohead to a desert island over the Beatles.

Pre-Ok Computer only.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean there's literally two albums pre-OK Computer, and Pablo Honey is universally seen as terrible, so....The Bends lol.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I mean there's literally two albums pre-OK Computer, and Pablo Honey is universally seen as terrible, so....The Bends lol.

Fine I'll chuck in Ok as well, but past that it becomes musical wanking.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I prefer the Stones because they were a bunch of white British kids that played essentially their own take on black American blues. The Beatles, while more musically complex their compositions are firmly rooted in the white European tradition.

Which totally ignores the heavy influence of artists like Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Ravi Shankar on The Beatles.

You could also argue that the Stones' sound was simply derivative of American Blues, while The Beatles actually innovated by combining different genres and musical styles in ways that hadn't been done before (especially in pop music).

Though anyone who would take The Kinks to a desert island over The Beatles gets their opinion disqualified anyway. And I like The Kinks.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Wouldn't the Stones have been the original hipsters? The Beatles were a lot more poppy.

I think both are great, but McCartney is twice the musician against anyone in the Stones. Even looking at their post-70s output, McCartney has made some genuinely great albums (his last few including and since Memory Almost Full have been fantastic) whereas the Stones are still running on the nostalgia of "We're the Stones!"

Charlie Watt is the best musician in either band.

[N-E-B]

Fun thread. I’ve listened to every Beatles album extensively. My personal rankings of all Beatles albums:

1. Rubber Soul
2. Sgt. Peppers
3. Abbey Road
4. Revolver
5. Help!
6. Magical Mystery Tour
7. White Album
8. Let It Be
9. Please Please Me
10. A Hard Days Night
11. With The Beatles
12. Beatles for Sale
13 Yellow Submarine*

There’s two clear eras of Beatles music and any album could be at any place on this list. It’s all personal taste. I much prefer Rubber Soul and later.

*Debatable if it counts as an album or not. Personally I don’t consider it to be a true album so I put it last but others do count it.

[Fuzz]

I find their songs good, but if I have to hear more than 5 Beatles songs in a row, my interest drops off rapidly.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Though anyone who would take The Kinks to a desert island over The Beatles gets their opinion disqualified anyway. And I like The Kinks.

How so? I don't know if I can argue that the Kinks' highs are as high as the Beatles but on average they have way more good songs, in my opinion. Even their 80s stuff has a few gems.

If you want to include solo stuff it tips back in favour of the Beatles but I reach for the Kinks more often so they're my choice.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

How so? I don't know if I can argue that the Kinks' highs are as high as the Beatles but on average they have way more good songs, in my opinion. Even their 80s stuff has a few gems.

If you want to include solo stuff it tips back in favour of the Beatles but I reach for the Kinks more often so they're my choice.

Be sure to get shipwrecked on the same island then.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I find their songs good, but if I have to hear more than 5 Beatles songs in a row, my interest drops off rapidly.

You might be listening to the wrong songs.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You might be listening to the wrong songs.

OK, give me 6 Beatles songs you think I'll make it through, I'll listen to them in a row and see if my opinion changes.

[calumniate]

The Shaggs were better than the Beatles