RE: Getting it all together

[ckt@best.com (Chris Thomas)]

>"Really? That kinda contradicts your earlier statements. The Beatles were
>recorded far more better than The Who during the same period..."
>
>This is highly debatable.

No, actually, I'd say that's a fact, not a debatable opinion:  the Beatles
were recorded very, very well, AND all of their master tapes minus TWO
(or three; certainly only one of importance is missing) are still available.
Compare this to the Who.  I have no doubt at all that Shel Talmy's tapes
are great quality, but compare the sound quality of Rubber Soul (1965) to
Tommy.  Tommy might contain better music (or might not) but it certainly
wasn't recorded terribly well.

>As rock became harder, the Beatles still sounded like the fab four,
> increasingly irrelevant.

>Just compare I Feel Fine to Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere - two contemporaneous
> numbers.

I think you're making the mistake of using the Who as a yardstick for
measuring the progress of rock.  The Who were one of those bands which
defined (cf expanded) the parameters between which rock could fit.  The
Beatles were closer to a yardstick.

>Even Lennon found the vocals on left, backing tracks on right to be
>"flippin' lousy".

George Martin has an interesting quote about this.

Chris