[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Getting it all togetherSun Dec 7 13:17:06 PST 1997



----------
From: 	Chris Thomas[SMTP:ckt@best.com]
Sent: 	Friday, January 12, 1996 6:44 PM
To: 	thewho@mpath.com
Subject: 	RE: Getting it all together

>"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.

I happen to think Tommy sounds better. There was always too much hiss in the 
Rubber Soul recordings to suit me.

>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

I am not making a mistake - I am making a claim. While the Who was pounding out "Young Man's Blues" and doing stuff like Tommy, the Beatles were recording "Something". A wonderful song, but not having much to do with rock (Sinatra did it best IMHO). I love them, but I look at the Beatles in vain for:

a) truly great showmanship - compared to PT and KM? Come on.
b) a Rock Opera
c) punk rock 
d) R&B ala James Brown as opposed to Smokey Robinson
e) credible Jimmy Reed or other bluesman covers. 
f) staying power ( 1958-1970 as opposed to 1963-1982 )

etc. They are a perfect yardstick for measuring rock's progress in my mind.

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.

Yes, Martin has, as PT once said, made a career out of explaining and "still explaining" some more. But I prefer Talmy's output by far. I can post Talmy's discography if people are interested - he sent it to me last year. It is awesome.

-g