Poll

Which half of the Beatles was better?

63, 64, 65, 66
3 (33.3%)
67, 68, 69, 70
6 (66.7%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Author Topic: Which half of the Beatles was better?  (Read 2497 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which half of the Beatles was better?
« on: January 23, 2011, 08:59:04 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
So this is my point.  The Beatles were a very different bad at the end than the beginning.

They started going in a more creative philosophical drug induced free love sorta direction.  You know what I mean.  I love a lot of their work.

But which half was better?  More significant.  You know.  If you had to have a band come out of nowhere and have half the Beatles career which one is better/more important?

They put out albums in 8 calendar years. So that's how I split it up.
Here's the list

Please Please Me (1963)
With The Beatles (1963)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
Beatles for Sale (1964)
Help! (1965)
Rubber Soul (1965)
Revolver (1966)
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
The Beatles (aka the White Album) (1968)
Yellow Submarine (1969)
Abbey Road (1969)
Let It Be (1970)

Discuss among yourselves

Re: Which half of the Beatles was better?
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2011, 09:14:39 PM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
Haha I thought the poll was going to be like "Mccartney and Lennon" or "Harrison and Ringo". Haha.

Re: Which half of the Beatles was better?
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2011, 09:16:35 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30910
  • Tommy Points: 3766
  • Yup
I liked the later stuff more, but I liked that era of music more in general.
Yup

Re: Which half of the Beatles was better?
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2011, 11:06:28 PM »

Offline jackson_34

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2036
  • Tommy Points: 166
Abbey Road is by far my favourite Beatles album, however I can't discriminate against either half.

Each have their own qualities that stand out.

In terms of complete albums, the second half is the winner. 

Re: Which half of the Beatles was better?
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2011, 11:59:47 PM »

Offline Rondo_is_better

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2821
  • Tommy Points: 495
  • R.I.P. Nate Dogg
The thorax...oops, misread the thread title
Grab a few boards, keep the TO's under 14, close out on shooters and we'll win.

Re: Which half of the Beatles was better?
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2011, 12:19:02 AM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
Haha I thought the poll was going to be like "Mccartney and Lennon" or "Harrison and Ringo". Haha.

ditto

p.s. harrison and ringo.
for very own reasons.
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: Which half of the Beatles was better?
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2011, 02:49:44 AM »

Offline davemonsterband

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1135
  • Tommy Points: 160
The earlier stuff was better. It was, obviously, more revolutionary. They lost their way in the second half in a lot of ways. Once they did Shea they were a different band, they hated playing live, they stopped doing Sullivan. But, they evolved, and they experimented.

Back in the day, they just played music. Ringo and George knew their roles and stayed the heck out of the way. Yoko was nowhere to be found. The sitar was yet to make it mainstream. I like the mid-early years best. Beatles For Sale to Revolver, especially Rubber Soul and Revolver. Tomorrow Never Knows is as far as I prefer the electronic stuff to go, but it's all money.

I don't know, my mum is from Liverpool of that era, I grew up hearing all about it, she brainwashed me to have these beliefs it seems.
"The Best Revenge Is Massive Success"
~Ole Blue Eyes~