How does this album hold up today? Also early Beatles in general.

WELL SHE WAS JUST

>>68722733
ILLEGAL

>>68722684
I use to be a BIG beatles fan in high school.
I don't frequently listen to them anymore, but there's still plenty of their work I enjoy.

But I can safely say:
Their first album was boring garbage.
Second album improvements.
A Hard Days Night and Beatles for Sale was about half great half forgettable.
Help and Rubber Soul was when they started getting to the good stuff.
And everything Revolver onwards was fantastic.

Their 66-68 era had their best stuff.

>>68722840
*Middle school, not high school.
My bad.

File: prettyboys.jpg (81KB, 613x489px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 613x489px

>>68722684
anyone else think ask me why was underrated?
i feel like its been written off as a throwaway type song, but its got some of the best harmonies they ever sang imo
listen to this live performance of it. despite being in a loud club, theyre able to sing it perfectly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC7VjkI9SoE

>>68722840
>forgetting Beatles for sale
>Implying your opinion means shit

pretty good singles came fromt his, but as an album it's one of their weakest early ones

>>68722881
You misunderstood, sir.
I never said I forgot ALL of beatles for sale, I said it had some forgettable tracks, along with A Hard Days Night.

Beatles for Sale had great stuff too.

The first 3 tracks are amazing, Mr. Moonlight, What You're Doing, and I Don't Want To Spoil The Party are great tracks, among others.

>>68722932

>Mr. Moonlight

never thought I would see someone call it great. I don't think it deserves all the hate it gets though.

File: letmetellyou.png (157KB, 500x240px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 500x240px

>>68722840
>Their first album was boring garbage.
Eh, Chains, Love Me Do, PS I Love You, Do You Want to Know a Secret, and A Taste of Honey weren't that good but the other 9 songs/covers were at least 6/10 or above.
>Second album improvements
I think their writing got better, their covers got worse.
>A Hard Days Night and Beatles for Sale was about half great half forgettable.
I would say half great, half mediocre, for Beatles For Sale. A Hard Day's Night was pretty good overall, though. There are some songs on those albums I love, but I wouldn't listen to them all the way through to be honest.
>Help and Rubber Soul was when they started getting to the good stuff.
>And everything Revolver onwards was fantastic.
True, even though their early stuff is great, in their later work literally EVERY song has a special meaning to me. I would say starting with Rubber Soul though, not starting with Revolver. Rubber Soul did inspire Pet Sounds, anyways.

>>68722989
Ok, 'great' is probably an over exaggeration, but still, I liked it.

My point is 64' is when The Beatles started getting decent, and they improved from there. You could skip their first 2 albums no problem, save for 2 or 3 tracks.

>>68723058
You have a point, wasn't sure whether to include Rubber Soul in the 'Improving' or 'Great' section.

I may have to give Hard Days Night another listen sometime. Maybe it's not as 'meh' as I thought.

EVERY song has meaning to you tho? Really?
Even revolution 9?

>>68722684
it doesn't. paul mccartney wishes he was still alive. your heroes are racist wife beaters. Sleep well, idiot.

>>68723107
>I may have to give Hard Days Night another listen sometime. Maybe it's not as 'meh' as I thought.
Can you tell me the specific songs you don't like?
>EVERY song has meaning to you tho? Really? Even revolution 9?
I don't really think of Revolution 9 as a song, but still yeah

early Stones were better

File: WithTheBeatles_1.jpg (217KB, 1482x1482px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1482x1482px

IT WON'T BE LONG

File: dickdashing.png (156KB, 500x231px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 500x231px

>>68723140
i've made peace with the fact that many rockstars are terrible human beings
the same way that i think people that look to musicians for wisdom just for being famous are stupid, i think that people who write musicians' music off just because they're assholes are stupid

Help! Is by far the best early Beatles album. Please Please Me is terribly dated now. It's funny how people call those albums derivative and then call White Album AKA the Bill Haley and Little Richard jack off sessions a masterpiece

>>68723058
>their covers got worse
Devil In Her Heart maybe, but damn me to hell if I say the same for You've Really Got a Hold On Me

>>68723241
(Sorry I was gone for a while)
As for tracks off the top of my head, the first track was...ok..2-5 were great, I didn't really enjoy Tell Me Why or Can't Buy Me Love (boring).

I'll half to give the second half a re-listen.

>>68723501
I don't know if I agree with Please Please Me being "terribly" dated, but I think Help! IS amazing for an early Beatles album.
I could genuinely imagine it being released today as some type of indie album. Help, You've Got to Hide Your Love Away, and Yesterday could be modern top 100 hits.

>>68723058
A Hard Day's Night is easily their best early album.

File: meetthebeatles.jpg (242KB, 1400x1400px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1400x1400px

Meet the Beatles > With the Beatles

>>68723312
Early Stones and early Beatles were good for different reasons. Early Stones may have had a mastery of blues and r&b covers but the early Beatles were better songwriters.

File: mario_chewing.gif (166KB, 390x339px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 390x339px

>>68723547
>Can't Buy Me Love
I wish that it wasn't deleted from youtube, but there's an anthology version of the song with back up vocals that's way less boring. I love the original version of the song because it has one of Paul's best screams, though.
>Tell Me Why
Try listening to some covers of it, see if that helps you to look at it in a different way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkn89Z2m6J4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2DUqX18u7I

>>68723747
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that John and Paul gave the Stones their first top 10 hit when they let them cover I Wanna Be Your Man
I remember hearing some quote from Mick Jagger where he said that Paul and John were talking about how they needed to finish writing that song, then they literally just sat in a corner for 5 minutes and finished it
They were incredibly fast songwriters, can't think of any other band that put out 2 quality albums every year for 7 years

>>68723760
The first version is pretty great with the samba percussion. Makes it a little more interesting

Second version is decent, but seems more like an album outtake than anything.

There's a lot of great songs from the 63-65 era. I actually think Help! is better than Rubber Soul.

>>68723928
I feel like Help! is an album I can listen to more frequently, but Rubber Soul's songs make me feel more

>>68723563
I mean I've just listened to a lot of stuff from that british rhythm and blues sound and the pop rock sound that grew out of it, and by now so much of it has come out that Please Please me is just super dated. Bill Haley was doing that exact shit a decade before they even touched it

>>68722684

someone saying they dont like the beatles early stuff is a great and quick way to know their opinion means nothing to me. same with the "ringo sucks" plebs. these things are the "I like all music but rap and country" of beatles opinions

>>68724317
Well why do you like it? Tell us your perspective.

File: hearts.gif (1MB, 352x262px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 352x262px

>>68724375
not that guy, but imo the entire beatles discography is excellent because no matter the style their music had, they always had grey melodies/harmonies

>>68724731
Well you're different. You're being fairly polite about it.

The other guy's being pretty pretentious and saying "I don't take you seriously if you don't like their first album". I wanted to see what was so great about it to him that he has to be so damn condescending.

File: paulmccartney.jpg (82KB, 500x725px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x725px

>>68724731
oops, *great not grey
>>68724753
i kind of get his anger.
i dont get that upset about people saying they dont like the beatles early work, but i have gotten heated when people say they think the beatles as a whole werent good
>someone saying they dont like the beatles early stuff is a great and quick way to know their opinion means nothing to me
sometimes i just choose not to take it seriously when someone says dont like the beatles because its too frustrating to try and change an opinion like that

>>68724943
No I LOVE a lot of the beatles stuff, don't get me wrong. I love TONS of it, it's just their first 1 or 2 albums were weak.

And it's just kind of annoying that other jackass says 'Hey, screw your opinion' like that and then NEVER justifies it. It's pretty obnoxious.

>>68723350
>>68723697
Meet The Beatles is so underrated it's ridiculous. Personally it's my favorite Beatles album

>>68725105
is it a real beatles album, or is it a singles compilation album

>>68725466

Meet the Beatles is a US album, so it's not the same as With the Beatles. It removed all of the cover songs, I think.

>>68725597
its weird how the beatles seem to be one of the only groups that had more original songs than covers on their albums
so many early 60s groups just did the same 10 or 20 songs

>>68725105
its got some of my fav songs on it

>>68725597
It keeps Till There Was You, but Capitol got rid of the rock n roll and R&B covers to enhance their inoffensive image.

>>68727867
funny to think beatles songs were once seen as offensive