[QUOTE=magicbus]In my history class we were talking about a European arms treaty, and my teacher started the lecture with "20 years ago today, Gorbachev taught the band to play". Nobody got the reference but me :D

/copied from the community thread[/QUOTE]

sounds like a cool teacher

Hey does anyone know who plays the guitar solo in Taxman I have always it was Paul and that's what it has said in some other things I've seen but I was reading a book that about all their recording sessions and they usually say when the lineup of who plays what changed but they didn't say anything. But I also saw on this thing from a site that says George played the Lead guitar but Paul played the Guitar solo and bass. :confused:

[QUOTE=magicbus]In my history class we were talking about a European arms treaty, and my teacher started the lecture with "20 years ago today, Gorbachev taught the band to play". Nobody got the reference but me :D

/copied from the community thread[/QUOTE]

:lol: I wish my teachers were like that, mine are more like the ones from the Wall.

Hey everyone, I'm back. Too lazy to read all the posts I missed, I'm sure it was all fascinating.

[QUOTE=magicbus]In my history class we were talking about a European arms treaty, and my teacher started the lecture with "20 years ago today, Gorbachev taught the band to play". Nobody got the reference but me :D

/copied from the community thread[/QUOTE]


I hate it when I'm the only one who gets that sort of thing

Deus, I think the last page back was pretty interesting :wave:

[QUOTE=eghed]Hey does anyone know who plays the guitar solo in Taxman I have always it was Paul and that's what it has said in some other things I've seen but I was reading a book that about all their recording sessions and they usually say when the lineup of who plays what changed but they didn't say anything. But I also saw on this thing from a site that says George played the Lead guitar but Paul played the Guitar solo and bass. :confused:[/QUOTE]

Im not sure, but i think what you got there is right.

^^ i'm not sure either, i know george wrote the riff tho because i read or heard somewhere that he based the riff on the "Batman" theme song

[QUOTE=Sgt._Joker]^^ i'm not sure either, i know george wrote the riff tho because i read or heard somewhere that he based the riff on the "Batman" theme song[/QUOTE]

:lol: thats really funny man.

You know I'm really starting to get into their song Get Back. I think that has some of the most catchy lyrics of all time.

Hey Walrus... I care about 'Rain.' -- John is quoted as saying he was drunk )I'm sure translates to high) at home in the evening and trying to listen to the day's sessions on tape. Using the old reel to reels he accidentally put the tape on backwards and loved what he heard. That was the birth of their psychedelic sound.

[QUOTE=bcf717]Hey Walrus... I care about 'Rain.' -- John is quoted as saying he was drunk )I'm sure translates to high) at home in the evening and trying to listen to the day's sessions on tape. Using the old reel to reels he accidentally put the tape on backwards and loved what he heard. That was the birth of their psychedelic sound.[/QUOTE]

Bitchin'


Has anyone heard Ringo's new album?

[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]Bitchin'


Has anyone heard Ringo's new album?[/QUOTE]

No. Is it good?

No, I haven't yet. Definitely will though. Speaking of Ringo, I remember earlier in this thread a lot of discussion on individual talent and musicianship of the four, with Ringo regarded as having the least.

I don't consider that the case. Bands with longevity enjoy that status as a result of all members being distinctive yet blending properly with their 'mates to get the band's unique distinctive sound. Would the Beatles have made their mark with interchangeable drummers? I doubt it.

John was the consummate lyricist. Always on the cutting edge, once the Beatles were world established, his leadership took the band to their next level, -- from pop phenomenon to spokes-band for social change. Solo, his lyrics were the essence of his music.

Paul was the melody machine. His use of the bass as an essential element of the song (play a Beatle song without Paul's bass lines and it's not a Beatles song anymore), defined what we think of as the 'Mersey Beat.' Often during his solo career, he is dismissed as be being too poppy and sugary. Love him or hate him, the man can almost write music on demand and his catalogue is unbelievably immense. And face it, popish or not, chances are you'll be humming it for the rest of the day as you can't get it out of your head.

George as the soloist define the band's sound. Never rushed a solo. When John would solo, you could sometimes hear a bit of a rush on it, never with George. George's leads became the yardstick for how we judge leads since.

Ringo, steady and versatile WAS the 'Mersey Beat.' True, he wasn't a vocalist and only stuck to percussion, but his use of that percussion added more to the uniqueness of the 'Beatle sound' than a lot give credit for. Even early on, he would use cymbal, cowbell, wood block or tambourine to create the texture of the song. Later songs like 'Come Together' are not the same without his 'texturing.'
I've seen Ringo with his All Star Band live several times, and when he's at the mic, it does become somewhat of a 'Beatles cover.' Once he sits behind the skins, no matter which All Star bandmate's song is being played, there is a difference that is definitely Ringo.

Picture if Keith Moon was the Beatles' drummer. Or Charlie Watts drumming for the Kinks. Ringo working for the Stones..... Musically it just doesn't work. Bands that make to the top and stay there do so because they are fortunate enough to find the right mix of musicians. Beatles, Stones, the Who, etc, all own their 'sound' to the luck of finding the right personalities who work complimentary to each other. There 'sounds' are often imitated, but never mastered by other bands. Ringo was no exception.

[QUOTE=bcf717]No, I haven't yet. Definitely will though. Speaking of Ringo, I remember earlier in this thread a lot of discussion on individual talent and musicianship of the four, with Ringo regarded as having the least.

I don't consider that the case. Bands with longevity enjoy that status as a result of all members being distinctive yet blending properly with their 'mates to get the band's unique distinctive sound. Would the Beatles have made their mark with interchangeable drummers? I doubt it.

John was the consummate lyricist. Always on the cutting edge, once the Beatles were world established, his leadership took the band to their next level, -- from pop phenomenon to spokes-band for social change. Solo, his lyrics were the essence of his music.

Paul was the melody machine. His use of the bass as an essential element of the song (play a Beatle song without Paul's bass lines and it's not a Beatles song anymore), defined what we think of as the 'Mersey Beat.' Often during his solo career, he is dismissed as be being too poppy and sugary. Love him or hate him, the man can almost write music on demand and his catalogue is unbelievably immense. And face it, popish or not, chances are you'll be humming it for the rest of the day as you can't get it out of your head.

George as the soloist define the band's sound. Never rushed a solo. When John would solo, you could sometimes hear a bit of a rush on it, never with George. George's leads became the yardstick for how we judge leads since.

Ringo, steady and versatile WAS the 'Mersey Beat.' True, he wasn't a vocalist and only stuck to percussion, but his use of that percussion added more to the uniqueness of the 'Beatle sound' than a lot give credit for. Even early on, he would use cymbal, cowbell, wood block or tambourine to create the texture of the song. Later songs like 'Come Together' are not the same without his 'texturing.'
I've seen Ringo with his All Star Band live several times, and when he's at the mic, it does become somewhat of a 'Beatles cover.' Once he sits behind the skins, no matter which All Star bandmate's song is being played, there is a difference that is definitely Ringo.

Picture if Keith Moon was the Beatles' drummer. Or Charlie Watts drumming for the Kinks. Ringo working for the Stones..... Musically it just doesn't work. Bands that make to the top and stay there do so because they are fortunate enough to find the right mix of musicians. Beatles, Stones, the Who, etc, all own their 'sound' to the luck of finding the right personalities who work complimentary to each other. There 'sounds' are often imitated, but never mastered by other bands. Ringo was no exception.[/QUOTE]

good post. also, i know it was a hypothetical situation but i think charlie watts would would have worked with the beatles. hes a bit swingier than ringo but he could have pulled it off.

Watts definitely could've worked with The Beatles. Charlie Watts is amazing.

in my neighborhood, there having a march madness, like the ncaa basketball tourny, but with bands. started with 64 bands and you voted online. the final 2 bands are led zeppelin, and the beatles. really really hard choice, but id have to go with led zeppelin.

[QUOTE=DeusExMachina]No. Is it good?[/QUOTE]


It's not what you'd expect, it's pretty newish, with a bunch of musicians known as "The All Starr Band" play for Ringo who sings and plays drums (I think...)

It's pretty fun, Ringo sounds like an old crooner

All right! This is fun again! Of course I was speaking in context of the course of musical history as we know it. Maybe in some comic book parallel dimension Jagger hooked up with Lennon instead of Pauly and music history took on a whole different direction. The Beatles as we know them would be a stretch to imagine Mick screamin' out 'I Am The Walrus.' Don't get me wrong -- I think it would be great to hear Mick tackle the Walrus. That'd be one 'ell of a cover, I'm sure. Also I ain't diss'n ol' Charlie. I think he's great.

Ringo and his All Star Band albums and show are kind of like the 'best of' from past music's top acts. He grabs musicians and mixes and matches them as he travels with the show from city to city. Heavy on nostalgia, that's the way he wants it, and he doesn't pretend to be anything else but good old lovable Ringo playing with other greats on stage. In the past he's played with Todd Rundgren, Gary Booker, Jack Bruce, Simon Kirke, Rick Danko, Levon Helm, Dave Edmunds, Nils Lofgren, Joe Walsh, Burton Cummings (Guess Who) and quite a few more. His shows are always like, 'wow, it's Ringo! -- and look who he's got with him.' Great fun.

Also which new album are you talking about? Except for anthologies, the last one I heard was the from the 2003 tour.

Is the All Starr Band on tour now? I'd love to see him live.

Did anyone buy George Harrison's "Brainwashed" album (the last one he did before he died)? That's a great album.

So, I finally saw Concert for George and I was amazed by the whole thing.

/discussion

CG- I have only listined to it once I thought it was OK.

[QUOTE=Canadian_Guy]Did anyone buy George Harrison's "Brainwashed" album (the last one he did before he died)? That's a great album.[/QUOTE]
i have it now. its awesome. maybe even better than all things must pass.

also concert for george is great as well. kind of wish i had the dvd.

[QUOTE=whatduffhuck7]in my neighborhood, there having a march madness, like the ncaa basketball tourny, but with bands. started with 64 bands and you voted online. the final 2 bands are led zeppelin, and the beatles. really really hard choice, but id have to go with led zeppelin.[/QUOTE]

That's in my neighborhood too :eek:

I'm fairly certain I have Brainwashed. I like it.

I saw the All Starrs in 2001. **** great show!

Didn't really care for a lot of the acts with him, but Greg Lake....wow......when I heard Lucky Man, I was wowed beyond belief.

And the drum solo Sheila E did on the timbales....

Yeah, it was a great show.

I wish I saw 1997.....Jack Bruce, Peter Frampton, and the lead singer for Procul Harum......that's worth dying for. Luckily I have it on DVD.

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]:lol: thats really funny man.[/QUOTE]

..... its true tho,

[QUOTE=clown_phobia]What's everyone's favourite Beatles guitar solo?[/QUOTE]


And your Bird can sing - Revolver

Amazing Amazing!

yer that is one ****ing awesome guitar solo, the guitar riffs for the whole thing is awesome..

[QUOTE=darkkeeper9]And your Bird can sing - Revolver

Amazing Amazing![/QUOTE]
You haven't heard the story behind that?
George actually played the solo slow and it was speeded up...

[QUOTE=Canadian_Guy]Did anyone buy George Harrison's "Brainwashed" album (the last one he did before he died)? That's a great album.[/QUOTE]

I will put it on my list of albums to buy/mooch along with Aoxomoxoa or however one would go about spelling it

What's up with Paul's tour?

[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]I will put it on my list of albums to buy/mooch along with Aoxomoxoa or however one would go about spelling it

What's up with Paul's tour?[/QUOTE]

I've got Aoxomoxa, I can send it to you later.

I want Paul to tour again.

[QUOTE=Canadian_Guy]Did anyone buy George Harrison's "Brainwashed" album (the last one he did before he died)? That's a great album.[/QUOTE]

I did, I love it. It was constructed from demos and early recordings by his son and Jeff Lynne(I think.) They did a phenomenal job, it's a really good album. "Marwi Bluesa"(If I can remember it right) is a great track, the guitar solo. Any Road, Pisces Fish and the title track are all wonderful tracks too.

[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]Bitchin'


Has anyone heard Ringo's new album?[/QUOTE]

Yes I think it's quite good. I also have Brainwashed witch is also good but I wouldn't say better than All Things Must Pass. :cool:

[QUOTE=bcf717]No, I haven't yet. Definitely will though. Speaking of Ringo, I remember earlier in this thread a lot of discussion on individual talent and musicianship of the four, with Ringo regarded as having the least.

I don't consider that the case. Bands with longevity enjoy that status as a result of all members being distinctive yet blending properly with their 'mates to get the band's unique distinctive sound. Would the Beatles have made their mark with interchangeable drummers? I doubt it.

John was the consummate lyricist. Always on the cutting edge, once the Beatles were world established, his leadership took the band to their next level, -- from pop phenomenon to spokes-band for social change. Solo, his lyrics were the essence of his music.

Paul was the melody machine. His use of the bass as an essential element of the song (play a Beatle song without Paul's bass lines and it's not a Beatles song anymore), defined what we think of as the 'Mersey Beat.' Often during his solo career, he is dismissed as be being too poppy and sugary. Love him or hate him, the man can almost write music on demand and his catalogue is unbelievably immense. And face it, popish or not, chances are you'll be humming it for the rest of the day as you can't get it out of your head.

George as the soloist define the band's sound. Never rushed a solo. When John would solo, you could sometimes hear a bit of a rush on it, never with George. George's leads became the yardstick for how we judge leads since.

Ringo, steady and versatile WAS the 'Mersey Beat.' True, he wasn't a vocalist and only stuck to percussion, but his use of that percussion added more to the uniqueness of the 'Beatle sound' than a lot give credit for. Even early on, he would use cymbal, cowbell, wood block or tambourine to create the texture of the song. Later songs like 'Come Together' are not the same without his 'texturing.'
I've seen Ringo with his All Star Band live several times, and when he's at the mic, it does become somewhat of a 'Beatles cover.' Once he sits behind the skins, no matter which All Star bandmate's song is being played, there is a difference that is definitely Ringo.

Picture if Keith Moon was the Beatles' drummer. Or Charlie Watts drumming for the Kinks. Ringo working for the Stones..... Musically it just doesn't work. Bands that make to the top and stay there do so because they are fortunate enough to find the right mix of musicians. Beatles, Stones, the Who, etc, all own their 'sound' to the luck of finding the right personalities who work complimentary to each other. There 'sounds' are often imitated, but never mastered by other bands. Ringo was no exception.[/QUOTE]


The great thing about Ringo is that he is so steady and never messes. He certainly can't do what someone like Keith Moon does but he is a very good drummer who works very well with the beatles. I heard them doing a really fast early version of Get Back where John is singing lead. John doesn't know it that well so at one point he comes in too early and Ringo being the drummer that he is covers John up with this great fill. That's when I realized he was great. ;)

[QUOTE=Canadian_Guy]Did anyone buy George Harrison's "Brainwashed" album (the last one he did before he died)? That's a great album.[/QUOTE]

I did! an amazing album under the circumstances: he likely knew he was dying and yet embarked on the album and included his son, Dhani. What I find most intriguing is that despite his progressive battle with cancer, the album is probably the most upbeat, relaxed, and musically pleasing of his entire solo career. Perhaps, as he faced his mortality, he no longer felt he had to indoctrinate the world with his religious convictions through his music. On the other hand, perhaps having Jeff Lynne around to both play and produce the album helped chip away at the wall of sound that tended to surround most of George's prior solo albums....burying his self-professed weak voice under layers of insturmentation that tended to drown out his earlier work.

I believe that from top to bottom it is by far his best solo album.

Jesus, we let this thread fall to page 4.

Happy first post person above me...

I got a new icon, (as discussed in CR thread)

Yes, awesome avatar MYR.

So, what's your favorite Beatles album and era?

Mine'll have to be a toss up between Let It Be, Abbey Road, and Sgt. Peppers.

The Let It Be era of the Beatles was my favorite, even though they were on the verge of breaking up.