Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
5.36pm
23 January 2011
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
I don't mean to offend anyone here, but really, for the most part, John had horrible taste in music. Half the songs he calls shit in 1980 are personal favorites. He doesn't have the best taste in music – I mean he liked The B-52'!About Ram – Until this recent spree of love for Monkberry Moon Delight, I hadn't noticed how awesome he sings this song.
Well, I wouldn't exactly say John had horrible taste in music. I think he probably just eclectic taste. I mean, his love of 50s rock and r & b are why we are all here talking about The Beatles still.
Seconded on Monkberry Moon Delight.
5.47pm
1 May 2011
Offline
Comparing The B-52's to Yoko's music (which is what John was doing as well as singing their praises) is quite clever because both are dreadful (apart from Love Shack which is listenable at times). Can not stand Rock Lobster and they ruined The Flinstones theme.
1.10am
25 August 2012
Offline
Frankly, I've always thought John went soft in his solo years. His own music seemed less edgy and less interesting for the most part. I honestly consider John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band the most overrated solo Beatles album. Seems to me no longer directly (or even indirectly) collaborating with Paul affected him a bit.
2.03am
23 January 2011
Offline
Duke_of_Kirkaldy said
Frankly, I've always thought John went soft in his solo years. His own music seemed less edgy and less interesting for the most part. I honestly consider John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band the most overrated solo Beatles album. Seems to me no longer directly (or even indirectly) collaborating with Paul affected him a bit.
Well, he maybe went a little soft after a few years, and he became as schmaltzy as others accuse Paul of being, but Plastic Ono Band is pretty far from that. I don't really like to listen to it because it is so heavy, but it was unusual for an album at that time to be so self-confessing. I think that's why it is considered so great. It sort of bred a whole confessional rock following. Which is alright if you like that sort of thing…I think it's a brilliant album that I just don't listen to a lot. But songs like Steel and Glass and How Do You Sleep? (much as I hate it) prove that John hadn't gone completely soft, in spite of songs like Oh Yoko!
3.11am
1 May 2011
Offline
John did say that Imagine was POB with sugar sprinkled on (or words similar). By '73/'74 he wasnt that interested (if you believe what John said). I do and i i think it shows, especially on Mind Games (the lp) which is even more polished. Even Walls And Bridges is missing some balls, the production tries to bring it in but just ends up making it sound clunky and cluttered.
I dont know, i always think of Johns solo career as being amazing but when i get down to it and take all the great tracks im left with between 2 and 3 albums and one of those is POB in its entirety. But he only released, what, 7 when alive so maybe thats being too critical.
How did we get from Ram to this?
10.09pm
9 May 2012
Offline
Duke_of_Kirkaldy said
Frankly, I've always thought John went soft in his solo years. His own music seemed less edgy and less interesting for the most part. I honestly consider John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band the most overrated solo Beatles album. Seems to me no longer directly (or even indirectly) collaborating with Paul affected him a bit.
1.04am
3 September 2012
Offline
My favorite Ram songs are Too Many People and 3 Legs, which start off the album. Uncle Albert's probably third, and everything else is after that. I've been listening to a lot of Beatles solo work this week, and this was what I started with. I like McCartney almost as much, and Band On The Run has a couple great songs, but this is just great all around.
2.47pm
19 September 2010
Offline
Please, don't kill me, but I honestly think there has been some over-compensation by fans (both in this thread and outside this forum) about this album. It's not a masterpiece. It has 7 good or better tracks (6 really, I'm including Another Day). I mean, the 7 I love are great songs, but this is no Abbey Road. It's a small step on McCartney, but I honestly prefer Wings At The Speed of Sound or London Town over this.
5.08pm
5 November 2011
Offline
I would say it has ten masterpieces and the other two are still fantastic. I would probably rather listen to Wings Wild Life and McCartney II over RAM, but that's only because I have been listened to RAM so much lately it got a little less exciting after I listened to those two.
6.01pm
1 May 2011
Offline
The problem i have with Ram is that i find it to be a tiring album, i cant get thru it all without needing a break. No idea why that is tho. Back Seat of My Car lasting too long doesnt help, should have stopped at 3:41, 4:07 at a push; Long Haired Lady and Monkberry should also have been cut down. The album is less than its parts.
I dont get that with Wings At The Speed of Sound which i can play complete without a problem and find it incredibly enjoyable. Truth be told i cant think of many Paul albums where there arent 1 or 2 songs that i dont particularly like and will skip. I love Wild Life (the lp – and the song) but Bip Bop just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and. Shut up. As a 40 second, maybe 60 second ditty then it wouldnt have been as annoying but its 4 minutes 10 seconds!
2.38am
23 January 2011
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
Please, don't kill me, but I honestly think there has been some over-compensation by fans (both in this thread and outside this forum) about this album. It's not a masterpiece. It has 7 good or better tracks (6 really, I'm including Another Day). I mean, the 7 I love are great songs, but this is no Abbey Road. It's a small step on McCartney, but I honestly prefer Wings At The Speed of Sound or London Town over this.
No one will kill you for your opinion! This album is, in my opinion, one of Paul's best. No one's saying it's Abbey Road. I mean, what, besides Abbey Road, is? It does have some of Paul's touches from Abbey Road on it, though. It has all the things he's good at…melody, great instrumentation, variety, and great production. If you're not a fan of this type of work, though, I can see how you wouldn't like it.
I like Wings at the Speed of Sound and London Town, too, but I don't think they hold a candle to Ram. My top 4 would have to be Ram, Band on the Run, Electric Arguments, and Chaos and Creation in the Backyard.
2.53am
16 August 2012
Offline
I love how polarizing this album continues to be.
5.47am
25 August 2012
Offline
kedame said
Duke_of_Kirkaldy said
Frankly, I've always thought John went soft in his solo years. His own music seemed less edgy and less interesting for the most part. I honestly consider John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band the most overrated solo Beatles album. Seems to me no longer directly (or even indirectly) collaborating with Paul affected him a bit.Well, he maybe went a little soft after a few years, and he became as schmaltzy as others accuse Paul of being, but Plastic Ono Band is pretty far from that. I don't really like to listen to it because it is so heavy, but it was unusual for an album at that time to be so self-confessing. I think that's why it is considered so great. It sort of bred a whole confessional rock following. Which is alright if you like that sort of thing…I think it's a brilliant album that I just don't listen to a lot. But songs like Steel and Glass and How Do You Sleep? (much as I hate it) prove that John hadn't gone completely soft, in spite of songs like Oh Yoko!
Well, yeah, he didn't lyrically go soft for a few years, but I think he did musically almost right away. I mean, most of his solo albums have the exact same instrumentation/production values to all of them. And I find it ironic that, in an interview to promote the release of Abbey Road, he slammed Paul for playing the piano so much on that album… whereas he would basically start doing the same in his solo career. 
I also have to add that I think, ever since Flaming Pie, Paul has really stepped it up on his albums. There seem to be considerably fewer throwaway songs on his albums since then as there used to be. I honestly thought Memory Almost Full rivaled Band on the Run as his best post-Beatles work. Chaos and Creation is up there, too. I wasn't all that impressed with Driving Rain, though.
6.46am
23 January 2011
Offline
Duke_of_Kirkaldy said
kedame said
Duke_of_Kirkaldy said
Frankly, I've always thought John went soft in his solo years. His own music seemed less edgy and less interesting for the most part. I honestly consider John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band the most overrated solo Beatles album. Seems to me no longer directly (or even indirectly) collaborating with Paul affected him a bit.Well, he maybe went a little soft after a few years, and he became as schmaltzy as others accuse Paul of being, but Plastic Ono Band is pretty far from that. I don't really like to listen to it because it is so heavy, but it was unusual for an album at that time to be so self-confessing. I think that's why it is considered so great. It sort of bred a whole confessional rock following. Which is alright if you like that sort of thing…I think it's a brilliant album that I just don't listen to a lot. But songs like Steel and Glass and How Do You Sleep? (much as I hate it) prove that John hadn't gone completely soft, in spite of songs like Oh Yoko!
Well, yeah, he didn't lyrically go soft for a few years, but I think he did musically almost right away. I mean, most of his solo albums have the exact same instrumentation/production values to all of them. And I find it ironic that, in an interview to promote the release of Abbey Road, he slammed Paul for playing the piano so much on that album… whereas he would basically start doing the same in his solo career.
I also have to add that I think, ever since Flaming Pie, Paul has really stepped it up on his albums. There seem to be considerably fewer throwaway songs on his albums since then as there used to be. I honestly thought Memory Almost Full rivaled Band on the Run as his best post-Beatles work. Chaos and Creation is up there, too. I wasn't all that impressed with Driving Rain, though.
John said a lot of crap in those first few interviews after the breakup. He readily admitted this, and I find it an unfortunately icky side of him. People still bandy about some of his comments about Paul even today when it was clear that John was spouting off at the mouth because he was angry. I find John's contradictory behavior puzzling a lot of the time…and also slightly humorous because some of it is so absurd, like the fact that he was surprised when Paul wanted to legally dissolve the band. What did he think asking for a "divorce" would bring him? I always wonder what went on in that man's mind.
As for Paul's albums in the last decade, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Chaos and Creation is in my top 5, along with Electric Arguments. I also love Memory Almost Full. I really enjoy Driving Rain, too, but I agree it isn't as good as Chaos and MAF.
6.23am
3 October 2012
Offline
Ram represents the nadir in the decomposition of Sixties rock thus far. For some, including myself, Self-Portrait had been secure in that position, but at least Self-Portrait was an album that you could hate, a record you could feel something over, even if it were nothing but regret. Ram is so incredibly inconsequential and so monumentally irrelevant you can't even do that with it: it is difficult to concentrate on, let alone dislike or even hate.
Landau is right about one thing: 'Ram' does represent a fragmentation of 60s rock. as when the Beatles split. the best band of the decade 'decomposed'.
Otherwise, Landau is a manouvering swine, and is 'famous' for his promotion of one of the most inconsequential 'rock artists' of all time, Bruce Springsteen…He did an OK job on the MC5's second album, but even they never liked him.
7.51pm
14 December 2009
Offline
Man, I thought he did a terrible production job on "Back In The USA", myself! No bass, virtually no drums…and certainly no hits.
1.28am
1 November 2012
Offline
What does "remastered" mean, anyway? Does it mean different? If so, in what way?
If it's not different, what's the point?
5.07am
5 November 2011
Offline
Remastered does not mean different, it means to make it have better sound quality. The point is that it gets new fans, it sounds better, and it's nicer to look at.
11.37am
1 May 2011
Offline
Take the Beatles 2009 remasters. Compared to the 80's cds the music is brighter and you can hear things previously under grime as it was cleaned up. When they were released someone said it was like taking all the gunk off a gem and letting it shine (or words to that effect). You dont have a new jewel but it is restored to [nearer] its original beauty.
Its the same with antiques when they are restored to their original state. With lots of love, care and attention they can be brought back to an amazing condition – and therefore far more valuable – or some idiot can get the job, botches it up, it ends up worse than ever and goes in the bin.
1.03pm
1 November 2012
Offline
unknown said
Remastered does not mean different, it means to make it have better sound quality. The point is that it gets new fans, it sounds better, and it's nicer to look at.
Well, the original Ram sounded just fine to my ears. "Remastering" it is …. "gilding the lily".
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: LongHairedLady
7 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3426
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1517
vonbontee: 1427
GniknuS: 1365
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1683
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2392
Posts: 73210
Newest Members: fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell, JQ, Juliana Melo
Moderators: Joe (2700), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2700)
