Log In
Register
3.52pm
1 November 2013
Offline
WE've had rank the songs, rank the albums, rank the songs on the albums but never before have we had,
Rank the song on the second half of an album that is composed of songs that the Beatles had nothing to do with!
The songs are
"Pepperland "
"Sea Of Time "
"Sea Of Holes "
"Sea Of Monsters "
"March Of The Meanies "
"Pepperland Laid Waste"
"Yellow Submarine in Pepperland " - (Fun fact, it doesn't have a wikipedia page)
May the ranks be ever in your favor!~
4.23pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline 7. Sea Of Holes
6. Sea Of Time
Those two are the only ones I don't really like.
5. Sea Of Monsters
4. Pepperland Laid Waste
These are good as background music, but not as music to listen to when I'm listening to music.
3. Pepperland
Moments that Let It Down occasionally...
2. Yellow Submarine in Pepperland
It's good, but not quite as good as
1. March Of The Meanies
Which I really quite like. (more than Honey Pie , And I Love Her ... and they're not bad songs by my standards....)
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Starr Shine?#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
11.47am
1 December 2009
Offline
Most of this is nice enough. Occasionally odd orchestrations (orchestra combined with classical Indian instruments and scales, Wah Wah doubling marimba, even backwards piano and orchestral stabs/tape trickery. GM arrangements and compositions never less than interesting. "Pepperland " and "Sea" motifs are pretty. "YS in Pepperland " is a waste.
1. Sea Of Monsters - the epic!
2. March Of The Meanies - nicely menacing
3. Sea Of Holes
4. Pepperland Laid Waste - I especially like the "Rite of Spring"-esque finish
5. Sea Of Time - recycled WYWYisms maybe a bit tacked-on
6. Pepperland
7. YS in Pepperland
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions, Marvin Gaye. PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
6.35pm
14 March 2017
Offline 7.Yellow Submarine in Pepperland
5.Pepperland Laid Waste
And in the end the lunch you take is equal to the lunch you bake.
11.49pm
8 August 2019
Offline oh right I never did this one. I personally like how non of these boring-ass tracks surpass the 4-minute mark. But again, it's not very varied so it's still a waste of time. I really don't like anything that much on this side of the LP so why bother but maybe my tiny OCD is making myself do this.
let's see
7) Pepperland Laid Waste - a pseudo-build-up to a climax that either never happens, or happens too abruptly with some staccato strings that come out of nowhere. it's a mess of a piece. without whatever the context of the film was, it's just incomprehensible. 1/10
6) Yellow Submarine in Pepperland - the beginning and ending are dorky interesting marches but everything in the middle is just bleh. 2/10
5) Sea Of Monsters - just like most things on here, it stops abruptly and then continues constantly. like an average soundtrack would do but there isn't anything interesting when separated from the source material it what made for. 2/10
4) March Of The Meanies - finally a steady tempo. the build up is... FINE. still nothing special. 3/10
3) Sea Of Holes - it kicks off like it's going to be psychedelic but then it goes nowhere. so it's both boring AND a disappointment. 4/10
2) Sea Of Time - it's a bit more varied and interesting. a bit. 4/10
1) Pepperland - probably the most melodic and pleasant listen on here, and it promises interesting stuff that the rest of the album just doesn't deliver at all, which makes it better in hindsight. 5/10
The following people thank Jules for this post:
lovelyritametermaid, Von Bonteethe watusi
the twist
3.25pm
9 March 2017
Offline While it's not Beatles music, i really like George Martin's orchestral work, especially here:
7. Yellow Submarine In Pepperland
6. Pepperland Laid Waste
5. Sea Of Time
4. Sea Of Holes
2. Pepperland
1. March Of The Meanies (this is even better then Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds , which opened side B on the US cassette and 8-track releases)
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
8.01pm
14 December 2009
Offline All of this George Martin music is apologetically movie music; and as such, it's best appreciated when accompanied by the appropriate visuals. (Especially with dialogue muted)
The following people thank Von Bontee for this post:
JulesOne day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!"
-- Paul McCartney
9.46pm
8 August 2019
Offline 
HEY BABES
This is a copy paste:
I've been working on this for a couple of days. I decided to go on a task of continuing and updating the work of that AvecPaix guy (not gonna @tt him cause I think he's long gone) and I averaged every post in the thread to create a decent ranking of the tracks off every album. In this case side B of Yellow Submarine . I clarify my process and rules below.
1 - Pepperland (22 points)
2 - March Of The Meanies (19 points)
3 - Sea Of Holes (16 points)
4 - Sea Of Monsters (15 points)
5 - Pepperland Laid Waste (14 points)
6 - Sea Of Time (13 points)
7 - Yellow Submarine in Pepperland (6 points)
brought to you by some of the most renowned and important Beatles critics in the world
:
Dark Overlord,
Elementary Penguin,
myself,
The Hole Got Fixed
& vonbontee.
Averaging process and rules:
A pretty classic averaging system; it goes basically by giving the maximum amount of points to the top track on every post (in this case 6) and as the list progresses into the "worst" tracks each track gets one point less. The last track gets no points. For this to apply the post must have the 7 side B Yellow Submarine songs ranked.
IMPORTANT: if you think one of your rankings might have one of these ambiguous qualities that might disqualify it and you want to be counted in the averaging DON'T edit it; post it again with more detail, otherwise I won't be able to subtract the points and add them again and it won't be counted anyway.
Particular cases:
-NO. 1- Sometimes if there is a track missing but there's a written clarification, it can be counted. In the case of Abbey Road , for instance, some people don't count Her Majesty . In that case I count the post and give no points to Her Majesty only if there is a written statement of why its missing. If one track is missing and the post doesn't have any written clarification then it is considered a mistake and therefore disqualified.
-NO. 2- The tracklist considered is taken out of the Wikipedia/RYM/Discogs "official" tracklists. This means those who rank the Abbey Road Medley as a whole don't get counted unless they clarify by writing that the tracks separately also rank that way, same with any variation of the sort.
-NO. 3- If a person implies to a previous post that "that would exactly be [their] ranking" and don't post any ranking themselves, then the points of the first person will be added a second time in behalf of the second person.
-NO. 4- Only one person each ranking. If you posted several times your changes, only the last one will be counted (unless it has any mistakes, missing tracks, etc., in that case then the last one that has no issues will be the one counted).
-NO. 5- The rankings are considered given the numbers apply to them, "1" universally represents the top spot. Unless there is a written statement that clarifies it's the other way around, this is the way it will be counted.
-NO. 6- If there are no numbers on the ranking and no written clarification it could go either way. At first I used to think the ones at the top were the number 1 spot but in some cases it just isn't that way. So I decided I'll just grab the worst rated track up to that point and I see if it falls on the top half or the bottom half. If it falls on the top half I'll consider the bottom half the top spot and if it falls on the bottom half then I'll consider the top half the top spot. It might be unfair at times as it might reverse someones' ranking if they are unlucky by voting positively a previously negatively voted track, but in the grand scheme of things I think it was mostly accurate. In case that the number of tracks is odd (A Hard Day's Night , Sgt. Pepper 's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Magical Mystery Tour , Yellow Submarine 's Side B & Abbey Road ) and the worst rated track falls in precisely the middle spot then I just take the second to worst rated and judge as to where that one falls.
-NO. 7- If there are "ties" in someone's ranking their ranking can still be counted but it won't represent exactly the ties in the overall averaging. If there is still a list-like format then I go from the bottom to the top adding points just like usual, so tied tracks can get different scores but just differing in one single point or two (unless you tie like 5 tracks together), but I think it's more fair than not letting those people participate at all. It might seem unfair but if the tied tracks were to get the same points, it would increasingly leave an averaging gap between those songs so it's mathematically better to just stick to the original adding process.
-NO. 8- If there are two tracks that are "tied" then I will just give more points to the one that is named first, regardless of descriptions, just to keep the whole thing going. Unless there's a specific written clarification of why one of the tracks is better or more of a favourite, then I'll just give more points to the one named first.
-NO. 9- However, if there's a tie between three tracks (or more) then that post will no longer be counted unless the list has a specific ranking format in which case see item "-NO. 7-".
-NO. 10- I guess that if someone doesn't want to be counted in the averaging he can ask me not to count him in but I hope nobody does that so we get his opinion too
All of these rules are up to debate if someone disagrees with part of the judgement. I'm sure we can reach an agreement if they are considered questionable.
IMPORTANT: if you think one of your rankings might have one of these ambiguous qualities that might disqualify it and you want to be counted in the averaging DON'T edit it; post it again with more detail, otherwise I won't be able to subtract the points and add them again and it won't be counted anyway.
Some more stuff:
I'll try to update it as new rankings are posted. If in enough time this proves effective then I'll ask moderators to pin these posts to the top of the thread and become OFFICIAL
Once in a while I'll revisit the entire thread to be sure in case someone edited their previous rankings (but that might be just once in a while (unless someone wants to do it for me in which case send it to my inbox and I'll update this post)). [BTW if there is already a thread or post about this stuff then tell me right away so I can erase this and not look like a fool
]
Also in time we could use this information to add some more statistics (just to give it flavour
). Someone can request them to me and I'll see how to add them.
Also here's a playlist with the results from worst to best in case you want to see how effective it proves in practice (I'll try edit these as well):
The following people thank Jules for this post:
Von Bonteethe watusi
the twist
1 Guest(s)
