First Time Listening To....

Bruce

unread,

Aug 27, 2021, 1:08:45 PM8/27/21

to

I am really enjoying this youtube series from a young female musician in Australia. She is listening to each Beatles album for the first time, in order and making comments on each song. She's really fun, and has a great singing voice.

Here's the first one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taEIP8OY_20

Norbert K

unread,

Aug 28, 2021, 8:36:26 AM8/28/21

to

She's great! I love the enthusiasm (and the Aussie accent).

I'll watch her videos intermittently; I'm not the binge-watching type.

I wish I had discovered the Beatles' albums in chronological order. I started with Pepper & Mystery Tour.

cuppajoe2go

unread,

Aug 28, 2021, 1:37:48 PM8/28/21

to

Very cool! One way to appreciate this is that after having had the best thing, the next best thing is to watch somebody else experience the best thing. Wait, not sure that translates right...

Norbert K

unread,

Sep 10, 2021, 1:04:05 PM9/10/21

to

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 1:08:45 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:

I watched her second video -- the one in which she reviews the Beatles' second album. Her enthusiasm is endearing. She seems to favor Lennon's lead vocals on the first two albums. It will be interesting to see when that changes (as I expect it will).

cuppajoe2go

unread,

Sep 10, 2021, 3:22:47 PM9/10/21

to

Loving this series!

Norbert K

unread,

Sep 15, 2021, 9:41:01 AM9/15/21

to

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 1:08:45 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:

She's thrilled with Lennon's vocals on these early albums -- and, indeed, it's interesting to be reminded of how powerful his voice was early on. Lennon wrote plenty of great songs on the later Beatles albums -- but what happened to the force of his voice?

Bruce

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 11:17:00 AM9/17/21

to

The latest was BEATLES FOR SALE and it looks like her new favorite Beatles song is "I'll Follow The Sun." She also loved "No Reply."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wknVT3embAY

Norbert K

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 7:07:19 AM9/18/21

to

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:17:00 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> The latest was BEATLES FOR SALE and it looks like her new favorite Beatles song is "I'll Follow The Sun." She also loved "No Reply."
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wknVT3embAY

She's very attentive to the songs' hooks, such as the "I nearly died" part of "No Reply."

Bruce

unread,

Sep 22, 2021, 1:38:12 PM9/22/21

to

HELP! as posted today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ec-GUC6tMI

RJKe...@yahoo.com

unread,

Nov 1, 2021, 12:11:55 PM11/1/21

to

Smoking.

RJKe...@yahoo.com

unread,

Nov 5, 2021, 1:01:22 PM11/5/21

to

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 1:08:45 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:

Is she taking forever to get to Revolver or is it me?

Bruce

unread,

Nov 5, 2021, 1:07:21 PM11/5/21

to

Seems like it was due around Wed or yesterday if she was staying to 3 weeks apart.

Bruce

unread,

Nov 5, 2021, 8:29:00 PM11/5/21

to

It premiers in 16 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14sr0AspwZU

Bruce

unread,

Nov 5, 2021, 9:43:37 PM11/5/21

to

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 8:29:00 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:

> It premiers in 16 minutes.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14sr0AspwZU

Looks like "Got To Get You In To My Life" was her favorite on the album, and she had no idea what to make of "Tomorrow Never Knows" although she thought the percussion on it was great.

I did not know what to make of "TNK" either the first time I heard it. Not much into experimental shit, although now I like it enough to listen to it.

She should do "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" soon. For me "Rain" is BY FAR their best record of 1966.

Norbert K

unread,

Nov 6, 2021, 5:58:26 AM11/6/21

to

Yeah, "Rain" is one of their best efforts ever -- one on which everything comes together. Great song from John, and Paul & Ringo turn in the performances of their careers on their respective instruments.

Caroline appeared to get a big kick out of the various sound effects on Revolver.

I'm a bit surprised she missed the obvious fact that it was not George on lead guitar on "Taxman," and that she did not pick up on the many time changes in "Love You To."

Bruce

unread,

Nov 6, 2021, 10:25:31 AM11/6/21

to

So looks like we should get her take on "Sgt. Pepper" at the end of November.

geoff

unread,

Nov 7, 2021, 12:22:57 AM11/7/21

to

She does albums, not songs.

Rather vapidly, but I still watch them for some reason !

geoff

geoff

unread,

Nov 7, 2021, 12:23:41 AM11/7/21

to

And she though a tambourine somewhere were maracas.

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Nov 7, 2021, 8:21:39 AM11/7/21

to

No, she also does the non LP singles of each year in a separate video.

Bruce

unread,

Nov 25, 2021, 1:09:43 AM11/25/21

to

Caroline is back with the singles after REVOLVER and before SGT. PEPPER.

Paperback Writer / Rain
Penny Lane / Strawberry Fields Forever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKYO1hd9EEQ

Bruce

unread,

Nov 26, 2021, 9:30:44 AM11/26/21

to

CAROLINE REVIEWS SGT. PEPPER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfEKaub5GzM

Norbert K

unread,

Nov 27, 2021, 7:21:56 AM11/27/21

to

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 9:30:44 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> CAROLINE REVIEWS SGT. PEPPER
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfEKaub5GzM

I enjoy her reviews but wish she would consult the book less and rely more on personal observations.

"She's Leaving Home" was Caroline's favorite on SP! I've never heard anyone pick that one as favorite before. The only I like about the song (from a musical perspective) is the call & response between Paul & John in the choruses. I've never been a fan of the verses.

Bruce

unread,

Nov 27, 2021, 10:34:11 AM11/27/21

to

Like people at the time, she didn't know what to make of "A Day In The Life."

I do like "She's Leaving Home." I think it's Brian Wilson's favorite from the album too.

Norbert K

unread,

Nov 27, 2021, 11:39:14 AM11/27/21

to

Yeah, she was puzzled by "A Day In the Life"; I've always -- since I was a kid -- considered it the masterpiece of the album.

Her review reminded me that I've underrated "Lovely Rita." I used to consider it (and "Good Morning, Good Morning") filler. No; there is much to like about it -- especially the back & forth between Paul's energetic verses & John's dreamy, druggy choruses.

Bruce

unread,

Nov 27, 2021, 1:34:05 PM11/27/21

to

According to George Martin, if they had saved "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" for the album they would have dropped "When I'm Sixty-Four" and "Lovely Rita."

Norbert K

unread,

Nov 27, 2021, 1:36:17 PM11/27/21

to

I wish they had included those two classics on the album. However, I'd drop "Good Morning, Good Morning" before "Lovely Rita."

Bruce

unread,

Dec 14, 2021, 11:42:14 AM12/14/21

to

Caroline is back with MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS3AXR8F_6I

geoff

unread,

Dec 14, 2021, 5:29:39 PM12/14/21

to

On 15/12/2021 5:42 am, Bruce wrote:
> Caroline is back with MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS3AXR8F_6I

I'd forgotten just how good this album (esp the extended CD) was.

Apart from George's drear dirge of a contribution. Presumably he had
nothing better to offer, at that time at least....

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 14, 2021, 5:37:11 PM12/14/21

to

I don't think much of Side 1. MMT and THE FOOL are good, but "Flying" sucks and "Blue Jay Way" sucks. "Your Mother Should Know" is okay. WALRUS is just okay IMO.

Side 2 is very good, but 4 of the 5 songs were older singles that were just stuck on the album many months later.

I guess next she'll do the 4 songs on the two 1968 singles, and then THE WHITE ALBUM. Wonder what she'll make of that mish-mosh of 30 songs ending with REV 9?

I predict that she loves BLACKBIRD, it will likely be her favorite song on that album.

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 15, 2021, 7:16:27 AM12/15/21

to

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:29:39 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

It's one of the first Beatles albums that I got into as a kid, and I still love most of it. "Blue Jay Way" is indeed dreary. The melodies are feeble, the backing vocals are mosquito-like -- it should not have been accepted for the album.

"Walrus" fascinated me when I was a youngster; today not so much. Without George Martin's hard work, it would be nothing.

It's the McCartney songs that make the album great. Each one is a pop masterpiece -- better than his efforts on Sgt. Pepper.

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 15, 2021, 7:20:36 AM12/15/21

to

Many Carolines ago, when she favored Lennon's songs, I predicted she would move to preferring Paul's songs. Sure enough.

I predict her favorite song on the White Album will be "Mother Nature's Son."

I wouldn't say "Flying" sucks. The Who had better and more exciting instrumentals (on Tommy and Quadrophenia), but in its own modest way, "Flying" is a sort of quirky diversion.

Bruce

unread,

Dec 15, 2021, 11:18:21 AM12/15/21

to

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:20:36 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:29:39 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> > > On 15/12/2021 5:42 am, Bruce wrote:
> > > > Caroline is back with MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS3AXR8F_6I
> > > I'd forgotten just how good this album (esp the extended CD) was.
> > >
> > > Apart from George's drear dirge of a contribution. Presumably he had
> > > nothing better to offer, at that time at least....
> > >
> > > geoff
> > I don't think much of Side 1. MMT and THE FOOL are good, but "Flying" sucks and "Blue Jay Way" sucks. "Your Mother Should Know" is okay. WALRUS is just okay IMO.
> >
> > Side 2 is very good, but 4 of the 5 songs were older singles that were just stuck on the album many months later.
> >
> > I guess next she'll do the 4 songs on the two 1968 singles, and then THE WHITE ALBUM. Wonder what she'll make of that mish-mosh of 30 songs ending with REV 9?
> >
> > I predict that she loves BLACKBIRD, it will likely be her favorite song on that album.
> Many Carolines ago, when she favored Lennon's songs, I predicted she would move to preferring Paul's songs. Sure enough.
>
> I predict her favorite song on the White Album will be "Mother Nature's Son."

Watch her shock us and pick "Piggies."

geoff

unread,

Dec 15, 2021, 3:22:39 PM12/15/21

to

Naa - Trump is so 'Last Year'.

geoff

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 16, 2021, 8:14:48 AM12/16/21

to

I wish. In parts of this country where drug use is rampant and/or the school systems suck, and people spend their lives unable to distinguish reality from delusion, there is a lingering belief that Trump will be reinstated.

As with the Heaven's Gate cult's belief in the arrival of aliens, however, the date of this supposed Trumpian return is perennially-shifting.

Back to Caroline: She hasn't known what to make of Lennon's more "out there" (i.e., LSD-influenced) efforts on Pepper or Mystery tour. I can't wait to see the look on her face when she hears "Revolution #9."

geoff

unread,

Dec 16, 2021, 6:58:16 PM12/16/21

to

Probably something like "Errrrr..... okaaaaaaay ...".

geoff

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 16, 2021, 7:10:40 PM12/16/21

to

I would love to see somebody for once call R9 for the drug-deranged mess it is.

Instead we get this mincing, deferential, "Oh, this has the most exquisite classical structure," etc.

Caroline will probably be somewhere in the middle, as you suggest.

Bruce

unread,

Dec 16, 2021, 7:45:02 PM12/16/21

to

Plenty of big Beatles fans admit that it's shit. I certainly do. It's fucking horrible. Too bad Paul could not keep it of the album.

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 7:09:35 AM12/17/21

to

No kidding. He must have been horrified. IIRC, Emerick gives a good description of Paul's reaction to the number.

There was a poster here some time ago who had seemingly devoted his life to demonstrating that R9 was not a hodgepodge but a finely-constructed classical composition. To do this, he identified the various sounds that appear in the thing, and the times at which they appear. The problem is that this is a non sequitur. Nobody disputes that the sounds in the song are real and identifiable sounds! The question is whether the thing is a hodgepodge or an impeccably-structured piece. I think it should be obvious to anyone who isn't mesmerized by noise or impaired by drugs that the thing is a mess.

Why was John so insistent on including the thing? Was it a joke? Was he being provocative? Was he trying to destroy the band's image? Was he fried on LSD? Perhaps a combination of all of those.

geoff

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 8:23:22 PM12/17/21

to

Oddly I'm not that 'against' R9. It has its place in the scheme of
things, and is a part of the sign of the times.

I wouldn't put it on to listen to a an Xmas function though ...

geoff

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 8:43:43 PM12/17/21

to

I wouldn't put in on EVER.

geoff

unread,

Dec 18, 2021, 5:30:23 AM12/18/21

to

I wouldn't put 'it' on per se. But I tend to listen to whole discs
right through, which puts a context on the music, usually. Sometimes I'd
skip over it, sometimes not.

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 18, 2021, 10:19:38 AM12/18/21

to

I never bought into the whole "album" thing. Why should I force my self to listen to every track on the album in the precise order that they come up on the album?

To me an album is just a bigger record that has a lot of songs on it. The songs can have nothing at all to do with each other, and usually do. Do you think that "Yellow Submarine" has ANYTHING in common with any other song on REVOLVER?

I don't listen to "albums." I listen to individual tracks, and I rarely listen to the same artist for more than one track. I prefer a mix.

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 19, 2021, 7:40:48 AM12/19/21

to

Nobody asked, but I usually listen to albums all the way through, with the songs in the order in which they were presented. Most of the artists I'm into put a lot of thought into arranging the albums' order.

The White Album is an exception. There are a number of songs on it -- not just "Revolution #9" -- that I skip. I'll pass over that other Manson favorite, "Piggies." I can't stand "Good Night." I can rarely tolerate "Honey Pie." "Savoy Truffle," "Wild Honey Pie," Rocky Raccoon," and "Bungalow Bill" are iffy.

George Martin was right, IMO. Instead of this rambling, hit-and-miss double album, they should have trimmed the fat and put out an excellent single album. Harrison, too, stated not long after the WA's release that the four sides were too many.

Bruce

unread,

Dec 19, 2021, 9:05:09 AM12/19/21

to

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

> Nobody asked, but I usually listen to albums all the way through, with the songs in the order in which they were presented. Most of the artists I'm into put a lot of thought into arranging the albums' order.

Who gives a shit, and why would their "thought" mean anything?

Albums were invented to get more money out of the consumer with each purchase....PERIOD.

> The White Album is an exception. There are a number of songs on it -- not just "Revolution #9" -- that I skip. I'll pass over that other Manson favorite, "Piggies." I can't stand "Good Night." I can rarely tolerate "Honey Pie." "Savoy Truffle," "Wild Honey Pie," Rocky Raccoon," and "Bungalow Bill" are iffy.

"Savoy Truffle" is the best thing on the album IMO.

Message has been deleted

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 19, 2021, 1:05:10 PM12/19/21

to

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
>
> > Nobody asked, but I usually listen to albums all the way through, with the songs in the order in which they were presented. Most of the artists I'm into put a lot of thought into arranging the albums' order.
> Who gives a shit, and why would their "thought" mean anything?

If I didn't care about a songwriter's thoughts, I wouldn't buy the album in the first place! His thoughts are what brought the work into existence.

If an artist wants his song sequence to flow and develop in a particular way, why would that be a problem for you? The sequencing is obviously important on concept albums. I don't see appreciation of song order as so different from appreciation of individual songs' structure (intro here, first verse there, etc.).

geoff

unread,

Dec 19, 2021, 3:52:33 PM12/19/21

to

Some artists/albums are like that. Others have a bit more thought and
intend put into them. Theme-wise if not simple sequencing as to what
goes together best.

Each to their own ...

geoff

geoff

unread,

Dec 19, 2021, 3:58:14 PM12/19/21

to

I enjoy all of those immensely, except Wild Honey Pie. And R9 only very
occasionally. Though how WHP segues into TCSOBB is quite profound.

I cannot understand how anybody could enjoy those t=other track, but
again each to their own ...

And Piggies is extremely relevant, especially given recent history.

geoff

geoff

unread,

Dec 19, 2021, 3:59:38 PM12/19/21

to

On 20/12/2021 3:05 am, Bruce wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
>
>> Nobody asked, but I usually listen to albums all the way through, with the songs in the order in which they were presented. Most of the artists I'm into put a lot of thought into arranging the albums' order.
>
> Who gives a shit, and why would their "thought" mean anything?
>
> Albums were invented to get more money out of the consumer with each purchase....PERIOD.

True in some cases, sad and cynical in others.

>> The White Album is an exception. There are a number of songs on it -- not just "Revolution #9" -- that I skip. I'll pass over that other Manson favorite, "Piggies." I can't stand "Good Night." I can rarely tolerate "Honey Pie." "Savoy Truffle," "Wild Honey Pie," Rocky Raccoon," and "Bungalow Bill" are iffy.
>
> "Savoy Truffle" is the best thing on the album IMO.

Certainly 'one of', for me too.

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 19, 2021, 5:45:18 PM12/19/21

to

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 1:05:10 PM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
> >
> > > Nobody asked, but I usually listen to albums all the way through, with the songs in the order in which they were presented. Most of the artists I'm into put a lot of thought into arranging the albums' order.
> > Who gives a shit, and why would their "thought" mean anything?

> If I didn't care about a songwriter's thoughts, I wouldn't buy the album in the first place! His thoughts are what brought the work into existence.

Well, I have no interest at all in what the lyrics are about. I only care about if the lyrics sound good phonetically. I do care about the music part of the song, but most times that has more to do with the arranger and the producer than the songwriter. Especially if the songwriter is not also the artist. I mean, why the FUCK would I ever care about the songwriters when I listen to the Beatles doing "Twist And Shout?" The songwriters had almost nothing to do with the sound of that recording. And even less to do with the album that "Twist And Shout" is on.

And most albums are not written entirely by one songwriter anyway, so what does their thought have to do with any thing pertaining to an album? They may have something to do with each individual song, which is what I DO care about.

> If an artist wants his song sequence to flow and develop in a particular way, why would that be a problem for you?

Because I don't care about albums in the first place. I evaluate each individual track on its own merits. Why would I care what album it's on, where it comes up on the album, or how the album is sequenced? I don't listen to albums anyway. Before MP3s were around an album was just a way for me to get clean tracks of several songs on one disc. I have very rarely in my life put an album on and listened to every song on the album in the precise order that they come up. Even albums that I had when I was a teenager, I quickly found the tracks I liked and played only them, and in whatever I "I" decided that I wanted to hear them in.

And then there's albums like the American versions of "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" and several other American versions of albums where the songwriter(s) and artist had nothing to do with the sequence of the songs. The Beatles had no says in what songs were on "Met The Beatles," and they also had no say in the sequencing of those songs. The record label decided that.

> The sequencing is obviously important on concept albums. I don't see appreciation of song order as so different from appreciation of individual songs' structure (intro here, first verse there, etc.).

There are almost no real "concept albums," and even on the few that exist, the sequencing is not important. I mean, what the fuck does it matter if "Within You, Without You" comes before or after "When I'm Sixty-Four." The 2 tracks have ZERO in common.

What about albums like "1967-1970," do you have to listen to them in the order that they are on the album?

Do you think that all 4 Beatles always agreed on the sequencing on each album? Maybe John wanted different sequencing on "Rubber Soul" but the others got there way, and maybe John's idea was better.

You're very naive if you think that every album is always sequenced the best way, or even the way that the artist wanted. Many artists don't have the clout to overrule the producer or the record company. Sometimes a record company insists on a certain song being on the album or not being on the album for copyright purposes. Maybe it's between 2 tracks and the artist prefers one of them, but the record company put the other one on because it a remake of a track that the record company owns the copyright on. So they include that one because it saves them money.

geoff

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 1:01:12 AM12/20/21

to

On 20/12/2021 11:45 am, Bruce wrote:
> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 1:05:10 PM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody asked, but I usually listen to albums all the way through, with the songs in the order in which they were presented. Most of the artists I'm into put a lot of thought into arranging the albums' order.
>>> Who gives a shit, and why would their "thought" mean anything?
>
>> If I didn't care about a songwriter's thoughts, I wouldn't buy the album in the first place! His thoughts are what brought the work into existence.
>
> Well, I have no interest at all in what the lyrics are about. I only care about if the lyrics sound good phonetically. I do care about the music part of the song, but most times that has more to do with the arranger and the producer than the songwriter. Especially if the songwriter is not also the artist. I mean, why the FUCK would I ever care about the songwriters when I listen to the Beatles doing "Twist And Shout?" The songwriters had almost nothing to do with the sound of that recording. And even less to do with the album that "Twist And Shout" is on.

That's the case for you... OK. Different for many others.

Sad that you seem to be oblivious, or in total denial, of a large part
of what is music. So Across The Universe (or Twist And Shout if you
like) may as well just have been hummed along to ? Or random rhyming
words ?

FWIW the like of Twist And Shout were fairly revolutionary in their day.

>
> And most albums are not written entirely by one songwriter anyway, so what does their thought have to do with any thing pertaining to an album? They may have something to do with each individual song, which is what I DO care about.
>
>> If an artist wants his song sequence to flow and develop in a particular way, why would that be a problem for you?
>
> Because I don't care about albums in the first place. I evaluate each individual track on its own merits. Why would I care what album it's on, where it comes up on the album, or how the album is sequenced? I don't listen to albums anyway. Before MP3s were around an album was just a way for me to get clean tracks of several songs on one disc. I have very rarely in my life put an album on and listened to every song on the album in the precise order that they come up. Even albums that I had when I was a teenager, I quickly found the tracks I liked and played only them, and in whatever I "I" decided that I wanted to hear them in.

Sad for you.

>
> And then there's albums like the American versions of "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" and several other American versions of albums where the songwriter(s) and artist had nothing to do with the sequence of the songs. The Beatles had no says in what songs were on "Met The Beatles," and they also had no say in the sequencing of those songs. The record label decided that.

Yes ....

>> The sequencing is obviously important on concept albums. I don't see appreciation of song order as so different from appreciation of individual songs' structure (intro here, first verse there, etc.).

Well you see wrong. Songs are not just stuck on an album in any old
random way. Even on albums of trivial music, though the criteria may be
different.

>
> There are almost no real "concept albums," and even on the few that exist, the sequencing is not important. I mean, what the fuck does it matter if "Within You, Without You" comes before or after "When I'm Sixty-Four." The 2 tracks have ZERO in common.
>
> What about albums like "1967-1970," do you have to listen to them in the order that they are on the album?
>
> Do you think that all 4 Beatles always agreed on the sequencing on each album? Maybe John wanted different sequencing on "Rubber Soul" but the others got there way, and maybe John's idea was better.

They did and would have significant time and effort into deciding on it.
A somewhere along the line a consensus would have been reached, with
input from mainly the musicians and the producer.

> You're very naive if you think that every album is always sequenced the best way, or even the way that the artist wanted. Many artists don't have the clout to overrule the producer or the record company. Sometimes a record company insists on a certain song being on the album or not being on the album for copyright purposes. Maybe it's between 2 tracks and the artist prefers one of them, but the record company put the other one on because it a remake of a track that the record company owns the copyright on. So they include that one because it saves them money.

Did I say 'every album' ? Yes , I must be naive. I do this for a
living. Must be why I'm not rich.

As I said, each to their own.

geoff

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 6:31:24 AM12/20/21

to

You and I have opposing approaches in how we listen to music. Fine.

You seem to think albums' song series are random and meaningless; I think that, more often than not -- and certainly in the case of the Beatles -- albums' song sequencing is the result of care, thought, and reasoning.

For me, listening to a good album is like rereading a favored book. I'm not going to pick out pages at random; rather, I'll enjoy its familiar rhythms. I know the story, and I know which chapter is coming next, and I know how it is going to end; I still might pick out previously unnoticed details.

Again, respecting a band's ability to structure songs is similar to respecting their ability to structure album.

Bruce

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 9:22:03 AM12/20/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 6:31:24 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
>
> You seem to think albums' song series are random and meaningless; I think that, more often than not -- and certainly in the case of the Beatles -- albums' song sequencing is the result of care, thought, and reasoning.

Like I said, many of their albums were sequenced by the record company for business reasons, not by the group for artistic reasons.

> For me, listening to a good album is like rereading a favored book. I'm not going to pick out pages at random; rather, I'll enjoy its familiar rhythms. I know the story, and I know which chapter is coming next, and I know how it is going to end; I still might pick out previously unnoticed details.

Except a book actually tells a story in chronological order. There's a reason why chapter 10 comes later than chapter 2. Because things that happen in chapter 10 could not happen until AFTER other things that happened in chapter 2. Sequencing songs is totally different. "Good Morning, Good Morning" could have been anywhere on Sgt. Pepper. It could have been the first track on the album and it wouldn't have made one fucking degree of difference.

> Again, respecting a band's ability to structure songs is similar to respecting their ability to structure album.

Structuring songs is the whole ball game. Sequencing albums doesn't mean shit. And even if it did, most acts in the Beatles era did not even get to pick the songs for their albums, let alone sequence them. Do you think the Beatles had anything to do with which songs were on "Beatles '65" or "Yesterday And Today," let alone in sequencing those songs?

With the American releases, until they started Apple, they did not even have a say in which songs were released on singles, and what the B sides were. In the UK the flip of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was the non UK album track "This Boy." In the USA the flip of "Hand" was "I Saw Her Standing There."

The group did not want "Yesterday" to be on a single, and in the UK it wasn't on a single. But in the US Capitol released "Yesterday" as a single over the objections of the group.

On the albums you listen to you have just gotten used to the sequencing, that's all. They could have sequenced the songs on these albums by picking them out of a hat, and you'd still feel the same way about them after getting used to it.

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 3:45:49 PM12/20/21

to

You are mistaken on that last point and I'll tell you why. Some of the artists I like have specifically discussed the thinking and procedures behind their albums' song sequence. E.g., I'm a fan of a hard rock band in which the guitarist would create visual representations of each song and place them on a wall. The bandmembers would rearrange the images until they had settled upon a series that satisfied each member. Now, I was just listening to one of their records, and I thought (as I always have with this one), "They came close to a perfect arrangement -- but these two songs should have been swapped." I feel this way about most of their records, although there are three on which they did achieve the best possible "setlist."

I'll bet I could dig around and find indications that the Beatles purposefully arranged the song order on *most* of their albums, but what would be the point? You don't listen to albums -- and I am not out to convert you on anything.

geoff

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 3:55:36 PM12/20/21

to

On 21/12/2021 3:21 am, Bruce wrote:
> On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 6:31:24 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
>>
>> You seem to think albums' song series are random and meaningless; I think that, more often than not -- and certainly in the case of the Beatles -- albums' song sequencing is the result of care, thought, and reasoning.
>
> Like I said, many of their albums were sequenced by the record company for business reasons, not by the group for artistic reasons.
>
>> For me, listening to a good album is like rereading a favored book. I'm not going to pick out pages at random; rather, I'll enjoy its familiar rhythms. I know the story, and I know which chapter is coming next, and I know how it is going to end; I still might pick out previously unnoticed details.
>
> Except a book actually tells a story in chronological order. There's a reason why chapter 10 comes later than chapter 2. Because things that happen in chapter 10 could not happen until AFTER other things that happened in chapter 2. Sequencing songs is totally different. "Good Morning, Good Morning" could have been anywhere on Sgt. Pepper. It could have been the first track on the album and it wouldn't have made one fucking degree of difference.

Except it wasn't, and for a reason. Probably most to do with the
slightly upbeat tempo of Lovely Rita to the frenetic intensity of Good
morning, Good Morning.

>
>> Again, respecting a band's ability to structure songs is similar to respecting their ability to structure album.
>
> Structuring songs is the whole ball game. Sequencing albums doesn't mean shit. And even if it did, most acts in the Beatles era did not even get to pick the songs for their albums, let alone sequence them. Do you think the Beatles had anything to do with which songs were on "Beatles '65" or "Yesterday And Today," let alone in sequencing those songs?

Even with albums where the artists or songs could be considered trivial,
sequencing is for a reason. And yes, in some cases commercial criteria
from the label is overriding.

> With the American releases, until they started Apple, they did not even have a say in which songs were released on singles, and what the B sides were. In the UK the flip of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was the non UK album track "This Boy." In the USA the flip of "Hand" was "I Saw Her Standing There."

"With the American releases" is pretty much irrelevant, as they had
little or no control over Capitol for commercial reasons. Sorry if you
had to suffer the US bastardisations. And the compilation albums should
not even be considered 'Beatles Albums' per se, more 'record label'
products for those who either want just hits, and/or are
singles-orientated. Though even would have had content and sequencing
done deliberately, but with different criteria to what the band itself
and original producer may have wanted.

>
> The group did not want "Yesterday" to be on a single, and in the UK it wasn't on a single. But in the US Capitol released "Yesterday" as a single over the objections of the group.

Yes, and ....?

> On the albums you listen to you have just gotten used to the sequencing, that's all. They could have sequenced the songs on these albums by picking them out of a hat, and you'd still feel the same way about them after getting used to it.

Disagree. Yes, one would have to accept that a random ordered album as
the way it was supposed to be, because that would have been the was it was !

How about on The Beatles - do you think placing I Will directly after
Why Don't We Do It In The Road was random, or Mother Nature's Son
between Yer Blues and Everybody's Got Something To Hide ..... was not
for a very deliberate reason ?

At least you would have to concede Good Night, The End (OK, ignoring
Your Majesty tacked on), and A Day In The Life, were the final track for
a very specific reason ?

Do you imagine that the sequencing of,say, Dark Side Of the Moon is random ?

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 4:28:07 PM12/20/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:45:49 PM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:
>
> I'll bet I could dig around and find indications that the Beatles purposefully arranged the song order on *most* of their albums, but what would be the point? You don't listen to albums -- and I am not out to convert you on anything.

They did on most of the UK albums, but not on the American albums until at least 1967. They had no contractual right to sequence the albums that Capitol put out from 1966 and earlier. The Capitol albums with the same name as the UK albums (A Hard Day's Night, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Help) do not even have the same tracks, let alone the same sequencing.

Bruce

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 4:34:48 PM12/20/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:55:36 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>
> Do you imagine that the sequencing of, say, Dark Side Of the Moon is random ?

First let me say that "Money" is great, mainly because they stole the riff from "Green Onions." Everything else on the album is totally unlistenable IMO. Just fucking awful movie soundtrack music. I'm sure that by 1973 most albums were sequenced for reasons that someone (artist(s), producer, label, etc..) thought was brilliant, but my contention is that it wouldn't matter if the songs had been arranged randomly. "Dark Side" and most every other hit album would have been just as big if they were sequenced randomly as they were with the sequencing they had.

geoff

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 5:39:52 PM12/20/21

to

On 21/12/2021 10:34 am, Bruce wrote:
> On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:55:36 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>>
>> Do you imagine that the sequencing of, say, Dark Side Of the Moon is random ?
>
> First let me say that "Money" is great, mainly because they stole the riff from "Green Onions." Everything else on the album is totally unlistenable IMO. Just fucking awful movie soundtrack music. I'm sure that by 1973 most albums were sequenced for reasons that someone (artist(s), producer, label, etc..) thought was brilliant,

Oh, so they were then ?

> but my contention is that it wouldn't matter if the songs had been arranged randomly. "Dark Side" and most every other hit album would have been just as big if they were sequenced randomly as they were with the sequencing they had.
>
>
>
>

Que ?!!!!!! On all counts.

Deluded. Green Onions hook 4/4 and 3 notes, Money 7/4 and 6 different
notes in completely different order.

DSOM generally considered one of, if not the best, albums of the '70s
and remaining pretty much top of all listings that I've ever seen since
then.

"...as the sun is eclipsed by the moon ..." - rallentando winding down
to a final mellow sustained chord. Yeah - that would be great in the
middle of the album.

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 7:10:10 PM12/20/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 5:39:52 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 10:34 am, Bruce wrote:

> > First let me say that "Money" is great, mainly because they stole the riff from "Green Onions."
>

> Deluded. Green Onions hook 4/4 and 3 notes, Money 7/4 and 6 different
> notes in completely different order.

Read it and weep, stupid.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/pink-floyds-david-gilmour-revealed-money-inspired-band.html/

This American band inspired Pink Floyd to get a little funky with ‘Money’
“Money” is a hard rock song with a prominent R&B/blues influence. In some ways, it warrants comparison to the music of Pink Floyd’s British contemporaries The Rolling Stones. However, the band that inspired “Money” was actually Booker T. & the M.G.’s.

“Getting specific about how and what influenced what is always difficult, but I was a big Booker T fan,” Gilmour told Rolling Stone. “I had the Green Onions album when I was a teenager. And in my previous band, we were going for two or three years, and we went through Beatles and Beach Boys, on to all the Stax and soul stuff. We played ‘Green Onions’ onstage. I’d done a fair bit of that stuff; it was something I thought we could incorporate into our sound without anyone spotting where the influence had come from. And to me, it worked. Nice white English architecture students getting funky is a bit of an odd thought… and isn’t as funky as all that [laughs].”

Bruce

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 7:18:58 PM12/20/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 5:39:52 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>

> DSOM generally considered one of, if not the best, albums of the '70s
> and remaining pretty much top of all listings that I've ever seen since
> then.

Yes, there are millions of potheads out there, and apparently "Dark Side" is the biggest all time stoner album. Again, I don't listen to albums, but I have heard every song on the album, and aside from "Money" that are all utter shit IMO. But I don't get high and never have. I was a sophomore in high school when the album came out. The kids I knew who were potheads loved that album. The rest of the kids I knew, who did not smoke pot, never mentioned that album.

Like most of the people in the USA, the only two Pink Floyd songs I like are the two big hit singles. The only 2 songs they had that cracked the top 50 on the Billboard singles chart. "Run Like Hell" was their third biggest hit, peaking at #53.

geoff

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 8:22:40 PM12/20/21

to

"Inspired by" does not imply "stolen from" or even "particularly similar
to".

Read this again and try to comprehend:

The Green Onions intro hook 4/4 time signature and a 3 notes sequence.
Money 7/4 and 6 different notes in completely different order on a
completely different instrument.

Now listen to the two songs. The *only* similarity is that that have a
repeating opening riff, which is similar only in the vaguest to Green
Onions.

Try to understand what "inspired by" means.

Thanks for the 'stupid' BTW.

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 8:30:09 PM12/20/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 8:22:40 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>
> Try to understand what "inspired by" means.

Try to understand what this means:

it was something I thought we could incorporate into our sound without anyone spotting where "the influence" had come from.

Inspiration is not influence. He purposely tried to hide what influenced "Money," but it didn't work on me.

Bruce

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 8:32:45 PM12/20/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 8:22:40 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 1:10 pm, Bruce wrote:
> > On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 5:39:52 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> On 21/12/2021 10:34 am, Bruce wrote:
> >
> >>> First let me say that "Money" is great, mainly because they stole the riff from "Green Onions."
> >>
> >> Deluded. Green Onions hook 4/4 and 3 notes, Money 7/4 and 6 different
> >> notes in completely different order.
> >
> > Read it and weep, stupid.
> >
> > https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/pink-floyds-david-gilmour-revealed-money-inspired-band.html/
> >
> > This American band inspired Pink Floyd to get a little funky with ‘Money’
> > “Money” is a hard rock song with a prominent R&B/blues influence. In some ways, it warrants comparison to the music of Pink Floyd’s British contemporaries The Rolling Stones. However, the band that inspired “Money” was actually Booker T. & the M.G.’s.
> >
> > “Getting specific about how and what influenced what is always difficult, but I was a big Booker T fan,” Gilmour told Rolling Stone. “I had the Green Onions album when I was a teenager. And in my previous band, we were going for two or three years, and we went through Beatles and Beach Boys, on to all the Stax and soul stuff. We played ‘Green Onions’ onstage. I’d done a fair bit of that stuff; it was something I thought we could incorporate into our sound without anyone spotting where the influence had come from. And to me, it worked. Nice white English architecture students getting funky is a bit of an odd thought… and isn’t as funky as all that [laughs].”
> "Inspired by" does not imply "stolen from" or even "particularly similar
> to".
>
> Read this again and try to comprehend:
>
> The Green Onions intro hook 4/4 time signature and a 3 notes sequence.
> Money 7/4

The song changes to 4/4 time for an extended guitar solo.

geoff

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 8:50:18 PM12/20/21

to

Yes, which is nothing like anything at all in Green Onions.

geoff

geoff

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 9:05:07 PM12/20/21

to

Sorry, that is just ridiculous. Just like saying Money was copied off
Prokofiev's Precipitato because it's in 7/4. Or copied from any other
song with a repeating motif that lasts for the first few bars or verses.
He didn't try to hide anything anywhere. If so, not a good idea to
'hide' it as a solo instrumental at the very beginning.

"Purposefully tried to hide it" in which case he did it very well, by
writing something completely different. Ha ha ha.

Actually Gilmour didn't write Money per se. Waters did, although
obviously others contributed their parts to the arrangement, and Gilmour
certainly the guiar solo (which is in no part remotely like anything in
Green Onion).

And it was soley Roger who came up with the bass intro that reminds you
of the Booker T song.

But you've dug your hole so deep you will never concede anything about it.

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 10:42:34 PM12/20/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 8:50:18 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

> Yes, which is nothing like anything at all in Green Onions.

We'll let the members judge if "money" sounds like "Green Onions."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bpS-cOBK6Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sndo_wdc384

curtis...@gmail.com

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 10:26:22 AM12/21/21

to

I've heard each song hundreds of times, and...if it wasn't specifically pointed out to me, I wouldn't have guessed.

Bruce

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 11:11:58 AM12/21/21

to

But now that it was, you can hear it, right?

They disguised it well enough to fool most people.

Mack A. Damia

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 12:48:26 PM12/21/21

to

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:11:56 -0800 (PST), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:

Nothing earth-shattering about this revelation. Fairly common
knowledge among the in-crowd..

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/pink-floyds-david-gilmour-revealed-money-inspired-band.html/

Norbert K

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 12:52:09 PM12/21/21

to

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 5:39:52 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:

Pardon the digression, but does anyone remember the Waters-Gilmour feud of the 80s and 90s? It was good fun -- and right up there with that between Lennon and McCartney in the early 70s.

Waters heaped scorn on Gilmour's lyrics -- and claimed to know that Gilmour's initial batch of late 80s "Pink Floyd" songs was rejected by the record company because it didn't sound Floyd enough. The company hired ghostwriters, according to Waters, to modify the songs into something supposedly more Floydian. IIRC, some participant in all this publicly supported Waters' claims.

Gilmour claimed to have actually played some of "Waters'" basslines. "Roger on fretless? Please."

Bruce

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 1:12:56 PM12/21/21

to

Yes, so why the fuck is Geoff challenging it?

geoff

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 2:26:29 PM12/21/21

to

Maybe you are joking after all. Sorry, thought you were serious.

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 2:30:40 PM12/21/21

to

I am serious.

geoff

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 6:20:00 PM12/21/21

to

Jeeze 'inspired by', maybe. So what ?

Not copied, based on, hidden (ha ha !!!), disguised. Or even similar in
notes, sequence, time signature(s), or song structure.

The only similarities are that there is a repeating open motif (which
itself is totally dissimilar). And a 1-4-5 chord pattern just like about
95% of modern pop/rock songs. Big Deal.

Which of those statements do you disagree with ? And explain
specifically in what way.

geoff

Bruce

unread,

Dec 21, 2021, 7:33:05 PM12/21/21

to

Not just inspired by, but influenced by. And I am going by what my ears hear, not what the technical musical terms happen to be. As soon as I heard "Money" I noticed the similarity to "Green Onions" and sure enough that band member confirmed it in the text I posted. How he had the entire "Green Onions" album, and how he wanted to have that kind of sound for his band, but wanted to conceal that he had gotten the idea from "Green Onions" so that it wouldn't be so obvious to everyone. o me it is mainly the bass riff that opens "Money" that is taken from "Green Onions," but that is the best part of both songs for me.