Which do you prefer?  I know this is probably a pointless question to ask at a place like this, but I'm still curious.  Maybe I'll be surprised and find out there are a lot of "Sgt. Pepper" fans around here after all.

 

Speaking for myself, I lean toward the early material.  Not that I have any problems with the later material, but I just prefer the band's short and simple pop tunes from their early days.  To me, those songs are pure pop magic.

 

BTW, I decided to bring this up because I was listening to "Breakfast with the Beatles" on the Sirius Underground Garage channel yesterday, and because it was the day of the 45th Super Bowl, Chris Carter decided to play all of the Beatles' 45s in chronological order (45th Super Bowl, 45 records, get it?).  I lost the signal after the first hour, because I'm located in a spot where I lose the signal at certain times (I suppose it's because the satellite is changing its position), but that's OK because I heard a lot of my favorite early hit singles.

late beatles pre let it be rules. abbey road is alright for being from that era, but the real treasure is the white album.

Rubber Sole is the best Beatles album ever, Run For Your Life, Best song, that's just me.

tough question .....Got the mono box set last year and played it to death since. Think i like the latter stuff better .... but everything is great .... my favorite is the White Album !

That's another good way to sum it all up, simple vs. experimental.

Doc Sanchez said:

I'd go for the early stuff, too. But I must say my favourite album is "Let It Be": simple, sometimes bluesy, always really aching songs. Maybe I'd not say early vs. late, but simple vs. experimental.

I'd go for the early stuff, too. But I must say my favourite album is "Let It Be": simple, sometimes bluesy, always really aching songs. Maybe I'd not say early vs. late, but simple vs. experimental.

Back in the days when they were bad boys popping speed so they could play those eight hour sets in the clubs of Hamburg, not the cleaned up choir boys Brian Epstein turned them into.  I can understand that.

erin said:

i like the REALLY early stuff, like when they still wore leather jackets and had ducktails and covered chuck berry. i know some of that stuff is included in the anthology.

i like the REALLY early stuff, like when they still wore leather jackets and had ducktails and covered chuck berry. i know some of that stuff is included in the anthology.

I would draw the line at "Sgt. Pepper."  Anything before that could be considered early, and anything after that could be considered later.

 

Yes, I know some of those "early" albums were also very experimental, i.e. "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver," but they were still pop albums for the most part, albeit ones with more adventurous sounds and lyrics.

 

BTW, I'm just generalizing.  I know some of you are going to split hairs over this and disagree vehemently, and that's fine.  This is just my viewpoint. 

Sander Smeenk said:

I think I'll go for the early beatles. Just simple rock n roll songs instead of strange sitar plucking. But that doesn't mean that every later beatles song. Some are even better than the early ones in my opinion (Julia, Taxman, Magical Mystery Tour). And also, when is something early and when is something later?

I think I'll go for the early beatles. Just simple rock n roll songs instead of strange sitar plucking. But that doesn't mean that every later beatles song. Some are even better than the early ones in my opinion (Julia, Taxman, Magical Mystery Tour). And also, when is something early and when is something later?