Best Albums of All Time

[DBAHO]

Oasis: Morning Glory (I know, I know...)

I neva get sick of listenin to that either. It's just too bad they haven't done anythin else really good since then.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Lennon and Harrison had much better solo careers than him and I enjoy listening to their music.

Hey bones,

 

By what objective criteria do you make this statement? You can't mean "much better" in a commercial sense, or in any sense of musical consistency.

 

Don't get me wrong, John and George both had impressive high water marks in their solo careers, and I own every last official release of each of them (on vinyl, except for the last Harrison stuff). Yes, I've even got John/Yoko's hard-to-listen-to Life with the Lions, Wedding Album, Some Time in NYC (and the alternate release of the second disc put out with the Mothers' Fillmore East album). cw and I may be the only people who still have copies of George's Wonderwall, I have Electronic Soundz, and every good (All Things Must Pass, Dark Horse, Material World, etc.) and not-so-good (Gone Tropo) Hari album. My favorite solo Beatle's stuff actually is George's, but my buying the records didn't put them over the top commercially.

 

Wings may not have been a lot of people's cup of tea, or some of the more saccharine Paul solo stuff, or the lucrative if forgetable duets with the One-Gloved One. But McCartney's solo stuff outsold John and Goerge's stuff combined, including the Wilburry's stuff and whatnot. John only lived for 10 years after the Beatles split, and until Double Fantasy and (the posthumous) Milk and Honey, he only made music for the first 5 of those years. He spent the other 5 years fightining on and off with Yoko, falling in and out of bed with May Pang, and raising Sean. Agter ATMP and Bangladesh, George had the occassional top 40 appearance - This Song, Crackerbox Palace, Blow Away, All Those Years Ago, and a few things off of Cloud 9, an album with some good work on it that becomes less listenable each year do to the heavy-handed Jeff Lynne production.

 

Meanwhile, I think McCartney II was the only Paul album to not go Gold or better within a year of its release through at least 1990. It's too easy to dismiss McCartney as the "cute Beatle," and untalented compared to Lennon, but it's a lazy assessment and simply not true. Lennon-McCartney were yin to yang in every sense, and at the heart of each of them was a good dose of the other. "A Day in the Life" - such a trademark John song, but there's Paul's "Woke up, got out of bed..." bridge right in the middle that brings it all together. Lucy in the Sky is as John as a pre-White Album Beatles song gets, but it's the trademark descending lines and root/fifths bass part that keeps it moving. Of course it worked the other way around all the time too. Paperback Writer is Paul's loving jab at John "the author" after In His Own Write was published. But the "Frer-ah-Jaque-ah" backing vocal is all John. Ditto for the "Do-re-mi" backing vocal on the very Paul "Hello Goodbye."

 

In the best Lennon-McCartney Beatles songs, it's really hard to see where their individual contributions fall out, as it should be. I guess the Walrus really was Paul.

[Pastime]

I actually like their solo stuff better than I ever liked their stuff with "The Beatles."

 

But I was born in 1971, so I have bias.

 

My favorite Beatles album is "Abbey Road." Not that it means anything.

 

[cwsox]

However, I do give the Beatles credit for evolving into a good, okay great, band in their later years.

The Beatles changed everything.

 

They revolutionized everything.

 

They saved a dying art form known as rock and roll.

 

And their early stuff is incredibly good and the later stuff is better.

 

Thet deserve the accolades, always did, always will. Where ,usic was when they came in, and where it was when as a group they left the scene, as well as their own progression, is simply a reflection of who much they changed everything.

 

Consider why Rolling Stone who panders to a youth market turned around and rated all those Beatles albums in their top 10 and top 20.

 

Yes, I know, all of a sudden Rolling Stones goes from pandering to youth to being a bunch of aging baby boomers.

 

There is nothing that is happening today that does not come from what the Beatles did. They and they alone are that significant. The history of music is what it is. They had things influence them, but they put it together, made something new, that simply changed everything.

 

I am aware that is sometime really cool to put down things because they seem so popular or been said so much that one looks to be separate from that. But the Beatles transcend all such and it is what it is and their legacy and place in history is very secure.

 

As far as the Beasties Boys and Eminem comment, if that was purely objective comment, you are right, of course. If that was meant to put down Em or something, didn't happen to me. There were many things which paved the way for Eminem and Beastes Boys is one of them, and that is neither a positive nor a negative, just fact. My response is yes, I agree.

[BrandoFan]

The Beatles changed everything.

 

They revolutionized everything.

 

They saved a dying art form known as rock and roll.

 

 

Beattles = Orson Welles of rock'n'roll?

 

Beattles = Marlon Brando of rock'n'roll?

 

Beattles = Michael Jordan of rock'n'roll?

 

 

Elaborate please.

[cwsox]

Beattles = Orson Welles of rock'n'roll?

 

Beattles = Marlon Brando of rock'n'roll?

 

Beattles = Michael Jordan of rock'n'roll?

 

 

Elaborate please.

brando, yes all of that and more, much more, much more. And the MJ analogy fails sadly. He was the best player arguably but he transformed nothing. Brando and Wells are a tad closer but they lacked the revolutionary impact on all of culture as well as their art form (although Brando's iconic status is certainly and he did to that a small degree). There are no analogies because they tarnscended all possible analogies. Elvis may be the closest as he helped usher in the world of rock and roll but even he was greatly outclipsed by the Beatles.

 

elaborate?

 

not enough time to do a doctoral thesis to back that up.

 

However, there are no reflections from all of the media on the anniveraries of Hermans Hermits or Manfred Mann or the Dave Clark 5 or the Essex or the Shangrilas as there will not be for hardly anyone else. This is not a favorite band that some people recall. This was a pivotal moment in American culture and music, and world culture and music. They were not sui generis, nothing is, and they were not the creators of all things, no one is (non theologically speaking), but they opened doors, they introduced, they embodied, they incarnate of all that was "the 60s" which did not begin until 9 Fenruary 1964.

 

The Beatles transformed, changed music, culture, popular and real, everything.

 

There is enough academic and scholarly material out there.

 

Not giving you short shrift my friend - perhaps what is hard to fathom for some is how different the world was on February 8th and February 10th of 1964, let alone how different the world was then than now. I don't know if there could be anythig of such immediate, revolutionary impact today.

 

What lacks for many is that the Beatles are considered your parents or your grandparents music, old, you've grown up with it always being there and some are tired of it, think it is passe, you've heard enough raves about them, whatever. That does not take away from the astounding revolutionary impact they had on everything, on everything they touched. Whatever the gestalt of the 4 of them together in that time and place, it was a moment and several years of signal impact of the most transforming, transcendent kind that happens very, very rarely. Scoffers who are tres chic and beyond or above everything may do their caustic put downs and dismissals (and I understand that, I love to reject thinsg that seem overly popular too) but it is what it is and what it was and as both herald and agent of change, the Beatles stand alone.

 

I feel lucky to have been alive and old enough to appreicate it when it happened and kept happening.

[BrandoFan]

brando, yes all of that and more, much more, much more.  And the MJ analogy fails sadly.  He was the best player arguably but he transformed nothing.  Brando and Wells are a tad closer but they lacked the revolutionary impact on all of culture as well as their art form (although Brando's iconic status is certainly and he did to that a small degree).   There are no analogies because they tarnscended all possible analogies.  Elvis may be the closest as he helped usher in the world of rock and roll but even he was greatly outclipsed by the Beatles.

 

elaborate?

 

not enough time to do a doctoral thesis to back that up.

 

However, there are no reflections from all of the media on the anniveraries of Hermans Hermits or  Manfred Mann or the Dave Clark 5 or the Essex or the Shangrilas as there will not be for hardly anyone else.  This is not a favorite band that some people recall.  This was a pivotal moment in American culture and music, and world culture and music.  They were not sui generis, nothing is, and they were not the creators of all things, no one is (non theologically speaking), but they opened doors, they introduced, they embodied, they incarnate of all that was "the 60s" which did not begin until 9 Fenruary 1964.

 

The Beatles transformed, changed music, culture, popular and real, everything.

 

There is enough academic and scholarly material out there.

 

Not giving you short shrift my friend - perhaps what is hard to fathom for some is how different the world was on February 8th and February 10th of 1964, let alone how different the world was then than now.  I don't know if there could be anythig of such immediate, revolutionary impact today.

 

What lacks for many is that the Beatles are considered your parents or your grandparents music, old, you've grown up with it always being there and some are tired of it, think it is passe, you've heard enough raves about them, whatever.  That does not take away from the astounding revolutionary impact they had on everything, on everything they touched.  Whatever the gestalt of the 4 of them together in that time and place, it was a moment and several years of signal impact of the most transforming, transcendent kind that happens very, very rarely.  Scoffers who are tres chic and beyond or above everything may do their caustic put downs and dismissals (and I understand that, I love to reject thinsg that seem overly popular too) but it is what it is and what it was and as both herald and agent of change, the Beatles stand alone.

 

I feel lucky to have been alive and old enough to appreicate it when it happened and kept happening.

I personally admire the Beattles more than I enjoy their music/songs, few outstanding efforts notwithstanding. Song-writing wise, they are up there I guess.. But I was never wild about the vocals and instrument-playing aspects. Not my style, not my aesthetic really. Thematically, too come to think of it.

 

 

The herald as well as agent of change (progress?) comment was hilarious AND probably true.

 

As far as M-Jeff....the man would have won 9 or 10 titles in 12 years if it wasn't for his father's death and the foolish retirement, in the era of free agency no less. Set the modern standard for excellence, ambition, determination, game IQ as well as for physical ability that athletes 100 years from now will judged by......Perhaps I should have used Ali or Ruth or Pele instead.

 

Beattles = Shakespeare of rock-n-roll? Darwin of rock-n-roll? What?

[The Bones]

As far as the Beasties Boys and Eminem comment, if that was purely objective comment, you are right, of course.  If that was meant to put down Em or something, didn't happen to me.  There were many things which paved the way for Eminem and Beastes Boys is one of them, and that is neither a positive nor a negative, just fact.  My response is yes, I agree.

I was not trying to put down Eminem or anything. He is a great talent. It just seemed like you were questioning my knowledge in music history and I had to say something that I knew that you'd agree with to prove I'm not a complete idiot for saying the Beatles are overrated. My post that you were replying to was not worded very well.

 

As far as the Beatles go, their later work and there contribution to music is obviously not in question. I'm not even questioning their earlier work right now. All I'm saying is that nobody, NOBODY, deserves to be worshiped like the Beatles were during Beatlemania and all that. Maybe it's because I did not live then, but c'mon they are just people like you and me.

[The Bones]

As far as M-Jeff....the man would have won 9 or 10 titles in 12 years if it wasn't for his father's death and the foolish retirement, in the era of free agency no less.

But then we all wouldn't have been graced with his presence in the Sox minor leagues.

[The Bones]

Hey bones,

 

By what objective criteria do you make this statement?  You can't mean "much better" in a commercial sense, or in any sense of musical consistency.

 

Don't get me wrong, John and George both had impressive high water marks in their solo careers, and I own every last official release of each of them (on vinyl, except for the last Harrison stuff).  Yes, I've even got John/Yoko's hard-to-listen-to Life with the Lions, Wedding Album, Some Time in NYC (and the alternate release of the second disc put out with the Mothers' Fillmore East album).  cw and I may be the only people who still have copies of George's Wonderwall, I have Electronic Soundz, and every good (All Things Must Pass, Dark Horse, Material World, etc.) and not-so-good (Gone Tropo) Hari album.  My favorite solo Beatle's stuff actually is George's, but my buying the records didn't put them over the top commercially.

 

Wings may not have been a lot of people's cup of tea, or some of the more saccharine Paul solo stuff, or the lucrative if forgetable duets with the One-Gloved One.  But McCartney's solo stuff outsold John and Goerge's stuff combined, including the Wilburry's stuff and whatnot.  John only lived for 10 years after the Beatles split, and until Double Fantasy and (the posthumous) Milk and Honey, he only made music for the first 5 of those years.  He spent the other 5 years fightining on and off with Yoko, falling in and out of bed with May Pang, and raising Sean.  Agter ATMP and Bangladesh, George had the occassional top 40 appearance - This Song, Crackerbox Palace, Blow Away, All Those Years Ago, and a few things off of Cloud 9, an album with some good work on it that becomes less listenable each year do to the heavy-handed Jeff Lynne production.

 

Meanwhile, I think McCartney II was the only Paul album to not go Gold or better within a year of its release through at least 1990.  It's too easy to dismiss McCartney as the "cute Beatle," and untalented compared to Lennon, but it's a lazy assessment and simply not true.  Lennon-McCartney were yin to yang in every sense, and at the heart of each of them was a good dose of the other.  "A Day in the Life" - such a trademark John song, but there's Paul's "Woke up, got out of bed..." bridge right in the middle that brings it all together.  Lucy in the Sky is as John as a pre-White Album Beatles song gets, but it's the trademark descending lines and root/fifths bass part that keeps it moving.  Of course it worked the other way around all the time too.  Paperback Writer is Paul's loving jab at John "the author" after In His Own Write was published.  But the "Frer-ah-Jaque-ah" backing vocal is all John.  Ditto for the "Do-re-mi" backing vocal on the very Paul "Hello Goodbye."

 

In the best Lennon-McCartney Beatles songs, it's really hard to see where their individual contributions fall out, as it should be.  I guess the Walrus really was Paul.

I did not live back then so I did not fully experience their careers. All I know is that from what I've heard I like John and George's stuff much better.

 

All I can say to this is that not all of the best commercially selling albums are always the best musically. I know this is often the case. Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys is known by many as the Beastie Boys best album but it was their worst in a commercial sense. Pretty much the same for Rolling Stones-Exile on Main Street.

 

I could mention others but the point I'm trying to make is that commercial success does not mean great music. Some of the best stuff could be stuff I haven't even heard yet.

[BrandoFan]

Maybe it's because I did not live then, but c'mon they are just people like you and me.

 

I agree that Beattles are somewhat overrated, there is simply no way around it. Culturally, musically, financially, everything.

 

BUT the "they're just like you and me" arguement is weak. Guess what? The man who came up with a Polio vaccine was also like you and me. Pushkin, Darwin, Edison, Lincoln, Einstein, Ghandi, Hitler, Welles, etc were all flesh and blood. A mouth, a nose, two eyes-- one on each side-- as Woody Allen would say.

[BrandoFan]

I've said this once and I'll say it again:

 

Paul Mac's smug "I am not about to ruin my life for a good song", while understandable in that a certain context (ie drug use, etc), is inexcusable.

 

That is not what a genius is supposed to say. What that is is the definitive battle cry of the Mediocre.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Maybe it's because I did not live then, but c'mon they are just people like you and me.

That's what makes it so amazing, that four "just people," flesh and blood, kill-able by bullets and cancer, etc., could come together and put the world on its ear the way they did.

 

It's all the more remarkable that the four in question did not come together from the far corners of the world; they were born and grew upo within 10 miles of one another in the same, sooty industrial northern English town, met each other on schooltards and at church skiffle competitions.

 

There is a commonly heard 'right place/right time' rationalization that the world was ready for something and, if not the Beatles, somebody else would have filled the gap. The time was right, and America and the world needed something in the months following JFK's assassination. The stagnant West Coast sound of the Beach Boys and their clones wasn't cutting it, nor newer American 60s bands like the Four Seasons. But the void would have gone unfilled if not for the Beatles.

 

Add to the mix, Epstein, George Martin, Hamburg, side sessions with Tony Sheridan and fierce competition with other progenitors of the Mersey Sound, etc., because without any of those elements it wouldn't have turned out the same.

 

As much talent, drive, and inventiveness as they had, the Beatles would not have succeded had they not honed their skills and their friendships through a year and a half tour of duty in the Cavern Club in Hamburg's red light district. 12 hour shifrts, six days a week - hour long sets interspersed with hour breaks (during which the lads drank, smoked, screwed, and contracted most of Europe's STDs). Instead of playing the same sets over and over, they pushed, learned new material, retooled harmonies, ditched non-musician Stu Sutcliff made Paul the bassist. In the process, they were already becoming way more than the sum pf their parts.

 

I think it can truthfully be agrued that the Beatles wouldn't have conquered America as readily as they did had Kennedy not been killed. Capital and Vee Jay had released limited press domestic Beatles records, but they were not really pushing them. Then, Epstein makes teh trip to the US prior to the Beatles, foes over the heads of the A&R guys and tell the top execs he has a can't-miss group. Somehow, he convinces the right people. Then the Beatles arrive and it turns out they are not just musicians but the whole package. Infectious personalities, wit and charm, enough hair and confidence to suggest a little danger but not enough to stop parents from also being glued to the tv sets - lovable bad boys. Moptops.

 

Heck yeah, it's astounding that a group at the heart of this mania could transcend the screaming girls and generally dismissive press, and not just be a flash in the pan ala' any number of others. But they had the talent, drive, inventiveness, and solid friendship to make it happen. It's special precicely because they WERE just people. All had successful post-Beatles careers, but alone the parts never could be equal to the whole.

 

Unlike cw and a couple of others, my experience of the Beatles is second-hand like most on the board. I was born three weeks before Sgt. Pepper was released, and I was three when they split. I did not witness Sullivan or Beatlemania, and when I(!) first 'discovered' the Beatles I was pretty impressed that a lot of other peolpe seemed to like them too.

[sox4lifeinPA]

If it wasn't the beatles "changing" the music scene, then it would have been someone else. Talent-wise, there has been better guitarists, drummers, musicians, writers, lyricists, etc...etc...etc... They changed the world, no doubt, they were the first band to blow up on a global scale, both through name recognition, but in scope of influence and media attention. they didn't save a dying art-form, that's ridiculous. They did alter it and put their mark on music, like Mozart did, like Radiohead did, like Pink Floyd did, like Elvis did, like countless others. I will admit, it was the media explosion around the beatles that made them so huge. Our nation was just exiting the 50s, marketing was transforming into what it is today....the whore of western civilization....did anyone watch the superbowel? hehe, bowel.

 

Cdub is correct, arguably, the beatles are the greatest band in history. Brando and bones are correct as well, there's plenty of room for overrating this band, for reasons listed above. Clapton was twice the musician and singer of anyone in the beatles. It's just hard to erase the harmonies of "I wanna hold your hand" out of our minds... it's just too good.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Clapton was twice the musician and singer of anyone in the beatles.

I'll take the time to respond to more of this in a bit, and I highly regard EC, but better than the Beatles vocally? What are you smoking?

 

Just today I was listening to the live "Concert for George" CD, and McCartney and Clapton do a cdover of "Something" on there. Paul sings the line in the first verses where there is no harmony, and then as soon as the harmonized 3rd verse begins, it's PAUL that takes the harmony and Eric singing the lead line because Eric, bell his chinless hear, HAS NO VOCAL RANGE! Jack Bruce took on vocal chores for anything needing a stretch of anything more than an octave in Cream, and Jackie Lomax, Steve Windwood, etc., sung anything requiring vocal range on the Derek and the Dominos and Blind Faith offerings.

 

I'll concede EC is a better singer than Ringo. Barely. At his best, he can't hold a candle to any of the other three. Note I'm not calling you out on the better guitarist claim. I think George was the more interesting guitarist, but Clapton is Clapton after all.

[cwsox]

I was not trying to put down Eminem or anything.

<clip>

 

NOBODY, deserves to be worshiped like the Beatles were during Beatlemania and all that. Maybe it's because I did not live then, but c'mon they are just people like you and me.

thanks for your post!

 

You are a good guy, thank you!

 

as for Em, the really important thing is that you must promise yourself that you will live by the words of Peter Townsend, "hope I die before I get old" and Dylan's "don't criticise what you don't understand." And that is not aimed at you. That is aimed at everyone my age who does not keep up with music and have fossilized themselves in the music of their childhood and adolesence. Never let that happen. Most of my friends do not have a clue about anything going on today, and that is really sad. Don't get old. Never get old. Years may go by but never get old like too many adults do.

 

As for the Beatles - yeah yeah yeah the did deserve the adoration! Like cheering for one's favorite sports team - it is a release -

 

but the Beatles were never in the god-like category (that would be Clapton's fans and Dylan's fans who did that to them). We used to critique and criticise them then - Sgt. Peppers was a real shock to a lot of fans - as they kept evolving, so did the analysis, postive and negative.

 

As for the screaming at the concerts - oh well, every generation has its folks it screams about. Just happened that the Beatles were that talented and that much more to offer. But isn't it fun at a concert to give ovations to the msuic you like - one of the fun things agout music!

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'll take the time to respond to more of this in a bit, and I highly regard EC, but better than the Beatles vocally? What are you smoking?

 

Just today I was listening to the live "Concert for George" CD, and McCartney and Clapton do a cdover of "Something" on there.  Paul sings the line in the first verses where there is no harmony, and then as soon as the harmonized 3rd verse begins, it's PAUL that takes the harmony and Eric singing the lead line because Eric, bell his chinless hear, HAS NO VOCAL RANGE!  Jack Bruce took on vocal chores for anything needing a stretch of anything more than an octave in Cream, and Jackie Lomax, Steve Windwood, etc., sung anything requiring vocal range on the Derek and the Dominos and Blind Faith offerings.

 

I'll concede EC is a better singer than Ringo.  Barely.  At his best, he can't hold a candle to any of the other three.  Note I'm not calling you out on the better guitarist claim.  I think George was the more interesting guitarist, but Clapton is Clapton after all.

"Onnnnnnnnnnnce I lived a life of a millionaire...spend all my money, didn't have any cares..."

 

 

"Alllllllllberta...Albertaaaaaaa....."

 

 

"Would you knoooooooooow my name..........if I saw you in heaven....."

 

 

 

flasoxxjim...please. no vocal range? hmm...I respect you most out of this musically illiterate group...you can actually play this music. hehe *preparing for the onslaught* (and the bad "I can play it on my stereo" jokes)...

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

"Onnnnnnnnnnnce I lived a life of a millionaire...spend all my money, didn't have any cares..."

 

 

"Alllllllllberta...Albertaaaaaaa....."

 

 

"Would you knoooooooooow my name..........if I saw you in heaven....."

 

 

 

flasoxxjim...please.  no vocal range? hmm...I respect you most out of this musically illiterate group...you can actually play this music. hehe *preparing for the onslaught*  (and the bad "I can play it on my stereo" jokes)...

 

I'll stand by my claim - no vocal range. Strong voice? Yes, over time he has developed a competent singing voice, but his range is limited, not unlike a lot of blues guys.

 

"Would you know my name..." I can hear that line in me head, and playing it here on the piano, the highest note in the song (would you KNOW MY name..) is an E above middle C. Hardly operatic vocal dynamics. And note who got the hard vocal part in the duet with Baby Face?

 

All the inferred high vocals in the stuff from the 70s came from Tvonne Elleman (sp?) and the other fine backing vocalists from the Slowhand/Sunset Blvd./Backless days.

[BrandoFan]

flasoxxjim...please. no vocal range? hmm...I respect you most out of this musically illiterate group

 

Musically illiterate, eh? Is it anything like being "normal" or "above average"?

 

Lacking formal musical education, perhaps. Then again, I lack formal education period, so nothing new there.

 

But illiterate? Be careful what tree you bark up, PA. This isn't Velvet Rope forums.

 

Between Bolshoi and Royal Marinski Theater connections, between growing up in soprano milieu and having music (and not of Casio keyboard variety either) composed, practiced and performed 15/6 by serious musicians also doubling as my relatives and neighbors.....I've managed to, um, pick up a thing or two along the way.

 

Do-re-f***ing-me. *peters out*

[cwsox]

Infectious personalities, wit and charm, enough hair and confidence to suggest a little danger but not enough to stop parents from also being glued to the tv sets - lovable bad boys. Moptops.

 

I disagree. Parents hated the Beatles. In many houses across the country parents said "turn that off" and heard the word "no" for the first time. And the early Beatles suggested a lot of danger. I also disagree that the Beatles never would have hit without the JFK assassination. That was undoubtedly a factor that we needed something but the we there is the pre teen through college market. The Beatles were the first band that college students could play without feeling like (or being told that) they were playing junior high music. That the prior two records did not hit doesn't clinch that argument for me at all because a lot of times it takes a few tries before something hits big.

 

And it is Stevie Winwood - you added an extra letter. I am one of the few people who saw Blind Faith on tour.

 

I do not want to argue with PA at all. I am trying not to. I am trying very hard. Clapton is one of the best guitarists ever, no doubt. He is one reason I saw Blind Faith. I have loved Clapton's music for all the years that he was good.

 

but

 

clapton

 

cannot

 

he cannot

 

he cannot

 

cannot sing

[baggio202]

I'll stand by my claim - no vocal range.  Strong voice?  Yes, over time he has developed a competent singing voice, but his range is limited, not unlike a lot of blues guys.

 

"Would you know my name..."  I can hear that line in me head, and playing it here on the piano, the highest note in the song (would you KNOW MY name..) is an E above middle C.  Hardly operatic vocal dynamics.  And note who got the hard vocal part in the duet with Baby Face?

 

All the inferred high vocals in the stuff from the 70s came from Tvonne Elleman (sp?) and the other fine backing vocalists from the Slowhand/Sunset Blvd./Backless days.

while clapton might not have the range , he has a certain umm..i dont even know how to explain it...but its there and its seperates him from quite a few pretenders...

[cwsox]

while clapton might not have the range , he has a certain umm..i dont even know how to explain it...but its there and its seperates him from quite a few pretenders...

clapton cannot sing but I will agree that when he vocalizes he brings a certain something that others do not possess

 

 

ok, it is overstated to say he cannot sing but he is only a journeyman singer, competent enough but nothing special but then again he always has that something

[BrandoFan]

I'll stand by my claim - no vocal range. Strong voice? Yes, over time he has developed a competent singing voice, but his range is limited, not unlike a lot of blues guys

 

Granted I have not heard EC recently, but I sincerely doubt that he underwent a Domingo transformation and discovered his inner world-class tenor only a decade after being condemned as merely talented baritone/mezzo by a renowned La Scala director this late in his career.

 

Hell, I would take Stevie Wonder over EC in range, tembre, anything really.

 

YMMV.

[BrandoFan]

ok, it is overstated to say he cannot sing but he is only a journeyman singer, competent enough but nothing special but then again he always has that something

 

I am no Beattlehead, but Mac is a better singer than Clapton.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And it is Stevie Winwood - you added an extra letter.  I am one of the few people who saw Blind Faith on tour.

My bad, it is indeed Winwood. But I don't think he has gone by "Stevie" since his days with the Spencer Davis Group. Major cool points if you recalled that Steve's brother Muff Winwood was also in that original 1963 SDG lineup.

 

The Blind Faith shows must have been something, I'm jealous.

 

As far as all the things that did line up right to allow the Beatles to take off, I do think that the cloud that America was in at the time of their arrival was an important part of the mix. Having lived through it, you know a lot more how the older generation reacted to the groups first appearance, but I know Sullivan's stamp of approval carried some sway with those adult squares. There has been so much revisionist history concerning those early weeks, when a lot of newspapers and music critics did dismiss the Beatles and had to backpeddle and eat crow when the band stuck to the wall.

 

Anyway, we all know it was Murry the K that single-handedly made the Betles, right?