Poll: Which one?
Poll Options
View poll results: Which one?
Early
161 74%
Later
56 26%
Voters: 217.
Page 1 of 3
#1
Which comes to mind first?

Early: clean-cut and suit.


or

Later: longer hair and facial hair.


Just curious what image comes to their head when they think of the most popular band of all time. I think of the "boy band" version first only because that's how I was first introduced to them.

I know this is very trivial but pick one dammit!
#2
That first picture is more mid-era, TS. I think of the first picture because I love early-mid Beatles, but late-Beatles sucks serious shit.
#4
You can tell they started doing drugs because you hear their love songs, then you hear "I AM THE WALRUSS1111!!!"

Ringo: Hey guys I wrote a song!
Paul: That's great Ringo!
John: What's it about?
Ringo: An octopus!!!11
George: Wtf?
Paul: o.O
John: What?
Ringo: AN OCTOPUS IN A GARDEN.

Also: Early days
#7
Quote by due 07
That first picture is more mid-era, TS. I think of the first picture because I love early-mid Beatles, but late-Beatles sucks serious shit.


Must. Not. RAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEEG!!!
#8
Well I'll tell you one thing,

Whenever someone says Ringo Starr, I immediately picture how he looks in that first picture, cause he looks freaking hilarious
Balls.
#9
first one, strict mop top look

the beatles prove that you dont got to be a prettyboy to get girls with music
#12
I think of the moptops and suits, but I much prefer the later music.

EDIT: To go one completely unnecessary step further, if you mention an individual Beatle, here is what I picture:










No idea why. Seperately, I have a strong association with each Beatle at different points in the career (late John, current Paul, middle George, early Ringo). But if you say Beatles, I immediately picture the early Beatles, despite preferring their later music.

DON'T MAKE ME DESTROY YOU!


___________________________________________________


TURN OFF YOUR MIND RELAX AND FLOAT DOWNSTREAM

Quote by Scumbag1792
My God, this must be the smartest/greatest guy ever.
Last edited by -xCaMRocKx- at Jul 11, 2011,
#14
Quote by due 07
That first picture is more mid-era, TS. I think of the first picture because I love early-mid Beatles, but late-Beatles sucks serious shit.




I love all of the albums, from Please Please Me through to Abbey Road or, depending on who you ask about which was later, Let It Be. I'm not trying to detract from the earlier albums, but I am disappoint.

Anyway, when I think of The Beatles, generally it's not an image, it's a song first. That usually dictates what the image is. I've been hearing more of the Rubber Soul/Revolver era stuff, so right now it's in that weird period when they were starting to not be the clean-cut, mop-top suit-boys from Liverpool, but weren't the bearded proto-hippie prog-inventors they would become.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 75-87
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 4-5
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 92-54
#15
Quote by rmr024
Well I'll tell you one thing,

Whenever someone says Ringo Starr, I immediately picture how he looks in that first picture, cause he looks freaking hilarious

yea Ringo is really goofy lol
#16
Early. Or I really just remember the cover from Revolver.
The content of this signature is pretty much irrelevant
#17
Quote by necrosis1193
http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/ae43/necrosis1193/Something%20manly/theeffyoujustsay.png?t=1308255404

I love all of the albums, from Please Please Me through to Abbey Road or, depending on who you ask about which was later, Let It Be. I'm not trying to detract from the earlier albums, but I am disappoint.

Anyway, when I think of The Beatles, generally it's not an image, it's a song first. That usually dictates what the image is. I've been hearing more of the Rubber Soul/Revolver era stuff, so right now it's in that weird period when they were starting to not be the clean-cut, mop-top suit-boys from Liverpool, but weren't the bearded proto-hippie prog-inventors they would become.
Revolver
#18
I picture Ringo and Paul in the early picture and George and John from the later picture. Ringo looks so funny.
West Ham United
#19
Quote by due 07
I like all of the albums, I was meant more "late Beatles suck serious shit compared mid Beatles." So I was speaking relatively and using a hyperbole.

Bitches don't know about Revolver.


Alright, that's more acceptable, but I still object. I hate stacking them, because they all trump 90% of albums from the 50's onward, and Revolver is one of my favourites, but Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper's top it as far as I'm concerned. Not by a lot, if it were a slimmer margin I'd let it slide, but saying the later albums "suck serious shit" by comparison is way too big to me.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 75-87
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 4-5
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 92-54
#22
Quote by necrosis1193
Alright, that's more acceptable, but I still object. I hate stacking them, because they all trump 90% of albums from the 50's onward, and Revolver is one of my favourites, but Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper's top it as far as I'm concerned. Not by a lot, if it were a slimmer margin I'd let it slide, but saying the later albums "suck serious shit" by comparison is way too big to me.
1. Revolver
2. Rubber Soul
3. A Hard Day's Night
4. Please Please Me
5. Help!
6. Abbey Road

Seven onward, it's a blur.
#23
Hey guys, I'm due 07, and I italicize album titles on the internet, because I'm so over not italicizing them.
#24
Quote by trueamerican
Hey guys, I'm due 07, and I italicize album titles on the internet, because I'm so over not italicizing them.
#25
Quote by genghisgandhi





Figure there are at least a million or two bands that actually released albums in that 60 year timespan, and that's being fairly conservative in the estimate. Most of them probably released more than a few. There's probably at least one album for every person in the world. Saying it's better than 90% isn't saying much. How many guys can you think of who work at music stores now who talk about "The old days" when their band had a contract and released an album and all that? We probably only hear about that 10% of records released nowadays.

It's not like the only stuff that was released is the stuff classic rock stations play - The reason people can point to a classic rock station and not hear filler in contrast to a modern pop/rock station is because time's filtered out the passing stuff. There's always been crap music, you just hear less on older stuff because people realize it's crap. I'll happily admit I'm a Beatles fanboy, call me one if you must, but I don't think it's that outlandish when you consider the overall scale.

Quote by due 07
1. Revolver
2. Rubber Soul
3. A Hard Day's Night
4. Please Please Me
5. Help!
6. Abbey Road

Seven onward, it's a blur.


>No Sgt. Pepper's

Wat

Seriously, I can agree with that list pretty much, except for the lack of that one album. That's like listing Michael Jackson without Thriller, or The Who without Tommy.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 75-87
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 4-5
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 92-54
Last edited by necrosis1193 at Jul 11, 2011,
#26
Quote by necrosis1193
>No Sgt. Pepper's

Wat

Seriously, I can agree with that list pretty much, except for the lack of that one album. That's like listing Michael Jackson without Thriller, or The Who without Tommy.
I used to like it a lot more, but it's too 'acid-y' for me.
#27
Sgt. Pepper is overrated. I'd pretty much rather listen to any other Beatles album over it
#28
Quote by necrosis1193
Figure there are at least a million or two bands that actually released albums in that 50 year timespan, and that's being fairly conservative in the estimate. Most of them probably released more than a few. There's probably at least one album for every person in the world. Saying it's better than 90% isn't saying much. How many guys can you think of who work at music stores now who talk about "The old days" when their band had a contract and released an album and all that? We probably only hear about that 10% of records released nowadays.

Considering I've heard albums made by UGers that are better than the Beatles, I have a hard time digesting your claim.
#29
Edit: ^I don't think a forum of guitar enthusiasts is an accurate representation of the pop/rock trends of the last half-century. I'm not saying they're the greatest albums ever, that's all a matter of taste. But when you consider the scope of all the bands that've ever recorded an album of pedantic trend-based love songs, I still don't think I was too far off the mark.

Quote by due 07
I used to like it a lot more, but it's too 'acid-y' for me.


Alright, I can understand that in a way then.

Quote by lp345
Sgt. Pepper is overrated. I'd pretty much rather listen to any other Beatles album over it




Overhyped? Yes. Worst of the bunch? Hell no.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 75-87
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 4-5
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 92-54
Last edited by necrosis1193 at Jul 11, 2011,
#31
Quote by due 07
I think Let It Be might be the worst. So inconsistent.


That I can agree with. There are some good songs, but as an album, it's the saddest. But it was Phil Spector. What could you expect?
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 75-87
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 4-5
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 92-54
#32
The first half or thereabout of Sgt. Pepper is superb, but the second half ... :/ I never really liked 'A Day in the Life' either

Also thank **** Abbey Road was the last thing they did. Imagine going out on Let It Be (although they technically did)
#33
I'm not a James Hetfield fan
My username is "hames jetfield" because "farty mriedman" sounds weird.

Quote by laid-to-waste
i have rabies from licking my pet rat's face


Jackson DK2M
Digitech RP255
Vox DA5
Casio CTK-6000
#34
Quote by lp345
The first half or thereabout of Sgt. Pepper is superb, but the second half ... :/ I never really liked 'A Day in the Life' either


The second half is my favourite half...

Also thank **** Abbey Road was the last thing they did. Imagine going out on Let It Be (although they technically did)


I can drink to that - It's why I always insist that Abbey Road was the last album. The last one needs to be a bang, not a mess.

Quote by hames jetfield
(Invalid img)


Oh god what did you do to Ringo?!
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 75-87
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 4-5
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 92-54
#35
Quote by necrosis1193
That I can agree with. There are some good songs, but as an album, it's the saddest. But it was Phil Spector. What could you expect?
Hey man, The Ronettes are cool.
#36
Quote by necrosis1193
That I can agree with. There are some good songs, but as an album, it's the saddest. But it was Phil Spector. What could you expect?

There's Let it Be...Naked, which has all of Phil Spector's shit cut out, and was remixed under Paul's direction with the intention of stripping back the songs to more simple versions, which is what they wanted in the first place. I actually haven't heard it, but I imagine it would be quite good, because Let it Be does have some great songs.

DON'T MAKE ME DESTROY YOU!


___________________________________________________


TURN OFF YOUR MIND RELAX AND FLOAT DOWNSTREAM

Quote by Scumbag1792
My God, this must be the smartest/greatest guy ever.
Last edited by -xCaMRocKx- at Jul 11, 2011,
#37
Phil Spector is amazing. But his version of The Long and Winding Road ...
Page 1 of 3