wildstar shits all over your fantasy albums
Nov 29, 2017 19:18:36 GMT
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Nov 29, 2017 19:18:36 GMT
Solo albums that you wish had been band albums?
ATMP - A Beatles album (a double no less - excluding the jams) that has more Bob Dylan songs on it (1.5) than Lennon and/or McCartney songs on it (zero) not to mention being dominated by the one writer/singer who was lucky to get as many as three songs on a Beatles album (Revolver).
Imagine - a Beatles album with NO McCartney written/sung songs on it, but it does have at least one (or perhaps two) scathing anti-McCartney songs on it
Band On The Run - still crazy but ever so slightly less so since (though I'm not sure I'd agree) people often say McCartney consciously included a pseudo-Lennon song with 'Let Me Roll It' and a pseudo Harrison song with 'No Words' despite the fact that Denny Laine was the main writer of it.
Ringo - well at least this album has at least one song written by every member of the band, but it also has cover songs, which the Beatles had long since stopped including on albums. Plus a Beatles album where Ringo sings all the lead vocals? (unless I suppose each writer were to sing his own songs, I guess)
Like I said weird thread. Some replies make more sense than others - "Empty Glass" as a Who album isn't crazy - but is still a little bit of a stretch (no Entwistle song - or two) but Beatles solo albums as group albums? :crazy:
It already is, technically the first three man Genesis album but really, why couldn't Steve have just gotten Tony to do the keys and make it the first proper post Gabriel album. I will say commercially it would not worked in the interest of the band overall since it's closer to Trespass than Trick.
2 - Tony would NEVER sanction a Genesis album where he has no writing involvement
3 - Would Sally Oldfield then be made a Genesis band member since she sang lead on the album?
4 - Phil and Mike were session players on the album - it wasn't a "collaboration" album - I'm sure they had more interplay/back and forth being friends and bandmates who knew each other's strengths and weaknesses as musicians quite well - as opposed to Steve just using anonymous "professional" studio musician strangers to back him, but it was Steve's baby and he had the final say)
2 - Is there professional (not bootleg) quality video footage available of Steve playing Firth Of Fifth with Genesis, that they could have used instead?
3 - Steve was most likely overlooked in that documentary because he was the most marginal member in the public consciousness. The three man Genesis were huge, Phil solo was even bigger, then there's Peter's solo career to cover, not to mention The Mechanics which were a big deal for a time, and then there's "Steve Who?" as far as the wider public is concerned. I can totally understand why the film-makers nearly ignored him for reasons of limited running-time and limited public interest. I don't LIKE it, or support it, but I understand it.
4 - All this conspiracy theory about how Tony hated Steve's guts and forced him out of the band or whatever is pretty tiresome. Tony "took over" the band (as much as that's true - which its only somewhat) after Peter quit, because they were the two "leaders" for lack of a better word. Peter described the group dynamic as he and Tony as opposing forces with Mike usually siding with Tony and Steve usually siding with Peter, with Phil staying neutral. So what was left was Tony with Mike's support and Steve left in a weaker position without Peter. Tony has even admitted that he got his way more just because he shouted the loudest (after Peter left). They voted on the material they used, so if Steve's material was sidelined, it was a group decision, not Tony's. Tony was more prolific at the time than Steve (in part due to NOT having done a solo album) so he had more material on the table to be accepted or declined by the other group members. Steve admitted that he was pretty dry of material on Trick having just done his solo album.
5 - next you're going to trot out as "evidence" that old joke that so many people never seemed to get (dry English humor and all) in IIRC the "Genesis - A History" video where Tony said, something like "Steve just didnt show up one day when we were mixing the live album, so we just mixed him out of the rest of the album, and that was it really" right before elaborating more seriously on the subject.
6 - the only problem I had with Tony (as well as the others) in reference to Steve is they never seemed in interviews to give him enough credit for his contributions while in the band, though that has improved over time. For example Tony now says that 'Blood On The Rooftops' is one of his favorite Genesis songs (written mostly by Steve, and with the chorus written by Phil). Also there's what Phil said once IIRC in the 'A History' video about how Steve could have done everything he's doing now and still stayed in the group. This is of course nonsense since they weren't yet taking breaks for solo activities when Steve quit. A year later yes when Mike & Tony did their first solo albums while Phil tried to repair his marriage, but at the time Steve quit he was not allowed that option. Everytime I see that video clip of Phil, I just wanna give him a slap, show him the accurate time-line of events, and then give him the chance to amend his statement.
I also made the point about The Who doing Townshend's 'Empty Glass' where something like that (almost) makes sense. It would be a bit strange having a Who album not contain at least one token Entwistle song since he'd been getting up to three songs per album more recently. Sure some songs might not suit Daltrey, but that's never been a problem as Pete has always had a couple lead vocals on previous Who albums. I'd miss the "Big Country" rhythm section as it appears on the Empty Glass album however. They played brilliantly on it.
So since McCartney has so few fully fleshed out songs on it, being mainly song sketches, plus its way too old (recording started in 1969 IIRC) scratch that album off the list and replace it with Ram which was partially recorded concurrently with POB and ATMP and has plenty of actual Beatles worthy songs (rather than tossed off song fragments) to offer.
ATMP - Recorded May 1970-Oct 70
POB - Recorded: Sep 70-Oct 70
Ram - Recorded: Oct 70-Apr 71
Yeah - MUCH later - no overlap whatsoever.
Of course Feb 1970 is much closer in time to Oct 1970, than Oct 1970 is, let alone Oct 1970.
Haristar said:
All Things Must Pass, Imagine, Ram, Band on the Run, Ringowildstar said:
This is a weird thread anyway, but WOW:ATMP - A Beatles album (a double no less - excluding the jams) that has more Bob Dylan songs on it (1.5) than Lennon and/or McCartney songs on it (zero) not to mention being dominated by the one writer/singer who was lucky to get as many as three songs on a Beatles album (Revolver).
Imagine - a Beatles album with NO McCartney written/sung songs on it, but it does have at least one (or perhaps two) scathing anti-McCartney songs on it
Band On The Run - still crazy but ever so slightly less so since (though I'm not sure I'd agree) people often say McCartney consciously included a pseudo-Lennon song with 'Let Me Roll It' and a pseudo Harrison song with 'No Words' despite the fact that Denny Laine was the main writer of it.
Ringo - well at least this album has at least one song written by every member of the band, but it also has cover songs, which the Beatles had long since stopped including on albums. Plus a Beatles album where Ringo sings all the lead vocals? (unless I suppose each writer were to sing his own songs, I guess)
Like I said weird thread. Some replies make more sense than others - "Empty Glass" as a Who album isn't crazy - but is still a little bit of a stretch (no Entwistle song - or two) but Beatles solo albums as group albums? :crazy:
Eleventh Earl of Mar said:
Steve Hackett - Voyage of the AcolyteIt already is, technically the first three man Genesis album but really, why couldn't Steve have just gotten Tony to do the keys and make it the first proper post Gabriel album. I will say commercially it would not worked in the interest of the band overall since it's closer to Trespass than Trick.
wildstar said:
1 - Tony doesn't, hasn't and probably never will be a session player for ANYONE!2 - Tony would NEVER sanction a Genesis album where he has no writing involvement
3 - Would Sally Oldfield then be made a Genesis band member since she sang lead on the album?
4 - Phil and Mike were session players on the album - it wasn't a "collaboration" album - I'm sure they had more interplay/back and forth being friends and bandmates who knew each other's strengths and weaknesses as musicians quite well - as opposed to Steve just using anonymous "professional" studio musician strangers to back him, but it was Steve's baby and he had the final say)
wildstar said:
1 - You do realize that Tony wasn't in charge of the documentary, right?2 - Is there professional (not bootleg) quality video footage available of Steve playing Firth Of Fifth with Genesis, that they could have used instead?
3 - Steve was most likely overlooked in that documentary because he was the most marginal member in the public consciousness. The three man Genesis were huge, Phil solo was even bigger, then there's Peter's solo career to cover, not to mention The Mechanics which were a big deal for a time, and then there's "Steve Who?" as far as the wider public is concerned. I can totally understand why the film-makers nearly ignored him for reasons of limited running-time and limited public interest. I don't LIKE it, or support it, but I understand it.
4 - All this conspiracy theory about how Tony hated Steve's guts and forced him out of the band or whatever is pretty tiresome. Tony "took over" the band (as much as that's true - which its only somewhat) after Peter quit, because they were the two "leaders" for lack of a better word. Peter described the group dynamic as he and Tony as opposing forces with Mike usually siding with Tony and Steve usually siding with Peter, with Phil staying neutral. So what was left was Tony with Mike's support and Steve left in a weaker position without Peter. Tony has even admitted that he got his way more just because he shouted the loudest (after Peter left). They voted on the material they used, so if Steve's material was sidelined, it was a group decision, not Tony's. Tony was more prolific at the time than Steve (in part due to NOT having done a solo album) so he had more material on the table to be accepted or declined by the other group members. Steve admitted that he was pretty dry of material on Trick having just done his solo album.
5 - next you're going to trot out as "evidence" that old joke that so many people never seemed to get (dry English humor and all) in IIRC the "Genesis - A History" video where Tony said, something like "Steve just didnt show up one day when we were mixing the live album, so we just mixed him out of the rest of the album, and that was it really" right before elaborating more seriously on the subject.
6 - the only problem I had with Tony (as well as the others) in reference to Steve is they never seemed in interviews to give him enough credit for his contributions while in the band, though that has improved over time. For example Tony now says that 'Blood On The Rooftops' is one of his favorite Genesis songs (written mostly by Steve, and with the chorus written by Phil). Also there's what Phil said once IIRC in the 'A History' video about how Steve could have done everything he's doing now and still stayed in the group. This is of course nonsense since they weren't yet taking breaks for solo activities when Steve quit. A year later yes when Mike & Tony did their first solo albums while Phil tried to repair his marriage, but at the time Steve quit he was not allowed that option. Everytime I see that video clip of Phil, I just wanna give him a slap, show him the accurate time-line of events, and then give him the chance to amend his statement.
wildstar said:
But he was saying Acolyte should have been a Genesis album "as is" the only difference being having Tony on keys. BTW as it happens Mike does have a writing credit on Acolyte. Steve liked an old rejected Mike idea from a few years earlier, and asked Mike if he could use it/expand on it for the album. Mike agreed saying that Genesis will likely never use it as it had already been rejected by the group. Mike is the credited co-writer though I don't know if Steve wrote the rest of the song alone based on Mike's bit, or if they worked together to complete the piece.wildstar said:
Agreed - and I made the same point upthread in regards to Beatles solo albums, like Imagine - a Beatles album with no McCartney songs but instead it includes one (or two) songs that blatantly attack McCartney in their lyrics.I also made the point about The Who doing Townshend's 'Empty Glass' where something like that (almost) makes sense. It would be a bit strange having a Who album not contain at least one token Entwistle song since he'd been getting up to three songs per album more recently. Sure some songs might not suit Daltrey, but that's never been a problem as Pete has always had a couple lead vocals on previous Who albums. I'd miss the "Big Country" rhythm section as it appears on the Empty Glass album however. They played brilliantly on it.
AudiophilePhil said:
The best album cuts from Plastic Ono Band , McCartney, All Things Must Pass + "Instant Karma" and "It Don't Come Easy" as Beatles '71wildstar said:
Lennon wrote and recorded Instant Karma on the same day and had it released in something like two weeks or so. So there's NO WAY he would have sat on it for a full year until the next Beatles album. Until McCartney realized with the release of Instant Karma that Lennon wasn't holding back his best stuff for Beatles use, he had himself been holding back Maybe I'm Amazed for Beatles use. So I think its safe to say the two songs would have been released together as a non-album (probably) double A-side Beatles single sometime in 1970 if they hadn't been falling apart as a group.So since McCartney has so few fully fleshed out songs on it, being mainly song sketches, plus its way too old (recording started in 1969 IIRC) scratch that album off the list and replace it with Ram which was partially recorded concurrently with POB and ATMP and has plenty of actual Beatles worthy songs (rather than tossed off song fragments) to offer.
AudiophilePhil said:
I disagree with combining tracks from Ram to tracks from POB. Their time of recording do not coincide in time as Ram was recorded at a much later time. That's the reason why I stated earlier that the McCartney album materials are more appropriate to be compiled with Lennon's POB.wildstar said:
McCartney - Recorded: Dec 69-Feb 70ATMP - Recorded May 1970-Oct 70
POB - Recorded: Sep 70-Oct 70
Ram - Recorded: Oct 70-Apr 71
Yeah - MUCH later - no overlap whatsoever.
Of course Feb 1970 is much closer in time to Oct 1970, than Oct 1970 is, let alone Oct 1970.
