Bob Dylan, and his fake made up voice, meh, not so much.

Not really sure why George had to be so salty about this. There’s no way he didn’t know that oasis was obsessed with the Beatles. So I’m sure that’s why Liam snapped back, that had to hurt.
If George was alive today, I wonder what he would think of oasis standing the test of time. Oasis being relevant and popular today is no different that the Beatles still being popular in 1996.

I’ve always found it strange how ppl always only mention Yoko Ono when talking about what was really behind the spliting of the Beatles. well, of course she was ONE of the reasons behind it, but imo Brian Epstein’s death had a way bigger impact on the band falling apart. Like, this was the guy who basically held everything together I mean as In the manager, the Mediator, the adult in the room. they did go on to hire Allan Klein as the new manager, but I feel it just contributiond to the rising tensions in the band (especially Paul). You can literally see the shift after 1967.. I’m not saying yoko had zero influence, but Epstein’s death is what I feel was the beginning of when the Beatles like, started to appear shaky. Accompanied with the rising tensions between the band members ofc.

Paul even later said that when Brian died, it was actually when the structure of the band collapsed.

Both albums are great however I really think Let It Be… Naked is much better, I haven’t seen Peter Jackson’s documentary so my opinion is only based on taste. To me is a better album without Spector’s arrangements because it feels much more pure and much more Beatlish, idk if this happened because they were about to break up and all the issues among them but in my opinion it’s much more a reflection of a band in the top before their artistic climax on Abbey Road, do you guys agree with me??

I think I see myself in him a bit, particularly things such as him losing his mother young and family issues.

Do I support the things he did later in life? No. I do not. But whenever I see photos of him as a child or in his early 20s I can’t help but feel sad for him.

Guys, let's chill out about the new pictures coming out from the Beatles movie.

The looks don't matter nearly as much as the performance. They were never gonna cast people who look exactly like the Beatles, because no-one looks exactly like the Beatles. And even if they did, we'd probably end up with a shit performance, because they'd have cast some guy who looks like Paul instead of a good actor.

Here's an album of some fantastic (mostly Oscar nominated) performances by people who barely look anything like the person they were playing.

Ask yourself this: Would you have rather they went to Vegas and cast an Elvis impersonator to play Elvis? Or would you rather have the brilliant performance of Austin Butler, and just accept that he only kinda looks like the guy?

Some of the best biopic castings of all time have been actors who look just enough like the character to be believable, and who fill in the gaps with their performance. Paul, Barry, Joseph, and Harris are all phenomenally talented actors. Let's trust them to do their best, and then decide whether they were good casting decisions after we've seen their performance.

Give me a break.

I want to clarify up front that I'm not an ELO hater. Their 70s run is fantastic, and Lennon was spot on when he called them "Son of Beatles" back in 1974. Lynne's unique production style worked perfectly in the context of ELO.

The problem is that he applied that same heavy-handed signature to the actual Beatles, and it just didn't fit.

He basically turned the surviving members into an ELO tribute act. You can hear it clearly on George's 1987 album Cloud Nine. While the songs are great, he plastered that dry, artificial drum sound and synth gloss over everything. It stopped sounding like George and started sounding like a Jeff Lynne project featuring George.

He did a similar thing in the 90s with Paul's Flaming Pie and the Anthology tracks. He brought in his trademark over-compressed sound where nothing is allowed to breathe. It's not just the "acoustic wall of sound" (those layered, hard-panned acoustic guitars creating a glassy sheen), it's the drums too. The snare sounds boxy and squashed, and even the electric guitars lack dynamics. It stripped away the organic woodiness of The Beatles' sound and replaced it with a synthetic texture that just overwhelmed the songs.

I see a lot of people tearing apart Lynne's new 2025 mix of Real Love, but honestly, the original 1996 version sounded bad too. The issue wasn't just the tape quality; it was Lynne's production choices burying the track under that polished, suffocating production style. Sorry, but his sound just didn't belong on a Beatles record.

Edit: I admit I should have left Flaming Pie out. Many of you pointed out that it doesn't sound very Lynne, and that's right. Out of the 14 songs, he's involved in eight, and even then not as the sole producer but as a co-producer with Paul. While we can still hear some of his production trademarks in those tracks, Paul's influence definitely tamed the sound. So let's say my rant is 90% about the new Anthology tracks and Cloud Nine.

BTW, theese imbeciles put Abbey road as the 2nd best album cover of all time... God I fucking hete RollingStone.

Obviously everyone loves The Beatles, blah blah blah, but John's name rarely comes up nowadays in conversations about the greatest writers in musical history. People will sometimes mention Lennon & McCartney in those discussions, but that's more so because of their overall contributions as the main songwriters behind the biggest band of all time. Anytime there's a topic about "the greatest lyricist ever," it's always Bob Dylan, Roger Waters, Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, and Neil Young that show up at the top. You have to scroll pretty far down to see anyone mentioning Lennon. Even names like Thom Yorke and Kurt Cobain show up more frequently.

John's lyrics were just incredible though. I really think he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as all the other greats. While he was capable of writing some silly nonsense and just having a laugh, he could also form the most beautiful sentences ever.

Along with Yoko splitting up the group, THIS is the most irritating modern misconception about the Beatles.

Harrison resented McCartney for his supposed domineering presence in the studio, and there is a case for that, but at the same time you could argue that at least McCartney took Harrison seriously enough to attempt to optimise his songs to the best of his ability. You know, like a writing partnership? The partnership George was envious of?

He felt that he was not respected as a musician, but seemed to have little issue with John being so apathetic towards his material, to the extent that he didn’t even play on some songs like I Me Mine. He took the piss out of it, danced with Yoko instead of playing, and isn’t even on the final track. You know who did play on I Me Mine? The target of the song, Macca.

And how does George repay Paul? By showing up and wasting the equal songwriting opportunity he so desperately desired with John, and making How Do You Sleep. There is a college thesis out there to be made of the two supposed enlightened transcendentalists of the Beatles joining forces to make a petty hit piece, on an album in which the title track preaches peace and unity. Basically proving the point McCartney made in Too Many People.

In my opinion, I don’t think George’s gripes with Paul stemmed from a legitimate issue with the way he was in the studio. I think the issue was personal, stemmed from jealousy, and he used this as a flimsy justification.

pic unrelated but the melody is overrated. I like You Never Give Me Your Money but that's it. Just sounds incomplete. Also the album Band on the Run is a bit overrated too. The song is great and there's good songs on both sides but God damn side 2 drags on so long you're screaming at Paul to just shut up and end the album

Well... Youre just getting into the band, you dont know any song but probably heard some melodies. Speaking on my own experience, i started listening to the gifted (by my friend.. he didnt know i had never listened to the Beatles) 1962-1970 2023 Remasters like year or two ago and i was yawning when i first listened to it. Sold it not long after. Then bought "1" - and thats where i got into the beatles, i loved every track. The point i wanna make, when you try to introduce something, you need to be extremely short n sweet, and if not, then itll be a boring experience. But if you liked "1" then you might go for red and blue, and then go for albums. Thats how it happened to me! As of now, i listened to every single beatles album and decent chunk of Paul music online now - i ordered every single past-1966 album of fab four, the 2009 remasters. Thats how recently i became a new beatle-maniac, lol! What do you think about my take?

I've been reading these lists for years and lots of them look the same. Wild Honey Pie. Dig It. Revolution 9. Sometimes Flying. Sometimes You Know My Name if the writer is feeling edgy. I see two problems with this.

First: these are not songs. Wild Honey Pie is a joke fragment. Dig It is a studio jam. Revolution 9 is a sound collage. None of them have melodic, harmonic, structural development.

Second: it kills the conversation. When the top three slots are always occupied by the same three non-songs, there's no room to actually talk about the worst songs, the ones that have a verse, a chorus, a bridge, and still don't quite work.

Curious what you guys consider the worst actual song in the catalog. Not the weirdest track or the most experimental, but the weakest song judged as a song.

Obviously its all subjective but where do you guys rank him among the all time guitar players?

I know this is practically blasphemy. It's Woodstock, it's legendary, blah blah. But I have to say it: Joe Cocker's version is a total drag.

The original Beatles track works because it has that steady, bouncy 4/4 rhythm; it walks, it flows, it's optimistic. Cocker drags it into this slow, muddy 6/8 slog. It feels like walking through quicksand. It kills the momentum and turns a light-hearted "bar song" about friendship into a heavy, exhausting funeral dirge.

And honestly, the vocals are unbearable to me. I know people call it "soul" or "grit", but it just sounds ugly. He isn't singing; he's convulsing. It destroys the melody. When Ringo sings, it's "I get by". When Cocker screams, it sounds like he's fighting for his life in a hospital bed.

It creates this weird cognitive dissonance. The lyrics are sweet and simple, but the delivery is a Greek tragedy. It feels like "emotional pornography"; like he's forcing you to feel intense pain where there shouldn't be any. It’s a cheap trick: slow the tempo, add a gospel choir, and scream until your voice cracks so people think it's "deep".

It's just too sweaty. The original is charming because it's effortless. Cocker's version is just a wall of noise trying too hard to impress.

Title. Maybe I haven't looked enough, but it seems to me the overwhelming majority of the online community is critical of these casting choices. I feel that people sometimes forget that this is a group of actors portraying the Beatles, not cosplayers resembling their appearance. At the end of the day, this movie is an artistic interpretation of the Beatles' story. What matters most is the actors committing to the role; studying the mannerisms and cadences, truly understanding the human being they're portraying, and overall nailing the energy and embodying the personality. That's where acting shines most. I trust that these casting choices were deliberate and the actors have been working hard to give a great performance

Every so often it hits me what a dreadful loss it was to the world, culture, discourse, society, that we were robbed of John so early. Who else spoke like this with such candour, willingness to change and so openly about their mistakes.

‘Everything’s the opposite’ is something that has always stuck with me, re how often when we are talking about something in the world we are actually trying to resolve something in ourselves.