--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jpgillam" <jpgillam@> wrote: > > > > > > The White Album sounds different to me in that it no longer > > > comes across as a band, but as a few guys who are singing and > > > playing on one another's songs. Genius men and brilliant songs, > > > granted, but still, the band is a thing of the past. > > > > Absolutely. Excellent insight, one shared by many > > Beatles critics and fans who, for their various > > reasons, consider the White Album the *least* of > > the Beatles albums. Some blame the lack of "group > > feel" for the "least" rating, others blame the > > first breaking away from the "group feel" thang > > and the resulting clash of egos for the "least" > > rating, but most agree. In the canon of Beatles > > scripture, it's generally considered the most > > lightweight of the albums.
Not "generally." There's a wide range of opinions. Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but not everyone by any means values "group feel" over individual creativity. > For the record, as I remember a perusal of > Beatles-related sites some years ago, the > album generally considered the best by fans, > "Revolver," was recorded and in the can long > before they ever met Maharishi. I tend to > agree with the assessment. I can't listen > to anything but "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" > these days. FWIW, the White Album was the best-selling Beatles album (10th best of all time). Also see this article in the NYTimes written by Times music critic Allan Kozinn shortly after Maharishi died: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/arts/music/07yogi.html?pagewanted=all http://tinyurl.com/3uwu4hj
