Beatles songs ranked
-
-
I saw this last week. We all have our favorites but Good Day Sunshine as the worst? His quote... 213. "Good Day Sunshine," Revolver (1966): Paul McCartney was welcome to write all the happy, upbeat, cheery-cheery songs he wanted. But this one is beyond the pale. It's blaring, received, and strident. Even by McCartney standards ("Getting Better," "Hello Goodbye") the title is inane. It could have been "Yum Food Delicious," or "Hot Sex Baby," or any other three random words McCartney took out of his Young Man's Collection of Positive Synonyms -- and note that of these three choices McCartney chose the blandest. McCartney's piano playing, which graced so many Beatles songs, right up to "A Day in the Life," is a parody of itself. It's the worst song in the Beatles' classic period. And it ruins Revolver, otherwise the most consistent and mind-blowing collection of pop-rock songs ever conceived by man.
-
Hi Nancy and oobu! Did I read this right, it says Vulture.com and written by Bill Wyman? Isn't this the same guy that was in The Rolling Stones? Vulture.com and/or Bill Wyman should have titled his article "The Greatest Songs Ever Recorded in the 20th Century!" Or both could have titled it "The Greatest Beatles Songs Of All-Time!" They (Vulture.com and Bill Wyman) should have NEVER associated the word "Worst" when it comes to The Beatles music! The Beatles were the best, that's because their music was the best! Take care.
-
Nancy R:
____________________________________________________ I also saw this and there was another one similar that had a total list I think around 180. Maybe this 2nd list didn't include covers which could be one factor that could make up the discrepancy. Regardless, both lists (and the concept to rank every Beatle song) is stupid in my opinion and totally unrealistic. You kind of got the feeling that it was an Internet company's ploy to do something outrageous to drum up Internet hits for advertising purposes. Music is very subjective and to try to say that #138 is a better song than #166 is crazy. A much better "ranking" type article on Beatles' songs would be to list the Top 30, 40 or even 50 "Top Tier" Beatle songs. Even the Beatles had top tier songs compared to just good or average. The other factor that you have to consider is what the "majority" of people "like" compared to what a specific critic thinks. There is no way that Good Day Sunshine is the worse Beatle song out of 213 if you did a poll of average Beatle fans. It is a pretty well known and liked song. In my opinion, it is not a top 50 Beatle song but it is not 213 either. Other examples I saw from this writer that seemed to be way "off" compared to what the majority of people think are: #204 - She's Leaving Home...Are you kidding me!! #194 - Ob La Di...Not a top 50/Top tier Beatle song in my opinion, but anytime he plays it, the crowd does go kind of nuts. The melody is so infectious but this writer doesn't consider what consumers like. He seems like an English professor that takes lyrics too literal instead of what the average person likes about a song. It shouldn't be #194 either. #178 0 Oh Darling #169 - Mother's Nature Son (not top 50 Beatle songs but should be ranked higher) #151 - PS I Love You (not top 50 Beatle songs but should be ranked higher) #122 - I'll Follow the Sun #115 - I've Just Seen A Face #107 - Fool on the Hill #105 - Get Back...Are You kidding me!! One of the Beatles most known songs # 96 - Getting Better # 95 - Got to Get You into My Life All of the songs above (except where I indicated) are arguably in the Beatles Top 50 tier songs) or at the very least should be ranked much more favorable. The 2nd list I mentioned on Ranking all the Beatles songs was just as crazy and off base on a number of songs that ranked real low. The 2 that jumped out at me were: Here, There and Everywhere was ranked like #130 or so -- Are you kidding me? George Martin said that he thought it was Paul's greatest love song. I think John Lennon said the same and yet this writer didn't have it in the top 100 of Beatle songs. Long and Winding Road - This 2nd list had it in the low 100's I think. If you took a poll for people to list their favorite Beatle songs, Long and Winding Road might make many of those lists. Another #1 hit that so many average people remember and know.
-
As others have said, any such list is inherently inane, but this is one of the worst I've seen. And it's not just the Paul songs he gets wrong. "The Ballad of John and Yoko" is 179, below "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" and the cover of "Honey Don't," which he admits is 2nd tier Carl Perkins? "Savoy Truffle" ranks below "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)"? This is not a list to be taken seriously.
-
I knew posting that link would get a reaction out of you guys!
I think it is ridiculous too and his choices were way off! -
The article had such an anti-McCartney vibe; so many mean-spirited comments. Reminded me of Rolling Stone articles from the 70's.
-
Bruce M.:
As others have said, any such list is inherently inane, but this is one of the worst I've seen. And it's not just the Paul songs he gets wrong. "The Ballad of John and Yoko" is 179, below "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" and the cover of "Honey Don't," which he admits is 2nd tier Carl Perkins? "Savoy Truffle" ranks below "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)"? This is not a list to be taken seriously.
______________________________________________________ I agree Bruce, He was just as "way off" on a good number of great John songs also. Just for the hell of it, I googled "the Beatles - Ranking all their songs". Looking through the articles I found one that despite the ridiculous concept I really liked. The blog was called...Beatles from Worst to First by Charles Olney. Mr. Olney surprisingly is a Professor of Constitutional Law. What I liked most about the writer was his comments on almost every song. Also, you couldn't tell if he was biased towards John or Paul. And he liked both George and Ringo a lot too. As I said, the concept is crazy given the "subjective" nature of music but at least this writer wasn't glaringly off on many of his choices. His top 50 for example fell in line generally with my opinion as a big time fan. I also got the feeling that he truly believes that John and Paul were both geniuses and equal (but different) in their talents and strengths. And when they truly collaborated to make each one's songs "better" the Beatles were at their best. For anyone who has the time, you might want to look up Mr. Olney's article. And yes, "Here There and Everywhere" did make the top 50!
-
B J Conlee:
Just for the hell of it, I googled "the Beatles - Ranking all their songs". Looking through the articles I found one that despite the ridiculous concept I really liked. The blog was called...Beatles from Worst to First by Charles Olney. Mr. Olney surprisingly is a Professor of Constitutional Law. What I liked most about the writer was his comments on almost every song. Also, you couldn't tell if he was biased towards John or Paul. And he liked both George and Ringo a lot too. As I said, the concept is crazy given the "subjective" nature of music but at least this writer wasn't glaringly off on many of his choices. His top 50 for example fell in line generally with my opinion as a big time fan. I also got the feeling that he truly believes that John and Paul were both geniuses and equal (but different) in their talents and strengths. And when they truly collaborated to make each one's songs "better" the Beatles were at their best. For anyone who has the time, you might want to look up Mr. Olney's article. And yes, "Here There and Everywhere" did make the top 50!
Thanks for sharing that blog. I'm 2/3 of the way through his list and it seems so much more fair than the original one posted in this thread. Disliked the anti-Paul bias in that one.
-
Ridiculous. How can anyone take this list seriously by ranking "Please Mr. Postman" higher than "Lucy in the Sky w/Diamonds" & "Money..That's What I Want" higher than "Let it Be" & "Yesterday". I want 5 minutes of my life back!
-
JoeySmith:
Ridiculous. How can anyone take this list seriously by ranking "Please Mr. Postman" higher than "Lucy in the Sky w/Diamonds" & "Money..That's What I Want" higher than "Let it Be" & "Yesterday". I want 5 minutes of my life back!
___________________________________________ Great examples Joey. I don't get the idea of including "covers" as part of a ranking of Beatles' songs. Yes, John did a fantastic lead vocal job on Twist and Shout and Paul did a great job on Little Richard's Long Tall Sally but neither of them are Beatle songs. Now if the ranking was based on their live "performances" I could see where they might enter the equation. Don't think if someone was ranking Stevie Wonder songs, the writer would include "We Can Work it Out".
-
DeniseLM227:
B J Conlee:
Just for the hell of it, I googled "the Beatles - Ranking all their songs". Looking through the articles I found one that despite the ridiculous concept I really liked. The blog was called...Beatles from Worst to First by Charles Olney. Mr. Olney surprisingly is a Professor of Constitutional Law. What I liked most about the writer was his comments on almost every song. Also, you couldn't tell if he was biased towards John or Paul. And he liked both George and Ringo a lot too. As I said, the concept is crazy given the "subjective" nature of music but at least this writer wasn't glaringly off on many of his choices. His top 50 for example fell in line generally with my opinion as a big time fan. I also got the feeling that he truly believes that John and Paul were both geniuses and equal (but different) in their talents and strengths. And when they truly collaborated to make each one's songs "better" the Beatles were at their best. For anyone who has the time, you might want to look up Mr. Olney's article. And yes, "Here There and Everywhere" did make the top 50!
Thanks for sharing that blog. I'm 2/3 of the way through his list and it seems so much more fair than the original one posted in this thread. Disliked the anti-Paul bias in that one.
________________________________________ Glad you found it Denise. I felt the same way...this writer seemed much more fair and he was also much more down to earth as to why the various songs impacted on him. I liked his comments to many of the songs. They seemed "real" (positive or negative) without hearing the normal biases and cliches you have heard before.
-
I looked up Olney's list and it is indeed much more reasonable. I disagree with some of his evaluations, but all the ones I read seemed at least defensible. I do think he's a bit rough on a couple of George songs, but at least he's sane. I still think lists like this should be illegal, though.
-
Bruce M.:
I looked up Olney's list and it is indeed much more reasonable. I disagree with some of his evaluations, but all the ones I read seemed at least defensible. I do think he's a bit rough on a couple of George songs, but at least he's sane. I still think lists like this should be illegal, though.
____________________________________________________ Bruce, you gave me a good laugh this morning with that last line.
-
jl4761:
Hi Nancy and oobu! Did I read this right, it says Vulture.com and written by Bill Wyman? Isn't this the same guy that was in The Rolling Stones? Vulture.com and/or Bill Wyman should have titled his article "The Greatest Songs Ever Recorded in the 20th Century!" Or both could have titled it "The Greatest Beatles Songs Of All-Time!" They (Vulture.com and Bill Wyman) should have NEVER associated the word "Worst" when it comes to The Beatles music! The Beatles were the best, that's because their music was the best! Take care.
Pretty sure its not that Bill Wyman I know there is a music writer who always has to declare on radio that "I am not the Bill Wyman from the Stones or the ex Stones member when being interviewed. yeah "worst" is too strong a word especially when you are talking about an era
-
Nancy R:
I knew posting that link would get a reaction out of you guys!
I think it is ridiculous too and his choices were way off!Hi Nancy! You definitely got a reaction out of all of us with that ridiculous link! The word "worst" should never be used when it comes to The Beatles or their music!
-
oobu24:
I saw this last week. We all have our favorites but Good Day Sunshine as the worst? His quote... 213. "Good Day Sunshine," Revolver (1966): Paul McCartney was welcome to write all the happy, upbeat, cheery-cheery songs he wanted. But this one is beyond the pale. It's blaring, received, and strident. Even by McCartney standards ("Getting Better," "Hello Goodbye") the title is inane. It could have been "Yum Food Delicious," or "Hot Sex Baby," or any other three random words McCartney took out of his Young Man's Collection of Positive Synonyms -- and note that of these three choices McCartney chose the blandest. McCartney's piano playing, which graced so many Beatles songs, right up to "A Day in the Life," is a parody of itself. It's the worst song in the Beatles' classic period. And it ruins Revolver, otherwise the most consistent and mind-blowing collection of pop-rock songs ever conceived by man.
That demonstrated that none of what the guy said was to be taken seriously. Whatever his thoughts are/were, it's nothing more than his list of favorite and least favorite. No list, in my opinion, should ever be titled best and worst. It all comes down to opinion and personal taste. And his thoughts/opinions are the last things I would consider relevant. We shouldn't be wasting our time even discussing him.
-
I feel sorry for this guy. He's trying so hard to be hip and cool that he can't enjoy some great music. If someone can't get joy from listening to The Beatles, imagine what else in life they're missing. It's also a poorly written article. It's supposed to be tiny Twitter reviews of the songs, right?
208."A Taste of Honey," Please Please Me (1963): John Lennon, a local Liverpool tough and an incipient art-school dropout, had a skiffle band. Paul McCartney, two years his junior, had a rapidly evolving understanding of music and a slightly younger guitarist schoolmate named George Harrison. Once the three jelled, the band honed its chops playing before ever-more-appreciative audiences in clubs in Liverpool, notably the Cavern, and in three separate residencies, with a drummer named Pete Best and a bassist named Stu Sutcliffe, in a succession of strip clubs in the red-light district of Hamburg. (The first of these ended when authorities discovered George Harrison was underage; he was unceremoniously deported.) The band's undisciplined and chaotic performances are now the stuff of legend, ranging as they did from wild American R&B to the schlockiest schlock, like this. But at the end of this trial by fire -- playing in front of gamblers, gangsters, strippers, and thugs -- they emerged as tight and focused a band as can be imagined.
This is history we've all read, but what does any of it have to do with "A Taste Of Honey"? There are several "reviews" like this. Just filler from biographies and nothing about the song in question.
