Is the White Album the Beatles true masterpiece?

Yes this and Sgt Peppers, I can not decide between those two.

A single album White Album (as George Martin suggested) might have been their greatest single record.  But there's too much loose ends, shaggy dog material on the White Album to call it their best.

I think "Hard Day's Night" is a better album altogether--not to mention Revolver-Rubber Soul-Sgt. Pepper.  

I'd rate the White Album above Abbey Road because there's a little too much sheen to the latter.  

I voted yes because it is creatively, musically & artistically the Beatles true masterpiece with its back to basics rock & roll approach which defines them during the late 60's which is my favorite era of the band.

I voted yes but why didn't you just bring back the old topic Wayne

No. I agree with adam, there's some great stuff on there but a lot of crap as well.

PEPPER RULES NO MATTER WHAT ANYBODY SAYS.

Rubber Soul, then Revolver  

I was listening to Sgt Pepper last night with the headphones on.  "She's Leaving Home" really is an amazing song.  I don't like the line about "fun is the one thing that money can't buy" but I like how the song makes both the parents and "she" sympathetic.  In some respects the parents are more sympathetic than "she."  It's easy to underestimate the power of these songs with minor quibbles--and I've been known to quibble.    

Quoted from Mairi

No. I agree with adam, there's some great stuff on there but a lot of crap as well.

PEPPER RULES NO MATTER WHAT ANYBODY SAYS.

Yeaaaaah!!

Revolver is better. Then it's pretty close between Soul and White.

Not exactly.  

I like Abbey Road better, I think Abbey Road, AHDN are better then The White Album. But I prefer The White Album over Sgt. Peppers.

Quoted from adamzero

I was listening to Sgt Pepper last night with the headphones on.  "She's Leaving Home" really is an amazing song.  I don't like the line about "fun is the one thing that money can't buy" but I like how the song makes both the parents and "she" sympathetic.  In some respects the parents are more sympathetic than "she."  It's easy to underestimate the power of these songs with minor quibbles--and I've been known to quibble.    

I agree with your view about that line, "fun is the one thing that money can't buy". I always think it should have been "LOVE is the one thing that money can't buy". After all, money can't buy you love!

I could never understand the fuss about TWA. Many have made it out to be the best of their albums. Adamzero is right; too many loose ends and un-Beatles stuff like Rocky Raccoon. Great stuff on it, but no way it's their best. I wish they had made it a single album, then did another single album later in '68 with other material.

I voted simply no, and most of us did.

It's been my experience that money can buy a lot of fun.  But not Love or happiness or self-esteem or whatever.  

Quoted from GreenApple

...Great stuff on it, but no way it's their best. I wish they had made it a single album, then did another single album later in '68 with other material.

It'd be a good idea: two albums in 68, but after all, they made a double (it could be two single albums too) because they had an EMI contract for some albums/songs and they wanted to finish it with the White Album. Sir George wanted a single album (I know we all know) but realized later that the guys wanted in this way because of business -and no artistic- whishes.
You could say: OK, but why didn't they make two single albums instead of a double one? One simple answer could be that at the time they were (end of the year: Christmas, etc...) and with the number of tracks they had it'd be stupid two single albums at the same time, remember that they begun to record too late to publish two single albums (one in summer and the other in Xmas time).

Quoted from raxo

It'd be a good idea: two albums in 68, but after all, they made a double (it could be two single albums too) because they had an EMI contract for some albums/songs and they wanted to finish it with the White Album. Sir George wanted a single album (I know we all know) but realized later that the guys wanted in this way because of business -and no artistic- whishes.
You could say: OK, but why didn't they make two single albums instead of a double one? One simple answer could be that at the time they were (end of the year: Christmas, etc...) and with the number of tracks they had it'd be stupid two single albums at the same time, remember that they begun to record too late to publish two single albums (one in summer and the other in Xmas time).

All very fair points, but it's still the case that they padded it out with lots of mediocre and un-Beatles songs - Birthday, Rocky Raccoon, Piggies, Revolution 9, for example. And, I know there's lots of acoustic stuff because they only had acoustic guitars in India, but those numbers just sound like John or Paul doing their own thing. It just seems to be too un-Beatles, in daft songs, or acoustic solo stuff to compare to the likes of Sgt. Pepper's or Abbey Road.

I'm slightly annoyed that TWA always gets fantastic acclaim. I wonder how it would have been if they'd not gone to India, but stayed in Britland. Maybe it would have made little difference, since the early 1968 tracks show that they'd left behind the psychedelia and musical complexity of 1967. Pity!

It's not my favourite album but I don't think it contains mediocre songs: some bad ones (yes) and some great ones (yes), the rest just good (yes)-exactly as any of the albums from the guys, only that each one has his/her preferences, in my case -a strange one- I love Beatles For Sale.
I don't think that the guys would continue with the psicodelia thing more than a few mounths, they were very much than a psychedelic band (remember: always a different work: Lp or film, and don't repeat yourself -if it's posible) and their friends Stones, Dyland,... were going to do the same: go on. Anyway Psicodelia was going to be an old-fashioned style in a very short of time (not more than two years).

Quoted from Wayne_L.

I voted yes because it is creatively, musically & artistically the Beatles true masterpiece with its back to basics rock & roll approach which defines them during the late 60's which is my favorite era of the band.

There is so much material on the White Album that isnt rock and roll that this statement is untrue. Out of 30 or so songs, I bet that not even 10 of them are considered rock songs. I'll have to check later.

This question is silly anyways. If the White Album is your favorite album than of course its their masterpiece. If its not then it isnt. Easy as that. For me personaly, I like Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, AHDN, Abbey Road, and Rubber Soul better.

It has its place, its sprawl is its charm, but a masterpiece not (imo of course). Its a good album from a time when lots of good bands were making good albums.
AHDN is a masterpiece (I think). Its unique - there is nothing in 1964 that even comes close. In fact I would say its beyond comparison. None else was making music as good as this. And its near perfect.

Quoted from GreenApple

I could never understand the fuss about TWA. Many have made it out to be the best of their albums. Adamzero is right; too many loose ends and un-Beatles stuff like Rocky Raccoon. Great stuff on it, but no way it's their best. I wish they had made it a single album, then did another single album later in '68 with other material.

I dont see how a song can be "Un-Beatle like stuff" If it is written by The Beatles.

Quoted from Mean_Mr_Mustard

I dont see how a song can be "Un-Beatle like stuff" If it is written by The Beatles.

I agree. What exactly is 'Un-Beatlelike stuff?' Its not my favorite album of theirs, but I still love the hell out of it, especially because of its diversity. They kept evolving and in 1968 this is where they were at, basically all over the place. And then what exactly is Beatle-like stuff? The songs you like?

Quoted from juniorsfarm

I agree. What exactly is 'Un-Beatlelike stuff?' Its not my favorite album of theirs, but I still love the hell out of it, especially because of its diversity. They kept evolving and in 1968 this is where they were at, basically all over the place. And then what exactly is Beatle-like stuff? The songs you like?

Of course, it's all personal taste and opinion, but I think a song like Rocky Raccoon has just wandered too far from Beatles sound.

Quoted from tkitna

There is so much material on the White Album that isnt rock and roll that this statement is untrue. Out of 30 or so songs, I bet that not even 10 of them are considered rock songs. I'll have to check later.

I counted 10 rock and roll songs

Quoted from juniorsfarm

I agree. What exactly is 'Un-Beatlelike stuff?' Its not my favorite album of theirs, but I still love the hell out of it, especially because of its diversity. They kept evolving and in 1968 this is where they were at, basically all over the place. And then what exactly is Beatle-like stuff? The songs you like?

Just again, to try and explain myself. The wandering they did on TWA, the diversity, which you admire - all respect to your view - just makes me personally want to listen to more mainstream Beatles sounding stuff. That's all I'm saying. So, I suppose I'm saying that I think some of that stuff sounds 'un-Beatles' in my view only. But, maybe others here agree with my view. And, maybe that's what George Martin meant by thinking it should have been a single album. I don't know. Anyway, just my view.  

Weird isn't it. I'm one of those who thinks its diversity is its strength. yet others see it as a flaw. It's a funny old world.

Quoted from raxo

Anyway Psicodelia was going to be an old-fashioned style in a very short of time (not more than two years).

But, then again, Pink Floyd made a long and fantastic career out of psychedelia.

Quoted from GreenApple

But, then again, Pink Floyd made a long and fantastic career out of psychedelia.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Out of psychedelia.

I'm here raxo! To debate TWA. Not much to add to what I said. I find it very sober, after the psychedelic stuff. Though I said I don't judge by albums, I just find it somehow wanton in it's scope. Maybe they felt so confident at that stage of their career, that they felt they could do music to please themselves, or there would be so many songs they could afford to play around with some of them. I never liked the title or the cover either. But the worst thing about it is that George was conned with only 4 songs out of 30!!! He didn't even get the 5 he was supposed to get!

I think they didn't really know what to do at that moment in their career:

one recent failed (Magical Mystery Tour film)  
no live shows, (then they were a studio band)  
nearly two years of pychedelia (too many for an innovative band)  

so they made another album.

They seem tired to me:

Recorded almost all the songs they've got at that moment (bad and good ones).  
Used three studios at Abbey Road in five months with some holidays of Sir George, Ringo and George.
Discussions that caused Geoff Emerick gave up.  
Cover and title as you said.  

George ain't got better songs than 4 in those sessions: While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Long,Long,Long, Sour Milk Sea and Not Guilty though I like Savoy Truffle too. They should have used Don't Pass Me By in Beatles For Sale (its country sound fits better in that one) and so they could include 5 songs from George, but no more: which ones?

Thanks for the 'maybe' option...refreshing change. lol

Are you joking or ...

I can never commit to these votes....Depends on who you are and what you like.

They sure should have used DPMD in Beatles For Sale; to give a little justice to Ringo. I don't know what else George had. But, if John and Paul had said 'George, with 30 songs, you can really show what you've got with this album', or the like, I'm sure he could have shown us some good stuff. Couldn't have been any worse than Birthday, say.

Quoted from raxo

Are you joking or ...

...or teasing me?  

I wanted to say that Don't Pass Me By was composed by Ringo in 1963 or so and was intented by the guys in that year but failed. Ringo was always trying to record it for each album and in Beatles For Sale sessions they recorded a good version of an obscure rock: "Leave My Kitten Alone" and maybe they should have tried Ringo's and leave one cover out (Honey Don't could be sang by John -he used to before Ringo joint- so the cover could be other, not necesarially that one).  

Read All About It http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Pass_Me_By

Well I never knew that. Nice insight.

Quoted from GreenApple

They sure should have used DPMD in Beatles For Sale; to give a little justice to Ringo. I don't know what else George had. But, if John and Paul had said 'George, with 30 songs, you can really show what you've got with this album', or the like, I'm sure he could have shown us some good stuff. Couldn't have been any worse than Birthday, say.

We know the 4 from the WA, but he also wrote in those days (at least):
1. Not Guilty (recorded but unreleased until his solo album from 1979 titled "George Harrison", you know it from the Anthology 3 and it sounds very similar).
2. Sour Milk Sea (demo in Esher Demos in may 68, recorded by Jackie Lomax that year with George producing it -a good one that the guys should have used in TWA, IMO).
3. Circles (demo from the same sessions in Esher, mostly instrumental at that moment and was unreleased till his solo album from 1982 titled "Gonne Troppo", no a great one, indeed).
4. Something (in a very early version at piano at the end of the sessions of WA -inspired by "Something In The Way" of James Taylor, it's said that the same day Paul made an early version of what would become Let It Be).

P.S. I don't like Piggies.

Quoted from raxo

P.S. I don't like Piggies.

LOL...Has to catch me in the right moment...very rare. lol