a very select minority of bands from the sixties that i don't like.
i just find them pretty boring and cringe-worthy. apart from turn turn turn and mr tambourine man, obviously.
so i'd go for Love instead, or jefferson airplane.
as far i'm concerned. they had all there best material in their first year of fame, and the rest was rubbish.
the byrds never had one awesome album, whereas Love had at least one.
the harmonies are nice, blah, the guitars sound nice, yes, but it doesn't mean they're not bad.
i dunno. i've tried my hardest to like them, but i'm incapable. i'm so sorry.
I disagree with the inconsistency. I think they have 3 essential albums. The records from 67-68 are complete works.
I'll admit the rest aren't though. Their debut is nice, the second one is patchy and Fifth Dimension had brilliant ideas but was too mixed up.
I think they're one of the best bands of the 60s. They almost invented the American psychedelic sound on their own, when even The Beatles were doing Help. They were way before their time.
it's the only byrds album that i know really well. never heard "sweetheart of the rodeo". i'm just starting to get into gram parsons so i should probably give it a whirl.
Neither!
Mr Tambourine Man! Its such a sunny day album of wonderfulness - and I don't even own it. They were so ahead of their time with that album.
Spanish Harlem Incident. Absolute perfection apart from that evil, evil error.
Sweetheart of the Rodeo, obviously
Gram Parsons etc etc genius etc etc
I grew up with that album. Which I would like to say explains a lot, but it really doesn't.
Its sort of brilliant,
but you've got to be in the mood for country haven't you.
I prefer their earlier ones though. Turn Turn Turn.
the byrds are one of
a very select minority of bands from the sixties that i don't like.
i just find them pretty boring and cringe-worthy. apart from turn turn turn and mr tambourine man, obviously.
so i'd go for Love instead, or jefferson airplane.
You're evil.
They're so much more consistent than Love or Jefferson Airplane.
I love harmonies, and I love raga, and I love rickenbackers. I can't not love them.
the byrds are VERY inconsistent!
as far i'm concerned. they had all there best material in their first year of fame, and the rest was rubbish.
the byrds never had one awesome album, whereas Love had at least one.
the harmonies are nice, blah, the guitars sound nice, yes, but it doesn't mean they're not bad.
i dunno. i've tried my hardest to like them, but i'm incapable. i'm so sorry.
Hello. I just saw this again.
I disagree with the inconsistency. I think they have 3 essential albums. The records from 67-68 are complete works.
I'll admit the rest aren't though. Their debut is nice, the second one is patchy and Fifth Dimension had brilliant ideas but was too mixed up.
I think they're one of the best bands of the 60s. They almost invented the American psychedelic sound on their own, when even The Beatles were doing Help. They were way before their time.
"fifth dimension" y'all
it's the only byrds album that i know really well. never heard "sweetheart of the rodeo". i'm just starting to get into gram parsons so i should probably give it a whirl.
5D is ok.
But one of their worst.
There are more shit songs than good on the record itself. Mr Spaceman, Lear Jet Song, I Come And Stand... etc. All weak.
The bonus tracks on it though, are among my fave Byrd tracks.