The Beatles - Revolver POLL

Nevermind, I guess spring '66 they only played a single show. But still, even if they were in the studio together the same amount, like Ringo said he learned to play chess, it was probably a lot of sitting around waiting for mics to be set up.

good point -- the end of touring really marked the first time in years that they weren't playing together pretty much constantly. you can definitely hear the difference in the post-revolver albums.

It is interesting that they played absolutely nothing from Revolver on their final US tour, even though it coincided to the month with Revolver's release

I mean, maybe you could say that overdubs were more important on those later records. I still feel like I'm hearing the Beatles as a band on a lot of those tracks, though.

I don't really hear the Beatles as a band on MMT at all with the exception of I am the Walrus maybe. There is obviously some group participation on the White Album from a performance standpoint on about 1/3 of the songs, but the thematic/sonic cohesion is gone really. I just don't think they were occupying the same mind space in 1968 at 1966. Sometimes I think the public reaction to that album in '68 was the correct reaction. The white album's transformation into a nightmare mosaic only works from a distance.

I think it's far more than 1/3 of the songs on the White Album. Side One is pretty much the Beatles on everything except "Wild Honey Pie." Paul plays drums on "Back in the USSR" and there's no drums on "Dear Prudence."

I think I know what you mean by Revolver still having sonic cohesion, but I actually don't think it's present anymore on Paul's tracks.

As for MMT, why is "I Am the Walrus" more an example of the Beatles playing as a band than the title track or "Your Mother Should Know?" Paul on bass on Ringo on drums on "Blue Jay Way."

Maybe there's better songs overall on other albums but the guitars sound so good on Revolver. Also yeah Ringo destroys on She Said She Said.

Some of it might be a distinction between guitar and keyboard-based tracks. If you can accept keyboard-based tracks as Beatles-as-rock-band sound, then "Fixing a Hole" fits right in.

Actually, sorry, Paul on drums on "Dear Prudence."

I think I know what you mean by Revolver still having sonic cohesion, but I actually don't think it's present anymore on Paul's tracks.

Paul's doing his own thing with his character driven dioramas (Yellow Submarine, Eleanor Rigby), but he's exploring similar themes of life and death on Revolver (Rigby, GTGYIML, HTAE, For No One), plus melodic/droney stuff (Paperback Rider).

There are drums on "Dear Prudence" and they are AMAZING. Paul played drums on that one.

Oops, already noted.

It is interesting that they played absolutely nothing from Revolver on their final US tour, even though it coincided to the month with Revolver's release

― Josefa, Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:56 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

They did play "Paperback Writer" (I know, not on Revolver, but recorded at the same sessions) on their 1966 tours.

But they knew they'd be playing to audiences that couldn't hear them, and they still couldn't hear themselves; so why waste time whipping the new shit into shape for people who just came to scream at them?

Paperback Writer is another kick-ass Ringo joint

it's not a ringo tune!

oh you're talking about the drum playing, nevermind

yes he kicks ass on it!

when it transitions from the opening chorus to the first verse that is a serious jump up and down like a maniac moment imo

"Sometimes I think the public reaction to that album in '68 was the correct reaction"

It wasn't seen as good then? Interested cuz I'm not real familiar with how each individual Beatles album was seen in its time, or which ones were more popular than the others, other than Pepper taking on iconic status

Rolling Stone loved it (I think they called it the Beatles' best), and it sold a shit-ton.

only tangentially related but ever since I read someone argue that Lennon gave up on writing thorough songs after Revolver and critiqued how he either went for soft repetition or chopped-up loud weirdness on The White Album it's kinda messed with my perception of some of his songs, not to say I don't dig a bunch of 'em there

Not necessarily identical to "the public reaction," but I found the Wikipedia section on its critical reception to be informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_(album)#Critical_reception

I remember digging up some critical overview of the Beatles at my high school back in the 80s and being struck by how uniformly negative most of their post-Rubber Soul record reviews were. it was really striking, the mainstream press found all the psychedelic experiments and confessional songwriting etc really indulgent and tiresome. how they longed for the good old days of those classic verse-chorus-verse pop songs...

Lennon obv got much simpler, "stark" or "primal" or "direct" when it was to the good and "lazy" or "boring" or "lame" when it wasn't. I certainly have less interest in hearing his stuff of the mid 70s and later compared to Paul and George's...

one thing that bugs me about Lennon's solo work is that sometime around 1970 or so his stuff becomes much more rhythmically simple and straightforward. His Beatles stuff has a lot of weird dropped beats and mid-song time signature shifts, but this seems to be a stylistic tic that he just completely abandoned at some point. it's strange, as it's a very distinctive feature of some of his best material.

yeah

also only tangentially related I remember picking up "The Lives of John Lennon" on a whim and dude arguing that McCartney held the band together 1967 on while he was off in a drug-induced haze, was the only true genius of the group, etc. etc. I thought OK, interesting viewpoint if possibly a little overstated, but then I skimmed the rest of it and apparently according to this guy Lennon was the 20th century's greatest monster

then I looked it up and saw all the commentary saying it was essentially a hitjob yellow journalism piece on him with sketchy sources lol

haha yeah that book is kinda legendary

one thing that bugs me about Lennon's solo work is that sometime around 1970 or so his stuff becomes much more rhythmically simple and straightforward. His Beatles stuff has a lot of weird dropped beats and mid-song time signature shifts, but this seems to be a stylistic tic that he just completely abandoned at some point. it's strange, as it's a very distinctive feature of some of his best material.

There is some weird stuff in there, a la "#9 Dream", but overall I'd agree -- and not just rhthmically, but harmonically, production-wise, he really seemed to streamline his writing after the Beatles. There is nothing like "Because" or certainly "I Am the Walrus" anywhere in his solo discography. I listened to the RS 1971 interview today on youtube, and he mentions how he'd taken LSD and done a lot of experimenting in music, so he might have personally chalked up all that weirdness to the times. By contrast, though I usually prefer McCartney's Beatles output to his solo material, I'd be hard pressed to identify a purely musical aspect of his solo material that was objectively different after the breakup.

imo had Lennon lived, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't have ended up in the Travelling Wilburys. He was at least as "rootsy" in his appreciation of old rock and roll as any of the other Beatles.

v hobbity cover

yeah there are flashes of it - "All My Life" on Pussycats, "#9 Dream" - but not a lot

xxp

here's nik cohn's original NYT review of the white album, it's kind of astonishingly negative:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/nikcohn1968.pdf

Re the simplification of John's writing: I'd agree as well. Over the weekend I was reading the website of the tuba player Howard Johnson because of the revival of one of The Band threads and Hojo was saying that John never really learned piano voicings, he would always just play the simplest shape and then move it around. http://www.hojotuba.com/merch/

that nik cohn review and the howard johnson interview are two A-plus reads. thanks guys!

cohn's objective description of the white album is pretty much dead-on, though i disagree completely with his conclusions. it's a perfectly understandable first impression. his rave for beggars banquet in the same review is great, despite his complete miss of the power of "sympathy for the devil." but i'm trying to work out what songs he's talking about elsewhere: he quotes the lyrics to "dear doctor" in his description of a song called "squalor"; was "squalor" a working title or something? and if so, what's the country song with mouth harps and mandolins that he refers to as "doctor doctor"? is that (the otherwise unmentioned) "factory girl" maybe? i'm confused.

Glad you liked the Hojo interview, fcc, it was one of the more inspiring things I've read recently, maybe ever.

the duds are massive and sprinkled in evenly: "Love You To," "Yellow Submarine," and "Got to Get You Into My Life." not so hot on "doctor robert" either. not a dud though.

Revolver is the go-to safe-cool pick for "best" Beatles LP because it's sort of weird, sgt pepper is too obvious, and white album is too weird. the white album is much more cohesive than revolver. sgt pepper too

here's nik cohn's original NYT review of the white album, it's kind of astonishingly negative

Really negative, until the bit where his list of the few positives begins with Bungalow Bill! Great read though.

"Nobody Told Me" is some mid-era Lennon with a weird time signature

mid-era?

Eh, late-era.

cohn wrote a lukewarm review of abbey road for the times as well

Actually, reading that review (which I agree is interesting in a lot of points, though basically completely disagree on the quality of lots of tracks the writer dislikes), makes me wonder what other bands have issued records (or even just songs) that *knowingly* parodied the band itself. I can think of Police songs that reference other Police songs, for example, but none that parody the Police, per se. Or, what would Radiohead making a Radiohead pastiche -- not unintentionally mind you -- sound like? Further still, do you think U2 even realize their sound could be parodied?

(in truth, I'd bet they do)

smashing pumpkins, nirvana

really, which songs?

"Nobody Told Me" is some mid-era Lennon with a weird time signature

― ▴▲ ▴TH3CR()$BY$H()W▴▲ ▴ (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:26 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's in straight 4/4 with the occasional 2/4 bar in the pre-chorus.

"i hate myself and want to die" & "tales of a scorched earth"

cohn:

"What's gone wrong basically, the trouble is, simply that rather more than half the songs are profound mediocrities."

it gives me confidence that some people who construct sentences as terribly as i do manage to wind up reviewing beatles albums for the nyt

cohn's review of abbey road is up too -- he loved the medley but hated everything else:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/music/100569lennon-beat.html

small mistake on the Oh! Darling analysis there

two songs by George Harrison, mediocrity incarnate;

Yeah, what ever became of THOSE two pieces of crap?

Sinatra used to introduce "Something" as "the most mediocre love song of the last 50 years."

lol