I Love I Hate The Beatles

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (66 of them)
I won't comment except to say that, as ever, I find the revisionist admiration for All Things Must Pass, ah, curious.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 6 October 2006 00:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Hey "Abbey Road" is great, but it sounds like a Badfinger album. I mean, nothing wrong with Badfinger, I love Badfinger, but The Beatles were supposed to sound like The Beatles, not like Badfinger. :)

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 6 October 2006 00:30 (seventeen years ago) link

Revisionist admiration for All Things Must Pass? That was a big selling album with two hit singles and I always remember a decent amount of praise for it in the rock literature.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 October 2006 01:17 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh OK, Xgau gave it a C. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 October 2006 01:31 (seventeen years ago) link

My overriding memory of the reception for ATMP is that it quickly made the list of the Most Boring Classic Albums or something, which was cruel but appropriate. It's four or five good tunes and about 10 more which proved that John and Paul knew whereof they spoke by limiting him to two-per-album.

As for the Beatles, these days I listen to Abbey Road most.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 6 October 2006 01:56 (seventeen years ago) link

The fact that their experiments aren't very experimental or "heavy" and the fact that people sometimes think that they are way out there are things that can't really be removed from each other.

It's just a counterexample, not a counterargument, but no other huge rock/pop band of the late 60s would have put something like "Revolution 9" on one of their albums. In retrospect, it seems weaker now because there has been so much unearthed old found-sound collage, and so much new found-sound collage since, that "Revolution 9" sounds like it's hovering in a more benign stasis, relatively speaking. But in 1968, mainstream wasn't exactly sure how to react to that song, collectively. So you have to give them that.

Probably the best thing Paul ever did was "Helter Skelter". He wrote it supposedly because he heard that the Who had written "the loudest song ever" and he had to do something to challenge them and release it first, or something like that. Again, most of the song doesn't sound heavy compared to, oh, SUNN0)))))))) or Fu Manchu today or whatever, but it was pretty out there for its time. I'd say the epilogue to that song still sends chill down my spine as George and/or John is thrashin' away, and Ringo cries out at the end of the song, followed by more guitar noise/feedback.

0xDOX0RNUTX0RX0RSDABITFIELDXOR^0xDEADBEEFDEADBEEF00001 (donut), Friday, 6 October 2006 02:08 (seventeen years ago) link

It's four or five ten or eleven good tunes

: D

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 October 2006 02:24 (seventeen years ago) link

a change of instrument in a melody line (vocal to theremin for example) can be enough to make an okay song, or on occasion a rubbish song, a brilliant one.

Way more people would like The Beatles if all of the vocals were changed to theremins. Does anyone want to start that tribute band with me?

And nabiscotm.

Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Friday, 6 October 2006 02:45 (seventeen years ago) link

lol, xgau gave New Morning an A- that same year. discrepancy there = mentalism!

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 October 2006 04:16 (seventeen years ago) link

I think you're right about "Helter Skelter," Donut, but I'm not entirely sure about "Revolution #9" -- I guess I don't know enough about 60s rock fans, and how they thought, to figure it out. (I guess we're not talking about 60s rock fans, though; we're talking about perceptions now.) Because "Helter Skelter" is loud and scary, whereas "Revolution #9," well, it could be scary, but it's in an art sense: it's painterly, technical, cerebral. I mean, there's no performance to it; it involves making something weird, but not necessarily acting out anything weird. (Just like breakcore, or something!) So I don't know if 60s rock fans had that split in their thinking, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised: "Revolution #9" would be arty and pretentious and therefore somehow polite. And that definitely holds true for perceptions now, where "Revolution #9" is historicized as this grand important avant-garde gesture.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 6 October 2006 04:29 (seventeen years ago) link

It's too bad John didn't get a chance to just ramrod Yoko Ono into the Beatles' lineup and hence oevre and release the song "Why?" at the tail of end of their career. Then Yoko Ono's Plastic Ono Band wouldn't be so overlooked and easily avoidable by Beatles fans. sigh.

0xDOX0RNUTX0RX0RSDABITFIELDXOR^0xDEADBEEFDEADBEEF00001 (donut), Friday, 6 October 2006 04:46 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost - well, 1967 is when every band on earth was experimenting.. by 1968, you had Blue Cheer, the Monkee's Head, and all sorts of experimentation going on with whatever they were respectively doing, but you could always tell it was them. "Revolution 9" strikes me mainly because it doesn't sound *anything* like a Beatles track. It was just this long mysterious THING in the middle of an otherwise great selling double album for, at the time, the most unstoppable pop rock band in the world. I'm guessing the 60s rock fan reaction was "Oh, it's that 'Revolution 9' again, *rolls eyes*, honey, put the needle on 'Good night'.. thank you."

0xDOX0RNUTX0RX0RSDABITFIELDXOR^0xDEADBEEFDEADBEEF00001 (donut), Friday, 6 October 2006 04:49 (seventeen years ago) link

Then Yoko Ono's Plastic Ono Band wouldn't be so overlooked and easily avoidable by Beatles fans. sigh.

Well, John's "Plastic Ono Band" would have been the worst Beatles album ever.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 6 October 2006 09:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Out of all things pathetic

-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), October 5th, 2006.

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 6 October 2006 10:07 (seventeen years ago) link

"Revolution #9"? I blame Zappa

TS: Mick Ralphs v. Ariel Bender (Dada), Friday, 6 October 2006 10:18 (seventeen years ago) link

My overriding memory of the reception for ATMP is that it quickly made the list of the Most Boring Classic Albums or something, which was cruel but appropriate.

Was that from Dave Marsh's The Book of Rock Lists? Anyway, Alfred, five stars in the first RS Record Guide ('79 red cover edition).

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 October 2006 22:18 (seventeen years ago) link

Revolution # 9 came about because of John's fascination with Fluxus happenings and contempary electronic music. Is it a grand avant-garde gesture? I hardly think so when compared to other electronic tape experiments of the time. What is noteworthy was placing it in a pop context. But there again I'm not sure if was the first. The United States of America album came out in 1968 too. I think it succeeds better as a recording than Revolution # 9 which to me is too static and academic.

Ice Cream Electric (Ice Cream Electric), Friday, 6 October 2006 23:56 (seventeen years ago) link

The United States Of America managed to combine electronic noise with good tunes. But then again, so did The Beatles (at least to some extent) on "Tomorrow Never Knows" too.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Saturday, 7 October 2006 00:02 (seventeen years ago) link

tim OTM, just because fking dave marsh of all ppl (the same dip who thinks that there hasn't been a good british band since culture club) hates an album doesn't mean anyone who differs with him is a revisionist! ATMP would be better without the third disc but it's certainly a respectable piece of work.

my favorite solo beatles album, though, might be mccartney's first (and i'm pretty indifferent to pretty much all his post-'70 stuff, a few fun singles aside): as tossed off as it is, there's a real sense of something sad and lost in all those broken, throwaway tunes - it really does sound like an album made by a guy sitting alone in his house trying to cheer himself up. you can tell how bereft he felt without the other three. and the way the whole record builds up to "maybe i'm amazed" is incredible.

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 7 October 2006 12:22 (seventeen years ago) link

To me, McCartney's first album sounds just like a bunch of sketches throw together by someone who is about to leave a group and needs to release a solo album as a statement. Apart from "Junk" and "Maybe I'm Amazed" nothing on that album was worthy of release. "Ram" was a huge leap in the right direction IMO.

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Saturday, 7 October 2006 13:23 (seventeen years ago) link

you forgot "every night," easily one of my top 10 mccartney songs (and prob the only solo tune i'd include on that list).

i've always found ram totally unlistenable because of PM's habit of going "do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do" on every single fucking song.

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 7 October 2006 22:19 (seventeen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.