# The Beatles appraised



## Guest

After so many decades have passed since this group was at the height of its powers and now that two of the members are deceased, the dust has settled. Their music is forever locked in history, unchanging and not dimmed by subsequent years. Still relevant, still excellent.

For me their greatest song was "*Eleanor Rigby*" (and you can hear Bernard Herrmann's "Psycho" influence right here, thanks to George Martin): it truly is a great song.






A documentary was made about the Beatles by Howard Goodall: he gives an excellent account of these missions and this is highly recommended:






This is also a favourite song of mine from the Beatles:






It makes you wonder whether without that song this one would have been written: absolutely bloody brilliant!!


----------



## Art Rock

When I started listening to pop/rock in the 70s, they were already history. I bought the red and blue double albums, and enjoyed many of their songs. Still do. But for me they were a 'songs band' rather than an 'album band' - even albums like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road I like for a number of the songs, rather than wanting to listen to the albums.

My favourite songs include:

A day in the life
Blackbird
Eleanor Rigby
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
Penny Lane
She's leaving home
Strawberry fields 
The ballad of John and Yoko
Yesterday

They all hit a solid 5/6 on the Artrockometer. And there are dozens others I like to listen to.

Fair warning: if you ever encounter me in a karaoke bar, one of the songs I always select is Back in the USSR.


----------



## elgar's ghost

For me they will always endure - although later noted for ambitious arrangements and stretching the latest studio technology to its limit they could still do the simpler things well when they had to. I have relatively little interest in their early zesty pop period, though - for me the _Help!_ album from the summer of 1965 is the point where things start to get really interesting.

And in case the 'Would you reduce the _White Album_ to a single album?' question comes up, my answer is not exactly - such was its long running time you could trim the _White Album_ by twenty minutes and still be left with a double set weighing in at over 70 minutes.


----------



## Jacck

I am lukewarm about Beatles. It is an OK music, but nothing that would blow me away


----------



## Room2201974

Greatest Irish band EVER!

Years ago my own fascination with the music of John Dowland began when I read a review from an English music critic comparing the music of the Fab Four to that of the 16th century songwriter, lutenist, and spy. Just like John Dowland, the Beatles aren't ever really going to go away. While the popularity and fanaticism of Beatlemania can never be repeated, there will always be folks who find their own personal gems in the repertoire.

The Beatles wrote several tunes that are timeless and will be appreciated by future generations. I see that because almost every Baby Boomer's kid I talk to about music likes their music. Now, they are not as fanatic about the music as the Boomers were, but that's because they didn't grow up in the diatonic wasteland that was Rock prior to 1964. They grew up listening to everything that came after. Still, the appreciation is there.

I am very impressed with Dowland's _Say Love_ and _Come Away, Come Sweet Love_. Hundreds of years from now, someone like me will listen to _Here, There and Everywhere_ and think, "Hey, that's pretty good."

"To lead a better life
I need my love to be here."


----------



## mikeh375

I wonder if Penny Lane will be banned from now on.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2007/02/15/abolition_penny_lane_feature.shtml

I have associations with the Beatles..sort of. My mother grew up a few doors away from Harrison and she told me that he was always practising piano (I think), in the parlour and didn't play out much. My sister lives just off Penny Lane and me, I've bought the albums twice now and I'm a scouser so watch your posts from now on or I'll berst ya, ooor'right laaa....(especially you Jacck..

I worked at George Martin's Air Studios a few times and in the foyer is the framed original manuscript for the quartet arrangement of 'Yesterday'. I gawped at it for quite some time and wondered if I could get it under my coat or just grab it and run....(scouser joke).

btw check out this pianist and her arrangements. She's rather good....


----------



## SanAntone

The Beatles were a band I listened to when I was a teenager (I'm 68). It was just what was on the radio, along with a lot of other music I liked just as much. But it didn't take long to realize that they were different, their records got progressively more complex and just better than the music around them. The Beach Boys kept up for a while - and then the Beatles were gone. 

I don't listen to them (or any of that kind of music) hardly anymore, and think of them as a great band from the '60s and leave it at that.

I am not interested in mythologizing them, like it appears to be the case with the documentary posted (of which I watched the first few minutes, but turned it off as the first YouTube ad kicked in).


----------



## millionrainbows

The Beatles (always include a capitalized "The") were great beings who expressed this through music. We were very lucky to have them.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> The Beatles (always include a capitalized "The") were great beings who expressed this through music. We were very lucky to have them.


Lennon was constantly on LSD, and then he saw tangerine trees and marmalade skies and girls with kaleidoscope eyes


----------



## Manxfeeder

I like their songs more than their renditions. I'd rather hear a cover than the original.

But thinking about them, back in the day, when they got into their hippie period, that style bored me, and that's what got me to seek out other genres, like jazz, then classical. So in that regard, I guess they had a positive impact on me.


----------



## starthrower

I suppose they are easy to take for granted at this point. But they were hugely influential as far as song stylists and the popularity of album listening. They wrote dozens and dozens of catchy melodies, created interesting arrangements with George Martin, and mostly sound inspired to my ears.


----------



## Bulldog

I consider myself fortunate to have been a young teenager when the Beatles arrived in America. The one Beatles song that always seems to enter my brain spontaneously is Hard Day's Night.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Bernstein was a fan:


----------



## Manxfeeder

StevenOBrien said:


> Bernstein was a fan


That's back in the day when a classical conductor had to defend pop music. You wouldn't see that on TV today.


----------



## Guest

I forgot to mention in my opening comments that the reason I brought up this topic is that Ringo turned 80 yesterday.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> The Beatles were a band I listened to when I was a teenager (I'm 68). It was just what was on the radio, along with a lot of other music I liked just as much. But it didn't take long to realize that they were different, their records got progressively more complex and just better than the music around them. The Beach Boys kept up for a while - and then the Beatles were gone.
> 
> I don't listen to them (or any of that kind of music) hardly anymore, and think of them as a great band from the '60s and leave it at that.
> 
> I am not interested in mythologizing them, like it appears to be the case with the documentary posted (of which I watched the first few minutes, but turned it off as the first YouTube ad kicked in).


Howard Goodall is a composer himself and he has made quite a lot of programs on music - from popular to classical. He isn't mythologizing The Beatles, neither is he doing the same to Cole Porter - another subject of his "Twentieth Century Greats". He analyses what they did in musical terms and discussed this, which you would have seen had you followed the program to its end. Yes, the ads are infuriating!!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Christabel said:


> I forgot to mention in my opening comments that the reason I brought up this topic is that Ringo turned 80 yesterday.


And to think back in 1964, when he was asked what he would do after leaving the Beatles, he said he'd open a couple hairdressing shops.


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> Howard Goodall is a composer himself and he has made quite a lot of programs on music - from popular to classical. He isn't mythologizing The Beatles, neither is he doing the same to Cole Porter - another subject of his "Twentieth Century Greats". He analyses what they did in musical terms and discussed this, which you would have seen had you followed the program to its end. Yes, the ads are infuriating!!


I don't know but IMO subjecting their music to musicological analysis is the kind of "mythologizing" that I was referring to. Maybe "mythologizing" is the wrong word, but I generally prefer to listen to the music instead of a dissection of it.

That said, they were arguably the greatest pop band to appear in the last half of the 20th century.


----------



## pianozach

The Beatles.

Nothing like them before or since.

Absolutely influential on music. They'll be remembered for well over a hundred years.


----------



## pianozach

Christabel said:


> A documentary was made about the Beatles by Howard Goodall: he gives an excellent account of these missions and this is highly recommended:


THIS video was truly interesting . . . . he did occasionally take longer than needed to make a point, but that's OK.

There was so much else about their music, their influence on other aspects of culture, their legacy . . . and he surely just didn't have the time. Obviously he's a fan . . . he just drops several songs live . . .


----------



## Guest

Manxfeeder said:


> And to think back in 1964, when he was asked what he would do after leaving the Beatles, he said he'd open a couple hairdressing shops.


Given that part of their livery was "mop-tops" I think the hairdressing motif is interesting and ironic!!!:lol:


----------



## SONNET CLV

I remain a fan of The Beatles music. I grew up in the era of Beatlemania, and I've heard a lot of the debates about how great they were or were not and if they were a great performing band or rather a talented song-writing team, etc. etc.

That all aside, one of the most critical lasting effects of The Beatles is how many other bands they influenced into existence: how many bands sprang up from kids who got interested in playing a musical instrument and forming a "band" because they wanted to be like these guys from Liverpool, England. Popular music enriched greatly because of The Beatles, and I don't know of any other performer that actually had so profound an effect upon young people wanting to be musical.

My Beatles collection (a rather substantial one) is alive and well and constantly spinning on my turntables or CD decks. And when I'm not listening to The Beatles on my stereo, I may be found strumming their songs on my ol' guitar. And I don't expect that to change during my lifetime.


----------



## Strange Magic

The range of types of songs and subjects of those songs that The Beatles explored and developed is quite remarkable. Everything from tight harmony singing, utterly pure Pop, exploring sounds previously unheard in popular music, and developing a whole world of druggy psychedelic music and lyrics--all this as noted previously inspiring a host of others to form bands and create music... Only Dylan can boast a record of similar influence, and it is significant that their careers so closely overlapped in the 1960s. The world of today makes it impossible to replicate the rise and development and influence of any contemporary phenomenon.


----------



## Belowpar

Sadly my ability to enjoy their hits is ruined today by complete over familiarisation, due to life these days having a soundtrack wherever you go - whether you want it or not. (A lot of other music I loved, has also been stolen from me in this way).


Last week I listened to "Beatles for Sale" which I've never owned. The freshness, verve and vitality was all there. I'm old enough to remember the excitement they caused and how their quality helped change cultural appreciation of 'popular art'. They stand at the summit of popular music in the Rock and Roll era. 



Sad that I can no longer get pleasure from their mature works. Not the Beatles fulat at all, but still a shame.

I read recently that Cage's 4'33" was a reaction to the musac you hear in elevators etc.... IMO Silence is much preferable to over familiarity, but it seems like I'm in a minority


----------



## elgar's ghost

I like the way in which they were ahead of the curve at times - i.e. they were largely responsible for psychedelia in this country and then they unceremoniously kicked it into touch (with _Lady Madonna_) while the UK pop scene was still 'turning on'.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Belowpar said:


> I read recently that Cage's 4'33" was a reaction to the musac you hear in elevators etc.... IMO Silence is much preferable to over familiarity, but it seems like I'm in a minority


Back in the '80s, I didn't listen to music at all, so my knowledge of '80s hits comes from elevators and doctors' waiting rooms. True story. Of course, many of the hits were repackaged into nonoffensive pablum, so when I finally heard them for the first time thanks to Spotify, it was shocking.


----------



## Dulova Harps On

Huge fan here. You won't hear a bad word about them from me. :tiphat:


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

Love the Beatles! Rubber Soul and Revolver are my favorites, but like them all (maybe not so much Let It Be). I'm also a huge Beach Boys fan, and I think the competition between these two bands produced some incredible music.


----------



## SanAntone

A little off-topic, but has anyone else seen the movie _Yesterday_? Interesting premise (has to do with The Beatles) and actually ended up being better than I expected.


----------



## philoctetes

tbh around May I rediscovered All Things Must Pass... during hard shutdown and lots of angry controversy... first when driving with Leon Russell and the Shelter People - Beware of Darkness - what a great great song... then wallowing at home on George's solo album for almost a week... it was just what I needed at the time...


----------



## pianozach

Jacck said:


> Lennon was constantly on LSD, and then he saw tangerine trees and marmalade skies and girls with kaleidoscope eyes


Wow.

That is one sweeping generalization, unless, of course, you're just being humorous.


----------



## ldiat

and i did not read about all the clues that were on the albums about Paul being dead. I think from "Magical Mystery" "Sgt Peppers" "White Album" "Abby road" the cover. and others. "A day in the life" w/ the line "he blew his mind out in the car" or "what would you do if I
sang out of key" and the Abby Road. the car in the back round license plate "IF 28"
there are more even on the album covers and inside. like Magical Mystery where paul is sitting behind a desk and the name plaque in front of read " I WAS"


----------



## elgar's ghost

ldiat said:


> and i did not read about all the clues that were on the albums about Paul being dead. I think from "Magical Mystery" "Sgt Peppers" "White Album" "Abby road" the cover. and others. "A day in the life" w/ the line "he blew his mind out in the car" or "what would you do if I
> sang out of key" and the Abby Road. the car in the back round license plate "IF 28"
> there are more even on the album covers and inside. like Magical Mystery where paul is sitting behind a desk and the name plaque in front of read " I WAS"


And in the MMT he was wearing a black flower in his evening suit when the others were red. Proof positive, obviously...


----------



## Luchesi

This article (and others) purport to tell us how we come to wholeheartedly enjoy the pop music our 'hormones remember' from adolescence (13 for girls and 14 for boys). Amygdala chemical swaps in the brain and all that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/o...ite-songs.html


----------



## senza sordino

The Beatles are the first band I really listened to over and over. And I still can listen to their music, despite over familiarization. Their range is remarkable, they played in many different styles - pop, rock and roll, psychedelia, and proto prog rock. Though how much of this range can be credited to George Martin? And all of this in eight short years. Love Me Do and Honey Pie are only six years apart. A Hard Day's Night and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds are only three years apart.

I was born in 1965, the Beatles are music I have listened to all of my life. My mother was a fan, I'm sure I was listening to The Beatles _in uturo_

Their legacy is quite remarkable. Today, Beatles songs are performed by children, high school bands, jazz bands and symphony orchestras, not many other pop / rock and roll bands can say that!


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> I forgot to mention in my opening comments that the reason I brought up this topic is that Ringo turned 80 yesterday.


I never trust anyone under 30. lol


----------



## pianozach

senza sordino said:


> The Beatles are the first band I really listened to over and over. And I still can listen to their music, despite over familiarization. Their range is remarkable, they played in many different styles - pop, rock and roll, psychedelia, and proto prog rock. Though how much of this range can be credited to George Martin? And all of this in eight short years. Love Me Do and Honey Pie are only six years apart. A Hard Day's Night and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds are only three years apart.
> 
> I was born in 1965, the Beatles are music I have listened to all of my life. My mother was a fan, I'm sure I was listening to The Beatles _in uturo_
> 
> Their legacy is quite remarkable. Today, Beatles songs are performed by children, high school bands, jazz bands and symphony orchestras, not many other pop / rock and roll bands can say that!


Loved 'em as a kid. Dissected their music with a vengeance. Played them Left channel only, then Right. Treble all the way up, then Bass all the way up. At 45rpm, at 78 rpm, at 16rpm. Then I figured out how to get the motor to disengage so I could listen to them backwards. Really.

Figured out the 3rd vocal harmonies, wrote out arrangements of their songs before I was a teen. Learned arranging from George Martin.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> A little off-topic, but has anyone else seen the movie _Yesterday_? Interesting premise (has to do with The Beatles) and actually ended up being better than I expected.


Yes, I have. It was fun. Ed Sheeran was the star of the film...in a low key kind of way!


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> Loved 'em as a kid. Dissected their music with a vengeance. Played them Left channel only, then Right. Treble all the way up, then Bass all the way up. At 45rpm, at 78 rpm, at 16rpm. Then I figured out how to get the motor to disengage so I could listen to them backwards. Really.
> 
> Figured out the 3rd vocal harmonies, wrote out arrangements of their songs before I was a teen. Learned arranging from George Martin.


Impressive. When a friend of mine started making money playing weddings and Barmiszvahs he would buy a few Beatles albums and we'd go to his piano and he would figure out the songs. Amazing! I was hooked!


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> Impressive. When a friend of mine started making money playing weddings and Barmiszvahs he would buy a few Beatles albums and we'd go to his piano and he would figure out the songs. Amazing! I was hooked!


Was in a short-lived Beatles sound-alike pit band . . . for an original musical called Beatlesauce. Drums, Bass, two guitarists, two keyboardists.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> Was in a short-lived Beatles sound-alike pit band . . . for an original musical called Beatlesauce. Drums, Bass, two guitarists, two keyboardists.


We had a garage band (I don't think that was a phrase yet back then). We played Doors, I was on the Farfisa organ.


----------



## Enthusiast

They were one of the very few true greats. But what happened when they split? Nothing that followed was half as good - not even Lennon's songs. I often wonder if George Martin was more important to their song writing than was ever acknowledged.


----------



## pianozach

Enthusiast said:


> They were one of the very few true greats. But what happened when they split? Nothing that followed was half as good - not even Lennon's songs. I often wonder if George Martin was more important to their song writing than was ever acknowledged.


So very classic that the *"The Beatles"* was so much greater than the sum of their parts.

*John and Paul* certainly inspired one another musically, even when they weren't writing a song together. John's songs were 'polished' by Paul and George Martin, Paul's songs reached for that grit, that intensity, just to reach the heights that John's flashes of genius and roughness achieved spontaneously. *Ringo*'s drumming is still underrated to this day - not flashy, but musical and very clever.

And *George Martin*'s contributions were massive - sometimes over-the-top, and sometimes subtle.

Post-Beatles *John* still had those "flashes of genius", but they quickly tapered off, and instead he produced a wildly uneven catalog of material that ranged from catchy and clever hits to sloppy and embarrassing filler.

*Paul* also floundered, but consistently cranked out polished and intellectual hits. Some filler, but mostly solid material.

*George* too. George hit the ground running with a suitcase full of songs ignored by John and Paul, and rarely prodeced any 'duff' tracks. Pick any album, and it's always tasty.

*Ringo*, rarely a frontman, had the toughest hill to climb. Also started off strong, then the quality just slid into a valley of muck. He recovered, but few noticed.

*George Martin* lost an incredibly talented group of singer/songwriter/musicians when the Beatles broke up, and rarely achieved any real heights after that. Sure, he did some nice work with many assorted acts, but no one ever talks about how he made America great, or any of the noteworthy projects he was involved in.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> They were one of the very few true greats. But what happened when they split? Nothing that followed was half as good - not even Lennon's songs. I often wonder if George Martin was more important to their song writing than was ever acknowledged.


They knew what they wanted to hear, merely from guitar chordings. They liked what they grew up with, but they knew it wasn't exactly cool. They heard some more hip singer/showmen and songwriters. They wanted to do that!, and they kept plugging away and learning, without any music theory academics. So, even in their simple songs, they sounded unique and new (original). Of course, the comparisons at the time were on their side (little competition from the older formulas), they were lucky about that. Their outstanding vocals and their simple but relevant instrumentals helped a lot.

George came into it a little later, by the same path I think. I mean, childhood fascinations, then teen hormonal ideas, then more sophistication was the goal.

Martin famously guessed that their Please Please Me would be their first number one. He had a great ear for hits, after he heard the bare lead sheet material. Not that he could come up with the ideas, so youthful to him..


----------



## Guest

I've always loved this song by the Beatles, and it was an anthem of my youth in sun-drenched Australia:






I listened to this alongside Beethoven, much to the chagrin of my house-sharing peers: "turn that rubbish down"!!!


----------



## pianozach

Christabel said:


> I've always loved this song by the Beatles, and it was an anthem of my youth in sun-drenched Australia:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to this alongside Beethoven, much to the chagrin of my house-sharing peers: "turn that rubbish down"!!!







*Here Comes the Sun*, from any other band, might have been the best song of their career.

As it is, *The Beatles* racked up some very impressive sounding hit songs, and even their album tracks and B-Sides were usually excellent.

Even duff tracks like *Don't Pass Me By, Only a Northern Song, You Won't See Me*, or *I Dig a Pony* were at the least quite interesting, and throwaway tracks like these still had an impact and influence on pop music.

Hell, in the early days they were giving their songs away to other bands because they didn't feel they were good enough, and those other bands would have hits with them.

Paul even sent a demo of _*Let It Be*_ to *Aretha Franklin* for her to release the song. She waffled on it, and Paul decided The Beatles would record it instead. There are well over 400 cover versions of that song, and it isn't even the most covered song in their catalog (I think that honor goes either to _*Yesterday*_ or _*Something*_ - - yes, there's well over 400 covers of *Something*, and there are over 800 covers of _*Yesterday*_).


----------



## Guest

I was planning a birthday party earlier this year but for a couple of reasons it was aborted, Covid being one of these. My plan was to have baby boomer friends over and us listening to the Beatles and other music of the 1960s with everybody singing along. A friend was a drummer and he loves popular music; he'd have been in seventh heaven!! (This man and his wife sailed their own yacht around The Horn years ago and he told me he had Wagner playing blaring loud while this was happening!! He has also sailed right around Australia in said yacht with a few friends.) Perhaps I'll do it at Christmas time, if the coast is clear. This is one I'd definitely be having on the menu: their absolute masterpiece.






This is also an astonishing song and I've used it many times for English teaching in high school (write a letter as the girl to her parents):






Not great voices (like Dylan) but distinctive and just right for the material.


----------



## Guest

Another excellent Beatles song: "The Fool on the Hill".


----------



## Luchesi

Within You Without You has only one chord. A 7th is forced into the harmonic mix and then it's gone.. ..it has no effect.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> _*Within You Without You*_ has only one chord. A 7th is forced into the harmonic mix and then it's gone.. ..it has no effect.


I think it's a flat VII chord, and it serves as a dominant.

But yes, you can also say the song has one chord. Attempting to do a traditional harmonic analysis puts you into waffle-y territory. One can run into the same problems attempting to analyze Debussey or Mussorgsky though.

But "no effect"? It clearly contributes to the harmonic structure, making the duplicate melody lines at the end of each lyric line function differently.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> I think it's a flat VII chord, and it serves as a dominant.
> 
> But yes, you can also say the song has one chord. Attempting to do a traditional harmonic analysis puts you into waffle-y territory. One can run into the same problems attempting to analyze Debussey or Mussorgsky though.
> 
> But "no effect"? It clearly contributes to the harmonic structure, making the duplicate melody lines at the end of each lyric line function differently.


My friend said it's a triad with an occasional added sharp 13th, which shocks us with a memorable feeling. But she's always making jokes.

No changes, no effect. It doesn't resolve to the tonic. It is the tonic.


----------



## ThaNotoriousNIC

Before I became a big classical music listener, I listened predominately to rap with some exceptions and the Beatles was one of those exceptions. A lot of people at the performing arts school I went to adored the Beatles and were very familiar with their discography, so I joined in on the fun to see what they were talking about. For a year or two, I thought that the Beatles were the bee's knees until I "graduated" into listening to Led Zeppelin, Cream, and Jimi Hendrix. Later in college, I got into George Harrison's solo work, including All Things Must Pass, which I think is an incredible album. Nowadays, I will once in a blue moon listen to Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers (Sgt. Peppers being my favorite album by them). Here is a list of some of my favorite song by The Beatles:

Top two back in the day:

*1. I Am the Walrus (Magical Mystery Tour):* My favorite Beatles song during high school

*2. Within You, Without You (Sgt. Peppers):* I have a lot of love for this track for being so different from the rest of the album and my first exposure to Indian sounding music.

The rest:

1. Norwegian Wood (Rubber Soul)
2. Fool on the Hill (Magical Mystery Tour)
3. I Want You/She is So Heavy (Abbey Road)
4. A Day in the Life (Sgt. Peppers)
5. Drive my Car (Rubber Soul)
6. Blackbird (White Album)
7. Octopus Garden (Abbey Road)
8. Come Together (Abbey Road)
9. Eleanor Rigby (Revolver)
10. Good Morning Good Morning (Sgt. Peppers)


----------



## Luchesi

ThaNotoriousNIC said:


> Before I became a big classical music listener, I listened predominately to rap with some exceptions and the Beatles was one of those exceptions. A lot of people at the performing arts school I went to adored the Beatles and were very familiar with their discography, so I joined in on the fun to see what they were talking about. For a year or two, I thought that the Beatles were the bee's knees until I "graduated" into listening to Led Zeppelin, Cream, and Jimi Hendrix. Later in college, I got into George Harrison's solo work, including All Things Must Pass, which I think is an incredible album. Nowadays, I will once in a blue moon listen to Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers (Sgt. Peppers being my favorite album by them). Here is a list of some of my favorite song by The Beatles:
> 
> Top two back in the day:
> 
> *1. I Am the Walrus (Magical Mystery Tour):* My favorite Beatles song during high school
> 
> *2. Within You, Without You (Sgt. Peppers):* I have a lot of love for this track for being so different from the rest of the album and my first exposure to Indian sounding music.
> 
> The rest:
> 
> 1. Norwegian Wood (Rubber Soul)
> 2. Fool on the Hill (Magical Mystery Tour)
> 3. I Want You/She is So Heavy (Abbey Road)
> 4. A Day in the Life (Sgt. Peppers)
> 5. Drive my Car (Rubber Soul)
> 6. Blackbird (White Album)
> 7. Octopus Garden (Abbey Road)
> 8. Come Together (Abbey Road)
> 9. Eleanor Rigby (Revolver)
> 10. Good Morning Good Morning (Sgt. Peppers)


Now, why are they good songs? Make a case just using the notes.


----------



## pianozach

ThaNotoriousNIC said:


> Before I became a big classical music listener, I listened predominately to rap with some exceptions and the Beatles was one of those exceptions. A lot of people at the performing arts school I went to adored the Beatles and were very familiar with their discography, so I joined in on the fun to see what they were talking about. For a year or two, I thought that the Beatles were the bee's knees until I "graduated" into listening to Led Zeppelin, Cream, and Jimi Hendrix. Later in college, I got into George Harrison's solo work, including All Things Must Pass, which I think is an incredible album. Nowadays, I will once in a blue moon listen to Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers (Sgt. Peppers being my favorite album by them). Here is a list of some of my favorite song by The Beatles:
> 
> Top two back in the day:
> 
> *1. I Am the Walrus (Magical Mystery Tour):* My favorite Beatles song during high school
> 
> *2. Within You, Without You (Sgt. Peppers):* I have a lot of love for this track for being so different from the rest of the album and my first exposure to Indian sounding music.
> 
> The rest:
> 
> 1. Norwegian Wood (Rubber Soul)
> 2. Fool on the Hill (Magical Mystery Tour)
> 3. I Want You/She is So Heavy (Abbey Road)
> 4. A Day in the Life (Sgt. Peppers)
> 5. Drive my Car (Rubber Soul)
> 6. Blackbird (White Album)
> 7. Octopus Garden (Abbey Road)
> 8. Come Together (Abbey Road)
> 9. Eleanor Rigby (Revolver)
> 10. Good Morning Good Morning (Sgt. Peppers)


That's a great playlist. Not a difficult task with the *Beatles*, they had far more distinctive clever fascinating tracks than duds.

You've made a list (probably just from memory) that is mostly 1966-1970, with two exceptions (*Norwegian Wood* and _*Drive My Car*_).

I love the whole catalogue, with only a few exceptions. The early stuff is fascinating when placed in context; I've been listening to the Billboard Top 100 from each year starting with 1956, and I'm up to 1961. The Beatles are nothing like their contemporaries, who did try to keep up. But every time their contemporaries managed to capture the essence, the Beatles had already moved on. Sure, there were some great tracks from any given year, but the Beatles changed the music scene year after year from 1963 right through 1968. 1969, their last year together (although both HEY JUDE and LET IT BE were released in 1970), and 1970, brought us some more great music, but they were no longer on the forefront of any music revolution.


----------



## ThaNotoriousNIC

If I knew my music theory better and my ear was better trained. I'd be so down to play that game Luchesi. _Within You, Without You _ not a song I hear most Beatles fans I talk to like so I was pretty surprised when you brought it up in the thread. I can confirm to pianozach that I made my list from memory. There are some very distinct songs like the ones I listed that still stick to me years later!


----------



## Luchesi

ThaNotoriousNIC said:


> If I knew my music theory better and my ear was better trained. I'd be so down to play that game Luchesi. _Within You, Without You _ not a song I hear most Beatles fans I talk to like so I was pretty surprised when you brought it up in the thread. I can confirm to pianozach that I made my list from memory. There are some very distinct songs like the ones I listed that still stick to me years later!


Yes, I can offer that one of the most mysterious and satisfying games you can play with music theory is to put a song like Lucy In The Sky into a succinct verbal description (using the highfalutin terms).

A Beethoven sonata is even more satisfying. I have the book by Tovey in which he does just that to all of them. Such an interesting read! ..But normal people say I'm too eccentric to be for real.. Sitting in a chair and reading scores instead of playing?


----------



## Bill Schuster

The Beatles are in my dna. They are, in Ellington terms, "beyond category". My dad courted my mom by singing then current Beatles songs to her. I was conceived with Sgt Pepper and born with the White Album. Abbey Road will likely always be in my all time top ten. I sang my children to sleep with Blackbird. My daughter's favorite song is Yellow Submarine and her favorite movie is Across the Universe. I chose In My Life to play at my grandma's funeral. Yes, I am biased.


----------



## Luchesi

Bill Schuster said:


> The Beatles are in my dna. They are, in Ellington terms, "beyond category". My dad courted my mom by singing then current Beatles songs to her. I was conceived with Sgt Pepper and born with the White Album. Abbey Road will likely always be in my all time top ten. I sang my children to sleep with Blackbird. My daughter's favorite song is Yellow Submarine and her favorite movie is Across the Universe. I chose In My Life to play at my grandma's funeral. Yes, I am biased.


It's fair to say you wouldn't be here if not for John giving Paul and George a listen in order to form a band. They were so young.

Paul has probably heard this a lot over the years.


----------



## Bill Schuster

Oh, you are undoubtedly right. I have made that observation countless times. In a very real sense, I would not exist without the Beatles. All that aside, what they did as popular artists in their short time may never be surpassed. I have seen them dismissed as the first boy band. I can fully accept and understand people not liking their music. However, it seems ridiculous to me, to dismiss or diminish their very real influence and achievements.


----------



## pianozach

Bill Schuster said:


> Oh, you are undoubtedly right. I have made that observation countless times. In a very real sense, I would not exist without the Beatles. All that aside, what they did as popular artists *in their short time* may never be surpassed. I have seen them dismissed as the first boy band. I can fully accept and understand people not liking their music. However, it seems ridiculous to me, to dismiss or diminish their very real influence and achievements.


Here in the US, their career didn't start until their appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964. Their first album got no traction, especially since Capitol Records "passed" on releasing it. Amazingly, The Beatles released SIX albums (on three different labels) in the US in 1964:

*Introducing . . . The Beatles
Meet the Beatles!
The Beatles' Second Album
A Hard Day's Night
Something New
Beatles '65*

. . . and it's seven if you count the the double-LP interview/press conferences album *The Beatles Story*. *The Early Beatles* was also released by Capitol, but it was mostly a rehash of "Introducing the Beatles" released by Vee-Jay Records when they managed to get their hands on the distribution rights after Capitol initially declined to release the "*Please Please Me*" single.

So . . . 1964 through 1970. Absolutely DOMINATED popular music through 1968, and still major players right through to their last released album as a group in 1970, *Let It Be*.


----------



## Sondersdorf

I think some people are way more into The Beatles than I am. But, but, you can always learn something, can't you? Does everyone know about the American musicologist Alan W. Pollack? https://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml


----------



## pianozach

Christabel said:


> I was planning a birthday party earlier this year but for a couple of reasons it was aborted, Covid being one of these. My plan was to have baby boomer friends over and us listening to the Beatles and other music of the 1960s with everybody singing along. A friend was a drummer and he loves popular music; he'd have been in seventh heaven!! (This man and his wife sailed their own yacht around The Horn years ago and he told me he had Wagner playing blaring loud while this was happening!! He has also sailed right around Australia in said yacht with a few friends.) Perhaps I'll do it at Christmas time, if the coast is clear. This is one I'd definitely be having on the menu: their absolute masterpiece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also an astonishing song and I've used it many times for English teaching in high school (write a letter as the girl to her parents):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not great voices (like Dylan) but distinctive and just right for the material.


I had a regular solo Christmas gig for a few years at this one family's house. At the first one I'd run through a century of Christmas songs, with people singing along. Someone asked if I knew any Beatles. I started with Side 2 of the White Album. From memory. Everybody sang along . . . it's pretty remarkable because it's not loaded with "Hits".

Martha My Dear
I'm So Tired
Blackbird
Piggies
Rocky Raccoon . . .

. . . in that order.

In the years after that, they expected that the Beatles set would be part of their Christmas celebration.


----------



## Haydn70

pianozach said:


> Here in the US, their career didn't start until their appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964. Their first album got no traction, especially since Capitol Records "passed" on releasing it. Amazingly, The Beatles released SIX albums (on three different labels) in the US in 1964:
> 
> *Introducing . . . The Beatles
> Meet the Beatles!
> The Beatles' Second Album
> A Hard Day's Night
> Something New
> Beatles '65*
> 
> . . . and it's seven if you count the the double-LP interview/press conferences album *The Beatles Story*. *The Early Beatles* was also released by Capitol, but it was mostly a rehash of "Introducing the Beatles" released by Vee-Jay Records when they managed to get their hands on the distribution rights after Capitol initially declined to release the "*Please Please Me*" single.
> 
> So . . . 1964 through 1970. Absolutely DOMINATED popular music through 1968, and still major players right through to their last released album as a group in 1970, *Let It Be*.


Don't forget this album also released in 1964:


----------



## Simon Moon

I used to be a fan, but as the years have gone by, they become less and less interesting to me. 

Fewer and fewer songs hold even a modicum of my interest. The songs that I don't mind listening to, are the later ones, and the psychedelic ones. 

I can appreciate them for how they helped advance rock music, giving permission, so to speak, to allow more and more experimentation into the rock. 

If there was no Sgt Pepper's, there would probably have been no In The Court of the Crimson King, which would have probably meant, no Genesis, YES, and all the other, even more experimental and avant-garde bands that came from them.


----------



## pianozach

Haydn70 said:


> Don't forget this album also released in 1964:
> 
> View attachment 156143


THAT album is just a repackaged version of *"Introducing the Beatles"* from *Vee-Jay Records*. They managed to squander the rights to the album, and mismanaged most of their releases of those early songs. They ended up folding in 1964, leaving behind $3 million in debt.

By 1961, *Vee-Jay* was one of America's top labels, with a strong jazz catalog, some top gospel groups, and Jerry Butler, Jimmy Reed, John Lee Hooker and Betty Everett cranking out hit after hit. AND a slew of other hits and a rich legacy of black American music. The first hint of disaster came in 1962, with their biggest record to date.

The *Four Seasons* hit "_*Sherry*_" was so big that Vee-Jay's owners found themselves without the money to pay for pressing more copies of the records, although the label stumbled along for a while. The worst thing it could have done would be to sign another hit group, but it did. And what a group: *Capitol Records* already had passed on the option to release *The Beatles* in America, but the Brackens jumped at the chance. "Please Please Me" and "From Me to You" both came out on Vee-Jay, followed by an album at the end of 1963. The Four Seasons and the Beatles both went to greener pastures, and Vee-Jay wound up in court, its day in the sun over.

It sold *2.6 million Beatles records* in one month, but *Vee-Jay* could not keep the records pressed and on the shelves or pay the artist royalties.


----------



## pianozach

Simon Moon said:


> I used to be a fan, but as the years have gone by, they become less and less interesting to me.
> 
> Fewer and fewer songs hold even a modicum of my interest. The songs that I don't mind listening to, are the later ones, and the psychedelic ones.
> 
> I can appreciate them for how they helped advance rock music, giving permission, so to speak, to allow more and more experimentation into the rock.
> 
> If there was no Sgt Pepper's, there would probably have been no In The Court of the Crimson King, which would have probably meant, no Genesis, YES, and all the other, even more experimental and avant-garde bands that came from them.


I find that almost every damn album they released is filled to the brim with interesting, clever, pioneering music.

That first album (*PLEASE PLEASE ME)* is so freaking fresh, full of so much raw energy. The second album (*MEET THE BEATLES*) was almost as good. Where there's a drop off in jaw dropping inyourfaceness, there's the beginnings of that extraordinary creativity and puzzling and envelope-straining musicality.

After that their exploratory musical journeys tapered only a little, as their time was divided between touring and films, songwriting and promotional activity, recording and being an American and British phenomenon.

But by 1965, and the album *Rubber Soul* and the subsequent ones, their creative juices were in full swing, not really (at least collectively as a group) subsiding until their last recorded album *Abbey Road*, released in 1969. Their previous album, originally to be called *Get Back*, wasn't released until 1970 as *Let It Be*, although a couple of songs from it had been released a year earlier.

But really, listen to practically ANY random *Beatles*' song, at a decent volume, and it's still extraordinary, especially the non-singles and more obscure album tracks.

Here's a random four for your amusement. Listen to them with your freshest ears.

*All You Need Is Love
Here Comes the Sun
Hello Goodbye
Revolution No. 1
*

















.

The thing is . . . I could post almost ANY four random Beatles songs, even songs that were filler on albums, or B-sides, and they are all remarkable.


----------



## pianozach

For instance, here's another four . . .

And four more

*Because
Paperback writer
Within You Without You*
*Rain*


----------



## pianozach

This is a great game.

Listen to *four random Beatles* songs. I used my iTunes library to choose these four.

*Sun King
Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite
Help!
Ticket to Ride*


----------



## SanAntone

Four I listened to recently:

Two of Us
Across the Universe
Strawberry Fields Forever
Don't Let Me Down


----------



## pianozach

I watched a "reaction video" yesterday from a young English lady listening to the Beatles' debut album PLEASE PLEASE ME for the first time.

Obviously she's coming from a perspective that is quite different from my own; she'd gloss over things I felt were important, and focused on things I take for granted in the music.

Of course, 10 of those 14 songs were recorded in a single 11 hour session, and the astonishing FRESHNESS of the practically EVERY track is crazytown.

She noticed that in the majority of the songs the Beatles utilized 'full stops' frequently, which she enjoyed immensely. She was impressed especially with the vocal talents of them all, and their use of 1950s music idioms (_*"sha-la-la-la-la"*_ and *"bop shoo-bop, bop bop shoo-bop"*) - of course, she's unaware that almost half the songs on that first album were covers, and that when they recorded it in 1962-1963 they were only really a couple of years beyond the 50s.

There was only one song she wasn't impressed with (_*There's a Place*_), missing the lyrical foreshadowing The Beatles and Bob Dylan spearheaded by singing about things other than the typical boy/girl relationship themes. She was somewhat perplexed by the lyrics of "_*Boys*_", not realizing that it was merely a cover of a song first released by *The Shirelles*, one of _two_ Shirelles covers on the album.

As she's not really familiar with the music being released at the time, she couldn't fully appreciate how uniquely DIFFERENT the music of *The Beatles* was comparatively speaking, and how groundbreaking it was for an ENTIRE ALBUM of songs from an artists to be uniformly excellent. In my mind they could have easily released 5 singles (2 songs each) from this album of 14 songs.

But for a debut album for a Pop/Rock band to actually have more than half the songs on the album _WRITTEN_ by the band themselves is a very notable thing. She missed that.

She also missed how unusual for a band to have actually _PLAYED_ ALL of the instruments on the album (with only two exceptions; the added piano (those descending piano fills on Misery) and celeste (on Baby It's You) played by producer George Martin).

I enjoy these reaction videos, as it seems to make songs (or in this case, an entire album) fresh again, as the "reactor" notices things in the songs that I no longer do, due to the overfamiliarity with them I have.

Here's that video. She had to go back and edit the video several times so that it wouldn't be taken down for copyright issues, so the songs themselves are spliced up quite a bit.


----------



## Flamme

A genial pop-rock musick...


----------



## Luchesi

Flamme said:


> A genial pop-rock musick...


That's true. But the backdrop of the tunes was harsh, the war, drugs, intolerance everywhere in social settings, military expenditures off the charts, the draft, the cold war, draftees leaving their family and friends for Canada, on and on.

Today, it seems to me, the harshness and grittiness is right in your face, in the movies, in the music, in the up to the minute news. Which do I like better? I can't decide. Do I want all the realities 'hustled' and pushed at me by the skilled creators or do I wish they would be more finessed and lighter and more 'artistic'?


----------



## Chilham

pianozach said:


> I watched a "reaction video" yesterday from a young *Australian* lady listening to the Beatles' debut album PLEASE PLEASE ME for the first time....


Fixed that up for ya. :tiphat:


----------



## Shaughnessy

pianozach said:


> I watched a "reaction video" yesterday from a young *Australian lady from Melbourne* listening to the Beatles' debut album PLEASE PLEASE ME for the first time.





Chilham said:


> Fixed that up for ya. :tiphat:


Fixed that up for ya. :tiphat:


----------



## MrNobody

Back in 1973 I listened to The Beatles Red and Blue Double with my brother (RIP). My favorite as a 11-year old kid was Lady Madonna. Afterwards I found out that The Beatles Red and Blue Double missed several good tracks like Rain but included songs like, eeh, Paperback Writer. With my English I didn't understand what a paperback writer is, I thought it was something like something that returns something with paper


----------



## pianozach

Chilham said:


> Fixed that up for ya. :tiphat:





Sunburst Finish said:


> Fixed that up for ya. :tiphat:


Oh.

Thanks, guys.

Actually, it sort of makes a difference as to her perspective on music, although since the Beatles are now considered a band from ANCIENT times, I suppose it really isn't all THAT much of a factor.

I still tend to view them in the context of WHEN they did what they did, and their debut, and their albums, were quite different in the UK than in the US. I'd not really thought much about how their music was trotted out down under.

So, was it her accent that tipped you off? Or did you check out her "ABOUT" details?


----------



## pianozach

The nice young AUSTRALIAN lady *Caroline* assesses the Beatles' second album, *With the Beatles*, and pays a little more attention to the fact that it is actually almost half covers, as the first album was.

She seems to focus on the bass and drums, and tends to talk over or ignore guitar solos and guitar hooks. Granted, Harrison's solos were somewhat primitive back then, but still creative and clever - except for the solo on *'Til There Was You*, and several other tunes, which are quite sophisticated. Just as Ringo played "what was needed", so it was with George; always with the best stuff, tastefully delivered.

I was surprised at the comment about the backing vocals being too equal . . . it's her contention that backing vocals ought to be "back_ground_" vocals. I love the sound of blended vocals myself, but both she and I are products of our generations and backgrounds. Just . . . I just found that interesting.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> Four I listened to recently:
> 
> Two of Us
> Across the Universe
> Strawberry Fields Forever
> Don't Let Me Down


*FOUR RANDOM BEATLES SONGS OF THE DAY*

*Across the Universe*, World Wildlife version
_*Strawberry Fields Forever*_, Love version
*Two of Us*
*Don't Let Me Down*, rooftop version


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> THAT album is just a repackaged version of *"Introducing the Beatles"* from *Vee-Jay Records*. They managed to squander the rights to the album, and mismanaged most of their releases of those early songs. They ended up folding in 1964, leaving behind $3 million in debt.
> 
> By 1961, *Vee-Jay* was one of America's top labels, with a strong jazz catalog, some top gospel groups, and Jerry Butler, Jimmy Reed, John Lee Hooker and Betty Everett cranking out hit after hit. AND a slew of other hits and a rich legacy of black American music. The first hint of disaster came in 1962, with their biggest record to date.
> 
> The *Four Seasons* hit "_*Sherry*_" was so big that Vee-Jay's owners found themselves without the money to pay for pressing more copies of the records, although the label stumbled along for a while. The worst thing it could have done would be to sign another hit group, but it did. And what a group: *Capitol Records* already had passed on the option to release *The Beatles* in America, but the Brackens jumped at the chance. "Please Please Me" and "From Me to You" both came out on Vee-Jay, followed by an album at the end of 1963. The Four Seasons and the Beatles both went to greener pastures, and Vee-Jay wound up in court, its day in the sun over.
> 
> It sold *2.6 million Beatles records* in one month, but *Vee-Jay* could not keep the records pressed and on the shelves or pay the artist royalties.


A double album. I wonder what the price was.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> THAT album is just a repackaged version of *"Introducing the Beatles"* from *Vee-Jay Records*. They managed to squander the rights to the album, and mismanaged most of their releases of those early songs. They ended up folding in 1964, leaving behind $3 million in debt.
> 
> By 1961, *Vee-Jay* was one of America's top labels, with a strong jazz catalog, some top gospel groups, and Jerry Butler, Jimmy Reed, John Lee Hooker and Betty Everett cranking out hit after hit. AND a slew of other hits and a rich legacy of black American music. The first hint of disaster came in 1962, with their biggest record to date.
> 
> The *Four Seasons* hit "_*Sherry*_" was so big that Vee-Jay's owners found themselves without the money to pay for pressing more copies of the records, although the label stumbled along for a while. The worst thing it could have done would be to sign another hit group, but it did. And what a group: *Capitol Records* already had passed on the option to release *The Beatles* in America, but the Brackens jumped at the chance. "Please Please Me" and "From Me to You" both came out on Vee-Jay, followed by an album at the end of 1963. The Four Seasons and the Beatles both went to greener pastures, and Vee-Jay wound up in court, its day in the sun over.
> 
> It sold *2.6 million Beatles records* in one month, but *Vee-Jay* could not keep the records pressed and on the shelves or pay the artist royalties.


A double album. I wonder what the price was.

added:
VeeJay Records story


----------



## pianozach

*Caroline*'s back.

*Beatles*' 3rd album, *A Hard Day's Night*






.

And the *singles 1962-1964*


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> Four I listened to recently:
> 
> Two of Us
> Across the Universe
> Strawberry Fields Forever
> Don't Let Me Down


I'd just posted alternate versions of these (except for Two of Us)

Across the Universe, World Wildlife version: This is the one with the birds, and the girls
Strawberry Fields Forever, Love version: This one cobbles together several different takes, instead of two.
Two of Us
Don't Let Me Down, rooftop version: this one has 3-part harmonies on the choruses

Here's the same four, but now the regular versions, except for Two of Us:

*Two of Us* (_rock_ version)
*Across the Universe
Strawberry Fields Forever
Don't Let Me Down
*


----------



## Enthusiast

The Danny Boyle film, Yesterday, provides the perfect appraisal of the Beatles legacy. Watch it if you don't get it or have started to hear them as stale.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I love _I've Got a Feeling_ from the _Let it Be_ sessions. Sounds to me like a precursor for the Who's mid-paced 'power rock' style which was to soon follow with songs like _The Seeker_, _Water_ and _Naked Eye_.


----------



## SanAntone

To me The Beatles combined the best of Pop catchy-ness with true melodic mastery. Even their arguably "throw-away" songs like "Two of Us" contain elements which are truly inspired and wonderful. Which is why they confound the Pop template of rise and fall to obscurity.

That band, and I vastly prefer their work as a band to any of their solo work, was a singularity, a Big Bang, if you will.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Yes, none of them did anything that came close to what they did together. I've often wondered why. Was it the influence or assistance of George Martin?


----------



## starthrower

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, none of them did anything that came close to what they did together. I've often wondered why. Was it the influence or assistance of George Martin?


I believe it was the chemistry and combination of that group of musicians and George Martin's musical and production expertise. Every once in a great while the stars are all aligned to produce a magnificent effect. And it seemed to happen a number of times in those heady days of the 1960s and early 70s. Colin Harper's excellent book, Bathed In Lightning: John McLaughlin, the 60s and the Emerald Beyond contains a detailed history of the early to mid 60s British music scene and the working relationships of all of the young musicians who eventually found the right chemistry and went on to create all of the famous bands we all know from that period.


----------



## Forster

elgars ghost said:


> For me they will always endure - although later noted for ambitious arrangements and stretching the latest studio technology to its limit they could still do the simpler things well when they had to. I have relatively little interest in their early zesty pop period, though - for me the _Help!_ album from the summer of 1965 is the point where things start to get really interesting.
> 
> And in case the 'Would you reduce the _White Album_ to a single album?' question comes up, my answer is not exactly - such was its long running time you could trim the _White Album_ by twenty minutes and still be left with a double set weighing in at over 70 minutes.


For me too. I grew up in a Beatlemania household, so lived with them and their music from a very young age. Their break up coincided with the aftermath of my parents' divorce, so they provided the soundtrack to both my childhood and my disillusionment. For quite a while afterwards, I couldn't listen to their music, especially the White album.

Speaking of which, the concept of what an album is/could be/should be varies. For some, it should be a collection of solid, quality songs - no filler. Once the notion of 'concept album' had emerged, it became acceptable (not just to me, I'm sure) to see an album as a container for a collection of pieces of music - some songs, some outtakes, some vocal comment, some instrumental moments, some experimentation - that represent the artists' musical thinking and exploration at a particualr moment in time. So, _The Beatles _is just such a mix, and I wouldn't change one second of it. It represents them - The Beatles - so the title and content are entirely appropriate.

I regretted their passing back then, and I still regret that, unlike some other bands that endured, they were never able to resolve their differences. I am always happy in their company, whether it's _Please Please Me _or _Abbey Road_.


----------



## eljr

Art Rock said:


> When I started listening to pop/rock in the 70s, they were already history. I bought the red and blue double albums, and enjoyed many of their songs. Still do. But for me they were a 'songs band' rather than an 'album band' - even albums like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road I like for a number of the songs, rather than wanting to listen to the albums.
> 
> My favourite songs include:
> 
> A day in the life
> Blackbird
> Eleanor Rigby
> Lucy in the sky with diamonds
> Penny Lane
> She's leaving home
> Strawberry fields
> The ballad of John and Yoko
> Yesterday
> 
> They all hit a solid 5/6 on the Artrockometer. And there are dozens others I like to listen to.
> 
> Fair warning: if you ever encounter me in a karaoke bar, one of the songs I always select is Back in the USSR.


I'd have to go with 
Dear Prudence 
Hey Bulldog
She Said She Said
Good Morning Good Morning
Help
Get Back 
Yer Blues
Glass Onion
Helter Skelter
Come Together


----------



## pianozach

*Today's Four Random Songs From the Beatles

Lucy In the Sky with Diamonds (1967)
Julia (1968)
'Till There Was You (1963)
Help! (1965)
*

Three from John and a cover of a Broadway tune from Paul.

*Lucy In the Sky with Diamonds* (1967)
. . . A continuance of John's lyrical exploration of psychedelia
*Julia* (1968)
. . . Lyrically John was fearless. A song about his dead mother, killed by a drunk off-duty policeman when John was 17.
_*'Till There Was You*_ (1963)
. . . A surprisingly sophisticated guitar solo from the 20-year-old George Harrison.
*Help! *(1965)
. . . an earlier song from John baring his feelings, and surreptitiously allowing us to see his pain.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> The Danny Boyle film, Yesterday, provides the perfect appraisal of the Beatles legacy. Watch it if you don't get it or have started to hear them as stale.


Yes, the premise of the film (one of them) was that these ordinary people and musicians and workers in music would hear a Beatles song for the first time and their eyes would light up! All of the different sorts of people, and even disinterested family members. Funny scenes, but quite believeable. This happens with just the one guy singing/guitar!


----------



## Ice Berg

Side B of Yellow Submarine is underrated.

Top fifteen Beatles songs:
1. Real Love
2. Long, Long, Long
3. She Loves You

no particular order:
Yes it Is
And Your Bird Can Sing
For No One
Anna (Go to Him)
It's Only Love
Long Tall Sally (Live at the Star Club, 1962)
Only a Northern Song
Any Time at All
Hey Bulldog
All of Sgt. Pepper (it's a suite)
I Want You (She's So Heavy)
It's All Too Much

I would also highly recommend everyone listen to as many of the solo albums as they can stomach. My personal favorites:

George - Dark Horse; All Things Must Pass; Thirty-Three and a Third; Extra Texture; Brainwashed; Living in the Material World

John - Plastic Ono Band; Walls and Bridges; Live Peace in Toronto 1969

Paul - Venus and Mars; Wings at the Speed of Sound; McCartney II; RAM; Back to the Egg

Ringo - Ringo the 4th (one of the most underrated albums of all time); Ringo; Goodnight Vienna

Beatles fans should also check out the first three Klaatu albums; the Harry Nilsson albums "Harry," "Nilsson Schmilsson," and "Son of Schmilsson;" and all (and I do mean _all_) of Badfinger's output.


----------



## pianozach

Interesting choices

I wouldn't put Wings at the Speed of Sound on a "must listen" listen. Three good songs. The rest of the album is fairly uneven. Replace it with Band on the Run and you've got a deal.


----------



## Ice Berg

Band on the Run is indeed probably more essential than Speed of Sound; oversight on my part. But, I do think Speed of Sound is highly underappreciated with "Time to Hide" (possibly Denny Laine's strongest contribution to any Wings album), "Must Do Something...," "Silly Love Songs" (which has a top-tier bass line), "Warm and Beautiful," and "Beware My Love" really shining in particular. It may be time for a public reappraisal. People also (fairly) thought McCartney II was spotty until quite recently, but the influence that album has had is much clearer in the rear view.


----------



## pianozach

Ice Berg said:


> Band on the Run is indeed probably more essential than Speed of Sound; oversight on my part. But, I do think Speed of Sound is highly underappreciated with "Time to Hide" (possibly Denny Laine's strongest contribution to any Wings album), "Must Do Something...," "Silly Love Songs" (which has a top-tier bass line), "Warm and Beautiful," and "Beware My Love" really shining in particular. It may be time for a public reappraisal. People also (fairly) thought McCartney II was spotty until quite recently, but the influence that album has had is much clearer in the rear view.


Good points.

Yeah, I'll concede "*Speed of Sound*". I suppose that a few duff tracks, and the overall in your face poppiness of the two hit songs tainted the rest of the album. The songs you mention ARE good.

I like *McC II* too. It's quirky.


----------



## Luchesi

Ice Berg said:


> Side B of Yellow Submarine is underrated.
> 
> Top fifteen Beatles songs:
> 1. Real Love
> 2. Long, Long, Long
> 3. She Loves You
> 
> no particular order:
> Yes it Is
> And Your Bird Can Sing
> For No One
> Anna (Go to Him)
> It's Only Love
> Long Tall Sally (Live at the Star Club, 1962)
> Only a Northern Song
> Any Time at All
> Hey Bulldog
> All of Sgt. Pepper (it's a suite)
> I Want You (She's So Heavy)
> It's All Too Much
> 
> I would also highly recommend everyone listen to as many of the solo albums as they can stomach. My personal favorites:
> 
> George - Dark Horse; All Things Must Pass; Thirty-Three and a Third; Extra Texture; Brainwashed; Living in the Material World
> 
> John - Plastic Ono Band; Walls and Bridges; Live Peace in Toronto 1969
> 
> Paul - Venus and Mars; Wings at the Speed of Sound; McCartney II; RAM; Back to the Egg
> 
> Ringo - Ringo the 4th (one of the most underrated albums of all time); Ringo; Goodnight Vienna
> 
> Beatles fans should also check out the first three Klaatu albums; the Harry Nilsson albums "Harry," "Nilsson Schmilsson," and "Son of Schmilsson;" and all (and I do mean _all_) of Badfinger's output.


Why is Real Love number one? anything you can tell us..


----------



## Jay

Ice Berg said:


> Beatles fans should also check out the first three Klaatu albums; the Harry Nilsson albums "Harry," "Nilsson Schmilsson," and "Son of Schmilsson;" and all (and I do mean _all_) of Badfinger's output.


...and Emitt Rhodes's first album, and the Zombies' _Odessey and Oracle_.


----------



## SanAntone

Jay said:


> ...and Emitt Rhodes's first album, and the Zombies' _Odessey and Oracle_.


Yep - that Emitt Rhodes album is very McCartney-esque. I've always thought that XTC sound like where The Beatles might have gone if they'd stayed together.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Songs From the Beatles for a Friday Evening*

*You've Got To Hide Your Love Away* (1965)
*Baby It's You* (1963)
*Lady Madonna* (1968)
*A Shot of Rhythm and Blues* (1963)

*Annotated*

Three sung by John and one from Paul. A rather diverse foursome of songs.

*You've Got To Hide Your Love Away* (1965)

From the album *Help!*, their fifth studio album. An early example of Lennon's self-reflection in his lyrics. A bit unusual that the solo comes at the end of the song, and it being played by a tenor flute and alto flute playing in octaves.

*Baby It's You* (1963)

A cover of a Burt Bacharach/Mack Davis/Luther Dixon song that was a Top Ten Hit for the original artist *The Shirelles* in 1961. The Beatles recorded a studio version for their 1963 debut album *Please Please Me*. This is a live version recorded for BBC Radio.

*Lady Madonna* (1968)

This mono-only single charted at #1 for two weeks, and remained in the Top Ten for 6 weeks. A stereo version wasn't released until 1970, on the compilation album *Hey Jude*.

*A Shot of Rhythm and Blues* (1963)

This song was first recorded by US soul singer Arthur Alexander in 1961. The Beatles recorded the song three times for the BBC in 1963, with John Lennon on lead vocals. One of the versions was included on the album Live at the BBC, released in 1994.


----------



## pianozach

*Call Me Caroline* continues with her _*"First Listens"*_ of *The Beatles*. She's up to their 4th album, *Beatles For Sale*, released late in 1964, which may be their most tired-sounding album.

By this time their touring, recording, filming schedules were constant, and they really didn't have anything resembling normal lives. While Beatlemania didn't hit in the US until the very beginning of 1964, their manager Brian Epstein had had them on a treadmill of concert gigs since they let him take on managerial duties early December 1961.

As a result they had to dip back into their earlier setlists of covers when they discovered that they didn't have enough original material, as they'd had on their previous album *A Hard Day's Night*. Six of the fourteen songs were covers. That said, this may be the meanest and rockiest album in their catalog, in spite of it's pointed folk/country/rock/acoustic/eclectic feel.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> *Call Me Caroline*


I was younger than she is (in my early teens), but my friends and I had a different take on the fab 4. Girls and boys definitely saw them differently. My peers at the time were mostly all music students. We assumed that they were from the London culture (if you know what I mean). We didn't want Beatle haircuts or Beatle boots or their shiny suits. They were cartoonish to us, unlike the Stones and the Kinks and the Animals. Later they created some fine piano sheets. But rock 'n' roll was always done with more drama and more gravitas by the other groups. I didn't see any influence by the Beatles , but I was very young.

Read why they ended up with Beatle haircuts. Read how hard they worked at selling to young girls. Revisionism has flowered and bloomed, especially in the last few decades with round-the-clock media looking for ready-made material for profit.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> I was younger than she is (in my early teens), but my friends and I had a different take on the fab 4. Girls and boys definitely saw them differently. My peers at the time were mostly all music students. We assumed that they were from the London culture (if you know what I mean). We didn't want Beatle haircuts or Beatle boots or their shiny suits. They were cartoonish to us, unlike *the Stones and the Kinks and the Animals*. Later they created some fine piano sheets. But rock 'n' roll was always done with more drama and more gravitas by the other groups. I didn't see any influence by the Beatles , but I was very young.
> 
> Read why they ended up with Beatle haircuts. Read how hard they worked at selling to young girls. Revisionism has flowered and bloomed, especially in the last few decades with round-the-clock media looking for ready-made material for profit.


My late older brother also preferred the harder edged sounds of groups such as *"the Stones and the Kinks and the Animals"*, but it should be noted that these groups would not have been given a first look if it hadn't been for the inroads made by *The Beatles*. In fact, *The Rolling Stones* were recommended to a Decca Records' A&R guy by George Harrison, and their first hit was a Beatles song.

And while the Beatles had been together since before 1959, churning out live gigs like they were free hot lunches, the bands you mentioned weren't even formed until 1963.

I can see that, in effect, *The Beatles* _*were*_ effectively marketed as the first _*"Boy Band"*_, and for the first couple of years they played that deck to the hilt. They were heavily merchandised (for which they received little or no compensation) as well, as you mentioned.

But _*in terms of influence*_, it's difficult to grasp just how influential they were, not only musically, but culturally as well.

They played their own instruments, both live _*and*_ in the studio, 
They wrote their own songs, 
They had four lead singers, and could sing excellent harmonies,
They were the first to play in a stadium, and so many other musical, technical, and marketing innovations and whatnot that are like some sort of bottomless cup of coffee.

And that was _*prior*_ to 1965, when they REALLY started expanding the popular music landscape.

But *prior to The Beatles*, popular music had really stagnated. Go back and listen to the *Billboard Top 100 Singles* for 1962 and 1963 and you'll see what I mean. There is so much dreck and flotsam, mounds of treacly bubblegum crap. Seriously, make yourself playlists of the Top 100 for 1961-1963 and you'll suddenly appreciate how The Beatles breathed new life into Pop Music. Yeah, there _*were*_ some *great* songs from those years, but the majority of songs on those lists are atrociously awful.

[I actually did this last year, made lists of the *Top 100 and* the hits' B-Sides, so 200 songs per year, from #100 to #1. Some of it was eye-rolling]

No, they weren't marketed as a rock group, but they certainly could rock. No, instead (likely much to the chagrin of group founder John Lennon) they were "cleaned up" and mass marketed to the girls. Of course, a lot of guys found a lot to like about the band as well . . . man, they were TIGHT, unlike some of the _garage band punkers_ that joined the music scene a year later, like the ones you mentioned.

Here's *Today's Four Not-s0-Random Early Beatles rockin' covers*

_*Twist and Shout*_ - A hit for The Isley Brothers in 1962, but originally released by The Top Notes in 1961.
_*Money (That's What I Want)*_ - The first big hit written by Berry Gordy, the founder of Motown Records
_*Long Tall Sally*_ - Co-songwriter Little Richard hit #1 on the R&B Charts with this in 1956.
_*Slow Down*_ - A Larry Williams tune released in 1958.


----------



## Luchesi

You see them (Beatlemania) through the lens of the media exploiters (especially obvious since that guitar game was a commercial success). It's a fortunate outcome, because pop should be fun and even magical. 
I paid attention to the first hand effects among my peers, girl friends and even some of the moms, and that's what I'm reporting. 

Cultural change? Most of their target audience was too young to care. They weren't Carnaby fashion enthusiasts, or any fashion trend, as I remember it. 

We wanted to hear what new electric guitar effects we could use for musical expression. Stones, Kinks etc. etc.. not Beatle songs. The Beach Boys were singing about hot cars and dragging. 'Much more interesting than simple love songs for young girls. Of course, again, it's a fortunate outcome that you have your grander view of the times. We don’t want the more sober view to prevail, it gets shot down. Knowledgeable fans pile on. Who has the reliable memories from so long ago? Maybe I’ve discussed this so often with musicians (decade after decade) that I’ve generated false memories.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Who has the reliable memories from so long ago?


In one sense, nobody has: memories are not always reliable.

In another, the problem is that everybody who has a memory of listening to the Beatles at the time, and has a personal response to report is a reliable witness; certainly my memories are as reliable as anyone else's. Collate them together - there's thousands over time - and you have a massive account of disparate subjective viewpoints, including those of the "average fan", the music critic, the cultural commentator, the news outlets etc etc.

That's history for you, aside from the "facts" and the numbers.

Now, what, exactly, is _your _experience and why do you feel that it gives you such a different perspective that entitles you to refer to others' revisionism?


----------



## pianozach

Four Randomized Beatles Songs

*Eleanor Rigby
A Day In the Life
Blackbird
Penny Lane*


----------



## Ethereality

My Top 8 which I consider very superior to the majority of their songs.

1. Michelle
2. In My Life
3. Here Comes The Sun
4. Blackbird
5. Something
6. Across The Universe
7. All You Need Is Love
8. My Sweet Lord

Things like _A Day In The Life_ and _I Want You_ are cool, but they're voodoo tricks. If I want real voodoo I listen to Hendrix and his various castles of sand. Whereas _Yesterday_, I find the most overrated Beatles composition.


----------



## ZJovicic

Ten songs in no particular order... I like them all. I like more Beatles songs than this, but it's fine to choose 10.

1) In my Life
2) Norwegian Wood
3) She's Leaving Home
4) When I'm 64
5) Strawberry Fields Forever
6) Something
7) Girl
8) Michelle
9) Help!
10) Yesterday


----------



## SanAntone

Okay, I'll play. 

A Baker's Dozen of songs (today's choices):

1. Strawberry Fields Forever
2. Eleanor Rigby
3. I Am the Walrus
4. She's Leaving Home
5. Across the Universe
6. Taxman
7. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
8. Fixing a Hole
9. In My Life
10. Day Tripper
11. Dear Prudence
12. Sexy Sadie
13. All You Need Is Love


----------



## ZJovicic

Eleonor Rigby used to be among my top favorites, but I got slightly tired of it.
She's Leaving Home took its place for now.

Still I think Eleanor Rigby is a great song.


----------



## pianozach

*The Four Random Beatles Songs Of the Day*

*She's Leaving Home 
The Ballad of John and Yoko
Yesterday
Back In the USSR*

Coincidentally all four songs are lacking one or more Beatles.

*She's Leaving Home* (1967) features Paul McCartney on Lead Vocal, with John Lennon singing a counterpoint vocal in the choruses. None of the Beatles play on the track, which consists of 4 violins, 2 violas, 3 cellos, doublebass, and harp.
*The Ballad of John and Yoko* (1969). Lennon was insistent that the song be recorded immediately, even though George Harrison was on vacation, and Ringo Starr was filming a movie with Peter Sellers. McCartney played piano, drums, and bass, while Lennon played acoustic and electric guitars.
*Yesterday* (1965) was rehearsed as an uptempo pop song with bass, drums, and guitars, but on Producer George Martin's suggestion it was recorded with only McCartney on acoustic guitar, with a string quartet overdub recorded three days later.
*Back In the USSR* (1968). Starr had temporarily quit the band during the rehearsals of this very song, so the other three created a composite drum and percussion track, which seems to have been an attempt at a hybrid Jerry Lee Lewis / Beach Boys sound.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^^^^^
Good info.
I'd like to have this level of reliable information about the creative conclusions of JsB, LvB and Schubert.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs For A Sunday Evening*

*Here, There and Everywhere* (1966)
*A Hard Day's Night* (1964)
*Love Me Do* (1962) 
*Honey Pie* (1968)

*Here, There and Everywhere*: This song, which takes a cue from the American Standards genre, was a favorite Beatles song of Paul McCartney, John Lennon, _*and*_ producer George Martin. It was ranked the 4th greatest song of all time by *Mojo* in 2000.

*A Hard Day's Night*: Written to order when the film's director, Dick Lester, suggested based on something he'd heard Ringo Starr say. Paul & John had it written that same night. George Harrison's 12-string Rickenbacker guitar solo was doubled on piano by Martin but tracked at half speed and sped up during mixing.

That's John singing lead on the verses, joined by Paul for the two sets of descending chromatic parallel thirds, and Paul singing lead on the bridges.

A curious facet of *A Hard Day's Night* is *the opening chord*, the composition of which is still argued over today: It's _*mostly*_ a *G7sus4/A* created by producer Martin playing piano chord (with an D on the bottom) atop George Harrison's Fadd9 (or "F with a G on top," as he said in 2001) played on his 12-string Rickenbacker, Lennon's Fadd9 played on his Gibson J-160E and McCartney's bass single note (D) played on his Hofner 500/1, _*BUT*_ that chiming chord is certainly iced by the cluster F-G-A created by the high octave 3rd and 4th strings on Harrison's 12-string guitar, as well as a cymbal and snare drum buried in the mix and creating overtones of their own. Computer analysis has suggested that Martin played five notes: D2, G2, D3, G3 and C4 with the sustain pedal held down, allowing further harmonics to emerge. Commit this to memory and astound your friends and enemies.

Oh, and the song does this oddball thing of seamlessly alternating between *G Major* and *G Aolian*.

_*Love Me Do*_: Sometimes credited for *"The Day the World Changed Forever"*. It was raw, it was sexy, and an almost complete antithesis of the saccharine, over-produced bubble-gummy pop prevalent at the time. Love Me Do was mostly written by a 16-year-old Paul McCartney around 1958-1959, with bandmate John Lennon coming up with the middle 8 sometime later. But a great deal of credit goes to producer George Martin for fleshing out the arrangement, and drummer Starr for his unusual drum pattern, which was used by session drummer Andy White for his version on the album version of the song, with Ringo relegated to playing tambourine. This was their first single, and their first Top 20 Hit in the UK. The version with Ringo on drums DID appear on the first pressings of the single, but was soon replaced; it also appeared on the PAST MASTERS collection released in 1988.

*Honey Pie*: Only six years later Paul McCartney wrote this curious throwback to the British music hall style (or American Vaudeville) of the 1920s. Another oddity on this track is that it's Lennon playing the Django Reinhardt-inflected lead guitar solo, and George Harrison plays a 6-string bass. McCartney sings the lead, plays piano, and collaborated with producer Martin on the arrangement that features 5 saxophones and 2 clarinets. He claims his vocal was inspired by *Fred Astaire*, on songs such as _*Cheek to Cheek*_.


----------



## SixFootScowl

My favorite Beatles song is Come Together. That song could have been written by Bob Dylan.

I have never been big on The Beatles, though I had a couple LPs, tapes or CDs at times.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs For a Monday Evening*

*Martha My Dear
I'm So Tired
Blackbird
Piggies*

Well, perhaps these four aren't all that random. They are the first four songs, in order, from Side Two of their 1968 double-LP "White Album". They're an eclectic bunch:

*Martha My Dear* is another of Paul McCartney's bottomless Music Hall type songs, and it's about his old English sheepdog, Martha. Paul handles the vocals, piano, bass, electric guitar, drums, and handclaps, and he collaborated with producer George Martin on the overdubbed arrangement of a 9-pc. string section and a six-pc. brass section.

*I'm So Tired* is from John Lennon. It's a fairly straightforward tune about insomnia, but at the very end of the song, there is what seems to be nonsensical mumbling in the background, which, if played backwards sounds suspiciously like "Turn me on dead man, miss him, miss him, miss him." Just another small quirky thing in a Beatles song.

*Blackbird* is just Paul accompanying himself on acoustic guitar and tapping his foot (and tape loops of some blackbird calls). Since this was already featured in one of the random four Beatles songs, here's a live version performed 36 years later. Paul has played this particular song on every concert tour.

*Piggies* is one of George Harrison's contributions to the album, a bizarre bit of baroque pop Orwellian social commentary


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> *Four Random Beatles Songs For a Monday Evening*
> 
> *Martha My Dear
> I'm So Tired
> Blackbird
> Piggies*
> 
> Well, perhaps these four aren't all that random. They are the first four songs, in order, from Side Two of their 1968 double-LP "White Album". They're an eclectic bunch:
> 
> *Martha My Dear* is another of Paul McCartney's bottomless Music Hall type songs, and it's about his old English sheepdog, Martha. Paul handles the vocals, piano, bass, electric guitar, drums, and handclaps, and he collaborated with producer George Martin on the overdubbed arrangement of a 9-pc. string section and a six-pc. brass section.
> 
> *I'm So Tired* is from John Lennon. It's a fairly straightforward tune about insomnia, but at the very end of the song, there is what seems to be nonsensical mumbling in the background, which, if played backwards sounds suspiciously like "Turn me on dead man, miss him, miss him, miss him." Just another small quirky thing in a Beatles song.
> 
> *Blackbird* is just Paul accompanying himself on acoustic guitar and tapping his foot (and tape loops of some blackbird calls). Since this was already featured in one of the random four Beatles songs, here's a live version performed 36 years later. Paul has played this particular song on every concert tour.
> 
> *Piggies* is one of George Harrison's contributions to the album, a bizarre bit of baroque pop Orwellian social commentary


You know, I forgot just how good the White Album is. My favorite of these four is "I'm So Tired", but remember learning how to play "Martha My Dear" on the piano. It's a clever tune. "Blackbird" of course is a classic, that's another one I spent hours getting the guitar part right. I always thought the tapping was a metronome.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> You know, I forgot just how good the White Album is. My favorite of these four is "I'm So Tired", but remember learning how to play "Martha My Dear" on the piano. It's a clever tune. "Blackbird" of course is a classic, that's another one I spent hours getting the guitar part right. I always thought the tapping was a metronome.


There's video of him rehearsing it. He's got some fancy shoes to tap with.

Check 'em out. Close up 20 seconds into this clip.


----------



## Luchesi

I've wondered how a young person picks up a guitar and begins strumming it left-handedly. Has he ever talked about it?

Did a family member realize he was left-handed and showed him a few things? I assume he must have been working mostly on his own (self taught). Such a lucky result, learning the easy chords and then the 'difficult' ones. Accordingly, he was self-propelled (as was John and George). 

Kids were so much less distracted back then. Who has the 'alone' time today...


----------



## Josquin13

I enjoy comedian Peter Sellers' spoofs of their songs, as did the four Beatles, who loved The Goons (a radio program), and Seller's early B & W films (as do I). George Martin actually produced two of Seller's early comedy LP records in the late 1950s, so there was that connection, too.

Here's The Beatles song, "A Hard Day's Night", recited by Peter Sellers, spoofing Sir Laurence Oliver's Richard III,






& here are the outtakes & bloopers,






Sellers' 4 takes on The Beatles "She Loves You" using four different accents, as Dr. Strangelove, a Cockney, an Upper Crust Englishman, & an Irishman is also funny (warning: there's a bit of foul language at the end of the last take):






As for The Beatles albums, I've long been partial to Rubber Soul, Revolver, & Abbey Road myself. & George will always be my favorite Beatle. At least, he's the Beatle that I think I would have found most interesting to have had dinner with (though I find Ringo the funniest of the four), based on Martin Scorsese's 2011 documentary on Harrison, "Living in the Material World", which I found fascinating; as well as Harrison's post-Beatles songs & lyrics: such as "My Sweet Lord", "All Things Must Pass", and "Awaiting On You All", which never fails to warm my heart and give me a laugh (i.e., the bit about the pope & General Motors):

"You don't need no love in
You don't need no bed pan
You don't need a horoscope or a microscope
The see the mess that you're in
If you open up your heart
You will know what I mean
We've been polluted so long
Now here's a way for you to get clean
By chanting the names of the Lord and you'll be free
The Lord is awaiting on you all to awaken and see
Chanting the names of the Lord and you'll be free
The Lord is awaiting on you all to awaken and see

You don't need no passport
And you don't need no visas
You don't need to designate or to emigrate
Before you can see Jesus
If you open up your heart
You'll see he's right there
Always was and will be
He'll relieve you of your cares

By chanting the names of the Lord and you'll be free
The Lord is awaiting on you all to awaken and see
Chanting the names of the Lord and you'll be free
The Lord is awaiting on you all to awaken and see

You don't need no church house
And you don't need no Temple
You don't need no rosary beads or them books to read
To see that you have fallen
If you open up your heart
You will know what I mean
We've been kept down so long
Someone's thinking that we're all green

And while the Pope owns fifty one percent of General Motors
And the stock exchange is the only thing he's qualified to quote us
The Lord is awaiting on you all to awaken and see
By chanting the names of the Lord and you'll be free."

Yeah, George is definitely my favorite Beatle. For me, the most interesting part of Scorsese's film documentary is when Harrison's wife, Olivia, talks openly about what happened in the room when George passed. She said the room suddenly became filled with an unnatural light. & she added that George had spend many years preparing for this moment via prayer and chanting.

P.S. In recent years, I've also gotten to know and like Harrison's "early takes" from his album "All Things Must Pass", which was released on CD in conjunction with Scorsese's film. IMO, the performances here are often better than what ended up on the 2 LP set, that is, after co-producer Phil Spector had messed around with the songs. & I agree with Olivia Harrison that "these early takes really get to the essence of the songs." (Wikipedia)

"My Sweet Lord":





"Awaiting On You All": 




"All Things Must Pass":


----------



## HenryPenfold

Love it! Thanks Josquin!


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> In one sense, nobody has: memories are not always reliable.
> 
> In another, the problem is that everybody who has a memory of listening to the Beatles at the time, and has a personal response to report is a reliable witness; certainly my memories are as reliable as anyone else's. Collate them together - there's thousands over time - and you have a massive account of disparate subjective viewpoints, including those of the "average fan", the music critic, the cultural commentator, the news outlets etc etc.
> 
> That's history for you, aside from the "facts" and the numbers.
> 
> Now, what, exactly, is _your _experience and why do you feel that it gives you such a different perspective that entitles you to refer to others' revisionism?


'Sorry, I didn't see your reply. Believe me, I love talking about myself and comparing my experiences in music learning. lol

During the releases of the early albums I was going through those crucial years of exposure, 12 through 14 for boys. My perspective won't likely be available today. The older writers weren't born until the 60s.
Reminds me of where were you when JFK was gunned down? Or the Moon landings/911 attacks? You had to be there. If you read about it from someone who wasn't born yet, it's a different perspective.


----------



## pianozach

The *Peter Sellers* vids are priceless. Thanks for sharing.

:lol:

*Wednesday Afternoon's Four Random Beatles Tracks*

*Please Please Me* (1963)
*Don't Pass Me By* (1968)
*Only a Northern Song* (1968)
*You Won't See Me* (1965)

With the exception of Please Please Me, none of the songs in this grouping are ranked amongst their best. But wait . . .

*Please Please Me*
This was the title song on their debut album, their second single and their first #1 Hit. Recorded in November 1962, and released in January 1963, this uptempo pop hit owes a great deal to producer George Martin's alterations of the John Lennon song. Lennon had written it as a slower cry ballad in the style of Roy Orbison. While the song made quite an impact in the UK, it went virtually unnoticed when it was released a month later in the US. After The Beatles' appearances on *The Ed Sullivan Show* at the end of 1963, it was re-released in February 1964 and became a smash hit in a long string of smash hits.

*Don't Pass Me By*
The first solo composition written by drummer Ringo Starr. Surprisingly, the song was released as a single in Scandinavia and peaked at #1 in Denmark in April 1969.

Ringo sings lead, and plays drums, "tack piano" and various percussion. Paul McCartney plays grand piano and bass. Session jazz double-bassist Jack Fallon provides the fiddle.

*Only a Northern Song* 
First heard in the 1968 film Yellow Submarine, it had been mostly recorded February 1967 (at the end of the Sgt. Pepper's sessions) save for some effects overdubs. However, it wasn't actually released as an audio recording until the Yellow Submarine soundtrack was released in January 1969. Further, it wasn't available in true stereo until 1999.

The George Harrison song is a remarkable insult to the music publishing industry, and, indeed, his bandmates John and Paul as well: Among the four Beatles, Lennon and McCartney were major shareholders in the publishing company *Northern Songs*, each owning 15 per cent of the public company's shares, and the pair earned considerable wealth over the first year of the flotation. Harrison and Ringo Starr, as contracted songwriters, owned 0.8 per cent each. As a result, Lennon and McCartney and other shareholders profited more from Harrison's compositions than he did.

Unusual instrumentation for a Beatles song as well: George on lead vocal and organ, John Lennon on piano and Glockenspiel, Paul on bass and [amateur] trumpet, Ringo on drums. John, Paul, and George all contributed sound effects, in an attempt at some avant-garde experimentations mimicking what they heard in *Cage*'s and *Stockhausen*'s tape/electronic works, which they'd recently discovered.

George's Only a Northern Song deserves more appreciation for its historic references, unusual subject matter, wry humor, psychedelic elements, and the title/lyrical nod to both their publishing company _and_ his birthplace, Liverpool, the "Holy City" of northern England.

*You Won't See Me*
Written and recorded at the end of the Rubber Soul sessions at the end of 1965, The Beatles found themselves in a bit of a time crunch to get the album "in the can" in time for Christmas; in fact, it was recorded on the last day of the sessions, cutting the song in only two takes. The bitterness embedded in the lyrics really heralded the end of their "cute" boy/girl lyrical beginnings. Paul sings lead, and plays piano and a rather more sophisticated and fluid bass guitar part than he'd played in the past. Ringo also steps it up a bit on the drums, with a rather 'busy' contribution.

At 3'23", it was also the lengthiest Beatles recording to date.

In many ways the song seems pedestrian, but melodically it stands up just fine against the backdrop of their earlier material. However, up against the _rest_ of the songs on this particularly ground-breaking album, it comes off as mere "filler". Don't let that fool you . . . it became a *Top Ten Hit* for *Anne Murray* in both the US and Canada in 1974.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> 'Sorry, I didn't see your reply. Believe me, I love talking about myself and comparing my experiences in music learning. lol
> 
> During the releases of the early albums I was going through those *crucial years of exposure, 12 through 14 for boys*. My perspective won't likely be available today. *The older writers weren't born until the 60s*.
> Reminds me of where were you when JFK was gunned down? Or the Moon landings/911 attacks? You had to be there. * If you read about it from someone who wasn't born yet, it's a different perspective*.


Thanks for catching up!

I'm not sure I follow your explanation. First, the age thing. My sister was 13, my brother 10 in 1963 when _Please Please Me _was released. My Mum was 32. All three were instant fans. I'd be very surprised if there were no 12-14 boys too among their fans, though obviously, not everyone liked them.

"The older writers..."? I don't understand. Which writers: posters here at TC? Journalists? Biographers? And surely the "older" writers were born earlier, not later. Two of the best known biographers, Philip Norman and Ian MacDonald were both in their teens in 1963 (15 and 18 respectively). Mark Lewisohn, on the other hand, is only one year older than me.

Well, I was born in 1959, so I was "there" in one sense, but not in the same sense as any teen who grew up in Liverpool at the same time as John Lennon, or anyone who was born in 1963 in, say, the Outer Hebrides and first heard of the group wrt their break-up on the wireless as a 7 year old.

As I said in my last post, the business of memory is a complicated thing, especially when trying to establish the facts from a collective memory. But your insistence in referring to 'revisionism' isn't quite explained by that - in fact, you don't really explain it at all. What do you think is the "truth" about the band that has been revised - and by whom?


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Thanks for catching up!
> 
> I'm not sure I follow your explanation. First, the age thing. My sister was 13, my brother 10 in 1963 when _Please Please Me _was released. My Mum was 32. All three were instant fans. I'd be very surprised if there were no 12-14 boys too among their fans, though obviously, not everyone liked them.
> 
> "The older writers..."? I don't understand. Which writers: posters here at TC? Journalists? Biographers? And surely the "older" writers were born earlier, not later. Two of the best known biographers, Philip Norman and Ian MacDonald were both in their teens in 1963 (15 and 18 respectively). Mark Lewisohn, on the other hand, is only one year older than me.
> 
> Well, I was born in 1959, so I was "there" in one sense, but not in the same sense as any teen who grew up in Liverpool at the same time as John Lennon, or anyone who was born in 1963 in, say, the Outer Hebrides and first heard f the group wrt their break-up on the wireless as a 7 year old.
> 
> As I said in my last post, the business of memory is a complicated thing, especially when trying to establish the facts from a collective memory. But your insistence in referring to 'revisionism' isn't quite explained by that - in fact, you don't really explain it at all. What do you think is the "truth" about the band that has been revised - and by whom?


I was born in December 1951 and was 11 for most of 1963 - but The Beatles didn't hit in the US until the Ed Sullivan show in February 1964 (when I had turned 12). But I date my full on exposure from when my sister (six years older than me) brought home _Meet The Beatles_. I was an instant fan and only became more of one as I went through high school (1965-1969) at which point they broke up. My life was synchronous with the band's life.

IMO, the only revisionist opinion is that The Beatles weren't really that great.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> I was born in December 1951 and was 11 for most of 1963 - but The Beatles didn't hit in the US until the Ed Sullivan show in February 1964 (when I had turned 12). But I date my full on exposure from when my sister (six years older than me) brought home _Meet The Beatles_. I was an instant fan and only became more of one as I went through high school (1965-1969) at which point they broke up. My life was synchronous with the band's life.
> 
> *IMO, the only revisionist opinion is that The Beatles weren't really that great.*


Yes!

This actual revisionist attempt to re-paint *The Beatles* as being 'just another band' rankles me as well. Were they perfect? Of course not. But they influenced pop and rock music in so many ways, and influenced our culture (fashion, media, film, television [The Monkees, MTV] . . . ) . . . . the list is long.

I understand some folks' need to belittle great things, and I understand the concept of "revisionist history"; histories we were told as children often turn out to be convenient lies (Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy), or deliberate falsehoods written by the victors (the Gulf of Tonkin attack).

:devil:

I have a theory that *Elvis Presley*'s legacy has been inflated. His influence has been elevated to a status well beyond that which he _did_ do. Yes, Elvis Presley was somewhat influential in changing the social and moral values of white American society, and also in defining a new genre of music known and rock n' roll. But he was far from being the inventor of Rock and Roll. And although you'll find his name listed as co-composer on many of his songs, that was merely another way to generate reverence and income; he made "arrangements" with songwriters: A promise to record their song in exchange for songwriting credit. Elvis' musicianship was rudimentary; the guitar was mostly a prop, unlike *Bill Haley, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly*, or *Chuck Berry*, who actually played.

Elvis was a well-marketed pretty face with an extraordinary voice.

I have *one small anecdotal story* to illustrate. When I was a teen in the 1970s my dad worked downtown at a successful physical testing lab, so successful that they needed to expand their physical workplace. As it happened, the building next door was vacant, and the company bought it. My dad, as the physical materials supervisor got to survey what they had to work with, and he found, in the attic, someone's old collection of 45s, neatly stored, and catalogued with separators in a sturdy box with a handle made expressly for transporting one's 45 collection to sock hops or slumber parties. There was plenty of music from the mid- to late 1950s and very early 60s. Not a single Elvis record amongst them. The former owner evidently was not all that impressed with Presley. This was a collection of what they actually wanted to listen to.

We tend to look back on the 1950s as the Age when Elvis was "King", and he *was* a big name. We've been sold on the notion that Elvis was the only music people played, the only singer to which they listened, the only songs you'd hear on the radio. That was not the case.

Here's another piece of evidence to back up my theory: The list of *Billboard* magazine's *Top Hot 100 Songs of 1959 * (I chose 1959 somewhat randomly, as Elvis released his first single in 1954) tells a somewhat different story: He had four songs on the list, at #30, 34, 44, and 93.

OK, that's _somewhat_ unfair: He was in the Army from Spring 1958 until Spring 1960, but he'd gone into the studio prior to joining the Army to record songs for later release.

OK: *1957* instead; the 'Year of Elvis': Four Top 20 hits, for a total of six in the Top 100. Very impressive.

But the point is that Elvis wasn't the only thing listened to at the time. In *1958* the Top 100 songs were also from _OTHER_ singers/musicians: *The Everly Brothers, Perry Como, Dean Martin, Conway Twitty, Ricky Nelson, The Platters, Pat Boone, Chuck Berry, Frank Sinatra, The Big Bopper, Bobby Darin*.

*Berry, Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, the Everlys, the Kingston Trio*, and *Buddy Holly* all had significant impact on popular music as well.

So, it's easy to believe that the *Beatles*' legacy is inflated as well. But it wasn't. They *were* big; from the moment in 1963 when they first appeared on *The Ed Sullivan Show* with that crazy infectious music, to how they expanded the known palette of Pop Music right up through 1969 their impact was huge.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Thursday Evening*

*Dig a Pony* (1970)
*Let It Be* (1970)
*Something* (1969)
*The Fool On the Hill* (1967)

*Dig a Pony*
Originally released on the *Let It Be* album in May 1970, although it had been recorded for the *Get Back* sessions way back in January 1969. A clever throwaway song from *John Lennon* that features an excellent instrumental hook and a word salad of strange, seemingly nonsense phrases strung together that Lennon himself called "a piece of garbage".

While it might be simply filler on a Beatles' album, it's still a solid rocker, and stands on its own quite well. The track was recorded live.

*Let It Be* 
This extraordinary *Paul McCartney* anthem was released in advance of the album as a *single* in March 1970, produced by George Martin, and again on the *Let It Be* album re-produced by Phil Spector in May 1970. The most noticeable difference is the guitar solo: The single had a solo overdubbed by George Harrison in April 1969, while the album version has a solo overdubbed in January 1970.

[Nerd Alert!] Completionists can note that an even earlier rehearsal version can be found on the *Anthology 1* album, which has John Lennon's sloppy original bass guitar, as well as the even more stripped down *Let It Be . . . Naked* version. There's also another "original" unreleased mix created by Glyn Johns back when the album intended title was *Get Back*. There's also the film version of the song, which has also not been given an official audio release.

Well, all that release talk aside, _*Let It Be*_ remains one of the Beatles' most popular and finest ballads. It was a #1 Hit for them. The link below is to the originally released single version, with the more 'tame' guitar solo.

*Something* 
This song from George Harrison also reached #1 on the charts. By 1972, over 150 artists had recorded "Something". As of 2021 over 500 artists have covered the song.

It was originally released on their Abbey Road album September 1969, then as a [double-A] single 10 days later. George had originally brought it to their sessions for the White Album in 1968

*The Fool On the Hill* 
Another from *McCartney*, and again he's somewhat philosophical, which is reflected in the lyrics, as well as the ambiguous tonality as it shifts from D major and D minor. Legend has it that the harmonica-heavy track has harmonicas played by bandmates Lennon and Harrison, but Moody Blues members Ray Thomas and Mike Pinder. That's Paul playing the solo recorder. Three session flautists were also brought in for sweetening, arranged by Paul and producer Martin.

Again, this is a song that was overshadowed by the other heavy hitters on the album on which it appeared, *Magical Mystery Tour*, but on its own stands out; so much so that it became a *Top 10 Hit *for *Sérgio Mendes & Brasil '66* in 1968. In fact, over 350 covers have been made of this particular song.


----------



## Luchesi

As I remember at the time, the fab four were nonthreatening, good looking, humorous, fun loving, cartoonish, -- all the things that the Rolling Stones and the Kinks and the Animals -- and even the race car Beach Boys were not. At least, to our parents. It's adolescence, annoy the parents or push them away, out of your beeswax, etc.etc. a basic example of teenage rebellion. 

Am I remembering wrong? IOW, they weren't cool for us garage-band guys back then.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> As I remember at the time, the fab four were nonthreatening, good looking, humorous, fun loving, cartoonish, -- all the things that the Rolling Stones and the Kinks and the Animals -- and even the race car Beach Boys were not. At least, to our parents. It's adolescence, annoy the parents or push them away, out of your beeswax, etc.etc. a basic example of teenage rebellion.
> 
> Am I remembering wrong? IOW, they weren't cool for us garage-band guys back then.


Thanks for your reply. It seems, however, that what you're saying is _not _that there is some "revisionism" afoot...just that to you and your mates, The Beatles weren't cool.

That's fine. I don't think anybody (here, or anywhere else) ever claimed that they were liked unanimously. And I'm sure there were plenty of like-minded people around the world (well, the bit that mattered as far as Western pop music was concerned) that would recall the same as you. I don't think that undermines the claim that The Beatles had a significant influence beyond the Top 40 of the mid-Sixties.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Thanks for your reply. It seems, however, that what you're saying is _not _that there is some "revisionism" afoot...just that to you and your mates, The Beatles weren't cool.
> 
> That's fine. I don't think anybody (here, or anywhere else) ever claimed that they were liked unanimously. And I'm sure there were plenty of like-minded people around the world (well, the bit that mattered as far as Western pop music was concerned) that would recall the same as you. I don't think that undermines the claim that The Beatles had a significant influence beyond the Top 40 of the mid-Sixties.


pianozach repeats this praise;

"But they influenced pop and rock music in so many ways, and influenced our culture (fashion, media, film, television [The Monkees, MTV] . . . ) . . . . the list is long."

Really? Fashion, world consciousness, war protesting, racial discrimination, films, TV? Not how I remember it. People have been looking back through the eyes and opinions of what's been reported.

It's a reality check. I brought up the revisionism, because I was there, and the intelligent posters in here seem to be accepting the recent YouTube video perspectives and the books that have been exaggerating in order to sell better.

The Beatles were big so they are a target for revisionism and repackaging for profits. It's not terrible, but it's revisionism, in fact I think it's good because the younger generations will be exposed and appreciate their songwriting more as a result. They wrote clever songs that were intentionally very attractive commercially. They rapidly appealed to the whole cross-section of music enthusiasts, younger and younger, beginning to have discretionary income to buy albums. Again, not what the cool kids related to, or were continuously searching for. We wanted what we thought was 'heavier' - more significant.

The Beatles did give me the impression that using recreational drugs for creative purposes was OK, if you were very careful. It's a biggie, for good or bad. Is that brought out? 'Haven't seen it.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Saturday*

*I Am the Walrus (1967)
Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) (1965)
I Want You (She's So Heavy) (1969)
Drive My Car (1965)*

*I Am the Walrus*

In 1967 *The Beatles* were still fully embracing psychedelia as a stylistic choice, and this song by *John Lennon* is a perfect example of it. Let's start with John's wonderfully off-the-wall phraseology and writing style, the art of putting vivid words together in new ways (He'd already written two books in this style, *"A Spaniard in the Works"*, and *"In His Own Write"*). In fact, his lyrics got the song banned in Britain (well, by the BBC) for the use of the word _*"knickers"*_ in the line *"You've been a naughty girl, you've let your knickers down"*, and the phrase *"pornographic priestess"*). The lyrics seem to be, at least partially, a tribute in *Lewis Carroll*, and his works such as _*Alice in Wonderland*_ and _*Jabberwocky*_. There's also the oddball use of a scene from King Lear in one of the later choruses, and in the background of the fadeout, randomly included when Lennon deliberately inserted radio noise.

But Lennon's lyrical inspiration for the song was certainly not limited to Carroll, as the *"Yellow Matter Custard"* line is derived from a schoolyard nursery rhyme, and the melody (and the line *"Mis-ter cit-y police-man"*) are obvious references to a police siren, and a reference to his earlier song _*Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds*_. The lyrics are also a dig at what they considered to be pretentious analysts looking for deep and hidden meanings in their lyrics, so they deliberately included nonsense that often meant nothing at all to confuse those who tried to interpret their songs.

And it's very likely that some *LSD* was involved as well.

Musically the outro of the song is actually an endless Mobius strip of chords, a repeating seven bar progression where the bass line descends note by note every measure starting from the tonic on a natural minor scale while the strings ascend from the tonic in Dorian mode.

Obviously, the *Beatles* didn't really take themselves all that seriously at times, this being one of those times. Is it brilliant, or is it garbage? Or is it brilliant garbage? Critic Rex Reed hated it, referring to the end of the song as _*"the whole thing fades out to what sounds like people being fried on electric fences and pigs rooting in a bucket of swill."*_

This track also features one of the first deliberately distorted lead vocals, created by having him sing using a low-fidelity talkback microphone to acquiesce to his request that his voice sound like it was *"coming from the moon"*.

In his score to *"I Am The Walrus,"* producer *George Martin* had the Mike Sammes singers use *Sprechgesang*, and make whooping sounds, laugh, snort, and shout phrases like *"Oompah, oompah, stick it up your jumper!"* Nothing like this had ever been heard on a popular music recording.

.

*Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)*

This 1965 *Lennon* (with some help from Paul McCartney) song is generally heralded as a milestone in the *Beatles*' development as songwriters, with its Dylanesque lyrics. But it marks another milestone in that it's the first appearance of the *sitar* on a Western rock recording (Oh, yes, the *Yardbirds* had tried to incorporate the Indian string instrument into their song _*Heart Full of Soul*_ a little earlier in the year, but scrapped it when they weren't happy with the results from the session sitar player, and instead mimicked a sitar on electric guitar). George Harrison himself played the sitar for the track. Indeed, the song is often identified as the first example of *"Raga Rock"*.

Drummer *Ringo Starr* plays the finger cymbals on this track.

.

*I Want You (She's So Heavy)*

Yet another song from *Lennon*, from their 1969 album *Abbey Road*. The song is a bit unusual for the *Beatles* for a number of reasons, including it's almost eight minute length, the minimalist lyrics, the pairing of lead guitar and lead vocal, and a three-minute descent through repeated guitar chords over a rising background of synthesized white noise, and that abrupt ending (likely the first time this sort of cut-off had been used on a pop record).

The song is quite heavy (as referenced in the title), and an argument could be made that the track inadvertently started the *Doom Metal* genre as well as *Stoner Rock* (yep, those are real things), in spite of a Santana-like Latin blues section.

All that aside, Paul's bass part is quite exceptionally creative.

.

*Drive My Car*

Speaking of Paul, this upbeat, lighthearted song was written mostly by McCartney, with some help from Lennon. *Drive My Car* contains considerably more bottom end than previous Beatles recordings, mimicking, by their own account, the bass-heavy sound captured in *Otis Redding*'s cover of _*Respect*_, and other songs from his Memphis studio. In fact, The Beatles are basicallydoing their own version of an overt *R&B/funk* workout here.

That little *bluesy introduction* to the song is a bit quirky and off-kilter, and has confused people for decades. Just TRY figuring out the timing: The trick is that it's NOT in some oddball time signature, it's actually in 4/4.

The killer is that there's no drums to contextualize it, because it _doesn't_ come in on a downbeat. The guitar has a pickup on the end of "4", with the bass coming in after that on "3" (playing 3-&-4-&, with an accent on the last "&", which is tied into the next measure), with the drums coming in with a two beat fill on the 3rd beat of the next bar.

Actually, they used a similar trick they've previously used, on the song _*I Want To Hold Your Hand*_; most cover versions of THAT song butcher the timing, because one naturally hears the first sustained note as a downbeat, when that sustained chord is actually on the "&" of "4" tied into the next measure (& - 4 -annnnd, & - 4 -annnnd, etc), with no one playing on the downbeat at all.

That's Paul singing lead with John on harmony in the verses, then George joins in singing a pedal tone on the line prior to the chorus. In the original stereo recording John and Paul sing the last line of the chorus in unison, although with one on the Left channel, and the other on the Right.

Oh, yeah, and there's that infectious hook; that _*"beep beep"*_ refrain. Clever.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> pianozach repeats this praise;
> 
> "But they influenced pop and rock music in so many ways, and influenced our culture (fashion, media, film, television [The Monkees, MTV] . . . ) . . . . the list is long."
> 
> Really? Fashion, *world consciousness*, war protesting, racial discrimination, films, TV? Not how I remember it. * People have been looking back through the eyes and opinions of what's been reported.*
> 
> It's a reality check. I brought up the revisionism, because I was there, and *the intelligent posters in here seem to be accepting the recent YouTube video perspectives and the books that have been exaggerating in order to sell better.*
> 
> The Beatles were big so *they are a target for revisionism and repackaging for profits. It's not terrible, but it's revisionism*, in fact I think it's good because the younger generations will be exposed and appreciate their songwriting more as a result. They wrote clever songs that were intentionally very attractive commercially. They rapidly appealed to the whole cross-section of music enthusiasts, younger and younger, beginning to have discretionary income to buy albums. Again, *not what the cool kids related to, or were continuously searching for. We wanted what we thought was 'heavier' - more significant.*
> 
> The Beatles did give me the impression that * using recreational drugs for creative purposes was OK*, if you were very careful. It's a biggie, for good or bad. * Is that brought out? *'Haven't seen it.


Responding to the parts I've emboldened:

I missed where pianozach claimed that The Beatles influenced "world consciousness". Now we're getting your hyperbole, not pianozach's.

"Looking back" often leads to a revision of opinions. That goes for those who were there, as well as those who come later and do a reappraisal. I'm sure you're just as likely to "revise" as you look back as me, pianozach, the writers of biography. In fact my copy of Philip Norman's _Shout!_ makes a point of revising.



> Any writer would hope to have improved over a span of more than 20 years. Looking back from here at the original _Shout!_, I see all too many examples of clumsiness and imprecision: indeed, my first instinct was to rewite the whole book. But [...] I've limited myself to toning down the more garish purple passages and sharpening what was too fuzzy before.


(from the Prologue, 2004 edition, p. xxviii)

He also says that he was wrong to say that Lennon was "three-quarters of the Beatles" (p. xxviii)

I'm not sure I follow your point about the intelligent posters. What Youtube video? Which books? If I still buy Beatles albums (and I do), its because I like them, not because I think they are or were the "greatest, most influential band to have walked the planet" (not a quote, just an example of overblown guff). I'm looking forward to the release of the deluxe _Let It Be _(due mid-October).

It's certainly true that the revised 50th Anniversary albums count as revisions, but that's not quite the same thing as "revisionism" with the implication that "truth" is being distorted or removed.

So, if you were a Beatles fan, you would automatically be discounted, as 'uncool' I suppose? You were cool because you weren't? I'm sure someone can help me here with the logical fallacy at work - No True Scotsman, perhaps.

As for their use of drugs, yes, it gets "brought out", as you put it. Of course, they were just following a long line of creative folks who took drugs, and they've been followed by a continuing line of creative folks who take drugs.

https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/latest/classical-music-drugs/


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> pianozach repeats this praise;
> 
> "But they influenced pop and rock music in so many ways, and influenced our culture (fashion, media, film, television [The Monkees, MTV] . . . ) . . . . the list is long."
> 
> Really? Fashion, world consciousness, war protesting, racial discrimination, films, TV? Not how I remember it. People have been looking back through the eyes and opinions of what's been reported.
> 
> It's a reality check. I brought up the revisionism, because I was there, and the intelligent posters in here seem to be accepting the recent YouTube video perspectives and the books that have been exaggerating in order to sell better.
> 
> The Beatles were big so they are a target for revisionism and repackaging for profits. It's not terrible, but it's revisionism, in fact I think it's good because the younger generations will be exposed and appreciate their songwriting more as a result. They wrote clever songs that were intentionally very attractive commercially. They rapidly appealed to the whole cross-section of music enthusiasts, younger and younger, beginning to have discretionary income to buy albums. Again, not what the cool kids related to, or were continuously searching for. We wanted what we thought was 'heavier' - more significant.
> 
> The Beatles did give me the impression that using recreational drugs for creative purposes was OK, if you were very careful. It's a biggie, for good or bad. Is that brought out? 'Haven't seen it.


Dear Lawdy Lawdy, you've got a burr in your a$$ about the Beatles, don't you?

Yes, they influenced "_*fashion*_". Yes, as with many others that seem to "lead" fashion, they merely borrowed from others, and through their celebrity, THEN influenced many, many others.

Yes, they influenced "_*world consciousness*_": Them bringing various exotic philosophies to the masses was certainly influential, whether it was John in Tomorrow Never Knows, based on some lines from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or George writing Within You Without You, bringing Eastern music, Eastern philosophy and Hindu teachings.

"*War protesting*"? Well, first off, that was _NOT_ one of the ways that I mentioned they influenced culture; and secondly, they _were_ a bit weak on that particular front. They tried to stay pretty non-political, BUT they were right there on the leading edge of "Flower Power" and the promotion of Love as a concept ("Al You Need Is Love", "The Word"). John later, in his solo career, dabbled in war protesting, but it was mostly all jingoism. Paul took up a few causes later as well, like taking stands on testing products on animals, pro-vegetarianism, anti-landmines. George most certainly worked in humanitarian causes, with the mother of all fund-raiser concerts, The Concert for Bangla Desh. When the money ended up being tied up in bureaucratic red tape, he assigned the royalties all the new songs from his next album to the Material World Charitable Organization.

"*Racial Discrimination*"? Oh, *yes*. They were on top of that. In *1964*, The Beatles produced an act of defiance which ultimately made a huge step toward fighting racial segregation. The band, with thousands of people waiting with bated breath, refused to play a show that had split the audience by race without their consent.

Showing their support for the US civil rights movement, the iconic Liverpool four-piece refused to perform to a segregated concert at the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida. As the pressure of The Beatles' act of defiance threatened to boil over, officials at the concert eventually allowed the segregated audience to merge together.

Upon entering the stage, John Lennon said: *"We never play to segregated audiences and we aren't going to start now."*

"*Films, TV*"? Um, well, yes. Absolutely. All of their films influenced filmmakers for generations. The two earliest films became the template for *The Monkees* TV series, and along with their "promotional videos", an entire television network, *MTV*.

*Merchandising*: Modern merchandising of a band, whether it was through the marketing of their "brand", or the marketing of products, was really fully developed and refined with the Beatles as guinea pigs. They saw very little money from that merchandising, but there were plenty of capitalists that made small fortunes manufacturing lunch boxes, clothing accessories, posters and whatnot.

And, of course, there's the *musical influences*. I've been mapping that out four random songs at a time in this thread, but they really changed how music was made, marketed, played, distributed, written, sung and listened to for decades. These guys wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, and found ways to continually bring new elements to practically every song they released from 1965 until 1969.

I repudiate your claims of "revisionism", as I WAS THERE as well. I'm not basing my perspective on "recent Youtube videos" and books you claim are exaggerating their legacy.

I think that you may have simply missed the boat when you "were there". Perhaps you and your teen buddies were so busy belittling the music of the Beatles in favor of bands that were more aggressive and raucous, that you missed the massive influence of the Beatles even as it unfolded right in front of you.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> I think that you may have simply missed the boat when you "were there". Perhaps you and your teen buddies were so busy belittling the music of the Beatles in favor of bands that were more aggressive and raucous, that you missed the massive influence of the Beatles even as it unfolded right in front of you.


I was there as well, and ironically, I also liked all of the bands Luchesi said were edgier - the Kinks, the Animals, the Stones, and the Beach Boys. But The Beatles were the coolest since the rest were seen as following in their wake, and in large part owed their popularity to the Beatles. The Beatles single handedly started the British Invasion.

Regarding fashion, their hair styles, their Nehru suits, and the Carnaby Street style, the Peter Max art for Yellow Submarine - all of these became hallmarks of the "60s.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> Dear Lawdy Lawdy, you've got a burr in your a$$ about the Beatles, don't you?
> 
> Yes, they influenced "_*fashion*_". Yes, as with many others that seem to "lead" fashion, they merely borrowed from others, and through their celebrity, THEN influenced many, many others.
> 
> Yes, they influenced "_*world consciousness*_": Them bringing various exotic philosophies to the masses was certainly influential, whether it was John in Tomorrow Never Knows, based on some lines from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or George writing Within You Without You, bringing Eastern music, Eastern philosophy and Hindu teachings.
> 
> "*War protesting*"? Well, first off, that was _NOT_ one of the ways that I mentioned they influenced culture; and secondly, they _were_ a bit weak on that particular front. They tried to stay pretty non-political, BUT they were right there on the leading edge of "Flower Power" and the promotion of Love as a concept ("Al You Need Is Love", "The Word"). John later, in his solo career, dabbled in war protesting, but it was mostly all jingoism. Paul took up a few causes later as well, like taking stands on testing products on animals, pro-vegetarianism, anti-landmines. George most certainly worked in humanitarian causes, with the mother of all fund-raiser concerts, The Concert for Bangla Desh. When the money ended up being tied up in bureaucratic red tape, he assigned the royalties all the new songs from his next album to the Material World Charitable Organization.
> 
> "*Racial Discrimination*"? Oh, *yes*. They were on top of that. In *1964*, The Beatles produced an act of defiance which ultimately made a huge step toward fighting racial segregation. The band, with thousands of people waiting with bated breath, refused to play a show that had split the audience by race without their consent.
> 
> Showing their support for the US civil rights movement, the iconic Liverpool four-piece refused to perform to a segregated concert at the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida. As the pressure of The Beatles' act of defiance threatened to boil over, officials at the concert eventually allowed the segregated audience to merge together.
> 
> Upon entering the stage, John Lennon said: *"We never play to segregated audiences and we aren't going to start now."*
> 
> "*Films, TV*"? Um, well, yes. Absolutely. All of their films influenced filmmakers for generations. The two earliest films became the template for *The Monkees* TV series, and along with their "promotional videos", an entire television network, *MTV*.
> 
> *Merchandising*: Modern merchandising of a band, whether it was through the marketing of their "brand", or the marketing of products, was really fully developed and refined with the Beatles as guinea pigs. They saw very little money from that merchandising, but there were plenty of capitalists that made small fortunes manufacturing lunch boxes, clothing accessories, posters and whatnot.
> 
> And, of course, there's the *musical influences*. I've been mapping that out four random songs at a time in this thread, but they really changed how music was made, marketed, played, distributed, written, sung and listened to for decades. These guys wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, and found ways to continually bring new elements to practically every song they released from 1965 until 1969.
> 
> I repudiate your claims of "revisionism", as I WAS THERE as well. I'm not basing my perspective on "recent Youtube videos" and books you claim are exaggerating their legacy.
> 
> I think that you may have simply missed the boat when you "were there". Perhaps you and your teen buddies were so busy belittling the music of the Beatles in favor of bands that were more aggressive and raucous, that you missed the massive influence of the Beatles even as it unfolded right in front of you.


From those incidents and points you are making I can understand why you have this view of the Beatles. I have a different view. I was drafted into the Army, went into the Marines, took their tests, and managed to get into the Air Force, but then they sent me to Vietnam a few years later anyway. That definitely colors my view of the 60s. I don't think of the Beatles as pushing the 60s along. They agreed with the 60s' concerns just like most all of the young people. We were being sent overseas to fight/kill/die.

My early memories were of grown-ups making fun of the Beatles, their hair, their antics, their high pitched vocalizations, their yeah yeah yeah. It was funny to me - I didn't really care , but I remember being concerned that it painted my favorite rock combos of the time with the same brush. And I didn't think they deserved it. At such a young age I was already trying to be a serious music critic. Dylan, Black blues artists, Motown, Bebop and later jazz, - the early Beatles seemed like the antithesis of all that, and canceling it out for my record-buying friends.


----------



## pianozach

*Sunday Night's Random Four Beatles Songs*

*Octopus's Garden* (1969)
*Come Together* (1969)
*Good Morning, Good Morning* (1967)
*Yellow Submarine* (1966)

Today's random four is an eclectic lot.

*Octopus's Garden*

This song, from the 1969 album *Abbey Road*, was written (with some uncredited help from George Harrison) and sung by Beatles' drummer Ringo Starr. Very few bands at the time had four members that played their own instruments as a complete band (not needing additional musicians) that sung and wrote songs.

Even as the band was fragmenting at this time, with their breakup imminent just months away, they all pitched in and gave this song the full treatment. That's George and Paul McCartney singing backup, and George blowing air through a straw into a glass of water to create the effect of bubbles. Likewise, there's some wonderful lead guitar work from George throughout the song as well. _*Octopus's Garden*_ is . . . well . . . a rather unique song.

BTW, it's been covered by *The Muppets* three different times.

*Come Together*

This John Lennon song was the lead track on *Abbey Road*, then subsequently released as part of a Double-A Sided Single roughly a week later. It was conceived as a straightforward *Chuck Berry* rocker (with Lennon even stealing the opening line from Berry's You Can't Catch Me). In order to make it a bit more 'different' than Berry's song, it was slowed down and made more "swampy" on McCartney's suggestion.

I wouldn't say there's anything all that groundbreaking about this, but it's certainly got a great groove.

*Good Morning Good Morning*

Another Lennon song, inspired by a cornflakes commercial, from The Beatles' 1967 album *Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band*.

I'm usually hooked by the smoothly erratic and constantly shifting time signatures and compound meters in this one.

Another unusual feature is the introduction of animal sound effects in the outro of the song that were assembled in a particular order at Lennon's insistence.

According to engineer Geoff Emerick _*"John said to me during one of the breaks that he wanted to have the sound of animals escaping and that each successive animal should be capable of frightening or devouring its predecessor! So those are not just random effects, there was actually a lot of thought put into all that."*_

The song begins and ends with a cock crowing, and ends with some chicken clucking that magically (and quite deliberately) turns into the guitar lick played at the beginning of the next song.

The overdubbed brass section of three saxophonists, two trombonists and one French horn player, was heavily flanged, limited, compressed, and treated with ADT (Automatic Double Tracking), after Emerick shoved the mics right down the bells of the saxes, just to make it sound weird at Lennon's request.

Paul performed the overdubbed blistering guitar solo on this song, even double-tracking it at a strategic place just before the final verse.

*Yellow Submarine*

This children's song sung by Ringo was written by Lennon and McCartney, and originally released in 1966 simultaneously on *Revolver*, and as a Double-A Side single.

This happy little song peaked at #1 on most record charts, but then took on a second life when it became the basis for the Beatles' third film in 1968, an animated psychedelic tour-de-force. The soundtrack album would be delayed until 1969, but the song would be released again in 1999 on the *Yellow Submarine Songtrack* album.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^^^
I never got around to seeing the movie, but when we first heard about it my friend said, "Oh, now they're doing a takeoff on Operation Petticoat". The pink submarine with Cary Grant. Everybody knew that movie.


----------



## pianozach

Four Random Beatles Songs for a Tuesday Evening

*In My Life* (1965)
*Rocky Raccoon* (1968)
*I've Got a Feeling* (1970)
_*Dear Prudence*_ (1968)

*In My Life*

This *John Lennon / Paul McCartney* collaboration from their 1965 album *Rubber Soul* inspired many others to include harpsichord in their records, even though *In My Life* didn't actually have a harpsichord in it; it was actually a piano (played by producer George Martin) recorded at half speed, then speeded back up, resulting in it sounding like a harpsichord.

I've always thought that Ringo Starr's drumming in the track to be rather unusual for the time; just such an original approach. The three-part harmony from John, Paul, and George Harrison is rather nice.

In 1992 *Bette Midler*'s cover of the song became a Top Twenty Hit.

*Rocky Raccoon*

This cute pastiche of Western American Folk from *The Beatles*' 1968 The White Album showcases McCartney's songwriting versatility. Lennon dragged out his harmonica again for this song, and George Martin plays a mean honky tonk piano.

*I've Got a Feeling*

This song is actually a partner song created from two separate songs from Paul and John. It was also recorded during their January 1969 rooftop "concert", although not released until May 1970 on their *Let It Be *album.

_*Dear Prudence*_

Also from the 1968 White Album, this John Lennon song features John's clawhammer guitar technique (learned from fellow musician Donovan). The drums were played by McCartney, as Starr had temporarily left the group.

A cover version of the song became *Siouxsie and the Banshees*' biggest British hit, peaking at number 3 in 1983.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Friday Night Beatles Songs*

*Hey Bulldog* (1969)
*She Said She Said* (1966)
*Get Back* (1969)
*Yer Blues* (1968)

*Hey Bulldog*

A simple rock song composed by John Lennon for the Yellow Submarine film.

*She Said She Said*

Another rocker from John, about a story relayed to him about an acid trip. Paul McCartney had walked out in an apparent disagreement over the songs arrangement, so he doesn't play or sing on the track. George Harrison plays bass guitar and lead guitar. It was released on the Revolver album.

*Get Back*

Get Back was released as a single in April 1969, and was to be the title track for their next album. They were disappointed with the overall results of the sessions, and the album was neglected until the tapes were given to producer Phil Spector almost a year later, with the resulting album being retitled Let It Be, released in May 1970. Spector removed the Coda that had been added to the single version, instead adding studio sounds at the beginning and end.

This one has Lennon on lead guitar, as Harrison had briefly quit the band while the arrangement was being worked out. Harrison played rhythm guitar on the track.

Technically, the single was credited to "The Beatles with Billy Preston"; Preston played Fender Rhodes electric piano on the track.

This was a #1 Hit for the band in every country in which the single had been released.

*Yer Blues*

A rather anguished and emotionally-revealing moment in time from John.


----------



## hawgdriver

Beatles are elite. I love Schubert because so much of his stuff is essentially songcraft, and he would have been a pop genius in the era of the Beatles. But not strictly 'pop', which is why the Beatles endure. They had some stank on their songs.

Day in the Life
Strawberry Fields
In My Life
Blackbird
You Never Give Me Your Money
Long, Long, Long
Rocky Raccoon (heck, all the White Album just about)
Tomorrow Never Knows
I'm Only Sleeping
If I Needed Someone
Rain
Dig A Pony

This is all highly personal, like all music. But I *am* the Beatles. So formative for me. I connect so strongly with songs like Long, Long, Long and In My Life. Strawberry Fields. Rain. That's me. Just about as much as Chopin Op. 27/1 and Schubert D760 and Mussorgsky's Pictures.


----------



## hawgdriver

I should add that I can see now, in hindsight, I came to the Beatles at age 12 as a parched man arrives at an oasis.


----------



## Forster

hawgdriver said:


> They had some stank on their songs.


Did they indeed? What do you mean?


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> Did they indeed? What do you mean?


For me *"They had some stank on their songs"* infers that the songs had some meat on them. Deeper material than your average contemporary pop songs.


----------



## hawgdriver

Forster said:


> Did they indeed? What do you mean?


They innovated, they had many things that I would consider the metaphorical equivalent of a 'surprise cadence'. Take their early work. It gets washed away in the tide of their later more exploratory phase, but even then, they surprised.

Hard Days Night, for example. To begin a song with just a resonant strummed chord. There are other details about that particular intro that I don't recall that would add to the uniqueness. My point though is that the intro, it was mildly shocking.

I can't find the article, but this article also described pop song innovation--something about beginning with the chorus of an AABA song structure--that was a bit like (metaphorically speaking) Beethoven electing a scherzo format in the 2d movement of his 9th.

What I mean by they put some 'stank' on their songs is that it wasn't just their ability to excel within the existing pop format with use of melody and all the normal aspects of a tasteful song, but it was also the 'stank' or the unique and innovative touches that made them special.


----------



## hawgdriver

pianozach said:


> For me *"They had some stank on their songs"* infers that the songs had some meat on them. Deeper material than your average contemporary pop songs.


And this, too. In terms of chords and progressions, you can find commentators on youtube that will do an excellent job of demonstrating how much ambiguity and sophistication were in the chord progressions of actual songs as compared to what one might find in a store-bought Beatles Songbook.


----------



## Forster

OK. Thanks. It was just the word 'stank' that I wasn't familiar with (except when it refers to something that smelled!)


----------



## Luchesi

hawgdriver said:


> And this, too. In terms of chords and progressions, you can find commentators on youtube that will do an excellent job of demonstrating how much ambiguity and sophistication were in the chord progressions of actual songs as compared to what one might find in a store-bought Beatles Songbook.


It has become interesting to me how people of different age groups remember the Beatles or think about the Beatles today.
My parents disliked the whole movement. They thought they were too noisy, silly, unkempt and a corruptive influence.

My grandchildren think they were silly and corny, compared to what they listen to today. Like an outdated comedy act. It's quite sad really.

Most people understand that they did what they wanted to do (and because of the financial risks that was rare for the times) and they created enduring songs with the help of the grownups in the studio.
People who were born in the 60s or much later often have gotten the idea that they were leaders in other areas too.

How do you remember Beatlemania? Did you have other favorite groups at the time that you compared them to?


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> It has become interesting to me how people of different age groups remember the Beatles or think about the Beatles today.
> My parents disliked the whole movement. They thought they were too noisy, silly, unkempt and a corruptive influence.
> 
> My grandchildren think they were *silly and corny*, compared to what they listen to today. Like an *outdated* comedy act. It's quite sad really.
> 
> Most people understand that they did what they wanted to do (and because of the financial risks that was rare for the times) and they created enduring songs with the help of the grownups in the studio.
> People who were born in the 60s or much later often have gotten the idea that they were leaders in other areas too.
> 
> How do you remember Beatlemania? Did you have other favorite groups at the time that you compared them to?


I find it remarkable just how many covers of *Beatles* song are released, even these days.

Take any random *Beatles* album, say, *Revolver*, with 14 tracks, and how many covers have been released in the last 10 years (since 2010):

1.	"Taxman" 23 covers
2.	"Eleanor Rigby"	161 covers
3.	"I'm Only Sleeping"	29 covers
4.	"Love You To" 8 covers
5.	"Here, There and Everywhere"	115 covers
6.	"Yellow Submarine"	31 covers
7.	"She Said She Said" 14 covers

1.	"Good Day Sunshine" 25 covers
2.	"And Your Bird Can Sing" 23 covers
3.	"For No One" 58 covers
4.	"Doctor Robert" 8 covers
5.	"I Want to Tell You" 8 covers
6.	"Got to Get You into My Life" 54 covers
7.	"Tomorrow Never Knows" 38 covers

Just in the last 10 or 11 years.

11 of the 14 songs from that album have been covered well over one cover version every year for the last 11 years. _*Eleanor Rigby*_ has been covered 161 times since 2010; an average of 14 covers every year.

Since 2010 there have been 595 covers of songs from this album released in 1966, now 55 years old. Every year an average of 54 songs have been covered from this album every year for the last 11 years. That's, like, one every week. Just from this one album.

*"Outdated"?* Hardly.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> How do you remember Beatlemania? Did you have other favorite groups at the time that you compared them to?


Legitimate questions.

I remember *Beatlemania* in terms of the songs, all of which sounded fresh, exciting, different, etc. at the time.

Other groups? Sure.

Mid-60s:

There were the *Byrds*, whose success was partly due to covering songs of Dylan using sounds pioneered by The Beatles.

*The Mamas and the Papas*: Some great songs, but even then I knew that only Papa John played an instrument, and wrote most of their material.

*Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass*: Great catchy arrangements. I really thought they were a Mexican band (LOL).

*Donovan*: Flower Power and fascinating production and arrangements. Interesting songs.

There were bands from the 60s that never did it for me: *The Rolling Stones* and *The Animals* were sloppy garage bands with lousy lead vocals, *Herman's Hermits* were truly goofy, *The Beach Boys* were trite and bubble-gummy.

Starting sometime in 1967 or so there were a great many excellent bands that were releasing albums, but practically all of them owed a debt to the groundwork laid out by The Beatles in one way or another.

There were exceptions, of course: *Simon & Garfunkel* drew from *The Everly Brothers* and the folk tradition, The *Mothers of Invention* were highly imaginative and inventive in their own right.

But for every "original" band, there were a dozen that were following the path of the Beatles, whether it was *The Monkees, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Buffalo Springfield, The Small Faces*, and even the *Rolling Stones* (who trotted out their garage version of Sgt. Pepper).

Yep, I'll give ya *Jimi Hendrix* and the *Doors*; but even those artists were influenced by artists that were in turn influenced by *The Beatles*.

BTW, *"People who were born in the 60s or much later often have gotten the idea that they were leaders in other areas too."* Those people got ideas like *The Beatles* being leaders in other areas because they _*were*_ leaders in other areas.


----------



## SanAntone

> "People who were born in the 60s or much later often have gotten the idea that they were leaders in other areas too."


People born in the '60s or later were not the generation that were old enough to appreciate the Beatles first hand. That would people of my generation, born from 1948-1952 who would be 12-16 when the Beatles hit.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Not-So-Random (sort of) Beatles Songs for a Monday Afternoon*

*A Hard Day's Night (instrumental)* [1964] 
*The Bitter End/You Can't Do That* [1965]
*Pepperland* [1969]
*Revolution No. 9* [1968]

Here's something a bit different: A batch of instrumental tracks that appeared on *Beatles* albums.

Growing up with the *Beatles* (and an incredibly eclectic musical palette provided by my mom and older brother), the instrumental tracks made as much of an impression on me as the tracks played by the Beatles.



*A Hard Day's Night*

When *The Beatles* released their albums in the UK, they had a big say on which songs would be on them, and the order in which they'd appear. They also took pride in NOT having their singles appear on their albums: The considered that to be gouging their fans by making them pay for the same song twice.

They didn't have any say at all when their albums were released in the US. The UK version of *A Hard Day's Night* consisted of 7 Beatles songs from the film, plus another 7 Beatles songs on the B-Side of the album. In the US, The Beatles' distributor, Capitol Records, removed six of those extra songs and added four easy listening-styled instrumental versions of Lennon and McCartney songs arranged by *George Martin* conducting an orchestra of studio musicians (credited as George Martin and His Orchestra).

This bouncy be-boppy instrumental is from that album. I enjoy how the time signature wanders around from 3/8 to 4/4, with one of the bridges in a perplexing 6/8.

*The Bitter End/You Can't Do That*

Capitol Records did the same for the release of Help!, removing seven of the 14 tracks, and dropping in five orchestral tracks from the film's soundtrack composed or arranged by *Ken Thorne*, and contains one of the first uses of the sitar on a rock/pop album.

*Pepperland*

By 1968 The Beatles had managed to wrest control of distribution from "the Suits", but weren't all that keen on the notion of performing in yet another film. *Yellow Submarine* was a mostly animated psychedelic tour-de-fource, based on their song _*Yellow Submarine*_ from 1966. Also included was *Eleanor Rigby*, also from 1966. Only four "new" Beatles songs were included on the soundtrack (one of which was cut from the US release of the film, and only two of which were written specifically for the film), and the rest of the album was filled with re-recordings of symphonic music from the soundtrack composed or arranged by producer *George Martin*.

The film was released in the UK July 1968, but not until November 1968 in the US. The soundtrack album would not be released until January 1969.

*Pepperland* is my favorite symphonic track from the soundtrack. What catches my ear is Martin's arrangement which seems to give a majority of the instruments in the orchestra a chance to shine, all in less than two and a half minutes.

*Revolution 9*

A lot has been written about this avant-garde/musique concrète track, which appeared near the end of the double-LP *"The Beatles"* (commonly referred to as *"The White Album"*), released in 1968. This experimental sound collage also included loops of an unused ending to Revolution 1, which was a largely improvised jam session meant to illustrate musically the chaos of an actual revolution. They had become enamoured by their discovery of the music of Edgard Varèse, Karlheinz Stockhausen, and, to a lesser extent, John Cage.

Writing for Mojo in 2003, Mark Paytress said that _*"Revolution 9"*_ remained _*"the most unpopular piece of music the Beatles ever made"*_, yet it was also their _*"most extraordinary [recording]"*_.

While the songwriter credit is officially "John Lennon/Paul McCartney", it appears that it's more of a George Harrison, Lennon, Yoko Ono, and Ringo Starr creation, even though McCartney had already created the equally avant-garde/musique concrète _*Carnival of Light*_ almost two years earlier.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> People born in the '60s or later were not the generation that were old enough to appreciate the Beatles first hand. That would people of my generation, born from 1948-1952 who would be 12-16 when the Beatles hit.


I was a kid when the Beatles became a sensation in the US, and a teen by the time they broke up.

By the time I started High School the individual Beatles had already released 13 albums and 5 non-album singles, although most of those were fairly oddball releases, either "experimental", soundtrack, live, or in the case of Ringo Starr, a nostalgia album and a Nashville album.

By the time I graduated from High School, the individual Beatles had released 19 proper studio albums and a couple of live albums in addition to that. That included the massive 3-LP studio album from George, *All Things Must Pass*, and the massive 3-LP live album from George, *The Concert for Bangla Desh*.

Yeah, I was pretty much right there in the middle of it.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> People born in the '60s or later were not the generation that were old enough to appreciate the Beatles first hand. That would people of my generation, born from 1948-1952 who would be 12-16 when the Beatles hit.


Yes, but it depends what you mean by "appreciate first hand". I certainly had a first hand experience of the group when they first hit, just not the same experience as a 12-16 year old. I was 4 in late 1963. I accompanied my father to the shops when he bought Please Please Me for my mother for Christmas.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> People born in the '60s or later were not the generation that were old enough to appreciate the Beatles first hand. That would people of my generation, born from 1948-1952 who would be 12-16 when the Beatles hit.


As a little tyke, I saw A Hard Day's Night and for a time after that assumed Ringo was the leader of the band. A truly great acting performance. The rest of them are basically winking at or mugging for the camera.

Years later, when I was old enough to walk the streets of NY on my own, I passed the shop where I sometimes would buy comic books. As it was a perfect summer day, the shop had a stand set up outside featuring some of its journals of higher learning. One of these had a banner headline in thick black letters reading, PAUL MCCARTNEY IS DEAD. I became quite depressed, wondering why the talented ones always died young -- first Mozart, then McCartney.

About 8 or 9 months later I was at the house of a friend who had an older sister who had left a fan magazine on the floor. This learned journal had an article all about clues that McCartney was dead, such as, only he is crossing Abbey Road barefoot. Finally, I read that if one played Strawberry Fields backwards, one could hear the band singing, "I bury Paul". I thought, Why don't they see if he gets out of bed in the morning? Suddenly it dawned on me that this article, and the whole story about McCartney's death was bunk, and at that moment I entered the adult world.

So, yes, I was a little too young. :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> *"Outdated"?* Hardly.


The covers would have a modern appeal for my grandchildren. It's quite subtle to figure out, but they can tell immediately.

And a lot of these generation gaps are the result of the same old qualms I remember against my parents' music. Also peer pressure.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> Legitimate questions.
> 
> I remember *Beatlemania* in terms of the songs, all of which sounded fresh, exciting, different, etc. at the time.
> 
> Other groups? Sure.
> 
> Mid-60s:
> 
> There were the *Byrds*, whose success was partly due to covering songs of Dylan using sounds pioneered by The Beatles.
> 
> *The Mamas and the Papas*: Some great songs, but even then I knew that only Papa John played an instrument, and wrote most of their material.
> 
> *Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass*: Great catchy arrangements. I really thought they were a Mexican band (LOL).
> 
> *Donovan*: Flower Power and fascinating production and arrangements. Interesting songs.
> 
> There were bands from the 60s that never did it for me: *The Rolling Stones* and *The Animals* were sloppy garage bands with lousy lead vocals, *Herman's Hermits* were truly goofy, *The Beach Boys* were trite and bubble-gummy.
> 
> Starting sometime in 1967 or so there were a great many excellent bands that were releasing albums, but practically all of them owed a debt to the groundwork laid out by The Beatles in one way or another.
> 
> There were exceptions, of course: *Simon & Garfunkel* drew from *The Everly Brothers* and the folk tradition, The *Mothers of Invention* were highly imaginative and inventive in their own right.
> 
> But for every "original" band, there were a dozen that were following the path of the Beatles, whether it was *The Monkees, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Buffalo Springfield, The Small Faces*, and even the *Rolling Stones* (who trotted out their garage version of Sgt. Pepper).
> 
> Yep, I'll give ya *Jimi Hendrix* and the *Doors*; but even those artists were influenced by artists that were in turn influenced by *The Beatles*.
> 
> BTW, *"People who were born in the 60s or much later often have gotten the idea that they were leaders in other areas too."* Those people got ideas like *The Beatles* being leaders in other areas because they _*were*_ leaders in other areas.


I'm glad you have this glow around the Beatles and everything they touched. It couldn't have happened to better and more hard-working songwriters of that time and category.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> People born in the '60s or later were not the generation that were old enough to appreciate the Beatles first hand. That would people of my generation, born from 1948-1952 who would be 12-16 when the Beatles hit.


Yes, later folks got their info second hand.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Yes, later folks got their info second hand.


I think it's probably true that I got my information about Haydn, Beethoven, Berlioz, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Satie, Debussy, Roussel, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Prokofiev second-hand.

Do I have revisionist opinions about them too?


----------



## fluteman

pianozach said:


> Legitimate questions.
> 
> I remember *Beatlemania* in terms of the songs, all of which sounded fresh, exciting, different, etc. at the time.
> 
> Other groups? Sure.
> 
> Mid-60s:
> 
> There were the *Byrds*, whose success was partly due to covering songs of Dylan using sounds pioneered by The Beatles.
> 
> *The Mamas and the Papas*: Some great songs, but even then I knew that only Papa John played an instrument, and wrote most of their material.
> 
> *Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass*: Great catchy arrangements. I really thought they were a Mexican band (LOL).
> 
> *Donovan*: Flower Power and fascinating production and arrangements. Interesting songs.
> 
> There were bands from the 60s that never did it for me: *The Rolling Stones* and *The Animals* were sloppy garage bands with lousy lead vocals, *Herman's Hermits* were truly goofy, *The Beach Boys* were trite and bubble-gummy.
> 
> Starting sometime in 1967 or so there were a great many excellent bands that were releasing albums, but practically all of them owed a debt to the groundwork laid out by The Beatles in one way or another.
> 
> There were exceptions, of course: *Simon & Garfunkel* drew from *The Everly Brothers* and the folk tradition, The *Mothers of Invention* were highly imaginative and inventive in their own right.
> 
> But for every "original" band, there were a dozen that were following the path of the Beatles, whether it was *The Monkees, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Buffalo Springfield, The Small Faces*, and even the *Rolling Stones* (who trotted out their garage version of Sgt. Pepper).
> 
> Yep, I'll give ya *Jimi Hendrix* and the *Doors*; but even those artists were influenced by artists that were in turn influenced by *The Beatles*.
> 
> BTW, *"People who were born in the 60s or much later often have gotten the idea that they were leaders in other areas too."* Those people got ideas like *The Beatles* being leaders in other areas because they _*were*_ leaders in other areas.


I agree about the pervasive influence of the Beatles. Eric Clapton and Duane Allman reached back to the old blues guitar tradition and and eclectic mix of other influences, but the Beatles were the first rock band to make eclecticism so central to their work, which had a big influence on Clapton and Allman, of course.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I think it's probably true that I got my information about Haydn, Beethoven, Berlioz, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Satie, Debussy, Roussel, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Prokofiev second-hand.
> 
> Do I have revisionist opinions about them too?


 I would very much appreciate talking to someone who was exposed to those composers at the age of 13 or 14. What would've been their experience? And then what were their changing views as they matured. 
My concern is what the listening experience actually was - it's probably lost. And further, what was their actual influence early on and before they disbanded? What are the unique influences today, this many years later? And the drama of those years can't be suitably shared (for various reasons).

Reminds me of when I read from people who actually knew Schoenberg when he was struggling, I got a much more sympathetic and thorough picture of his aims. There's just no substitute.

I've been meaning to say, you're such an interesting poster. We're lucky you found us.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I would very much appreciate talking to someone who was exposed to *those composers *at the age of 13 or 14. What would've been their experience? And then what were their changing views as they matured.
> My concern is what the listening experience actually was - it's probably lost. And further, what was *their actual influence early on and before they disbanded*? What are the unique influences today, this many years later? And the drama of those years can't be suitably shared (for various reasons).
> 
> [...]
> 
> I've been meaning to say, you're such an interesting poster. We're lucky you found us.


To your last comment, thank you. 

To your first, if you mean exposed to the composers I listed, I can describe some of my encounters when I was 13/14. But before I do, there may be someone else eager to share.

To the other part in bold, you've switched to asking about The Beatles, yes? I can only relate the experience of my older brother, who reached the age of 13 by 1966. His attitude to the Beatles is the same as mine, and I don't think it has changed since then.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> I think it's probably true that I got my information about Haydn, Beethoven, Berlioz, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Satie, Debussy, Roussel, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Prokofiev second-hand.
> 
> Do I have revisionist opinions about them too?


I'd guess your opinion is different from contemporaries of those composers.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> I'd guess your opinion is different from contemporaries of those composers.


Just take Beethoven. I'd guess my opinion matched the opinions of some of his contemporaries and was different from some others.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> Just take Beethoven. I'd guess my opinion matched the opinions of some of his contemporaries and was different from some others.


This discussion began because the idea of Beatlemania was said to have been exaggerated, or that The Beatles have been over-rated as an influential band. My point was that only if you had lived through that period would you know just how impactful The Beatles had been, and how new their music sounded at the time.

Your opinion on Beethoven does not figure into that discussion.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> This discussion began because the idea of Beatlemania was said to have been exaggerated, or that The Beatles have been over-rated as an influential band. My point was that only if you had lived through that period would you know just how impactful The Beatles had been, and how new their music sounded at the time.
> 
> Your opinion on Beethoven does not figure into that discussion.


And the point of my post #156 was to point out to Luchesi that just because "information" is second hand, doesn't mean opinions based on that information are invalid. It does, therefore, relate to whether the opinions of those who came late to the Beatles are invalid because they are based on 2nd hand information.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> And the point of my post #156 was to point out to Luchesi that just because "information" is second hand, doesn't mean opinions based on that information are invalid. It does, therefore, relate to whether the opinions of those who came late to the Beatles are invalid because they are based on 2nd hand information.


If the second-, or third-, or fourth- hand opinions are that The Beatles were not that innovative, or impactful, or influential, then their opinions are not informed from the real time experience of the band's impact. Therefore, I do not consider them accurate.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> If the second-, or third-, or fourth- hand opinions are that The Beatles were not that innovative, or impactful, or influential, then their opinions are not informed from the real time experience of the band's impact. Therefore, I do not consider them accurate.


I'm not sure why this is such a difficult point to make. Luchesi thinks that those who came after the Beatles have secondhand opinions that are 'revisionist' - in particular, those that esteem the Beatles higher than he thinks they should be esteemed. I merely countered with the obvious point that we here at TC all came after the event of Beethoven, but if we esteem him highly, it's unlikely that we'd suffer the charge of revisionism.

Actually, if we accept Luchesi's contention, it doesn't matter what the opinion is, pro or con: if we were too young for first hand experience, our opinion doesn't count.

Tell that to Woodduck re his opinions of Wagner.


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> I'm not sure why this is such a difficult point to make. Luchesi thinks that those who came after the Beatles have secondhand opinions that are 'revisionist' - in particular, those that esteem the Beatles higher than he thinks they should be esteemed. I merely countered with the obvious point that we here at TC all came after the event of Beethoven, but if we esteem him highly, it's unlikely that we'd suffer the charge of revisionism.
> 
> Actually, if we accept Luchesi's contention, it doesn't matter what the opinion is, pro or con: if we were too young for first hand experience, our opinion doesn't count.
> 
> Tell that to Woodduck re his opinions of Wagner.


It is hard to "esteem" The Beatles higher than they've earned. And like I've said, having been there, it is hard to overestimate their impact: their songs were so new and fresh compared to what had been on radio; the mobs of crowds; the sensation of everything they did or said - it all added up to perceiving The Beatles as the most important cultural force from the mid '60s to the end of the decade.

The revisionist opinion which I guess Luchesi is alluding to, is simply wrong, IMO.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> It is hard to "esteem" The Beatles higher than they've earned. And like I've said, having been there, it is hard to overestimate their impact: their songs were so new and fresh compared to what had been on radio; the mobs of crowds; the sensation of everything they did or said - it all added up to perceiving The Beatles as the most important cultural force from the mid '60s to the end of the decade.
> 
> The revisionist opinion which I guess Luchesi is alluding to, is simply wrong, IMO.


I think you should re-read my posts and try to find out why you have that opinion of what I meant. It's wholly natural to twist words into what you already want to believe. I do it too.


----------



## pianozach

Just another aspect of The Beatles' influence.


----------



## mikeh375

..this is rather nice..


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> Just another aspect of The Beatles' influence.


I've often thought that XTX were a band that sounded like what The Beatles might have done had they stayed together.


----------



## Jay

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...-get-back-let-it-be-john-harris-peter-jackson


----------



## pianozach

*Four Not-So-Random Beatles Songs for a Sunday Evening*

Today's songs are most of the *Beatles*' instrumentals, although only one of these ("_*Flying*_") were given a release as an official Beatles track while the band was still active. Instrumentals just weren't their "thing", yet they explored this facet of music anyway.

*Cayenne (1960)
Cry For A Shadow (1962)
12 Bar Original (1965)
Flying (1967)
*
*Cayenne*

This one is from back before they were even called *The Beatles*, although they'd soon be changing their band name from *The Quarrymen* to *The Silver Beatles*.

Regardless, this cheap recording, made by teenaged future Beatles torn between Skiffle music and Rock and Roll, shows an early aspect of their future success: _*They were writing their own material*_. This one is credited solely to *Paul McCartney* McCartney hadn't yet moved into the bassist spot, so that's him on lead guitar, accompanied by John Lennon on rhythm guitar.

*Cry For A Shadow*

In June 1961 *The Beatles* were booked as a session band for singer *Tony Sheridan* for a few tracks, who billed them generically as *"The Beat Brothers"*. Somehow they managed to also record two songs without Sheridan, *Cry For a Shadow*, and a rocking cover of *Ain't She Sweet* with John Lennon on lead vocal.

That's *Harrison*, of course, on lead guitar, *Lennon* on rhythm guitar, *McCartney* on bass guitar (and scream), and soon-to-be-replaced drummer *Pete Best*.

*Cry For a Shadow* is the only song credited to George Harrison/John Lennon, and was intended as a parody of another popular backing band, *The Shadows*, who backed Cliff Richard, and were the most popular group in England at the time.

It was intended at the time to be a single B-side (with a Sheridan track as the A-Side), but the record company (Polydor) shelved it, although once The Beatles proved to be extraordinarily popular, it was released in 1964 as an single A-side, with Sheridan's track moved to the B-side.

This is actually The Beatles' first original composition to be professionally recorded.

*12 Bar Original*

This 1965 attempt at an instrumental track was eventually scrapped, although it was finally released in 1996 for the *Anthology* set. It was recorded during the *Rubber Soul* sessions. This instrumental gets an unusual songwriting credit from all four band members (Harrison, Lennon, McCartney, Starkey)

What's remarkable is that they were again attempting something out of their comfort zone, and certainly something unusual. Also remarkable is just how _*un*_remarkable this rambling 12-bar blues is, although it certainly would not have been out-of-place amongst some of the other releases from other bands at the time.

*Flying*

This 1967 instrumental also gets an unusual songwriting credit from all four band members, and was written for their short film *Magical Mystery Tour*. The six-song soundtrack was released in the UK as a 2 EP set, although "The Suits" in the US grabbed a handful of non-album singles and created a full-length LP.

Is this truly an instrumental though? I'd say "yes", even though it features the four of them singing some wordless lyrics, their voices are functioning as instruments. It's mostly McCartney's tunes, and he wanted the vocals to sound _*un-Beatley*_, hence Starr's voice is the most prominent in the mix.

Interestingly, the outro of the song is almost as long as the song itself, and features tape loops, and backwards mellotron, which had been used earlier in the song.

*THE BEATLES WIKI: "In the televised Magical Mystery Tour film, "Flying" is accompanied by images soaring over snow covered hills and mountains (specially shot in Iceland) washed in psychedelic yellows and greens [and other colours], then up into the clouds. It is followed immediately by John Lennon's introduction of the audience to the magical land of the four or five wizards, who appear to monitor and influence the mystery tour. This was one of the segments which suffered the most when the film was initially aired by the BBC on Boxing Day 1967 in black and white instead of colour."

*Surprisingly, although it wasn't a hit record, it did get a significant amount of radio airplay, being used as filler and bed music.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Tuesday Night*

*Glass Onion
Helter Skelter
Real Love
Long, Long, Long*

I love randomness.

Three of tonight's random songs are from The Beatles' 1968 White Album

*Glass Onion*

This rocker from John Lennon also features from wicked strings that are all slidey, not how a typical string bed usually functions in pop music. But, no matter, the real treat here is the name-checking in the lyrics to previous songs.

*Helter Skelter*

This rocker from Paul McCartney may be about as Heavy Metal as the Beatles ever got, and some credit them with helping to create that genre with this song.

*Real Love*

The very, VERY, last "new" song from The Beatles, appearing on their Anthology 2 album. This was the second of three planned songs (the third was never finished, and scrapped) intended to be fleshed out from old demos from Lennon.

*Long, Long, Long*

This one is also from the White Album, written by George Harrison. This tender and spiritual song is loaded with some great vocals, excellent acoustic guitar, and an eerie ending featuring a glass full of something-or-other rattling on top of one of the amplifiers.


----------



## pianozach

It's likely you're familiar with the song *Nowhere Man*, written by *John Lennon*.

Here's the isolated lead guitars (!) part played simultaneously by Lennon and George Harrison (on twin Fender Stratocasters). The crystalline sound of the lead guitars was created by Lennon's request that they be as _"high-pitched as possible"_. The engineers, aghast, complied by pushing the treble of the guitar tracks as far as possible.

Of course, there are some other noteworthy things about the song, including the introspective lyrics, the equally jangly rhythm guitar, the bouncy yet melodic bassline from Paul McCartney, and some creative but understated drumming from Ringo Starr. The three part a cappella opening was also pretty different for a pop song at the time. Even the counterpoint of the backing vocals was pretty nifty, although they'd been doing _THAT_ for years already.






.

Here's the track, as released way back in 1966 on *Rubber Soul*. Note the mixing used, with the vocals on one channel, and the instruments on the other.

The song was remixed to "modern" standards decades later when the song was included in the revamped *Yellow Submarine "Songtrack*" album, with the vocals spread from left to right, and the instruments mostly center. The lead guitars _really_ sparkle in this mix, but the drums are mixed down to where they are barely heard, as though someone had thrown dirt on 'em.


----------



## pianozach

*Tuesday Night 4 Random Beatles Songs*

*She Loves You
Yes it Is
And Your Bird Can Sing
For No One
*

*She Loves You*

Well, one of the Beatles' first monster hits (1963) in the USA instantly made everyone sit up and take notice with it's very clever "Yeah, yeah, yeah" hook. Those falsetto "Ooo's" were also pretty "hook-y" as well. And of course, at this early stage in their career they were writing "I, You, Me, Love" lyrics that resonated with their intended teenager target audience.

But in terms of arranging and production, The Beatles were already kicking butt: The ringing cymbals, and the depth of the sound of the kick drum was bad azz. There's George Harrison's jangly guitar punctuations. Vocally, there's also a rather interesting interplay between the lines sung by Paul McCartney and John Lennon, in that one is not really sure which one of them is singing the melody.

*The Beatles*, at least in their earlier songs, also effectively used "stop time" liberally, and this song is no exception. And, of course, there's that clever use of ending the song with 3-part vocals singing a tonic 6th chord.

This was released as a single, and, as such, did not appear on an LP (in the UK) until a few years later.

*Yes it Is*

This was the B-side to the 1965 single _*Ticket to Ride*_.

This ballad features some rather rich and complex 3-part vocal harmonies from John, Paul, and George, and the arrangement features a volume pedal guitar played by George.

*And Your Bird Can Sing*

This one appeared on the 1966 *Revolver* album, and features a unique double guitar riff/solo/counter melody line played by Harrison and McCartney. In fact, it is one of the FIRST, if not THE first known recording of twin harmony guitars in Rock and Roll music (although Les Paul had been doing this sort of thing for many years). Some fine lyrics from Lennon that are vague enough to be intriguing. This song was buried on Revolver amongst a barrel of excellent songs, so it often gets a bit overshadowed and overlooked, even though it made *Guitar World*'s list of *Top 100 Guitar Solos* list (at #69). I think that Lennon's jangly rhythm guitar is nifty as well.

*For No One*

This ballad, written mostly by Paul, is also from the Revolver album. It features a solo french horn solo, also used as a counterpoint to the melody in the last verse, a rather sophisticated arranging technique in popular music.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Monday Night

*
*Anna (Go to Him), (1963)
It's Only Love, (1965)
Long Tall Sally (Live at the Star Club, 1962)
Any Time at All (1964)*

*Anna* (Go to Him)

A cover song, but note how the background vocals are really in the "background" as they are nowadays, but mixed considerably "hotter". Of course, even then the Beatles were known for their incredible harmonies.

Frankly, the Beatles have actually taken a page out of the Elvis Presley play book by covering an R&B song, this one by Arthur Alexander. At least The Beatles put their own stamp on the cover by adding the backing vocals. And Lennon, even on that first album, Please Please Me, was a great vocalist.

_*It's Only Love*_

From their 1965 album *Help!*, this original song by John Lennon features only John on vocals, going from a quiet and shy vocal to a rip-roaring rock voice between the verses and choruses.

It also features lyrics with some unsubtle double entendres, rather bold at the time. So subtle that it sailed right past the censors.

The overdubbed tambourine gives the song some energy, in direct counterpoint to the descending melody of the verses. And the vibrato guitar is a bit unique.

*Long Tall Sally* (Live at the Star Club, 1962)

This live bootleg from December 1962 just showcases the raw energy, the excitement, and potential of these four guys, including their new drummer Ringo Starr. Again, this one's a cover of an R&B song, this time from Little Richard, which Paul McCartney mimics quite well, to his credit.

It's also hard to fathom that there was practically no other band playing with this sort of grit and drive at the time.

*Any Time at All*

This one is from their 1964 album *A Hard Day's Night*. Although the lead vocals are from John Lennon, his bandmate Paul sings the higher second line of every chorus, sounding as much like John as he can.

A unique feature of this song is the use of an overdubbed piano on the bass lines during the verses. There's another hook that the Beatles were masters of right from the start, and that's the use of hard stops in the backing track - a very effective use of negative space.

There's also a rather interesting "solo" section shared by the guitar and piano, first playing in opposite directions, then in harmony, with the piano melody line being played in octaves.


----------



## Luchesi

Thanks for that YouTube channel with the Star Club remastered recordings. 

They sang "Falling in Love Again (Can't Help It)" Marlene Dietrich in Blue Angel 1930

here's what's on the channel

Ask My Why -
Be Bop a Lula -
Besame Mucho - 
Falling In Love Again - 
Hallelujah I Love Her So - 
I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Cry Over You - 
I'm Talking About You - 
Kansas City - 
Long Tall Sally - 
Mr Moonlight - 
Red Hot - 
Sheila - 
Shimmy Like Kate - 
The Hippy Hippy Shake -
Twist and Shout -


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Saturday Night*

*Girl* (1965)
*When I'm 64* (1967)
*It's All Too Much* (1969)
*Something (demo) *(1969)

*Girl*

_*Girl*_, released on the 1966 LP Rubber Soul, is a rather unique song, with several unusual elements. The most striking thing about this *John Lennon* song is the pronounced deep breath intakes in the middle of the choruses. Some lovely vocal harmonies in those choruses as well, which are in the relative major of the key in which the verses are played.

The backing vocals during the bridges are more like a some sort of vocals imitating instruments, but what sounds like _"dit-dit-dit-dit"_ is actually them finding a way to sing dirty words, I think.

They're also using a countermelody in the second verse, which is also played with yet a third countermelody during the instrumental break, which is in the same rhythm as the backing vocals that are sung during the bridge.

And yet another odd feature is *Ringo Starr*'s use of a rather loose open high hat alternating with a closed high hat, creating an almost reverse-cymbal effect.

*When I'm 64*

Another of *Paul McCartney*'s oddball Music Hall songs, although this had been written years earlier. Producer George Martin's arrangement of woodwind instruments is deliberately "old school", per McCartney's wishes. Harrison doesn't appear on this track; instead the simplistic lead guitar in the last verse is played by Lennon.

*It's All Too Much*

This one didn't get recorded in time for 1967's *Sgt. Pepper*, but was set aside for the the *Yellow Submarine* film, released in 1968, although the soundtrack songs didn't get released until 1969.

This track is set apart by its pointed acid-rock psychedelic vibe, a genre that pretty much didn't exist at the time. This *George Harrison* written song has some wonderfully mystic, yet still snarky, lyrics (like _*"Show me that I'm everywhere and get me home for tea"*_), before it devolves into a uncharacteristic jam session.

There's been some controversy over which Beatle actually played that sonic guitar line at the beginning of the track, as Harrison was on organ, but I think it's actually Paul's bass guitar. Change my mind.

*Something (demo)*

I've already highlighted the finished product, but this demo shows the *Harrison* song in a more developmental acoustic manner, with Harrison scatting an instrumental break where one of his iconic guitar solos would eventually be played.

This demo version differs from the one found on their Anthology 3 album, which was stripped down. This one also has a piano part, presumably played by Lennon, as he also played on the album version of the song, although most of that piano part was wiped by George to make room on the tape for an organ part. The only part of John's piano is the descending line at the end of each sung line of the bridges.


----------



## pianozach

*The Four Random Wednesday Evening Beatles Songs*

*Michelle* (1965)
*Taxman* (1966)
*Fixing a Hole* (1967)
*Day Tripper* (1965)

*Michelle*

First off: Ain't this a lovely melody? In Mixolydian, too. And some French lyrics? Cool.

Then there's the moving background vocals acting as though they're a woodwinds section. They move around, defining the harmonic progression, then start moving upwards, then suddenly drop out, leaving you focused on the lead vocal lyrics.

And there's a lovely muted electric guitar for the instrumental break.

But that introduction has a couple of wonderfully crystalline guitars (or is it just one?), rather an unusual sound for 1965. Actually, *Paul McCartney, John Lennon*, and *George Harrison* all played acoustic guitars with capos on the 5th fret (the photo from the session shows Paul on his 6-string Epiphone Texan, John on a Jose Ramirez nylon-string acoustic guitar and George on John's Framus Hootenanny 12-string). George overdubbed his solos on his Gibson J-160E in unison with producer George Martin on a Hohner Pianet out of microphone range. Paul overdubbed his bass guitar part using a capo, a rather unusual move.

This one was mostly written by *McCartney*, with help from bandmate Lennon on the middle 8, and appeared on the *Rubber Soul* album.

_*"Michelle"*_ won the *1966 Grammy Award* in 1967 for *Song of the Year*, in spite of it not being released as a single. As the new album had no songs on it that were singles, DJs in the US played whatever songs from the album that pleased them, and this one happened to get considerable airplay.

*Taxman*

Well, lyrically, this pop/rock song was a vast departure from the typical subject matter of pop songs of the day. This *George Harrison* song was the first track off The Beatles' 1966 album *Revolver*.

The unique Eastern-flavored guitar solo is played by Paul, not George.

*Fixing a Hole*

This *McCartney* song was released in 1967 on the *Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band* album. Stylistically, I'm not sure where this song really lies, although if pressed, I might call it some sort of Vaudevillian Psychedelia hybrid. However, amidst the eclecticism and eccentricity of the rest of the album, this imaginative song ends up being one of the most straight-forward tracks. The only oddity here is the inclusion of the harpsichord.

*Day Tripper*

This one was released at the end of 1965 as a single, and not included on an album. This quintessential rock song is also in Mixolydian, and is heavily based on a catchy guitar riff. While *Fixing a Hole* may have been a rather subtle nod to marijuana, _*this*_ one is an almost overt reference to LSD, as well as being a sexual double entendre, especially evidenced to the build to a climax in the instrumental break.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^
Has anything been written about whether they had the lyrics in mine first and then fit the melody? I don't remember reading anything about that. From the info we have from George's handwritten notes he seems to be using the phrases first for melodic material (I guess he sang them to himself, but maybe prior to the earliest words he built upon..).


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> ^^^^
> Has anything been written about whether they had the lyrics in mine first and then fit the melody? I don't remember reading anything about that. From the info we have from George's handwritten notes he seems to be using the phrases first for melodic material (I guess he sang them to himself, but maybe prior to the earliest words he built upon..).


They all wrote both ways. They'd have lyrics and then fit a melody to it, and they'd have a tune and tailor lyrics to fit.

For instance, George's _*Taxman*_ had some lyrics that George wasn't really happy with, and he evidently asked John for some help, which was grudgingly given. In the backing vocals where they sing "_*Taxman Mister Wilson, Taxman Mister Heath*_", it was originally *"Everybody'sgottabitamoneyeverybody'sgottabitamoney everybody'sgottabitamonnnney"*. They decided that was a bit to hectic, and tried something else, erasing the tambourine in during those bits as they were part of the same track. You can also hear the original uninspired ending, before the guitar solo was floated in instead, then faded out right before the lead vocal would have returned.






.:devil:

You can hear them working through songs on the *Anthology* albums, and you can hear Paul with a tune and trying out words, phrases and even subject matter, or John working out how the vocal will go. There's demo recordings featuring discarded lyrics (*While My Guitar Gently Weeps*: _*"I look from the wings at the play you are staging / while my guitar gently weeps / as I'm sitting here doing nothing but aging / still my guitar gently weeps"*_)


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> They all wrote both ways. They'd have lyrics and then fit a melody to it, and they'd have a tune and tailor lyrics to fit.
> 
> For instance, George's _*Taxman*_ had some lyrics that George wasn't really happy with, and he evidently asked John for some help, which was grudgingly given. In the backing vocals where they sing "_*Taxman Mister Wilson, Taxman Mister Heath*_", it was originally *"Everybody'sgottabitamoneyeverybody'sgottabitamoney everybody'sgottabitamonnnney"*. They decided that was a bit to hectic, and tried something else, erasing the tambourine in during those bits as they were part of the same track. You can also hear the original uninspired ending, before the guitar solo was floated in instead, then faded out right before the lead vocal would have returned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .:devil:
> 
> You can hear them working through songs on the *Anthology* albums, and you can hear Paul with a tune and trying out words, phrases and even subject matter, or John working out how the vocal will go. There's demo recordings featuring discarded lyrics (*While My Guitar Gently Weeps*: _*"I look from the wings at the play you are staging / while my guitar gently weeps / as I'm sitting here doing nothing but aging / still my guitar gently weeps"*_)


Thanks. But can you think of a song that they had music they wanted to use and then they worked at getting good lyrics? 
Other than 'Yesterday" which is a famous example. I think "Yesterday" came to him with some lame lyrics, which they would never use, so maybe that isn't a good example.

Elton John said in an interview that he was so disappointed with himself because the only lyrics he could come up with would be like the shoddy rhymings - Moon and June etc., so he always took the lyrics from a lyricist (usually Bernie Taupin) and then worked with them to guide his search for catchy ideas. None of 3 Beatles had this problem (a near total block) apparently.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> Thanks. But can you think of a song that they had music they wanted to use and then they worked at getting good lyrics?
> Other than 'Yesterday" which is a famous example. I think "Yesterday" came to him with some lame lyrics, which they would never use, so maybe that isn't a good example.
> 
> Elton John said in an interview that he was so disappointed with himself because the only lyrics he could come up with would be like the shoddy rhymings - Moon and June etc., so he always took the lyrics from a lyricist (usually Bernie Taupin) and then worked with them to guide his search for catchy ideas. None of 3 Beatles had this problem (a near total block) apparently.


*Yesterday* came to Paul purportedly in a dream, without lyrics. He referred to it as _*Scrambled Eggs*_, and was convinced that he must have written a song that had already been written.

Yes, I _*can*_ think of _"a song that they had music they wanted to use and then they worked at getting good lyrics"_; off the top of my head - here's two from John: One ended up as _*Sexy Sadie*_, but was originally about the Maharishi. There's also *Child of Nature*, which ended up on one of his solo albums as *Jealous Guy*.










So, here's a full song, demoed in 1968, and not recorded for their 1968 White Album, and John later scrapped all of the lyrics, and wrote a full new set of lyrics.

I could ramble through the *Anthology* collections: there's plenty of demo version of their songs, and often you'll hear them working through a song, but they'll just keep repeating the first verse, because there aren't any other verses yet. You'll often hear them improvising lyrics, which might keep changing on each go-round.


----------



## pianozach

*4 Friday Night Beatles Songs*

*Sexy Sadie* 1968
*You Never Give Me Your Money/Sun King/Mean Mr. Mustard/Polythene Pam/She Came in Through the Bathroom Window/Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End/Her Majesty* 1969
*Tomorrow Never Knows* 1966
*I'm Only Sleeping* 1968

*Sexy Sadie*

The *Beatles* went to Rishikesh in Northern India to study Transcendental Meditation with the Maharishi Yoga guy in 1968, on the recommendation of George Harrison, to get away from the fame, the crowds, the bugger-all, and whatnot. It didn't really work out as planned, with unfounded allegations that the Maharishi was trying to pick up on the young women. John was upset enough about it that he wrote this nasty song about him, but changed *"Maharishi"* to *"Sexy Sadie"*, just to be on the legal safe side.

The instrumentation is typical of The Beatles, John on rhythm guitar, George on lead guitar and tambourine, Ringo on drums and tambourine, and Paul playing bass guitar, organ, and piano. John sings lead, and John and Paul sing backing vocals. It appears on the 1968 *White Album*.

*You Never Give Me Your Money/Sun King/Mean Mr. Mustard/Polythene Pam/She Came in Through the Bathroom Window/Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End/Her Majesty* (aka _*The Abbey Road Medley*_)

The 16-minute medley of eight to ten short songs that take up a large portion of Side Two of Abbey Road.

*Fun Fact*: _*Her Majesty*_ was originally sequenced between _*Mr. Mustard*_ and *Polythene Pam*, but Paul instructed the engineers to remove it and destroy it. By this time the engineers knew to NEVER destroy ANYthing recorded by the Beatles, so it was removed and spliced onto the end of the reel-to-reel in case it was needed later. During a listening of the tape, the snippet blasted in, and everyone loved it that way. And thus the *"bonus track"* was born, as they didn't bother listing the song on the album cover or record label.

*Tomorrow Never Knows*

_*Tomorrow Never Knows*_ was a feat of studio wizardry that, in 1966, had seldom been seen before.

This one from John was the first song recorded for the *Revolver* album, and the last song on the actual album. This avant-garde track's lyrics were based on lines from *The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead* by Timothy Leary. John wanted decided he wanted his vocal to sound as though it were a thousand monks on a mountaintop, and even suggested he be suspended from the ceiling. Eventually they took the unusual move of routing his vocal through a Leslie speaker, which they used for the second half of the song.

The recording also features several handfuls of different tape loops that were manually faded in and out as needed over Starr's rather unusual drum pattern.

George Harrison also played an Indian Tamboura, adding an ethereal feel to the soundscape.

*I'm Only Sleeping*

Yet another of John's songs that was on *Revolver*, although it didn't appear on the US version of the album, as it had been pirated by Capitol Records and released a few months prior on a US-only release.

I'm Only Sleeping" is notable for its backwards guitar, conceived by George Harrison in a late-night session, inspired when a studio engineer accidentally flipped a tape and Harrison was amazed at the effect and decided to "do it for real." So he wrote down a solo and then played it twice, once forwards and once backwards, with fuzz effects on one track. At the end of the track it's both George and Paul on the backwards guitars.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> *Yesterday* came to Paul purportedly in a dream, without lyrics. He referred to it as _*Scrambled Eggs*_, and was convinced that he must have written a song that had already been written.
> 
> Yes, I _*can*_ think of _"a song that they had music they wanted to use and then they worked at getting good lyrics"_; off the top of my head - here's two from John: One ended up as _*Sexy Sadie*_, but was originally about the Maharishi. There's also *Child of Nature*, which ended up on one of his solo albums as *Jealous Guy*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, here's a full song, demoed in 1968, and not recorded for their 1968 White Album, and John later scrapped all of the lyrics, and wrote a full new set of lyrics.
> 
> I could ramble through the *Anthology* collections: there's plenty of demo version of their songs, and often you'll hear them working through a song, but they'll just keep repeating the first verse, because there aren't any other verses yet. You'll often hear them improvising lyrics, which might keep changing on each go-round.


Thanks. I'm just curious because I was surprised when I heard that Elton John would usually receive lyrics in the mail and then he would come up with the musical ideas to fit the words and phrases. It sounds to me like none of the Beatles did it this way. I mean yes, they would find better lyrics, but that's not what Elton John was doing when he produced his big hits. I don't know, but maybe he never even talked to Bernie about the lyrics or changing some lyrics or the subject matter. It sounds like a very different creative approach, no collaboration, no modification of the lyrics, and yet all these young guys came up with iconic hits. It kinda gives hope to the rest of us mere mortals, if there's more than one path to success like that.


----------



## pianozach

*4 Random Beatles Songs for a Sunday Afternoon*

*If I Needed Someone* (1965)
*Good Day Sunshine* (1966)
*Tell Me Why* (1964)
*I Got A Woman* (1963)

*If I Needed Someone

**If I Needed Someone* was released on *Rubber Soul* in December 1965, but was removed from the Capitol Records version of the album in US. It wasn't released in the US until June 1966, when it appeared on the cobbled-together *Yesterday . . . and Today*.

This 1965 *George Harrison* song features a jangly 12-string Rickenbacker electric guitar that imitates the sound used by *The Byrds* on their version of _*The Bells Of Rhymney*_, which was, in turn, inspired by Harrison's use of the 12-string Rickenbacker electric guitar on the 1964 album *A Hard Day's Night*.

There's also a distinct Indian influence in the tonal structure of the song, the drone effect and Mixolydian mode during the verse.

In fact, if you're paying close attention you can hear another *Byrds* influence during the instrumental break: Buried under the up-front 12-string and the thick 3-part harmony vocal bed is a distinct finger-pickin' banjo-ish lick, also a direct lift from *The Bells of Rhymney*. It was likely on a track that had been "wiped", but can still be heard as it "bled" onto other tracks.

The song gave *Harrison* his first chart hit (peaking at #20), but it was the version released by *the Hollies* in December 1965.

And speaking of the vocal harmonies, that stunning 3-part parallel harmony singing may well have had a major influence on the 3-part harmony singing of the supergroup *Crosby, Stills & Nash*. It's worth noting that *Crosby* had been in the *Byrds*, and *Nash* in *The Hollies*.

*Good Day Sunshine*

This 1966 *Paul McCartney* song features some subtle key and meter changes, and likely drew inspiration from *The Lovin' Spoonful* (which Paul and George saw in concert earlier in the year), specifically the songs "*Daydream*" and "*Do You Believe In Magic*", and possibly *The Kinks' "Sunny Afternoon"*.

In fact, analysis of the chords by others has led to dissent as to what key the song is actually in. The chords used in the introduction (E throughout) and chorus (B, F♯, E and E7) suggest a key of B major, however, the B chord reveals itself to be the V of V of A once the verse is heard for the first time. Then again, there's an odd key change to D major occurs midway through the second verse, which becomes, instead, a piano solo.

And the meter changes in the choruses: Are they alternating 3/4 & 5/4 measures, or are they simply a syncopated 4/4?

There's also the innovative key change for the ending that involves the 3-part vocal harmonies in a gone-too-soon imitative canon.

And it all sounds so effortless.

*Tell Me Why*

*Tell Me Why* was included on the the 1964 *A Hard Day's Night* LP in both the UK and the US (as well as on *Something New* in the US a month later). This again features those impressive 3-part harmony vocals that were one of the many elements of the Beatles' recognizable sound. It also features a less well-known knack of theirs of writing happy upbeat tunes with sad lyrics (and vice versa). It also echoes that sound they appropriated doing covers of R&B girl groups like the *Shirelles*, the *Cookies*, *Martha & The Vandellas*, and others. There's also a piano part contributed by producer George Martin (as there was on Good Day Sunshine - that barrelhouse solo in the middle).

*I Got A Woman*

This one's a cover of *I Got A Woman* by *Ray Charles*, originally recorded and released in 1954, although the *Beatles*' version sounds more like *Elvis Presley*'s 1956 cover of the song. *The Beatles* recorded this one twice for BBC radio shows, once in 1963 for the *Pop Go The Beatles* show, and again in 1964 for the *Saturday Club* radio show, although these wouldn't be officially released until 1994 (on *Live At The BBC*) and 2013 (*On Air - Live At The BBC Volume 2*). It had been a regular song in their setlist prior to signing with EMI records in 1962.


----------



## pianozach

Thursday Night Random Four Beatles Songs

*Ooh My Soul
If I Fell
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
The Honeymoon Song*

*Ooh! My Soul* (1963)

Another cover of a 1958 Little Richard song, this one's a performance at the Playhouse Theatre in Manchester for the BBC's "Pop Go The Beatles" in August 1963. This band is one tight unit, and McCartney nails the vocal.

*If I Fell*

A ballad from John, featuring some clever non-parallel vocal harmonies in contrary motion. This is from A Hard Day's Night (1963), and there's been some advancement in the fastidiousness of their vocals . . . clean and distinct cutoffs, etc. It also has a unique two line introduction (in Db, while the rest of the song is in D) that they never return to. Interestingly enough, John's voice is double tracked in the intro in the stereo version, but single-tracked in the mono version. As this was a soundtrack album, the film studio, United Artists had first release rights in the US, so the song also appeared as the B-Side to another ballad, And I Love Her, just 10 days later.

*Happiness Is A Warm Gun*

Released on their 1968 *White Album*, this Lennon track was banned by the BBC for its sexually suggestive lyrics and drug references. The three distinct sections are composed and performed as a four-part through-composed structure, and the shifting meters and stylistic changes make this one of the Beatles' most progressive tracks. George Harrison helped John with the difficult meters.

*The Honeymoon Song*

This was also a cover recorded for the BBC in 1963, and was originally released by Marino Marini in 1959, written by Mikis Theodorakis (who also wrote the soundtrack for the film *Zorba the Greek*). Again, these covers recorded for the BBC just shows what a tight band these guys were.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Recently reappraised The White Album, and find it has quite a lot of mediocre songs.


----------



## Forster

Phil loves classical said:


> Recently reappraised The White Album, and find it has quite a lot of mediocre songs.


There are few albums in my collection that don't have, to my ears, both weaker and stronger songs. That doesn't invalidate the album. Once the idea of 'album' as a whole piece, not a mere 'consecutive collection' developed, it became easier in my mind to treat all songs as an integral part of something greater. _The Beatles _was not, to my mind, meant as an album of 30 number ones ("The Great Beatles Songbook") but a showcase of the band's 'personality', with all its loose ends showing.


----------



## Art Rock

As someone once said about the White Album: "It has often been remarked that it should have been condensed into just one record - the only problem is there's no agreement which songs actually to prune."


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Recently reappraised The White Album, and find it has quite a lot of mediocre songs.
> 
> 
> 
> Forster said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are few albums in my collection that don't have, to my ears, both weaker and stronger songs. That doesn't invalidate the album. Once the idea of 'album' as a whole piece, not a mere 'consecutive collection' developed, it became easier in my mind to treat all songs as an integral part of something greater. _The Beatles _was not, to my mind, meant as an album of 30 number ones ("The Great Beatles Songbook") but a showcase of the band's 'personality', with all its loose ends showing.
> 
> 
> 
> Art Rock said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone once said about the White Album: "It has often been remarked that it should have been condensed into just one record - the only problem is there's no agreement which songs actually to prune."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The White Album (The Beatles) is one of their best, IMO, because it includes such a wide variety of songs. I am very glad they refused to follow George Martin's suggestion to collect the best 14 songs, like their other albums.


----------



## Coach G

Phil loves classical said:


> Recently reappraised The White Album, and find it has quite a lot of mediocre songs.


I see the "White Album" as the prototype to each Beatle's career as a solo artist. Here most of the music is the product of one musician with the other three being used as their back-up band. Paul did one song completely on his own and even bypassed Ringo and dubbed in his own drums. Given that, and the equally fragmented "Let It Be" album, it's quite miraculous that they were able to pull off "Abby Road" as a tour-de-force where they all seem to be playing as a unit one last time as they did in the earlier days. It's such a perfect ending that one realizes that the idealized "Would The Beatles Ever Had Gotten Back Together Again?" question is probably better left unanswered. This isn't to say that the "White Album" and "Let it Be" aren't worth effort and praise; it's just different from in that it represents a parting of the ways and each Beatle wanting to be more themselves with an artistic expression that is more personal.


----------



## fbjim

it's interesting to compare the double-album rivals from the two iconic Invasion bands- "The Beatles" is almost defiant in its lack of cohesion and huge variation of styles, and "Exile on Main St" is almost the exact opposite, where it's about this extended, ragged mood that permeates the whole thing . the first time i listened to the latter the fact that like 75% of the songs sounded the same really turned me off- now it's one of my favorite rock albums.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> it's interesting to compare the double-album rivals from the two iconic Invasion bands- "The Beatles" is almost defiant in its lack of cohesion and huge variation of styles, and "Exile on Main St" is almost the exact opposite, where it's about this extended, ragged mood that permeates the whole thing . the first time i listened to the latter the fact that like 75% of the songs sounded the same really turned me off- now it's one of my favorite rock albums.


I am listening to The White Album and it strikes me like a group of demo work tapes - the songs are short (some very short), lightly produced, which I like. Almost like an album of "stuff we've been working on."

But the general quality of the songs is very high, IMO.


----------



## fbjim

What's interesting is when they did it too. The Beatles are credited as one of the first major artists to work with the LP as a cohesive artistic work and just a few years later they're more or less dumping everything they have in their heads on a double LP with minimal artwork. No matter what, it was wonderfully unexpected.


----------



## pianozach

Phil loves classical said:


> Recently reappraised *The White Album*, and find it has quite a lot of mediocre songs.


Many of the songs don't stand on their own as well as they contribute to the whole of the album. There's something magical in the way they flow from one to another.

Individually, however, most ARE individually fascinating . . . The four members of the band contribute such a diverse and eclectic collection of songs, vocals, instrumentation, arrangements, and sonic variety. It's really the way they all hang together, as though the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.

Context is also extremely important as well . . . *The White Album* stood alone in terms of its progressiveness, the way it embraced the simple and complex, the distortions and crystaline elements, the primitive and the complex.

In spite of its reach into many different musical styles and genres, they almost completely abandoned psychedelia on this album, having submerged themselves in it for their two previous albums.


----------



## philoctetes

The White Album shows how George was emerging as a songwriter in a way Paul and John had lost, with their angry songs on Rubber Soul, then psychedelia and world-love songs to sooth their broken hearts, then the silly goolash on TWA. George shunned (or suppressed) the bitterness and composed gems like "Norwegian Wood" and "Something" when the others had run out of love songs. 

Savoy Truffle exhibits some of George's signature strengths in the arrangement. But silly lyrics held it back. Not sure who is responsible for that. 

When solo time came along, Paul got back on stride with love songs to Linda and Ram. But IMO George's All Things Must Pass remains the best debut solo album from any of the Beatles. Take out a few fillers, ignore the lawsuit, and it's perfection. 

John? Well, he just sounded angry. Imagine is a product of its time. It doesn't age well.


----------



## SanAntone

philoctetes said:


> The White Album shows how George was emerging as a songwriter in a way Paul and John had lost, with their angry songs on Rubber Soul, then psychedelia and world-love songs to sooth their broken hearts, then the silly goolash on TWA. George shunned (or suppressed) the bitterness and composed gems like "Norwegian Wood" and "Something" when the others had run out of love songs.
> 
> Savoy Truffle exhibits some of George's signature strengths in the arrangement. But silly lyrics held it back. Not sure who is responsible for that.
> 
> When solo time came along, Paul got back on stride with love songs to Linda and Ram. But IMO George's All Things Must Pass remains the best debut solo album from any of the Beatles. Take out a few fillers, ignore the lawsuit, and it's perfection.
> 
> John? Well, he just sounded angry. Imagine is a product of its time. It doesn't age well.


John Lennon wrote "Norwegian Wood". Lennon and McCartney _never_ ran out of songs, as _The White Album_, _Abbey Road_ and _Let It Be_ demonstrate. I would so far as to say that it was the songs, consistently of high creative level, that remained their strength throughout all of the stylistic and studio technology changes.

For me their work as The Beatles far outshines anything they did solo.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> There are few albums in my collection that don't have, to my ears, both weaker and stronger songs. That doesn't invalidate the album. Once the idea of 'album' as a whole piece, *not a mere 'consecutive collection*' developed, it became easier in my mind to treat all songs as an integral part of something greater. _The Beatles _was not, to my mind, meant as an album of 30 number ones ("The Great Beatles Songbook") but a showcase of the band's 'personality', with all its loose ends showing.


That could be why this album was such a flop.


----------



## Forster

,........................


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> That could be why this album was such a flop.


I gather you're inferring that a Beatles compilation album is OOP because the songs sucked?

Well, it was underpromoted, had a stupid cover, and was seen as a cash grab by fans.

I should point out that prior to 1967 almost all of their US albums were actually compilations (as well as the Hey Jude album, released in 1970), not the way they had personally put them together as albums in the UK.

Most of their post-breakup compilation albums did rather well in the albums charts.

*1962-1966* ("The Red Album"): #3 in both the UK and in the US.
*1967-1970* ("The Blue Album"): #2 in the UK, #1 in the US.
*Rock 'n' Roll Music*: #11 in the UK, #2 in the US.
*Love Songs* #7 in the UK, #24 in the US.

All three of the expensive *Anthology* double albums charted at #1 in the US, and charted from #4 to #1 in the UK.

"*1*" charted at #1 in 9 countries, including the US and UK.

The "*Love*" compilation charted at #3 and #4 in the UK and US. In _2006_.

And the "*A Collection of Beatles Oldies*" charted at #7 in the UK. It didn't chart in the US, as it was only a British release. #7 on the album charts. Not too shabby for "a flop". Just kidding. It wasn't a flop. It was a highly successful album in the UK.

As a side note, according to a December 1971 report in *Billboard* on the preference for UK-pressed LPs among Los Angeles record-buyers, *A Collection of Beatles Oldies* was one of the most popular imported titles, and recognized as good value for its generous number of songs (16) relative to the US industry standard of 11 or 12.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I'm not sure why this is such a difficult point to make. Luchesi thinks that those who came after the Beatles have secondhand opinions that are 'revisionist' - in particular, those that esteem the Beatles higher than he thinks they should be esteemed. I merely countered with the obvious point that we here at TC all came after the event of Beethoven, but if we esteem him highly, it's unlikely that we'd suffer the charge of revisionism. Actually, if we accept Luchesi's contention, it doesn't matter what the opinion is, pro or con: if we were too young for first hand experience, our opinion doesn't count. Tell that to Woodduck re his opinions of Wagner.


 I must've missed this post back then. I think you misunderstand my points. 
I wanted to get across two points to posters who were too young to experience this phenomenon at the tender age I did.

I was into more dramatic music with louder guitar effects and 'affected' (stretched) voice effects which seemed more cutting edge and significant to me than any of the early Beatles songs. I also noticed that my mom and other moms were really giggling over the yeah yeah yeah and I want to hold your hand type songs. At my age this was a huge turn off, for my level of confidence. I wanted to listen to and maybe even afford to buy some 45s of the more 'dangerous' sounding bands, not Beatle records.

With my age as the premise, my first point was that profitable books much later gave the impression that the Beatles were influential about fashion, world consciousness, war protests and drugs etc.. That certainly wasn't my experience. That came later probably, if I ever cared about the who of such things. The revisionism was everywhere by the late 80s (after we were recovering from John's death).

I don't remember posting anything about their music, today, in the big picture, being impactful or not. But I did ask how to see a connection between today's music and the music of the Beatles. I don't see it, but maybe it's in there, very subtle.


----------



## Forster

^ I'm not sure this is worth revisiting as it's several pages back and out of context from the various posts at the time. But I will ask, who were these edgier bands you were listening to at the same time as the Beatles were putting out their early singles?


----------



## fbjim

I do think the Beatles were very important (among other groups) for the maturation of pop rock as a genre, but you're not alone in your contention that unlike say, James Brown, it's difficult to pinpoint Beatles DNA in modern day popular music.

A big problem, I think is that rock is fairly moribund these days while pop has largely moved away from their melodic based music into a sound influenced more by hip-hop and electronic/club music.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I do think the Beatles were very important (among other groups) for the maturation of pop rock as a genre, but you're not alone in your contention that unlike say, James Brown, it's difficult to pinpoint Beatles DNA in modern day popular music.
> 
> A big problem, I think is that rock is fairly moribund these days while pop has largely moved away from their melodic based music into a sound influenced more by hip-hop and electronic/club music.


Reading your post it struck me that I don't think pop music matures in an unbroken sequence. I think it gets recycled as 'new' in accordance with what's influencing the kids growing up at the time.

Now, that period of time of pop offerings changing about each decade (becoming more dissonant and minimalistic (as other music has in the past) might no longer exist because of the streaming habits of kids today. There needs to be a lot of consensus for such massive changes we can follow. Is it there today?


----------



## fbjim

I think a big part of the appeal of electronic/hip-hop for young people is how accessible the tools for making it is. Kids still (as far as I know) make bands and jam out, but as far as the expense for electronic production goes, this isn't the 80s anymore- anyone with a computer has access to a vast library of tools for making their own music without the bother of rounding up a few other qualified instrumentalists, getting a space, or buying instruments.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> ^ I'm not sure this is worth revisiting as it's several pages back and out of context from the various posts at the time. But I will ask, who were these edgier bands you were listening to at the same time as the Beatles were putting out their early singles?


From what I remember it was the Kinks, the Animals, the very different subject matter of the Beach Boys, and of course the Rolling Stones. But we have to remember that back then you didn't just get an album inexpensively, you listened to what the offerings were coming across the radio waves, hit or miss.. So that means that when I was still exposed to the early Beatles I was only hearing singles played on the radio. I didn't have a lot of money for albums and when I did save up enough, I bought one of the edgier bands. Availability was all mixed up, if you can understand what I mean.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> From what I remember it was the Kinks, the Animals, the very different subject matter of the Beach Boys, and of course the Rolling Stones. But we have to remember that back then you didn't just get an album inexpensively, you listened to what the offerings were coming across the radio waves, hit or miss.. So that means that when I was still exposed to the early Beatles I was only hearing singles played on the radio. I didn't have a lot of money for albums and when I did save up enough, I bought one of the edgier bands. Availability was all mixed up, if you can understand what I mean.


I agree that *The Kinks* and *The Beach Boys* (until 1972) were doing, arguably, as good of music as The Beatles - but the Rolling Stones and the Animals were just making Rock, IMO. Really good Rock, but nothing especially creative.


----------



## Forster

If you're looking for the influences of the past, you won't necessarily find them by looking at the top 20/40.

I don't remember which thread it was, but I posted a list of 100 artists performing at a music festival in summer 2019, few of which will have had chart success. The diversification of "pop" has been enormous and I get the impression that most here have only a narrow view of "pop".


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> I must've missed this post back then. I think you misunderstand my points.
> I wanted to get across two points to posters who were too young to experience this phenomenon at the tender age I did.
> 
> I was into more dramatic music with louder guitar effects and 'affected' (stretched) voice effects which seemed more cutting edge and significant to me than any of the early Beatles songs. I also noticed that my mom and other moms were really giggling over the yeah yeah yeah and I want to hold your hand type songs. At my age this was a huge turn off, for my level of confidence. I wanted to listen to and maybe even afford to buy some 45s of the more 'dangerous' sounding bands, not Beatle records.
> 
> With my age as the premise, my first point was that profitable books much later gave the impression that the Beatles were influential about fashion, world consciousness, war protests and drugs etc.. That certainly wasn't my experience. That came later probably, if I ever cared about the who of such things. The revisionism was everywhere by the late 80s (after we were recovering from John's death).
> 
> I don't remember posting anything about their music, today, in the big picture, being impactful or not. But I did ask how to see a connection between today's music and the music of the Beatles. I don't see it, but maybe it's in there, very subtle.


I understand your POV. And I was there. As it happened.

My older (and late) brother _liked_ the *Beatles* somewhat, but he preferred more aggressive sounding bands. He liked *CCR, Steppenwolf, Rolling Stones, Iron Butterfly, Lou Reed, Jefferson Airplane*, all bands with less "refined" sounds overall. He liked some oddball edgy stuff; *Silver Apples, Kraftwerk*, etc. I like a lot of those bands as well - they have their place in the 1960-1970s pop continuum (although I never grew to like the Stones, and I just loathe Lou Reed). But ALL of these bands were influenced to a large degree by The Beatles, and the musical inroads they cleared. And year after year, the Beatles were at the forefront of the changes in the musical landscape, from 1962 right up to 1968. After that, they sort of lost that adventurous edge, although there was still some great music ahead from them, including some of the first uses of synthesizers in mainstream pop music.

The one other that I feel is ignored, in terms of influence, is *Frank Zappa*, although he's a real difficult "like" for me, mostly because of the plethora of juvenile lyrics, and frequent goofy sounding vocals.

But your opinion, while valid, is in the minority. I know a lady that wouldn't let her daughter listen to the *Beatles* because "they sing out of tune" (probably just ONE of the many things she didn't like about them). Her opinion is in the minority as well . . . Among other things, *The Beatles* were celebrated for their great harmonies. In fact, pretty much everyone I knew thought the Beatles were extraordinarily great.

Most of my friends back then, as well as now, had a great appreciation for the *Beatles*, the songs, the vocals, the lyrics, the fashion, the sassiness, the hair. Every album was an OMG moment, and at the time we were subjected to the bastardized US versions of their albums. And yet, even though Capitol Records butchered their albums, they were _still_ astonishing LPs (and mind you, at the time we weren't really aware of the cannibalization of their albums, or even the reverb-saturated remixes; there was no internet. I eventually noticed in 1967, when I caught sight of a import version of *Rubber Soul* (with a glossy cover); the tracklist was different, and had more songs.


----------



## Luchesi

fbjim said:


> I think a big part of the appeal of electronic/hip-hop for young people is how accessible the tools for making it is. Kids still (as far as I know) make bands and jam out, but as far as the expense for electronic production goes, this isn't the 80s anymore- anyone with a computer has access to a vast library of tools for making their own music without the bother of rounding up a few other qualified instrumentalists, getting a space, or buying instruments.


I try to keep in perspective the facts about how it was back then.

I mean, a young person today thinking about the Beatles from 55 years ago would be the same as me, back then in the 60s, thinking about music hits from 1915 or 1920. I didn't do that, I thought those songs were quite corny and simplistic (at that age).

People will say the Beatles' material is much more sophisticated and along with that - the hype and revisionism has kept it all memorable, and even in the news. The Beatles are different.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> From what I remember it was the Kinks, the Animals, the very different subject matter of the Beach Boys, and of course the Rolling Stones. But we have to remember that back then you didn't just get an album inexpensively, you listened to what the offerings were coming across the radio waves, hit or miss.. So that means that when I was still exposed to the early Beatles I was only hearing singles played on the radio. I didn't have a lot of money for albums and when I did save up enough, I bought one of the edgier bands. Availability was all mixed up, if you can understand what I mean.


Without careful time matching, it becomes difficult to compare like with like. What singles were released by The Kinks in 1963?


----------



## fbjim

Luchesi said:


> I try to keep in perspective the facts about how it was back then.
> 
> I mean, a young person today thinking about the Beatles from 55 years ago would be the same as me, back then in the 60s, thinking about music hits from 1915 or 1920. I didn't do that, I thought those songs were quite corny and simplistic (at that age).
> 
> People will say the Beatles' material is much more sophisticated and along with that - the hype and revisionism has kept it all memorable, and even in the news. The Beatles are different.


Growing up in the 90s, the repitoire of classic rock and the literature available (eg the Rolling Stones album list et al) still heavily focused on the canonical classic rock repitoire of Beatles/Stones/Beach Boys et al. A lot of the online reviewers back then were also roughly the correct age to have been influenced by the standard rock repitoire wisdom.

I think this has changed to an extent - rock radio has been largely replaced with online playlists and algorithmic discovery, and there's been a large change in online criticism that's expanded the "serious" repertoire past the classic rock and indie rock staples to include electronic, hip-hop, and especially pop.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> If you're looking for the influences of the past, you won't necessarily find them by looking at the top 20/40.
> 
> I don't remember which thread it was, but I posted a list of 100 artists performing at a music festival in summer 2019, few of which will have had chart success. The diversification of "pop" has been enormous and I get the impression that most here have only a narrow view of "pop".


I can admit that in order to keep up I need to know more about the pop culture music of today, but to study it musically?


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> I understand your POV. And I was there. As it happened.
> 
> My older (and late) brother _liked_ the *Beatles* somewhat, but he preferred more aggressive sounding bands. He liked *CCR, Steppenwolf, Rolling Stones, Iron Butterfly, Lou Reed, Jefferson Airplane*, all bands with less "refined" sounds overall. He liked some oddball edgy stuff; *Silver Apples, Kraftwerk*, etc. I like a lot of those bands as well - they have their place in the 1960-1970s pop continuum (although I never grew to like the Stones, and I just loathe Lou Reed). But ALL of these bands were influenced to a large degree by The Beatles, and the musical inroads they cleared. And year after year, the Beatles were at the forefront of the changes in the musical landscape, from 1962 right up to 1968. After that, they sort of lost that adventurous edge, although there was still some great music ahead from them, including some of the first uses of synthesizers in mainstream pop music.
> 
> The one other that I feel is ignored, in terms of influence, is *Frank Zappa*, although he's a real difficult "like" for me, mostly because of the plethora of juvenile lyrics, and frequent goofy sounding vocals.
> 
> But your opinion, while valid, is in the minority. I know a lady that wouldn't let her daughter listen to the *Beatles* because "they sing out of tune" (probably just ONE of the many things she didn't like about them). Her opinion is in the minority as well . . . Among other things, *The Beatles* were celebrated for their great harmonies. In fact, pretty much everyone I knew thought the Beatles were extraordinarily great.
> 
> Most of my friends back then, as well as now, had a great appreciation for the *Beatles*, the songs, the vocals, the lyrics, the fashion, the sassiness, the hair. Every album was an OMG moment, and at the time we were subjected to the bastardized US versions of their albums. And yet, even though Capitol Records butchered their albums, they were _still_ astonishing LPs (and mind you, at the time we weren't really aware of the cannibalization of their albums, or even the reverb-saturated remixes; there was no internet. I eventually noticed in 1967, when I caught sight of a import version of *Rubber Soul* (with a glossy cover); the tracklist was different, and had more songs.


I think those were later bands. We didn't have the equipment to do what they did, and we had followed bands to learn the effects and gimmicks (of amplification mostly).


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Without careful time matching, it becomes difficult to compare like with like. What singles were released by The Kinks in 1963?


I think their first big hit was on the radio in 64.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> I think their first big hit was on the radio in 64.


Yeh "You Really Got Me" and "All Day and All of the Night" came out in 1964. I was in 8th grade and loved them as soon as I heard them.

In 1965 their songs got even more interesting:

"Tired of Waiting for You"
"Set Me Free"
"Who'll Be the Next in Line"
"A Well Respected Man"
"Till the End of the Day"

1966
"Dedicated Follower of Fashion"
"Sunny Afternoon"

1967
"Waterloo Sunset" (their high water mark, IMO)
"Death of a Clown"


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Yeh "You Really Got Me" and "All Day and All of the Night" came out in 1964


By which time, The Beatles had released the album_ A Hard Day's Night_. Were all of these songs really less 'edgy' than the Kinks first hit? I note that the Kinks first single was _Long Tall Sally _which didn't chart, was also recorded and performed by the Beatles.

What this tells me is that both bands were part of a burgeoning rock, rock 'n roll and pop scene, where bands drew on similar source material, worked creatively with it, developed their own material in their own style and some were simply more successful than others or were first to make their successes nationwide or global. They clearly influenced each other, met up with and competed with each other. It happened to be the Beatles. It might be interesting to speculate why it wasn't the Kinks or any of the other bands that had some success, but nothing like the Fab Four.

Any influences they had on subsequent generations will generally have been diluted down the years, making it harder to detect direct influence, except in some very prominent cases such as Oasis or obvious instances such as cover versions. According to one website, _Yesterday _had been covered 2,200 times up to 2017.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-yesterday-covers/


----------



## philoctetes

The Kinks were undeservedly overshadowed by the Beatles and Stones all through the 60s. Waterloo Sunset and (especially) Lola are two of the greatest pop songs ever.

After their early hits, a couple of which completely punked the rock world, they created a string of great albums: Face to Face, Something Else, Village Green, Arthur, Lola, Muswell Hillbillies... where for me they began to diminish... but by then the Beatles were history. These albums are all killer, no filler, and include many great songs that rarely if ever made the radio. Plus singles: like the Beatles, their B-sides matched the quality of their A-sides. The Kink Kronikles anthology contains a good sample of the best, but misses a few anyway. Best to have all the albums with bonus tracks.

Kinks fans tended to be intelligent music lovers who were hooked on the Ray Davies personality. The White Album would snitch a few of Ray's methods, but few realized it at the time. For a good example, try this from Something Else:


----------



## philoctetes

PS 2021 was kind of a hot year for the Kinks on TV commercials. Strangers from Lola made an appearance in a cover version which had me scratching my head asking "what the h*** is that song I know it well?" The original Supersonic Rocket Ship was on another.

Is there a Kinks appreciation thread on the forum? I could go on and on...


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Saturday Morning

**Got To Get You Into My Life* (1966)
*Revolution* (1968)
*Why Don't We Do It In the Road?* (1968)
*While My Guitar Gently Weeps* (1968)

*Got To Get You Into My Life*

From their groundbreaking 1968 album *Revolver*, this one's from Paul McCartney. Again, a foray into an entirely different style. Those horn licks were all originally distorted electric guitar licks (you can still hear them faintly behind the horns).

A cover version by *Earth, Wind & Fire* was issued as a single in July 1978. Their rendition reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot Soul Singles chart and No. 9 on the Billboard Hot 100.

*Revolution*

This was a remake of *Revolution 1*, which John Lennon wanted as their next single. The others felt that the original version was a bit too laid back (and, perhaps, a bit too controversial), so they recorded a more uptempo version with some heavy distortion on the double lead electric guitars and an uncredited electric piano solo from Nicky Hopkins. This version captivated radio audiences when it was released as the B-side of _*Hey Jude*_.

Interestingly, that captivating electric guitar opening of the track was lifted wholesale from _*Do Unto Others*_, a 1954 song by *Pee Wee Crayton*, right down to the distortion, although it was likely more of a subconscious bit of plagiarism than a deliberate steal.

*Why Don't We Do It In the Road?*

This one from Paul is generally considered a "throwaway" tracks from their 1968 White Album. The personnel on this one is only Paul and drummer Ringo Starr, as John and George were busy supervising strings overdubs for two of their songs for the album.

Remarkable? Kind of, for a 12-bar blues. This short little track settles nicely between the homey Ringo Starr track *Don't Pass Me By*, and the gentle love song *I Will*, sung by Paul in a sweet ballad-y sort of way.

*While My Guitar Gently Weeps*

This one from George is also from the *White Album*, and features guitarist Eric Clapton on lead guitar. Lyrically George ventured into airing the band's dirty laundry, singing of the disharmonious atmosphere of the recording sessions, as well as themes of universal love and other philosophical concerns. In this sense the song is a tragedy, and, although not a new concept lyrically (see "Blues"), it does incorporate and reflect recent tragic world events: Wars, asssassinations, civil unrest, etc.


----------



## pianozach

*Bonus Track

While My Guitar Gently Weeps (acoustic version)
*
In a great example of how a song can change from inception to realization, here's the song in one of its Demo versions, with strings added by producer George Martin, added decades later.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> *Bonus Track
> 
> While My Guitar Gently Weeps (acoustic version)
> *
> In a great example of how a song can change from inception to realization, here's the song in one of its Demo versions, with strings added by producer George Martin, added decades later.


Really nice version. However, while musically the song is very strong, the lyrics don't hold up - which is true for all of his songs. George's deficit is that he had no co-writer who could have offered an objective sounding board to help edit and find the best lines.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> Really nice version. However, while musically the song is very strong, the lyrics don't hold up - which is true for all of his songs. George's deficit is that he had no co-writer who could have offered an objective sounding board to help edit and find the best lines.


Y'know, I think the song expresses quite well at expressing his disillusion at the state of world affairs in contrast to his recent embracing of Eastern spiritual beliefs.

Indeed, there are several observations he shares in the lyrics, but here's a nice one:

_"With every mistake we must surely be learning."_

Deep.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> Y'know, I think the song expresses quite well at expressing his disillusion at the state of world affairs in contrast to his recent embracing of Eastern spiritual beliefs.
> 
> Indeed, there are several observations he shares in the lyrics, but here's a nice one:
> 
> _"With every mistake we must surely be learning."_
> 
> Deep.


I'm sorry, but I disagree. Not only is it not deep, it is a cliché. The key to writing good lyrics is to say something worth saying but in a way that is unique or with a clever manner. Harrison lifts lines from other songs ("Something in the way she moves" he stole from James Taylor when Taylor was recording his first record for Apple) and otherwise writes bald-faced platitudes with absolutely no wit.

I've never been impressed with his writing except musically.

For an example of some great lyrics:

_Living on the road my friend
Was gonna keep you free and clean
And now you wear your skin like iron
And your breath as hard as kerosene_


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I'm sorry, but I disagree. Not only is it not deep, it is a cliché. The key to writing good lyrics is to say something worth saying but in a way that is unique or with a clever manner. Harrison lifts lines from other songs ("Something in the way she moves" he stole from James Taylor when Taylor was recording his first record for Apple) and otherwise writes bald-faced platitudes with absolutely no wit.
> 
> I've never been impressed with his writing except musically.
> 
> For an example of some great lyrics:
> 
> _Living on the road my friend
> Was gonna keep you free and clean
> And now you wear your skin like iron
> And your breath as hard as kerosene_


If I can put myself back there... it might not have been cliché. I don't know. But that was a long time ago. I always thought he was referring to maturing as a person, in the band. Very softly and subtly singing to Lennon (or Paul).


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Friday Evening
*
*Glad All Over* (1963)
*Maxwell's Silver Hammer* (1969)
*I'm Happy Just To Dance With You* (1964)
*All Together Now *(1969)

*Glad All Over*

Well, here's a rarity, recorded in 1963 for the *Pop Go The Beatles* show at the BBC, and finally released on the 1994 album *Live At The BBC*.

Again, this is one from their pre-fame 1962 set lists, and not only shows what a tight band they were, but illustrates how, as a cover band, George Harrison sang almost an equal share of the songs.

This cover is NOT a cover of the December 1963 Dave Clark Five song of the same name, but of one originally released by *Carl Perkins* (at the time billed as "Carl Perkins - The Rockin' Guitar Man" in December 1957. The Beatles were actually the first to record a cover of this Carl Perkins' song.

*Maxwell's Silver Hammer*

This *Paul McCartney* song drove the other's to the brink as Paul endeavored to get it perfect enough to release as a single. This harkens back to the British pub song style that Paul loved so much, although these may be some of McCartney's darkest lyrics.

Honestly, the arranging here is so very Pop perfect, and also features the Moog synthesizer, still pretty much a novelty at the time (although not for long).

*I'm Happy Just To Dance With You*

This one is also sung by George, and was especially written by bandmates McCartney and John Lennon as a showcase for him, and is seen AND heard in the 1964 film *A Hard Day's Night*, as well as on the soundtrack album. It's a rather formulaic pop song, yet there's still something rather interesting in Lennon's rhythm guitar part, in that it's more suitable as a hectic percussion line (congas maybe?) than a guitar line. It's rather unique, and perfectly played.

Typically for them at the time, drummer Ringo Starr overdubs some sort of percussion instrument for flavor, this time an African drum.

Even though it was the B-side of the *I'll Cry Instead* single, it still hit *#95* on the *Billboard Top 100*.

Surprisingly, a cover by *Anne Murray* in 1980 reached *#64* on the *Billboard Hot 100*, *#23* on the *Billboard Country* chart, and *#13* on the *Adult Contemporary* chart.

*All Together Now*

This song was cobbled together from a couple of unfinished songs, one from Paul, and one from John, for the *Yellow Submarine* soundtrack. Although recorded way back in May 1967, it was first heard in the July 1968 film, although the soundtrack for that film wasn't released until January 1969. Another of Paul's music hall-type songs, it was intentionally written as a children's sing-along.

It was released as a single in 1972 in some European countries, where it charted at *#16* in *Netherlands Top 100*.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs Tuesday Afternoon Edition*

*I Want To Hold Your Hand* (1963) 
*I Call Your Name* (1964)
_*Don't Bother Me*_ (1963)
_*You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)*_ (1970)

*I Want To Hold Your Hand*

This *Lennon/McCartney* original was recorded 17 October 1963 in 17 takes, and released as a single 29 November 1963, and became a #1 hit in both the US and the UK. This is the first song by *the Beatles* to be played on the radio in America, and it's almost an understatement to declare that it "changed" music . . .

It spent seven weeks at #1 in the US, knocked out of the top position by another of their songs, _*She Loves You*_ (which, ironically, was the song I Want to Hold Your Hand knocked out of the #1 position in the UK, and was the first time in the UK that an artist had knocked themselves off the record charts). In the US it stayed in the charts for 17 weeks

In the first three days of its American release, a quarter of a million copies had already been sold. The demand was so great that Capitol Records had to contract part of the job of pressing copies off to Columbia Records and RCA. In fact, one million advance orders had been placed for the new single.

*I Want to Hold Your Hand* was also released in America on the album *Meet the Beatles!*, which altered the American charts by actually outselling the single.

Personally, I love that wacky intro that no cover band ever gets right, as they skip playing on the downbeats for the first three measures. And while it's a fairly straightforward and simple Beatles song, this one still has some musical complexity that foreshadowed what was to come. That middle eight of that does something; the way the key changes at that point is something that hadn't been heard from a pop song before. The handclaps are refreshingly REAL sounding, perhaps, because they ARE. All four overdubbed handclaps. That ending is also a bit surprising, just a little "something new" to end the song with.

But the whole song . . . so many tasty things about it . . . those impeccable harmonies, that crisp drumming.

*I Call Your Name*

This was one of those "songs the Beatles gave away", but one of the very few they chose to reclaim. This song was mostly written by *John Lennon*, but given to *Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas*, who released it in 1963. Lennon was dissatisfied not only with their arrangement of the song, but also that it was relegated to the B-side of a single, so the Beatles recorded it themselves, featuring the brand new sound of *George Harrison* Rickenbacker 360/12 guitar, one of the first electric 12-string guitars. It was rushed to market as the second song on the 4-song *Long Tall Sally *EP in the UK on 19 June 1964 (and the only non-cover on the EP), and even earlier in the US, on *The Beatles Second Album* (their third in the US) on 10 April 1964. That album finally knocked their first two albums from the #1 and #2 position on the *Billboard* charts, after both had occupied those spots together for nine weeks.

But the song itself was intended for the *A Hard Day's Night* film (and soundtrack album), but director Richard Lester cut it, noticing that it sounded a bit too much like another of the film's chosen songs, *You Can't Do That*.

So . . . *cowbell*, anyone? While this is mostly a straight-ahead rocker, they change up the groove (to an exceptionally unusual "ska" rhythm) for the short instrumental section in the middle.

A cover version from *the Mamas & the Papas* appeared on their debut album in 1966.

*Don't Bother Me*

The first Beatles song *George Harrison* wrote solo, that is, it's the first song written by George Harrison to appear on an album by the Beatles.

Some might say that it's the weakest song on their 22 November 1963 album *With The Beatles*, but it's sullen mood and desolate lyrics were something unusual for a pop group at the time (although not all that unusual in some folk genre songs). Musically it's rather odd how it effortlessly pops around from Dorian to Aeolian to Phrygian modes throughout.

As was typical at the time, the busy drumming from Ringo Starr was supplemented with tambourine from Lennon, woodblock or claves from McCartney, and Arabian bongos from Starr, all of which gave it a somewhat Latin feel.

*You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)*

This oddity was released in mono as the B- of the single _*Let It Be*_ on 6 March 1970, although they'd been working on it, on and off, since 1967. It first appeared on a Beatles album on the *Past Masters* collection in 1988. It was re-edited and re-mixed in 1996 for the *Anthology* series, restoring some of it, but leaving other parts out.

One unusual feature of this music hall comedy track is that the title IS pretty much the lyrics, although there's certainly a lot of oddball vocalizations. It starts off like some sort of head-slammin' *Beatles* rock song featuring those recognizable two part harmonies from John and Paul, but then turns in parody variations of itself, almost as if they were making fun of how covers of their songs seem to evolve over time . . . the first variation being a ska version (not included on the original version), then a lounge version, a "comedy version", and finally a jazz version, featuring *Brian Jones* from the *Rolling Stones* on sax.

For a throwaway "joke" song, there's some great sound from both bass and drums.

The link below is actually a fan edit of the two versions, restoring it to its original over-six-minute timing.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I love early Beatles best.


----------



## pianozach

Saw a video of some "elders" listening to Sgt. Pepper's 50 years later.

One of the elders wasn't so keen on that "weird" transitional period that leaned on a lot of psychedelia. Funny, but it's what I loved the best.

I still think that first album is stellar, though. And so was their last (Abbey Road).


----------



## Phil loves classical

pianozach said:


> Saw a video of some "elders" listening to Sgt. Pepper's 50 years later.
> 
> One of the elders wasn't so keen on that "weird" transitional period that leaned on a lot of psychedelia. Funny, but it's what I loved the best.
> 
> I still think that first album is stellar, though. And so was their last (Abbey Road).


I never understood what's so great about Abbey Road. Maybe it's just because John's output is much less than Paul's that I'm not really into it much. it does have a unique sort of feel.


----------



## Forster

Phil loves classical said:


> I never understood what's so great about Abbey Road. .


Then I guess it's not great...for you.


----------



## pianozach

Phil loves classical said:


> I never understood what's so great about Abbey Road. Maybe it's just because John's output is much less than Paul's that I'm not really into it much. it does have a unique sort of feel.


John managed only four new songs for *Abbey Road*:

*Come Together
I Want You (She's So Heavy)
Because
Sun King*

The rest of John's material was unfinished songs that Paul rescued and plugged into the great "Medley".

Yeah, John's productivity fell off a cliff after *The White Album* sessions, which pretty much coincided with both his new drug habit and relationship with Yoko Ono. John had no new full songs on the Yellow Submarine, just the bridges in All Together Now, a snippet rescued by Paul. The Get Back sessions saw only three new songs from John, although one (*Don't Let Me Down*) was stripped from the Let It Be album by Phil Spector, as Allen Klein had already stolen it to put on the 1970 *Hey Jude* compilation, compiled without their input. John had few songs on that album; the new *Dig A Pony*, the recycled _*Across the Universe*_ and *One After 909*, the improvised 50 second *Dig It*, the 40 second scousey _*Maggie Mae*_, and the bridge in Paul's _*I've Got a Feeling*_.

But those four original songs from John were excellent, as were George's two contributions, *Something* and _*Here Comes the Sun*_.

Paul's contributions? Well, apart from the controversial *Maxwell's Silver Hammer* song (a jaunty little horror pastiche), his leadership and other contributions were pretty much stellar. And it's odd how he managed to shine, in spite of trying mightily to NOT hog the spotlight: He took the two backseat middle slots on Side One, and gave the first two slots on Side Two to George and John. Looking at it that way, Paul only had two of the first eight tracks on the album. That's leadership.


----------



## mollig

Phil loves classical said:


> I never understood what's so great about Abbey Road. Maybe it's just because John's output is much less than Paul's that I'm not really into it much. it does have a unique sort of feel.


I agree. The medley is cool but the first half of the album is either dross like Maxwell's silver Hammer and Octopus Garden or turgid stuff like Come Together and I Want You. Little of the zest or emotion or indeed melody of previous albums, maybe only Here Comes the Sun stands out. Overall, makes me think the Beatles broke up at exactly the right time, and I would say the peaked with Revolver.


----------



## fbjim

Has anyone noticed that there seems to have been a shift in critics where Revolver has replaced Sgt. Peppers as the canonical greatest Beatles album? 


I personally couldn't agree more - I mean, I'd personally have Sgt. Peppers in the middle of their output, and maybe even below that, depending on my mood for early Beatles that day. (That said, A Day in the Life is still a popular choice for their best track)


----------



## Forster

fbjim said:


> Has anyone noticed that there seems to have been a shift in critics where Revolver has replaced Sgt. Peppers as the canonical greatest Beatles album?
> 
> I personally couldn't agree more - I mean, I'd personally have Sgt. Peppers in the middle of their output, and maybe even below that, depending on my mood for early Beatles that day. (That said, A Day in the Life is still a popular choice for their best track)


AFAICR, some critics always thought that _Revolver _was the best. But it seems to me that such 'disputes' are more a matter of taste than fact.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Forster said:


> AFAICR, some critics always thought that _Revolver _was the best. But it seems to me that such 'disputes' are more a matter of taste than fact.


George Martin stated he himself preferred Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Abbey Road over Sgt. Pepper in an interview. Ray Davies didn't like Revolver except for I'm Only Sleeping, and said Elenor Rigby was to impress school teachers or something. But I much prefer Revolver over any stuff by the Kinks.


----------



## pianozach

fbjim said:


> Has anyone noticed that there seems to have been a shift in critics where Revolver has replaced Sgt. Peppers as the canonical greatest Beatles album?
> 
> I personally couldn't agree more - I mean, I'd personally have Sgt. Peppers in the middle of their output, and maybe even below that, depending on my mood for early Beatles that day. (That said, A Day in the Life is still a popular choice for their best track)





Forster said:


> AFAICR, some critics always thought that _Revolver _was the best. But it seems to me that such 'disputes' are more a matter of taste than fact.





Phil loves classical said:


> George Martin stated he himself preferred Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Abbey Road over Sgt. Pepper in an interview. Ray Davies didn't like Revolver except for I'm Only Sleeping, and said Elenor Rigby was to impress school teachers or something. But I much prefer Revolver over any stuff by the Kinks.


LOL

*Revolver* vs. *Sgt. Pepper*

When *SPLHCB* was released, after the very groundbreaking *Revolver*, we were ALL gobsmacked upside the head with the extraordinary new sound, the continued eclecticism, the one mystical track from George, the way the whole thing flowed as a whole, the overall psychedelic vibe, and the giant orchestral orgasms in A Day In the Life.

*Revolver* _has_ become the new favorite though. There are no questionable songs on Revolver, no filler, no duds. And, surprisingly, *Sgt. Pepper* sounds a bit dated. It's still a solid album, and I still enjoy it to death, but *Revolver* was really their zenith. Perhaps if they hadn't left off _*Penny Lane*_ and _*Strawberry Fields Forever*_, two of the first three songs recorded _FOR_ the album, it might be a bit tougher to choose between the two these days.

In retrospect, *The White Album* was the proper successor to *Revolver* . . . a vast variety of songs, styles, genres, but twice as much music. It even ends with an avant-garde piece (*Revolution 9*) like *Revolver* did (*Tomorrow Never Knows*).

But there you go . . .

I've been revisiting the *Beatles* catalog, and noticed a couple of very clever hooks they used throughout their career . . .

. . . One of the most Beatley things they did musically was *"surprise endings"*, whether it was albums or songs. From the double time ending of *Ticket to Ride*, to the fireworks of the backwards guitars on _*I'm Only Sleeping*_, the oddball spacey endings of *Lovely Rita, Magical Mystery Tour, Only a Northern Song*, and _*Flying*_, the joyous extended endings of *Hey Jude, It's All Too Much*, and _*All You Need Is Love*_, the abrupt cut off end of *I Want You (She's So Heavy)*. There's plenty more examples. There's that extended chord at the end of _*A Day In the Life*_, with the surprise run-out groove dog whistle and gibberish.

The other was the wonderful use of sudden *"stop time"* in their songs, a little trick they also used right up to the end. _*You Can't Do That, She Loves You, Love Me Do, Oh Darling, Don't Let Me Down, Fixing a Hole*_. Sometimes it would be a partial "stop time" where all but one instrument would drop out.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs; Tuesday Night Edition*

*I'm a Loser (1964)
A Taste of Honey (1963)
I Lost My Little Girl (*)
Because (Anthology Version)* (1969*)

*I'm a Loser*

This 1964 song from *John Lennon* is one of their first that left their previous formula goes beyond young love, telling instead a story of the hypocrisy of keeping up a happy face when your world's falling apart. Of course, it is a story of teen angst, but goes beyond the tale of a love gone wrong, and the heartbreak that goes with it.

It's also unique for it's country folk flavor. John's playing a 12-string Framus Hootenanny guitar (and George is playing lead on his 1963 Gretsch Tennessean). This is pretty much the last time John played harmonica on a Beatles song, apart from using it for comedic effect.

*A Taste of Honey*

This cover was recorded for The Beatles debut album way back in February 1963. It's quite a nice cover, and demonstrates the band's versatility as a group (having been in their live setlist starting in 1962). Strangely enough, the original version of this Ric Marlow/Bobby Scott song was released in December 1961 by *Billy Dee Williams*, who eventually found success as an actor; you might remember his portrayal of *Lando Calrissian* in *Star Wars*.

*I Lost My Little Girl*

This song was written by a 14 year old *Paul McCartney* in 1956. The Beatles never recorded an official version of the song, but they were rehearsing it back in 1962, and returned to it in 1969 while filming LET IT BE. McCartney was including it in his live sets as early as 1977, and eventually released a live acoustic version in 1991.

While it's not REALLY an official Beatles song, it demonstrates the early songwriting of half the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team.

*Because (Anthology Version)*

I've already presented the first version of Lennon's song that The Beatles released in 1969.

This version is actually the same version, but with the instruments removed, leaving only the triple-tracked three-part vocal harmonies as sung by John, Paul, and George.

It's rather impressive. I particularly marvel at the "leftover harmony" vocal line that George sings (especially in the bridge).


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> LOL
> 
> *Revolver* vs. *Sgt. Pepper*
> 
> When *SPLHCB* was released, after the very groundbreaking *Revolver*, we were ALL gobsmacked upside the head with the extraordinary new sound, the continued eclecticism, the one mystical track from George, the way the whole thing flowed as a whole, the overall psychedelic vibe, and the giant orchestral orgasms in A Day In the Life.
> 
> *Revolver* _has_ become the new favorite though. There are no questionable songs on Revolver, no filler, no duds. And, surprisingly, *Sgt. Pepper* sounds a bit dated. It's still a solid album, and I still enjoy it to death, but *Revolver* was really their zenith. Perhaps if they hadn't left off _*Penny Lane*_ and _*Strawberry Fields Forever*_, two of the first three songs recorded _FOR_ the album, it might be a bit tougher to choose between the two these days.
> 
> In retrospect, *The White Album* was the proper successor to *Revolver* . . . a vast variety of songs, styles, genres, but twice as much music. It even ends with an avant-garde piece (*Revolution 9*) like *Revolver* did (*Tomorrow Never Knows*).
> 
> But there you go . . .
> 
> I've been revisiting the *Beatles* catalog, and noticed a couple of very clever hooks they used throughout their career . . .
> 
> . . . One of the most Beatley things they did musically was *"surprise endings"*, whether it was albums or songs. From the double time ending of *Ticket to Ride*, to the fireworks of the backwards guitars on _*I'm Only Sleeping*_, the oddball spacey endings of *Lovely Rita, Magical Mystery Tour, Only a Northern Song*, and _*Flying*_, the joyous extended endings of *Hey Jude, It's All Too Much*, and _*All You Need Is Love*_, the abrupt cut off end of *I Want You (She's So Heavy)*. There's plenty more examples. There's that extended chord at the end of _*A Day In the Life*_, with the surprise run-out groove dog whistle and gibberish.
> 
> The other was the wonderful use of sudden *"stop time"* in their songs, a little trick they also used right up to the end. _*You Can't Do That, She Loves You, Love Me Do, Oh Darling, Don't Let Me Down, Fixing a Hole*_. Sometimes it would be a partial "stop time" where all but one instrument would drop out.


_Revolver _was my favorite *Beatles* record for decades. But there is no denying the impact of _Sgt. Pepper's_. I refuse to discriminate between the two records since they are both great for different reasons.


----------



## Jay

fbjim said:


> I'd personally have Sgt. Peppers in the middle of their output


Pretty much my view as well.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> *Revolver* _has_ become the new favorite though. There are no questionable songs on Revolver, no filler, no duds. And, surprisingly, *Sgt. Pepper* sounds a bit dated. It's still a solid album, and I still enjoy it to death, but *Revolver* was really their zenith.


As I said, a matter of taste. There are no questionable songs on _Pepper_, no filler - to my ears. And the idea of one of the two being a 'zenith' implies that what followed was a decline. Also a mere matter of opinion.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> As I said, a matter of taste. There are no questionable songs on _Pepper_, no filler - to my ears. And the idea of one of the two being a 'zenith' implies that what followed was a decline. Also a mere matter of opinion.


Yes, it's all a matter of opinion for a question like that… so here's what you do..

You take all the songs from both albums, you mix them up randomly and then you rate them on a scale from 1 to 10.
Add up the numbers and see which album has the highest number. For me it was Revolver.

The problem with this, as every Beatles fan knows, is that the "concept" of the concept album also has a large value in the development of pop music (because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, especially in the arts).


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> As I said, a matter of taste. There are no questionable songs on _Pepper_, no filler - to my ears. And the idea of one of the two being a 'zenith' implies that what followed was a decline. Also a mere matter of opinion.


Let me rephrase that: All of the songs on REVOLVER are strong. There are no "filler" songs on Sgt. Pepper. One could say that the Beatles "zenith" was the albums RUBBER SOUL through THE WHITE ALBUM (released in 1968).

But inbetween tWA and ABBEY ROAD (1969), there was only YELLOW SUBMARINE (1968) and LET IT BE (the release of 
which was delayed until mid-1970 even though it was recorded mostly in January 1969).

Most folks regard ABBEY ROAD highly, a last "hurrah", and there's a few that think it's weak. In my mind it's brilliant.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it's all a matter of opinion for a question like that… so here's what you do..
> 
> You take all the songs from both albums, you mix them up randomly and then you rate them on a scale from 1 to 10.
> Add up the numbers and see which album has the highest number. For me it was Revolver.
> 
> The problem with this, as every Beatles fan knows, is that the "concept" of the concept album also has a large value in the development of pop music (because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, especially in the arts).


Interesting concept, and you'd probably be right, even if you added PAPERBACK WRITER/RAIN to REVOLVER and PENNY LANE/STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER to SGT. PEPPER.

But, yes, you also have to view the two albums in their proper context. Both were groundbreaking, for different reasons.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it's all a matter of opinion for a question like that… so here's what you do..
> 
> You take all the songs from both albums, you mix them up randomly and then you rate them on a scale from 1 to 10.
> Add up the numbers and see which album has the highest number. For me it was Revolver.
> 
> The problem with this, as every Beatles fan knows, is that the "concept" of the concept album also has a large value in the development of pop music (because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, especially in the arts).


Your last para is right, though for me, the idea of the 'concept' album can be overstated. Your first suggestion fails to treat the albums as albums.



pianozach said:


> Let me rephrase that: All of the songs on REVOLVER are strong. There are no "filler" songs on Sgt. Pepper. One could say that the Beatles "zenith" was the albums RUBBER SOUL through THE WHITE ALBUM (released in 1968).
> 
> But inbetween tWA and ABBEY ROAD (1969), there was only YELLOW SUBMARINE (1968) and LET IT BE (the release of
> which was delayed until mid-1970 even though it was recorded mostly in January 1969).
> 
> Most folks regard ABBEY ROAD highly, a last "hurrah", and there's a few that think it's weak. In my mind it's brilliant.


Yes, your rephrasing takes a more balanced approach.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Monday Night
*

*So How Come (No One Loves Me) (1963)
Mother Nature's Son (1968)
All Things Must Pass (1969)
Keep Your Hands Off My Baby (1963)
*

*So How Come (No One Loves Me)
*
This one's a cover of a song written by Boudleaux Bryant and Felice Bryant, and originally released by *The Omegas* in May 1960, although it's more likely that the Beatles were covering the cover by *The Everly Brothers* released in October 1960. The Beatles' cover was recorded for the radio show *Pop Goes the Beatles* July 1963. The original by the Omegas was a slow tempo ballad with barbershop vocals, while the Everlys reduced it to a 2-part vocal harmony and bumped the tempo up considerably.

*The Beatles* took the tempo even faster. The vocal is by *George Harrison*.

This was not officially released until 1994, on *The Beatles*' compilation *Live At the BBC*.

*Mother Nature's Son*

This *Paul McCartney* song was released on the 1968 *The White Album*, with only Paul singing and playing (with the addition of a brass arrangement by producer George Martin).

*All Things Must Pass*

Although this *George Harrison* song ended up being released as the title track on George's 1970 *All Things Must Pass*, it was originally demoed by the Beatles during the 1969 Get Back sessions. And George was not the first to release it either; that distinction goes to *Billy Preston* on his album *Encouraging Words*, also released in September 1970, and beating George's release of his own song by over two months.

While it's commonly thought that this was just another of George's songs that was rejected by the band, they went through over 70 takes of the band rehearsing the song, painstakingly working out the deceptively complex harmonic progression. But when it came time to film the band performing songs, George wasn't really keen on the idea. The performance day arrived, and George was left without any songs ready. _*I Me Mine*_ had been rehearsed, but no one wanted to drag an organ to the roof, so the only song of George that had been properly recorded was *For You Blue.* I was a full year later that _*I Me Mine*_ was properly recorded (January 1970), but as John had left the band in September, he wasn't on that recording.

The Beatles continued to record songs, including *Something*, which had been rehearsed as well. But when George came up with *Here Comes the Sun*, these last two became his songs for the album, and *All Things Must Pass *ended up being released by Preston, who had been brought in to the *Get Back* sessions.

The clip here is cobbled together from edits of the various rehearsals, making a more-or-less complete *Beatles* version of the song.

*Keep Your Hands Off My Baby*

Here's a little gem written by Carole King and Gerry Goffin, and originally released by *Little Eva *in September 1962.as a follow-up to her hit single *Do The Loco-Motion*.

*The Beatles* recorded the song for their first appearance on the *Saturday Club* radio show. It was performed on 26 January 1963 at the BBC Playhouse Theatre in London, and first broadcast four days later. It was finally officially released on the 1994 *Live At the BBC *album. *John Lennon* sings lead.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Wednesday Night Beatles Songs
*
*Another Girl *(1965)
*Getting Better* (1967)
*Ooh My Soul* (1963)
*Hold Me Tight* (1963)

Interestingly enough, tonight's *Random Four* all feature a lead vocal from *Paul McCartney*.

*Another Girl* (from Help!, 1965)

And so it begins . . . This cynical song from Paul contains a few smug lyrics, and it's generally considered filler by even hardcore Beatles fans, but had this been from some other band at the time, it could have been a hit single. Yeah, it's a pretty catchy throwaway.

That's Paul on overdubbed lead guitar, including the short "last chance" outro.

Of course, back in 1961 Paul was playing guitar in the group, with Stu Sutcliffe playing bass guitar until 1962.

While it continues the bluesy swing-style of some of McCartney's 1964 contributions, it breaks new ground by introducing a change of key in the bridge. Even in a song like this that is considered a lesser achievement, The Beatles exhibit musical growth.

Some inventive backing vocals here as well.

*Getting Better* (from Sgt. Pepper, 1967)

This one is also a McCartney song, although Lennon made some contributions.

There's some interesting bass guitar work here from McCartney, from the two octave bounces in the verses, and two different bass line arrangements for the chorus; the first chorus features a walking bass line, while the other chorus have a rather contrapuntal feel.

The backing vocals are rather interesting.

*Ooh My Soul* (1963, Little Richard cover)

Another vocal from Paul, on a song that was recorded for the BBC, and not released until decades later.

*Hold Me Tight* (from With the Beatles, 1963)

From their second album, this is yet another lead vocal from Paul. Crank up the bass and this is a fun little rocker, but it's generally not praised by either fans or critics. Noteworthy? A little; there's that oddball ritardando at the end. I like the "call and response" vocals in the chorus.


----------



## SanAntone

Watched Part 1 of _Get Back_ today, which ends with George leaving the group. Fascinating watching the group dynamic as they work out and learn these songs. It will be interesting when the signature riffs and aspects of the arrangements are first found.

Enjoying it.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Watched Part 1 of _Get Back_ today, which ends with George leaving the group. Fascinating watching the group dynamic as they work out and learn these songs. It will be interesting when the signature riffs and aspects of the arrangements are first found.
> 
> Enjoying it.


Me too. Watching Paul 'jamming' alone, though with the others watching, as he mutters a few words, then mumbles, while strumming chords that will become Get Back is magical.

I was also struck by how the material we know in its final published form has sometimes come from unexpected sources, and also from way back. For the audience, we are misled into thinking that an album has been "written" in its entirety during the block of time between one album and the next. And that songs are created more or less whole.

But John sings the tune of _Jealous Guy _with other words than those published in 1971. The band rehearse _All Things Must Pass _which doesn't see the light of day until George releases it in late 1970. Another song (can't remember which) draws on material written when they were The Quarrymen.

The other thing that struck me was just how little John has to say. How insecure George is. And how much Paul leads.


----------



## Flamme

Underrated but imho one of their best...


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ A rare color version by an even rarer version of the Beatles! The history behind the making of the song was pretty entertaining, but sad in a way. Paul had problems with John, George Martin, and Emerick quit partly because of the exchange between Martin and Macca.

This is a pretty funny story.

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/ringo-starr-paul-mccartney-quit-the-beatles/


----------



## pianozach

Flamme said:


> Underrated but imho one of their best...


Not the Beatles, but a good fake. Lacks the spark of the original.

The real thing:


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Me too. Watching Paul 'jamming' alone, though with the others watching, as he mutters a few words, then mumbles, while strumming chords that will become Get Back is magical.
> 
> I was also struck by how the material we know in its final published form has sometimes come from unexpected sources, and also from way back. For the audience, we are misled into thinking that an album has been "written" in its entirety during the block of time between one album and the next. And that songs are created more or less whole.
> 
> But John sings the tune of _Jealous Guy _with other words than those published in 1971. The band rehearse _All Things Must Pass _which doesn't see the light of day until George releases it in late 1970. Another song (can't remember which) draws on material written when they were The Quarrymen.
> 
> The other thing that struck me was just how little John has to say. How insecure George is. And how much Paul leads.


Yes, I think we're surprised because the stories about them that we carry in our memories are so incomplete and naive. Fans are getting an eye-full and an ear-full. Young people who watch can estimate how much hype has accumulated, decade after decade. 
Gee, John is quiet and George insincere? Macca focused on getting the job done? No, they were just young men.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I think we're surprised because the stories about them that we carry in our memories are so incomplete and naive.


Except you're not 'we', are you? You have your own revisionist version. As for me - how do you know that my memories are incomplete and naive?

You don't, except to the extent that almost certainly everybody's memories are only a personal accumulation, not an objective one.



Luchesi said:


> Gee, John is quiet and George *insincere*? Macca focused on getting the job done? No, they were just young men.


Er...that should be 'insecure', not 'insincere'.


----------



## Guest

I remember "*Hold Me Tight*" was what was called a B Side release - the other side of a 'single'. These were seldom played by the 'disc jockeys' but you could get to know them if you had the single or the EP (as they were known then). It's not a bad song, but a large number of theirs were far better. Same with "*Another Girl*" - it wasn't top of the hit parade. But it did have some melodic interest with unpredictable leaps. "She will always be my friend" sounds like a Tierce (de Picardie) on the cadence.

Just the sight of that Parlophone label takes me right back to the days when bestie "Chrissy" and I sang into her parents' open-reel tape, along with the Beatles. Music-mad even then.


----------



## elgar's ghost

The first Beatles b-side I can remember hearing was _I'm Down_ (though not when it first came out in 1965 as I was far too young...). Still sounds great.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Except you're not 'we', are you? You have your own revisionist version. As for me - how do you know that my memories are incomplete and naive?
> 
> You don't, except to the extent that almost certainly everybody's memories are only a personal accumulation, not an objective one.
> 
> Er...that should be 'insecure', not 'insincere'.


Are you thinking about where you got your memories from?


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Are you thinking about where you got your memories from?


I don't understand the question.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I don't understand the question.


I got my memories from marketing articles about them at the time - and looking at the fan magazines the girls were looking at - and the cover art of albums (friends purchased, I didn't own any Beatles albums until years later).


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> I got my memories from marketing articles about them at the time - and looking at the fan magazines the girls were looking at - and the cover art of albums (friends purchased, I didn't own any Beatles albums until years later).


I got my memories from hearing their music on the radio and buying the LPs and examining every inch of the LP cover, and when _Sgt. Pepper_'s came out being blown away because it included the lyrics and credits. And learning the songs on my guitar in my bedroom and talking about them with my school friends and watching them on the Ed Sullivan Show.

I never read any fan magazines.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I got my memories from marketing articles about them at the time - and looking at the fan magazines the girls were looking at - and the cover art of albums (friends purchased, I didn't own any Beatles albums until years later).


So, your point is...?

Wait, we already discussed this. I already explained my experience of The Beatles and their music, and acknowledged that everyone's memories are layered and liable to distortion. That only means we have to bear these things in mind when anyone recounts their memories of pretty much anything. That doesn't invalidate what they say, and it's mistaken of you to presume that anyone who claims that The Beatles were a great and influential band is basing their judgement on hand me down memories by people who weren't there or were adversely influenced by a devious and mendacious media.


----------



## pianozach

*Four Random Beatles Songs for a Saturday Afternoon
*
_*Let It Be (album version) *_(1970)
_*Leave My Kitten Alone*_ (1964)
_*No Reply*_ (1964)
*Cat's Walk* (1962)

*Let It Be (album version)
*
There are several versions of this particular iconic Beatles song. It master take originally recorded in 31 January 1969, after having worked on it on camera for almost a month. George Harrison overdubbed a lead guitar solo on 30 April, which is the version used for the single, released in March 1970.  But Harrison recorded a different solo on 4 January 1970. This newer guitar was less subdued than the first solo, and the intention was to have both solos play simultaneously for the single version, although only the first solo was used.

John Lennon, with the blessings of Harrison and Starr (and without the knowledge of McCartney nor producer Geroge Martin, gave the abandoned master tapes of those January 1969 GET BACK sessions to Phil Spector on 23 March 1970. Spector's version features Harrison's second guitar solo overdub, fewer backing vocals, a delay effect on Starr's hi-hat, more prominent orchestration, an extra chorus at the end, and some alternate lyrics in the lead vocals from Paul McCartney. The "Get Back" album was re-titled and released as *LET IT BE* on 8 My 1970.

*Leave My Kitten Alone*

The band most likely based their version on *Johnny Preston*'s 1961 single, although it it had originally been recorded by *Little Willie John* in 1959. The song had been a part of their regular set list in 1961 and 1962. It was recorded with the intention of it being on their fourth LP, *Beatles For Sale*, but was cut to make room for a track on which Harrison sang lead. This blistering rendition would have been a better choice than one of their least-liked songs, Mr. Moonlight, which did make the cut for the album.

This track remained unreleased until 1995, when it appeared on the *Anthology I* album.

"Leave My Kitten Alone" demonstrated how the Beatles could reshape songs to fit their new, harder-rocking and uniquely youthful sound.

*No Reply*

Like many of the *Beatles for Sale* songs, "_*No Reply*_" showcases the group's artistic evolution. The acoustic guitar-dominated sound (provided Harrison and Lennon) predates the folk-feel of _*Rubber Soul*_, while Lennon's darker examination of love signals the deepening maturity and complexity of his lyrics.

The song was originally not intended for the album, but was given to another artist also managed by Brian Epstein, *Tommy Quickly* to record, but Quickly decided not to use it. As they were a bit pressed for material to record, due to their concert and film schedules, they reclaimed it and marked as their next single, until they recorded I FEEL FINE, which claimed their next single release instead. It became the opener for BEATLES FOR SALE, although, as an opener, it's a bit downbeat.

And, again with the handclaps, which they used remarkably well, and gives a unique feel to the song.

*Cat's Walk* (aka *Cat Call*)

Here's a very rare track, so rare that no proper studio recording was ever made. Originally written by McCartney back in 1959, the Beatles made a demo of it, along with a group of other original tunes, to give to publisher Dick James, in hopes of him signing them to a publishing contract. McCartney's aspirations for the song was to have guitarist Bert Weedon record and release it.

A proper recording was made, although it would be by the *Chris Barber Band*, on 20 October 1967, who renamed it 'Catcall'.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> So, your point is...?
> 
> Wait, we already discussed this. I already explained my experience of The Beatles and their music, and acknowledged that everyone's memories are layered and liable to distortion. That only means we have to bear these things in mind when anyone recounts their memories of pretty much anything. That doesn't invalidate what they say, and it's mistaken of you to presume that anyone who claims that The Beatles were a great and influential band is basing their judgement on hand me down memories by people who weren't there or were adversely influenced by a devious and mendacious media.


and acknowledged that everyone's memories are layered and liable to distortion.

You've acknowledged it.

This thread made me wonder about using Beatlemania as a unique phenomenon by which to explore decades of appreciation, tastes, distain, revisionism, faulty memories, and questionable memories that have been implanted.

From the posts of other posters we can get a general view of what happened to succeeding age groups in here.. Unlike any other opportunity for finding truth about a rock phenomenon. Well, maybe not..


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> *Four Random Beatles Songs for a Saturday Afternoon
> *
> _*Let It Be (album version) *_(1970)
> _*Leave My Kitten Alone*_ (1964)
> _*No Reply*_ (1964)
> *Cat's Walk* (1962)
> 
> *Let It Be (album version)
> *
> There are several versions of this particular iconic Beatles song. It master take originally recorded in 31 January 1969, after having worked on it on camera for almost a month. George Harrison overdubbed a lead guitar solo on 30 April, which is the version used for the single, released in March 1970. But Harrison recorded a different solo on 4 January 1970. This newer guitar was less subdued than the first solo, and the intention was to have both solos play simultaneously for the single version, although only the first solo was used.
> 
> John Lennon, with the blessings of Harrison and Starr (and without the knowledge of McCartney nor producer Geroge Martin, gave the abandoned master tapes of those January 1969 GET BACK sessions to Phil Spector on 23 March 1970. Spector's version features Harrison's second guitar solo overdub, fewer backing vocals, a delay effect on Starr's hi-hat, more prominent orchestration, an extra chorus at the end, and some alternate lyrics in the lead vocals from Paul McCartney. The "Get Back" album was re-titled and released as *LET IT BE* on 8 My 1970.
> 
> *Leave My Kitten Alone*
> 
> The band most likely based their version on *Johnny Preston*'s 1961 single, although it it had originally been recorded by *Little Willie John* in 1959. The song had been a part of their regular set list in 1961 and 1962. It was recorded with the intention of it being on their fourth LP, *Beatles For Sale*, but was cut to make room for a track on which Harrison sang lead. This blistering rendition would have been a better choice than one of their least-liked songs, Mr. Moonlight, which did make the cut for the album.
> 
> This track remained unreleased until 1995, when it appeared on the *Anthology I* album.
> 
> "Leave My Kitten Alone" demonstrated how the Beatles could reshape songs to fit their new, harder-rocking and uniquely youthful sound.
> 
> *No Reply*
> 
> Like many of the *Beatles for Sale* songs, "_*No Reply*_" showcases the group's artistic evolution. The acoustic guitar-dominated sound (provided Harrison and Lennon) predates the folk-feel of _*Rubber Soul*_, while Lennon's darker examination of love signals the deepening maturity and complexity of his lyrics.
> 
> The song was originally not intended for the album, but was given to another artist also managed by Brian Epstein, *Tommy Quickly* to record, but Quickly decided not to use it. As they were a bit pressed for material to record, due to their concert and film schedules, they reclaimed it and marked as their next single, until they recorded I FEEL FINE, which claimed their next single release instead. It became the opener for BEATLES FOR SALE, although, as an opener, it's a bit downbeat.
> 
> And, again with the handclaps, which they used remarkably well, and gives a unique feel to the song.
> 
> *Cat's Walk* (aka *Cat Call*)
> 
> Here's a very rare track, so rare that no proper studio recording was ever made. Originally written by McCartney back in 1959, the Beatles made a demo of it, along with a group of other original tunes, to give to publisher Dick James, in hopes of him signing them to a publishing contract. McCartney's aspirations for the song was to have guitarist Bert Weedon record and release it.
> 
> A proper recording was made, although it would be by the *Chris Barber Band*, on 20 October 1967, who renamed it 'Catcall'.


I can't forget that "Let It Be" was what they said to Paul's illegitimate son (during a confrontation in the street). It's a youtube conspiracy scenario.


----------



## Guest

I think this is one of the best songs from "The Beatles" - because of its sheer musical interest. The lyrics are largely incoherent, but the melody line is unpredictable with a highly original arrangement.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> I can't forget that "Let It Be" was what they said to Paul's illegitimate son (during a confrontation in the street). It's a youtube conspiracy scenario.


Huh? Never heard THAT story before. I'm generally very well caught up on my Beatles trivia.

I can't forget the parody version of LET IT BE that they did on Sesame Street, LETTER "B" by "The Beetles".


----------



## pianozach

Christabel said:


> I think this is one of the best songs from "The Beatles" - because of its sheer musical interest. The lyrics are largely incoherent, but the melody line is unpredictable with a highly original arrangement.











John nicked a large amount of the lyrics from phrases on an actual Circus poster.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Came across this from Wikipedia on *Strawberry Fields* while I was looking for the Brain Wilson quote on the Beach Boys thread:

"Lennon viewed "Strawberry Fields Forever" as his finest work with the Beatles."

""Strawberry Fields Forever" was originally written on acoustic guitar in the key of C major. The recorded version is not in standard pitch, due to manipulation of the tape speed, and the key is approximately B♭ major.[33] Among musicologists, Walter Everett describes it as "midway between" A and B♭ over the opening minute and subsequently "closer to B♭",[34] while Dominic Pedler says that some consider it to be closer to A major.[35]

The song begins with a flute-like introduction played on Mellotron,[15] and involves a I-ii-I-♭VII-IV progression (in Roman numeral analysis).[36] The vocals enter with the chorus instead of a verse.[37] In Pedler's description, it has "non-diatonic chords and secondary dominants" combining with "chromatic melodic tension intensified through outrageous harmonisation and root movement".[38] The phrase "to Strawberry" begins with a slightly dissonant G melody note against a prevailing F minor key, then uses the semitone dissonance B♭ and B notes (the natural and sharpened 11th degrees against the Fm chord) until the consonant F note is reached on "Fields". The same series of mostly dissonant melody notes covers the phrase "nothing is real" against the prevailing G7 chord (F♯7 in the key of A).[38]

A half-bar complicates the metre of the choruses, as does the fact that the vocals begin in the middle of the first bar. The first verse follows the chorus and is eight bars long. The verse starts with an F major chord, which progresses to G minor, the submediant, serving as a deceptive cadence. According to musicologist Alan Pollack, the deceptive cadence is encountered in the verse, as the leading-tone never resolves into a I chord directly as expected.[33] Instead, the leading note, harmonised as part of the dominant chord, resolves to the prevailing tonic (B♭) at the end of the verse, after tonicising the subdominant (IV) E♭ chord, on "disagree".[35] On the released recording, the second and third verses are introduced by a descending, raga-esque melody played on an Indian board-mounted zither, known as a swarmandal.[39]

In the middle of the second chorus, brass is introduced, emphasising an ominous quality in the lyrics.[37] After three verses and four choruses, the line "Strawberry Fields Forever" is repeated three times, and the song fades out, with interplay between electric guitar, cello and swarmandal. The song fades back in after a few seconds for what Everett terms a "free-form coda".[40] This avant-garde-style section features the Mellotron playing in a haunting tone - one achieved by recording the instrument's "Swinging Flutes" setting in reverse[41] - scattered drumming, discordant brass, and murmuring, after which the song fades for a second time.[37][33]"


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Came across this from Wikipedia on *Strawberry Fields*


Has always been my favorite Beatles song. Some critics have taken aim at the lyrics, one (I forget which) called them "hippie-dippie" twaddle, or something to the effect. However, I find them a masterful piece of writing, capturing the ambivalence of nostalgia. On the one hand, the memory feels vivid, but on the other, it is a dreamy and blurred image, and often difficult to articulate.

This is all reflected in the lyrics.


----------



## pianozach

*Strawberry Fields Forever*

No disagreement here.

Lyrically it is quite poetic. John had a gift for turning phrases when he wanted. There is pathos and hope in SFF, and the lyrics paint a picture that can be interpreted any number of ways. There's self-doubt, there's spirituality, there's psychedelia, juxtaposition . . .

_"Living is easy with eyes closed"_


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> Came across this from Wikipedia on *Strawberry Fields* while I was looking for the Brain Wilson quote on the Beach Boys thread:
> 
> "Lennon viewed "Strawberry Fields Forever" as his finest work with the Beatles."
> 
> ""Strawberry Fields Forever" was originally written on acoustic guitar in the key of C major. The recorded version is not in standard pitch, due to manipulation of the tape speed, and the key is approximately B♭ major.[33] Among musicologists, Walter Everett describes it as "midway between" A and B♭ over the opening minute and subsequently "closer to B♭",[34] while Dominic Pedler says that some consider it to be closer to A major.[35]
> 
> The song begins with a flute-like introduction played on Mellotron,[15] and involves a I-ii-I-♭VII-IV progression (in Roman numeral analysis).[36] The vocals enter with the chorus instead of a verse.[37] In Pedler's description, it has "non-diatonic chords and secondary dominants" combining with "chromatic melodic tension intensified through outrageous harmonisation and root movement".[38] The phrase "to Strawberry" begins with a slightly dissonant G melody note against a prevailing F minor key, then uses the semitone dissonance B♭ and B notes (the natural and sharpened 11th degrees against the Fm chord) until the consonant F note is reached on "Fields". The same series of mostly dissonant melody notes covers the phrase "nothing is real" against the prevailing G7 chord (F♯7 in the key of A).[38]
> 
> A half-bar complicates the metre of the choruses, as does the fact that the vocals begin in the middle of the first bar. The first verse follows the chorus and is eight bars long. The verse starts with an F major chord, which progresses to G minor, the submediant, serving as a deceptive cadence. According to musicologist Alan Pollack, the deceptive cadence is encountered in the verse, as the leading-tone never resolves into a I chord directly as expected.[33] Instead, the leading note, harmonised as part of the dominant chord, resolves to the prevailing tonic (B♭) at the end of the verse, after tonicising the subdominant (IV) E♭ chord, on "disagree".[35] On the released recording, the second and third verses are introduced by a descending, raga-esque melody played on an Indian board-mounted zither, known as a swarmandal.[39]
> 
> In the middle of the second chorus, brass is introduced, emphasising an ominous quality in the lyrics.[37] After three verses and four choruses, the line "Strawberry Fields Forever" is repeated three times, and the song fades out, with interplay between electric guitar, cello and swarmandal. The song fades back in after a few seconds for what Everett terms a "free-form coda".[40] This avant-garde-style section features the Mellotron playing in a haunting tone - one achieved by recording the instrument's "Swinging Flutes" setting in reverse[41] - scattered drumming, discordant brass, and murmuring, after which the song fades for a second time.[37][33]"


When we (boys) first heard "Let me take you down 'cause I'm going to" we twittered and twittered. We were boys, and boys will be boys. Maybe it's just my imagination, but John did this (intentionally) in earlier songs too. It was quite a new tidbit of suggestiveness to our teenage ears.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> When we (boys) first heard "Let me take you down 'cause I'm going to" we twittered and twittered. We were boys, and boys will be boys. Maybe it's just my imagination, but John did this (intentionally) in earlier songs too. It was quite a new tidbit of suggestiveness to our teenage ears.


Absolutely. They DID sneak in some lyrics that could be snuck past the censors.

There's the backing vocals in GIRL: They're singing a "naughty" word.

Even earlier: I'LL GET YOU has the lyrics "I'll get you in the end.

In IT'S ONLY LOVE John sings about "It's so hard loving you."

And the other side of the STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER single, PENNY LANE has a few as well: "Fish and finger pie".

Right up to the end . . . in I'VE GOT A FEELING John glosses over his laundry list of what people have. One of them is a "wet dream".

Oh, naughty naughty Beatles.


----------



## SanAntone

pianozach said:


> Absolutely. They DID sneak in some lyrics that could be snuck past the censors.
> 
> There's the backing vocals in GIRL: They're singing a "naughty" word.
> 
> Even earlier: I'LL GET YOU has the lyrics "I'll get you in the end.
> 
> In IT'S ONLY LOVE John sings about "It's so hard loving you."
> 
> And the other side of the STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER single, PENNY LANE has a few as well: "Fish and finger pie".
> 
> Right up to the end . . . in I'VE GOT A FEELING John glosses over his laundry list of what people have. One of them is a "wet dream".
> 
> Oh, naughty naughty Beatles.


Probably the most explicit and earliest is "Please, Please Me".


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> Absolutely. They DID sneak in some lyrics that could be snuck past the censors.
> 
> There's the backing vocals in GIRL: They're singing a "naughty" word.
> 
> Even earlier: I'LL GET YOU has the lyrics "I'll get you in the end.
> 
> In IT'S ONLY LOVE John sings about "It's so hard loving you."
> 
> And the other side of the STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER single, PENNY LANE has a few as well: "Fish and finger pie".
> 
> Right up to the end . . . in I'VE GOT A FEELING John glosses over his laundry list of what people have. One of them is a "wet dream".
> 
> Oh, naughty naughty Beatles.


This whole song would be shocking to us today but not back then. Passionate songs were 'allowed'.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> This whole song would be shocking to us today but not back then. Passionate songs were 'allowed'.


Yeah, we rarely talk about this song. Nice groove and all, but lyrically embarassing. Last song on an otherwise flawless album (Rubber Soul)


----------



## RollOvaMozart

I am quite aggrieved that only from Sgt Pepper onwards has Giles Martin remastered Beatles titles as Rubber Soul and Revolver deserved the same loving treatment along with some kind of Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine, Get Back (US release) compilation so that later Beatle tracks not on the 1967-70 main albums can be heard with 21st century glory


----------



## Phil loves classical

I got so used to the 1987 stereo mix of Sgt. Pepper that the Giles remix was of only passing curiosity, and I found the greater immediacy of sound distracting, so I sold my copy of the anniversary edition after only a few listens. I found the UK mono versions of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper sound the best, and the most atmospheric.


----------



## Guest

pianozach said:


> Yeah, we rarely talk about this song. Nice groove and all, but lyrically embarassing. Last song on an otherwise flawless album (Rubber Soul)


It's just dreadful, isn't it. What sort of man/men would write lyrics like that?


----------



## pianozach

Christabel said:


> It's just dreadful, isn't it. What sort of man/men would write lyrics like that?


I think John thought he was being being "cute". I'm surprised it made it onto the album. They'd have been better off ending the album with LEAVE MY KITTEN ALONE, which had been cut from the previous album in favor of giving George EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO BE MY BABY instead.


----------



## pianozach

*Thursday Night 4-Song Beatles Random Playlist*

*And I Love Her* (1964)
*I Wanna Be Your Man* (1963)
_*Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby*_ (1964)
_*We Can Work It Out*_ (1965)

*And I Love Her*

This Paul McCartney was released on the *A Hard Day's Night* soundtrack, and as a single (reaching #12 on the Billboard Top 100). John Lennon probably wrote the middle 8, while George Harrison contributed the signature guitar riff played on a Classical guitar.

This particular song has been covered (at least 300 times) by many diverse artists in many diverse styles, including several where the title has been altered to And I Love Him.

Perhaps the most surprising cover was from Nirvana singer *Kurt Cobain*, released as a single in 2015, which climbed to #2 on the Billboard Hot Singles Sales chart.

*I Wanna Be Your Man*

The backstory on this song is actually pretty odd. When this Lennon/McCartney song was first released as a single, it peaked at #12 on the British charts, but it wasn't by the Beatles. They'd written the song for Ringo to sing, they offered it to the *Rolling Stones*, who released it on 1 November 1963. The Beatles version, with Ringo Starr singing lead vocal on the verses was released 7 weeks later on their second album *With The Beatles*.

*Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby*

George Harrison sang on the cover of this 1957 *Carl Perkins* song for their 1964 album *Beatles For Sale* (their fourth), although they'd been playing it as early as 1962.

The false ending on the song is a Beatles invention.

*We Can Work It Out*

This one is a collaboration between Lennon and McCartney. Probably the most striking thing about the song is the Salvation Army Harmonium Lennon plays on the track.

It was released as a Double-A-Side single (with Day Tripper), and reached #1 in the charts in several countries, including the US and the UK.


----------



## pianozach

Something a little different today: Let's look at the *EX-Fab Fours first singles*. In order.

As there are two sides to every single, this will have to be a multi-parter.

So, for starters, The Beatles were technically broken up early September 1969, although it wasn't announced until March or April 1970. Between those two dates three Beatles albums were released: *Abbey Road* (26 Sept 1969), and *Hey Jude* (26 Feb 1970), and *Let It Be* was released on 8 May 1970 after the official announcement. So where and when do you say they stopped being Beatles, and became Ex-Beatles? That's a fairly fluid event: John did no more musical work for or with The Beatles after their early September '69 fall-out. But Paul, George, and Ringo got together in January 1970 to record *I ME MINE* for inclusion on *LET IT BE.*

And John, Paul, George, and Ringo all released solo albums prior to the official announcement, although none of them were proper studio pop albums.

Technically, Paul had the first single.

(_*Love in the Open Air/Theme from 'The Family Way' *_23 Dec 1966) and album 
(*THE FAMILY WAY* soundtrack 6 Jan 1967),

followed by George with the Wonderwall soundtrack, "*Wonderwall Music*" 1 Nov 1968

John released two experimental albums

11 Nov 1968, *UNFINISHED MUSIC NO. 1: TWO VIRGINS*
9 May 1969, *UNFINISHED MUSIC NO. 2: LIFE WITH THE LIONS*

George released his own experimental album on the same day,

9 May 1969 *ELECTRONIC SOUND*

Then John released two singles, another experimental album, and a live album, and yet another single:

04 Jul 1969 *Give Peace a Chance*
20 Oct 1969 *Cold Turkey*
20 Oct 1969 *WEDDING ALBUM*
12 Dec 1969 *LIVE PEACE IN TORONTO 1969*
6 Feb 1970 *Instant Karma*

So while these releases tend to portray John as being especially prolific, the three experimental albums, and live album, were just plain awful. The live album, while somewhat interesting, was under-rehearsed, and half the album features his wife Yoko, not John.

And . . . those singles. Unlike other artists, who release an A Side and a B Side on their singles, John gave the B-Sides to Yoko, so it was only three songs, not six songs. But he was first out of the gate in terms of Pop or Rock singles, and all three were well-received at the time.

Then both Ringo and Paul released solo albums, although Ringo's was an LP of old standards. But neither had any singles released from those albums.

In September 1970, Ringo released another album, this time a collection of new Nashville songs, although a single WAS released from this collection, 25 Sept 1970, _*Beaucoups of Blues/Coochy Coochy*_ (although the B-Side was NOT on the album).

George's first single was released prior to the album *ALL THINGS MUST PASS* from which it was included:

23 Nov 1970 _*My Sweet Lord/Isn't It A Pity*_

. . . followed by two more singles from the same album

15 Jan 1971 *My Sweet Lord/What Is Life*
15 Feb 1971 *What Is Life/Apple Scruffs*

And then, at long last, Paul finally released his first single. Both sides were non-album songs:

19 Feb 1971 _*Another Day/Oh Woman, Oh Why*_

So here's their solo Pop singles discography from July '69 through Feb '71

*1969.07.04 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Cold Turkey
1970.02.06 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Instant Karma (We All Shine On)
1970.10.05 - Ringo Starr - Beaucoups of Blues/Coochy Coochy
1970.11.23 - George Harrison - My Sweet Lord/Isn't It A Pity
1970.12.28 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Mother
1971.01.15 - George Harrison - My Sweet Lord/What Is Life
1971.02.15 - George Harrison - What Is Life/ Apple Scruffs
1971.02.19 - Paul McCartney - Another Day/Oh Woman, Oh Why
1971.03.12 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Power to the People
1971.04.09 - Ringo Starr - It Don't Come Easy/Early 1970
*

*1969.07.04 - John Lennon & Plastic Ono Band/Yoko Ono & Plastic Ono Band - Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love

This non-album single features a song from John on the A-Side, and a song from Yoko Ono on the B-Side, and was released while the Beatles were still together, on 4 July 1969.

Give Peace a Chance (Lennon/McCartney)

Well, for starters Give Peace a Chance makes the Songs With Only Two Chords In It list. It's basically a nine word chorus (repeated once), and verses that are a laundry list of things and people. John Lennon sings the word salad verses, while the choruses are sung with the help of a hotel room of visitors, accompanied by both he and Tommy Smothers on acoustic guitars. There were some overdubs of vocals and handclaps later.

The songwriting credit is unique as it's credited to Lennon/McCartney, even though McCartney had nothing to do with the song.

The song itself resonated with the public, becoming an anthem of the American anti-war movement during the 1970s. It peaked at number 14 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and number 2 on the British singles chart.

Remember Love (Yoko Ono)

This gentle folklike ballad was recorded in the same hotel room the same evening, after all the guests had left. Yoko sings the simplistic lyrics in a childlike manner, with John playing a fingerpicked acoustic guitar in support. In fact, the lyrics consist of ten 2-line couplets that all start with singing "Remember love" twice, followed by a lyric that states "love is what it takes" to do various things such as live, see, fly or dream. It ends with a lovely improvised coda. Frankly, the song is a Zen-like tranquil affair with a lovely melody, although Yoko's untrained voice is certainly NOT everyone's cup of tea.









*


----------



## pianozach

1969.07.04 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love
1969.09.26 - Beatles	- ABBEY ROAD
1969.10.20 - *Plastic Ono Band - Cold Turkey/Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Only Looking for a Hand in the Snow)*

So, I should point out that Lennon's singles at first tended to be credited to PLASTIC ONO BAND, which was just a euphemism for John & Yoko, and whomever might be backing them.

For the A-Side of that first single, it was John and Tommy Smothers on acoustic guitars, John on Lead vocal with the help from a bunch of random folks singing the chorus, and contributing handclaps and hand drums. The B-Side was sung by Yoko and accompanied buy John.

So John's next single, *Cold Turkey*, was released a month after Abbey Road hit the stores, on 20 October 1969. However, it wasn't the first "appearance" of the song, as John had publicly debuted it 13 September at the Toronto Rock and Roll Revival festival. Again, the B-Side, Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Only Looking for a Hand in the Snow), was given to Yoko, with a song that was also "performed" at that same concert.

While the song may very well be about heroin withdrawal, John had mentioned to his personal assistant that it was actually about a bad case of food poisoning. But with John, one is never sure when he was pulling your leg, and when he was being honest.

The Personnel on this is JL on all vocals, JL and Eric Clapton on guitar, Klaus Voorman on bass, and Ringo Starr on drums. This peaked at #14 on the UK charts, and at #30 on the US Billboard Pop Singles chart.
*
Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Only Looking for Her Hand in the Snow)*

The lineup is the same as for Cold Turkey, with the addition of Yoko on vocal. Her "vocal" consists her exploring new sounds a mouth can make, and a lot of shrieking as well.


----------



## pianozach

The *Plastic Ono Band* single that never was.

*You Know My Name (Look Up the Number) / What's the New Mary Jane*

In November 1969 John Lennon was back in the studio, adding some overdubs and making some final mixes to a couple of novelty Beatles songs they'd been working on. The plan was (and was announced in January 1970, when Apple issued a press statement, describing the record as Lennon and Ono singing and backed by "many of the greatest show business names of today") to release it as a *Plastic Ono Band* single. It got as far as having an Apple release number attached to it.

Once the rest of the Beatles got wind of it (and just how did Lennon think he'd be able to sneak this release by them without them hearing about it anyway?) it was cancelled. *You Know My Name* then ended up as the B-Side to the *Let It Be* single in March 1970. In Lennon's attempt to make the song fit on a single, a ska section was edited out.

_*You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)*_ had been started and worked on in May/June 1967 (all four Beatles, their assistant Mal Evans, and Brian Jones from The Rolling Stones playing saxophone), with John and Paul laying down vocals in April 1969.

*What's the New Mary Jane* was recorded mostly in August 1968 [John, Yoko, George Harrison, and Mal Evans] (with an early acoustic demo recorded in May), as a possible track for *The White Album*, and John and Yoko added some overdubs in November 1969.










:devil:

It's sort of a damning thing that John wanted these released under his own name, when he was basically just recycling rejected novelty material. But Paul McCartney had been dragging out Lennon incomplete or neglected songs to give John a more prominent positioning on the more recent Beatles' albums. This was just John himself repurposing songs (like he'd do again a year later, turning _*Child of Nature*_ into _*Jealous Guy*_). Even when he eventually got it together enough to release his first couple of studio albums, they were still pretty short on material; *Plastic Ono Band* and *Imagine* both clocked in at around only 40 minutes, and only 10 or 11 songs. His first 5 singles had Yoko on the B-Side.


----------



## Luchesi

I've never looked into it, but I wonder why these cover bands get away with putting these recordings on YouTube?? -- when people who are just trying to teach or explain the Beatles, they're allowed to play only very short clips (which is not very helpful in most cases).






added - If a serious teacher wanted to use a performance by them above, they would probably get a copyright strike. It's a weird world. But maybe one of our posters knows why?


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> I've never looked into it, but I wonder why these cover bands get away with putting these recordings on YouTube?? -- when people who are just trying to teach or explain the Beatles, they're allowed to play only very short clips (which is not very helpful in most cases).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> added - If a serious teacher wanted to use a performance by them above, they would probably get a copyright strike. It's a weird world. But maybe one of our posters knows why?


Using *The Beatles*' original recordings will get you a copyright strike.

But performing a cover won't.

Same with Jimi Hendrix. Really tough finding any of his core recordings on Youtube, although you can find plenty of soundalike recordings, including many that try to pass themselves off as the real thing (unless you click on the "See More" button).


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> Using *The Beatles*' original recordings will get you a copyright strike.
> 
> But performing a cover won't.
> 
> Same with Jimi Hendrix. Really tough finding any of his core recordings on Youtube, although you can find plenty of soundalike recordings, including many that try to pass themselves off as the real thing (unless you click on the "See More" button).


Do you prefer any of these covers? They're very good, and your ears are guided to what's so good in the originals (for the fans who have these sounds cemented into their consciousness). According to many comments there, young people don't hear it.

And then here's the real thing.






Here's Elton, or else this singer really did his homework!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1VEm_ez01A


----------



## Luchesi

The URL for Elton

It looks the same as the one above, but for some technical reason it's not. IDK, maybe the mods know what happened to cause this. I've never seen it happen anywhere else.


----------



## pianozach

Luchesi said:


> *Do you prefer any of these covers?* They're very good, and your ears are guided to what's so good in the originals (for the fans who have these sounds cemented into their consciousness). According to many comments there, young people don't hear it.
> 
> And then here's the real thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Elton, or else this singer really did his homework!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1VEm_ez01A


Generally I'm not "into" "Mimic Covers", as there always seems to be something lost, and it's usually because the vocals aren't right.

There are, however, two bands that get it right almost every time, and they do it LIVE: One of them is *The Analogues*.

They pride themselves on being able to get the correct sounds of everything, even hunting down vintage instruments. Just like it's a Classical Music concert. All the extraneous voices, sound effects. When needed, they bring on guests to fill in strings, horns, even vocals.










The other is a superstar superband that call themselves *YELLOW MATTER CUSTARD*. *Mike Portnoy* (Dream Theater, Transatlantic) on drums, *Neal Morse* (Spock's Beard, Transatlantic) on keyboards and guitars, *Paul Gilbert* (Mr. Big, Racer X) on lead guitar, and *Matt Bissonette* (who's played with Ringo Starr, ELO, David Lee Roth, and Elton John) on bass. Bissonette was replaced with *Kasim Sulton* (Utopia, as well as touring with Blue Öyster Cult, Meat Loaf, Hall & Oates, Cheap Trick, Patty Smyth, Joan Jett, and others).


----------



## Luchesi

Yellow matter custard comes from a nasty nursery rhyme originally. Even as a broad-minded teenager I thought immediately this was very cringeworthy of John.


----------



## pianozach

1969.05.30 - Beatles - _*The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe*_
1969.07.04 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love
1969.10.06 - Beatles - *Something/Come Together*
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Cold Turkey/Don't Worry, Kyoko
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - WEDDING ALBUM
1969.12.12 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - LIVE PEACE IN TORONTO 1969
1970.02.06 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - *Instant Karma (We All Shine On)/Who Has Seen the Wind?*

Actually, I got my chronology a bit mixed up.

Let's go back to mid-1969. The *Beatles* had worked on *Abbey Road* from 22 February to 20 August 1969, although it wasn't much at first. In February they managed to get the backing track to *I Want You (She's So Heavy)*, with some help from Billy Preston, who had helped with the Get Back sessions that wrapped only 3 weeks previous. They did a small amount of work in April and May.

As it turned out, John had written a The Ballad of John and Yoko mid-April about the travails of he and Yoko, and wanted it recorded immediately, even though George and Ringo were unavailable. So this 3-chord travelogue features John on lead vocal, with Paul lending some harmonies. John plays acoustic and electric guitars, while Paul plays bass, piano, and drums. Recorded on April 14.

After George returned from his vacation The Beatles recorded George Harrison's song Old Brown Shoe on the 16th and 18th of April, although they had rehearsed it as far back as January. The personnel on this one is unclear . . . It may or may not be Paul on drums again (Starr was working on the film The Magic Christian), and it may be either John or Paul on piano, or even possibly George, or even Billy Preston. While Lennon had played a rhythm guitar for the initial recording, Harrison had it wiped to make room for some Hammond organ, which he played himself. It seems that Lennon had some difficulty with the changes (I7 - ii7 - IV - bVI - IV - III+ - vi) on both rhythm guitar AND piano. The bass playing is also in dispute, with Harrison claiming to have played the bass guitar (which doubles the lead guitar an octave lower).

According to Harrison himself, the lyrical content started as a study in opposites and addresses "the duality of things".










In July John and Yoko released *Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love* as a single, and on 9 September *The Beatles* released the *Abbey Road* LP. On 6 October the double A-Side single Something/Come Together was released, the first time one of George's songs was given top billing.

*Something* received the *Ivor Novello Award* for the *"Best Song Musically and Lyrically"* of 1969. By the late 1970s, it had been covered by over 150 artists, making it the second-most covered Beatles composition. Lennon played piano on the song, most of which was wiped from the main part of the song, only really being heard as part of the descending melodic line at the end of the bridges.

And *Come Together*, a John Lennon song for which he was accused of plagiarizing the first lines from an old Elvis Presley song.










Two weeks after that single was released, John (and Yoko) released both their vanity WEDDING ALBUM and the single, *Cold Turkey/Don't Worry Kyoko (Mama's Only Looking For Her Hand In the Snow)* *The Wedding Album*, the third and final "Experimental" album from John and Yoko, was perhaps even more unlistenable than the previous two.

On 12 December, yet another release from Lennon, the Live Peace In Toronto LP, recorded 13 September 1969. This live set from Lennon and Yoko, backed by bassist Klaus Voorman and drummer Alan White, was a barely rehearsed gig that consisted of a few rock standards, one Beatles song, a performance of the as-yet-unreleased Cold Turkey, and an electric version of his first single, Instant Karma, all on the A-Side. The B-Side is 17 interminable minutes of Yoko Ono's _"pitchless, brainless, banshee vocalizing"_, _"plodding rock rhythms and . . . feedback"_ [Richard Ginell of AllMusic ]

But _*Instant Karma (We All Shine On)*_, released on 6 February, a mere 10 days after it was recorded, was yet another hit single for *John*. Catchy, hooky, with a message that seemed rather profound.

On the B-Side was another sing-songy tune from *Yoko*, _*Who Has Seen the Wind?*_, with the lyrics from the first verse was taken from a poem (by the same name) by 19th-century poet Christina Rossetti.

Here's both sides of that single:


----------



## pianozach

I find it remarkable that John Lennon ended up having 5 songs (mostly all hits) in roughly 7 months, but this was a feat he would never again match. His songwriting would gradually trail off, with his 3rd studio album consisting of only a half dozen songs (the rest were from Yoko), and 6th studio album (in 1975) being nothing but covers.

A mere 20 days after Instant Karma was release, a Beatles compilation album was released (*Hey Jude*), mostly featuring Capitol Records non-album tracks. And a week after that The Beatles also released the _*Let It Be/You Know My Name*_ single.

On 27 March 1970 Ringo Starr released an album of old standards (Sentimental Journey), and no singles were released in support, although he did released a music video of the title track. Paul McCartney had graciously moved the release of his solo album, McCartney, back to 17 April so as not to be in direct competition.

Had there actually been a single, it likely would have been Sentimental Journey on the A-Side (arguably the worst track on the album). I have a favorite track from the album, so I'll just pretend that it would have been the B-Side.

For your amusement, here is a Ringo Starr single that never was, Sentimental Journey/Bye Bye Blackbird.


----------



## pianozach

*Yet another single that never was*. _But should have been_.

A mere 3 weeks after the 27 March release of *Ringo*'s *Sentimental Journey*, *Paul McCartney*'s *McCartney* was released on 17 April, also with no singles in support of the album.

But had there been a single prepared, it's likely that *Maybe I'm Amazed*, the only track on the album NOT home recorded, would have been the A-Side. As for the B-Side, I'm convinced that _*Every Night*_ would have made the cut, although Junk was a favorite of Paul's (so much so that he also included an instrumental version of it on the album). The album surprisingly has 5 instrumental tracks.


----------



## pianozach

1969.05.30 - Beatles - The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
1969.07.04 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love
1969.10.06 - Beatles - Something/Come Together
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Cold Turkey/Don't Worry, Kyoko
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - WEDDING ALBUM
1969.12.12 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - LIVE PEACE IN TORONTO 1969
1970.02.06 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Instant Karma (We All Shine On)/Who Has Seen the Wind?
1970.03.06 - Beatles - *Let It Be (single version)/You Know My Name (Look Up the Number) (single version)*

So . . . while *John Lennon* has already released three solo singles, AND the last three *Beatles* singles had John on either the A or B side, AND The Beatles had already secretly broken up . . . it was _still_ only a rumor.

Of course, fans had already sussed it out that the Band of the Decade were pretty much "done": *Ringo* had released a solo "Standards" album, *George* had released a Soundtrack and an Electronica album, and *John* had released three unlistenable "experimental" albums, an almost unlistenable Live album, and three well-received singles.

But on 26 February 1970, the *Hey Jude* compilation album was released, comprised mostly of non-album singles tracks. This release was prepared without any input from any of the band members, and they were pretty much opposed to the idea.

And on 6 March 1970, just a week later, *The Beatles* released the *Let It Be/You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)* single. At the time, it had the highest debut on the Billboard Hot 100, beginning its chart run at number 6 and eventually reaching the top.

The Flip Side was the song *You Know My Name*, which the band had been working on (off and on) for years, and that John Lennon had mixed down with the intention of it being a solo single.










1970.03.27 - Ringo Starr - SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY
1970.04.17 - Paul McCartney - MCCARTNEY

So, John and George sent Ringo out to Paul's house to let him know they were going to push the release of his solo album back [again] so that the release of the *LET IT BE* album and Paul's solo album wouldn't be going head to head, and Paul threw Ringo out of the house. This was the final straw of many that finally made Paul the last to leave the band. He had a press release prepared, in which it was made clear that the *THE BEATLES* were no more.

*MCCARTNEY* was released on schedule (17 April), and no singles were released to promote the album.

*LET IT BE* was released on 8 May. Curiously, a different version of the song _*Across the Universe*_ had already appeared on a compilation album released 12 December 1969 [the same day that *John Lennon*'s *Live Peace in Toronto 1969* was released], on a charity compilation album *No One's Gonna Change Our World* for the benefit of the World Wildlife Fund.

This version of the song differs greatly from the version released on the *LET IT BE* album, although it's the same basic backing track. While producer Phil Spector slowed the track down, this version was sped up, started and ended with some sound effects of birds, had some wah wah guitar overdubbed, and featured some backing vocals from John and Paul, as well as some fans they recruited to sing the choruses an octave higher.


----------



## Forster

I've been given _Let It Be, _50th Anniversary edition for Christmas. I like the new mix - which I can compare with the 2009 remix which I have on CD. Individual instruments given more room.

I've also watched part 2 of _Get Back_. Lennon more prominent, all four more harmonious. Peter Sellers puts in an appearance - who knows why - the Fab Four seem a bit non-plussed.

Ringo looks tired.


----------



## pianozach

The *Let It Be* album had every unlucky stroke imaginable. But the Allen Klein decision to include *Don't Let Me Down, The Ballad of John and Yoko*, and *Old Brown Shoe* on the HEY JUDE album in January 1970 really left Glyn Johns, and later, Phil Spector, with few options as to track selection. Of course, John releasing *Give Peace A Chance, Cold Turkey*, and _*Instant Karma!*_ as solo singles left the Beatles with a leaky boat in terms of available tracks, although this was partially their own fault. The rejection of *Cold Turkey* as a Beatles track was another of the straws that broke the Beatles' backs.

Three days after the release of the *LET IT BE* album, a single was released, *11 May 1970* in support of the album. As *Get Back*, _Don't Let Me Down _and _*Let It Be*_ had already been released, there actually wasn't a lot left to choose from, so the single was _*The Long and Winding Road/For You Blue*_, which predictably became a #1 hit.

The Phil Spector addition of string orchestra, brass, harp, and a 14-voice female choir to *The Long and Winding Road* was another of those back-breaking straws: Not only was Paul not consulted, he wasn't even aware that Spector had been given the session tapes to with the charge of producing an album. Then again, Paul was also miffed about being overruled about Allen Klein being given the role of Beatles Manager.

Paul had recorded a demo version of the song during the White Album sessions, and later offered the song to Tom Jones on the condition that the singer release it as his next single. As Jones already had a single ready for release the offer was declined.

The B-Side, *George Harrison*'s country-blues _*For You Blue*_ ended up charting due to it garnering sufficient airplay for Billboard to chart the two songs together. Neither George's working title, _*George's Blues*_, nor the title decided on during the original mixing, _*Because You're Sweet and Lovely*_, were retained. Phil Spector retitled the song _*For You Blue*_ in May 1970.


----------



## pianozach

1969.05.30 - Beatles - The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
1969.07.04 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love
1969.10.06 - Beatles - Something/Come Together
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Cold Turkey/Don't Worry, Kyoko
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - WEDDING ALBUM
1969.12.12 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - LIVE PEACE IN TORONTO 1969
1970.02.06 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Instant Karma (We All Shine On)/Who Has Seen the Wind?
1970.03.06 - Beatles - Let It Be (single version)/You Know My Name (Look Up the Number) (single version)
1970.03.27 - Ringo Starr - SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY
1970.04.17 - Paul McCartney - MCCARTNEY
1970 05.08 - Beatles - LET IT BE
1970.05.11 - Beatles - The Long and Winding Road/For You Blue

And then it went quiet for four months.

And who would break the silence? *Ringo*. Another album from Ringo, this time a batch of new songs written by Nashville songwriters, with backing tracks from Nashville session musicians. And, predictably, a single in support of the new album, *Ringo Starr*'s first solo single, although the B-Side would be a leftover non-album track.

1970.09.25 - Ringo Starr - BEAUCOUPS OF BLUES
1970.10.05 - Ringo Starr - *Beaucoups of Blues/Coochy Coochy*


----------



## pianozach

1970.11.23 - *George Harrison* - *My Sweet Lord/Isn't It A Pity* [US]
1971.01.15 - *George Harrison* - *My Sweet Lord/What Is Life* [UK]

Four days before the release of George Harrison's triple-LP *All Things Must Pass*, a single was issued, and it topped the charts worldwide. It was George's first solo single, and in America and Britain, the song was the first number-one single by an ex-Beatle.

But George was not the first artist to release *My Sweet Lord*. George had given the song to Billy Preston, who released the song in September 1970.

This song was also subject to a copyright lawsuit, which George lost, although he was not the first Beatle to have lost a copyright lawsuit: That distinction goes to John Lennon for nicking a line and lyric from *Chuck Berry*'s *You Can't Catch Me* for his song *Come Together*. And that wasn't the first time John had nicked a line for a song . . . just the first time he was caught: He also nicked a line from an *Elvis Presley* song *Let's Play House*, for one of the Beatles' least-liked songs, _*Run For Your Life*_.

It seems that George's song sounded too much like The *Chiffons'* 1963 hit song _He's So Fine_.

In the US the B-Side was *Isn't It a Pity*, a song that had been rejected three times for inclusion on Beatles albums: *Revolver, Sgt. Pepper*, and *The White Album*

*What Is Life* was the B-Side in the UK, and as an A-Side in many other countries, with *Apple Scruffs* as the B-Side.


----------



## Luchesi

American tourist Paul Cole. His wife was an organist for a church and there was a request for one of the songs on the Abbey Road album so she bought it. Mr. Cole saw himself on the cover and was surprised.
He said, at the time he thought they were kooks, strange-looking men crossing the road in a line like ducks.






There are more bystanders in the picture.

https://www.snapgalleries.com/portfolio-items/beatles-and-bystanders-the-abbey-road-sessions/


----------



## pianozach

Even though John Lennon left the Beatles in September 1969, and Paul announced the end of the band in April 1970, Paul was the last to release a single, even though he had released an album.

1971.02.19 - Paul McCartney - Another Day/Oh Woman, Oh Why

These two songs did not appear on his April 1970 LP, nor would they be on his next LP, Ram, which would be released 17 May 1971. It was the first song recorded during the sessions for Ram.

Another Day was a "nice" song, inconsequential, irrelevant, yet charmingly pleasant. It's so trite that it's very easy to overlook just how well crafted, arranged, produced, and performed. One could argue that it's a formulaic masterpiece.

It was a Top Ten hit for Paul.

Its biggest controversy arouse from the songwriting credits (Paul and Linda McCartney). Northern Songs and Maclen Music sued them for violating an exclusive rights agreement, portraying it as a shady business maneuvre to rob them of half their potential income.

On the other hand, the B-Side, Oh Woman, Oh Why, is a fierce blues rocker, and is one of Paul's most underrated tracks. It certainly showcases McCartney's vocal versatility.


----------



## pianozach

1970.11.23 - George Harrison - My Sweet Lord/Isn't It A Pity [US]
1971.01.15 - George Harrison - My Sweet Lord/What Is Life [UK]
1971.02.19 - Paul McCartney - Another Day/Oh Woman, Oh Why

1971.03.12 - *John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Power to the People/Open Your Box* (UK)
1971.03.22 - *John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Power to the People/Touch Me* (US)

*Power To The People* charted at either #11 or #10 in the US, and at #6 in the UK.

As always, John's song is a catchy jingoistic bunch of jargon, but whatever.

Yoko again got the B-Side, but Capitol Records refused to issue *Open Your Box* in the US, probably considering it too risque. Instead they issued the *Power To The People* single with an edited version of *Touch Me*, from Yoko's first album. As always, Yoko's music is "an acquired taste".


----------



## pianozach

1969.05.30 - Beatles - The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
1969.07.04 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love
1969.10.06 - Beatles - Something/Come Together
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Cold Turkey/Don't Worry, Kyoko
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - WEDDING ALBUM
1969.12.12 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - LIVE PEACE IN TORONTO 1969

1970.02.06 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Instant Karma (We All Shine On)/Who Has Seen the Wind?
1970.03.06 - Beatles - Let It Be (single version)/You Know My Name (Look Up the Number) 
_1970.03.27 - Ringo Starr - **Sentimental Journey/**Bye Bye Blackbird
1970.04.17 - Paul McCartney - **Maybe I'm Amazed/**Every Night
1970.05.08 - Beatles - **Across The Universe (WWF version)
_1970.05.11 - Beatles - The Long and Winding Road/For You Blue
1970.10.05 - Ringo Starr - Beaucoups of Blues/Coochy Coochy
1970.11.23 - George Harrison - My Sweet Lord/Isn't It A Pity [US]
*1970.12.28 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Mother/Why*

1971.01.15 - George Harrison - My Sweet Lord/What Is Life [UK]
1971.02.19 - Paul McCartney - Another Day/Oh Woman, Oh Why
1971.03.12 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Power to the People/Open Your Box (UK)
1971.03.22 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Power to the People/Touch Me (US)

Again, another omission.

December 1970, 17 days after the release of his first proper solo studio album (*John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band*), a single from the album was released, *Mother/Why*. Again, the B-Side was a track from Yoko Ono.

_*Mother*_ was the lead track off the album, although the single version runs 1:41 shorter than the album version, as the opening tolling bell was omitted, and the lengthy fade out (which has John singing the line _*"Mama don't go/Daddy come home"*_ in an increasingly primal manner, eventually simply screaming) was shortened.

For those that love it, it's a wonderful truthful moment, with John singing of him being abandoned by both his mother and father at an early age. John bares it all for the world to see/feel.

For those that do not, it's a whiney testament to his sense of entitlement. The song's simplicity and sparse arrangement seem lazy.

It's somewhere inbetween, and it's surprising that this is the song that ended up as the single from the album, rather than the less bombastic and more radio-friendly _*Love*_.

The song peaked in the United States at #19 on the Cashbox Top 100, and #43 on the Billboard Hot 100.

Below is the longer album version.

*Why* is a bit more difficult to classify, but, then again, *Yoko* was the more musically adventurous of the pair. This track might be avant garde, experimental, garage grunge, proto-punk krautrock, and you can hear some foreshadowing of the *B-52s* as well.

It's not an easy listen, but it's aggressive and visceral.


----------



## pianozach

*
1968.03.15 - Beatles - Lady Madonna/The Inner Light
1968.08.26 - Beatles - Hey Jude/Revolution
1968.11.01 - George - WONDERWALL MUSIC
1968.11.11 - John - UNFINISHED MUSIC NO. 1: TWO VIRGINS
1968.11.22 - Beatles - Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da/While My Guitar Gently Weeps/I Will
1968.11.22 - Beatles - THE BEATLES ("THE WHITE ALBUM")*

*1969.01.17 - Beatles - YELLOW SUBMARINE
1969.04.11 - Beatles - Get Back (single version)/Don't Let Me Down*
*1969.05.30 - Beatles - The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
1969.07.04 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Give Peace a Chance/Remember Love
1969.10.06 - Beatles - Something/Come Together
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Cold Turkey/Don't Worry, Kyoko
1969.10.20 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - WEDDING ALBUM
1969.12.12 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - LIVE PEACE IN TORONTO 1969

1970.02.06 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Instant Karma (We All Shine On)/Who Has Seen the Wind?
1970.03.06 - Beatles - Let It Be (single version)/You Know My Name (Look Up the Number) 
1970.03.27 - Ringo Starr - **Sentimental Journey/**Bye Bye Blackbird
1970.04.17 - Paul McCartney - **Maybe I'm Amazed/**Every Night
1970.04.17 - Paul McCartney - MCCARTNEY
1970.05.08 - Beatles - **Across The Universe (WWF version)
1970 05.08 - Beatles - LET IT BE
1970.05.11 - Beatles - The Long and Winding Road/For You Blue
1970.09.25 - Ringo Starr - BEAUCOUPS OF BLUES
1970.10.05 - Ringo Starr - Beaucoups of Blues/Coochy Coochy
1970.11.23 - George Harrison - My Sweet Lord/Isn't It A Pity [US]
1970.11.27 - George Harrison - ALL THINGS MUST PASS
1970.12.28 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Mother/Why

1971.01.15 - George Harrison - My Sweet Lord/What Is Life [UK]
1971.02.19 - Paul McCartney - Another Day/Oh Woman, Oh Why
1971.03.12 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Power to the People/Open Your Box (UK)
1971.03.22 - John Lennon/Yoko Ono - Power to the People/Touch Me (US)

1971.04.09 - Ringo Starr - It Don't Come Easy/Early 1970*

A year after "the breakup" was announced, and *Paul* has released only one single and one bare-bones album. *John* has released a few hits, and one bare-bones album (after the sloppy live album, and a few "experimental" albums). *George* had released a blockbuster over-produced 3-LP set (after a soundtrack album and an electronica album) and a few hit singles.

And *Ringo* delivered two novelty albums (a American Songbook album, and a Nashville album). Had either of these been monster hits, I'd wager we'd have seen a vastly different career trajectory from Ringo. He'd also released one single (in the US and Germany, not in the UK), the slick country-tinged and genial *Beaucoups of Blues*, which stalled at #87 on the US charts.

It's really not all that surprising that *Ringo* had gone the "_novelty_" route - he'd been delivering oddball vocals on oddball songs for the Beatles: _*Yellow Submarine, Don't Pass Me By, Good Night, Act Naturally*_, etc.

But in April 1971 he delivered his first bona fide pop/rock hit song, _*It Don't Come Easy*_, which he received full songwriting credit, although it's generally accepted that former bandmate George Harrison (who also produced the song) likely wrote some or a substantial portion of it (which Ringo has admitted). It was a genuine hit, peaking at #4 in both the US and the UK, and at #1 in Canada.

The opening cymbal sizzle and George's jangly guitar arpeggios were a brilliant hook for the introduction of the song, as were the gospel-tinged backing vocals, and lyrically it was just the right vibe for the ex-Beatles drummer. Most folks were pretty jazzed that the underdog of the ex-Beatles had a huge commercial success, actually outselling both *Lennon*'s and *McCartney*'s recent singles.

The flip side of the single, the novelty country song *Early 1970*, also written by *Starr*, was a personal snapshot of how he viewed his relationship with his former bandmates, with commentary on each of their recent lives. *George Harrison*, again, contributes a superlative guitar part to the track.










Probably noteworthy is the demo with *George*'s guide vocal. The backing vocals in the bridge can clearly be heard to be singing _*"Hare Krishna"*_, which was buried in the mix after *Ringo* overdubbed his vocal.


----------



## pianozach

*1971.05.17 - Paul McCartney - RAM*

17 May 1971 Paul McCartney releases his 2nd studio album, *Ram*, although this time it's credited to *Paul & Linda McCartney*. I don't know if this was in reaction to John & Yoko always collaborating, or perhaps a way to keep the royalties in the family if anything were to happen to him. Or maybe, just maybe, Linda helped with the writing here and there.

Anyway, in a 180° pivot from his previous album where he played all the instruments himself, he brought in session musicians to play drums and guitars. So . . . the reviewers complained that the previous album, *McCartney*, had been too homespun, sloppy, and underproduced, and Paul evidently took it to heart, releasing a well-produced, tight album. And the critics complained that it was too slick and too calculated.

Again Paul resisted releasing a single from the album, but finally acquiesced almost three months later.

But in the meantime, George released a non-album single, on 28 July 1971, *Bangla Desh/Deep Blue*.

*Bangla Desh* became a top ten hit in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe, and peaked at number 23 on America's Billboard Hot 100, although I don't recall ever hearing the studio version on the radio at the time.

The B-Side, *Deep Blue*, is a Harrison rarity, being out-of-print from the 1980s until 2006, when it was included as a bonus track on the re-released Living In the Material World, George's 2nd studio album. The composition was inspired by the deteriorating condition of his mother, Louise, before she succumbed to cancer in July 1970, and by Harrison's feelings of helplessness as he visited her in hospital in the north of England.


----------



## pianozach

1971.08.02 - Paul McCartney* - Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey/Too Many People
1971.08.13 - Paul McCartney* - The Back Seat of My Car/Heart of the Country

. . . And . . . just like that, Paul releases two singles in eleven days. Three great songs, and some upbeat folksy filler.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> 1971.08.02 - Paul McCartney* - Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey/Too Many People
> 1971.08.13 - Paul McCartney* - The Back Seat of My Car/Heart of the Country
> 
> . . . And . . . just like that, Paul releases two singles in eleven days. Three great songs, and some upbeat folksy filler.


Yes, they sounded refreshingly new.

I got this in an email;

Rarely in the Beatles is the bIII chord used together with the minor relatives ii, vi and iii. Instead, bIII is most often used together with I, IV, V and bVII. A simple but acceptable picture of "traditional harmony," which mainly uses the chords of F - C - G - D - A in the key of C, in other words I, IV, V and two chords in the G direction; while rock harmony in the same key will use the chords of Eb - Bb - F - C - G, that is, I, IV, V and two chords in the F direction.
The only place in the Beatles's music where these 5 chords and none other are used is the instrumental section of "Here Comes The Sun." In chord progressions like C - Eb - F - G ("Please Please Me"), C - Eb - F ("Sgt. Pepper") and C - Eb - Bb ("Everybody's Got Something To Hide, Except For Me And My Monkey"), a couple of these 5 chords are used. They seem to be combined any which way, as usually with the given that the tonic is used often enough, and in such places, that it really is made to feel the 'resolution'.
Even during the Beatles's heyday there were songs written using these 5 chords and none others. Two examples are Wilson Pickett "(In The) Midnight Hour" and Creedence Clearwater Revival "Proud Mary". Both songs use the progression ( in C major) Bb - G - F - Eb - C in their introductions. A later example, among many others, is "Middle Of The Road," The Pretenders in 1982.
This leads to interest of a newer kind of mode-like sound built on the five chords I - bIII - IV - V - bVII, and in many cases implying that other chords (except bVI) are not present in parts using these with the bIII chord being important, as I, IV, V and bVII are used in other ways too. 
None of this would seem to help the casual listening experience, but it's part of the appreciation for students and especially performers who need to learn 'what's going on'. And of course this is just a sliver of what's going on and what's significant (either different, new, clever or violating convention).
What might someone who plays by ear expect in music by the Beatles and other, stylistically closely related music?
Regarding _form:_ that the song has a verse, that most often will feel like "home," and that probably will be the first form part (after the intro, if there is one) to be heard. In relatively few cases, the first form part to be heard (after the intro) will be the chorus. Furthermore, a chorus and/or a bridge that have a contrasting function, often (in songs in major keys) beginning on one of the relative majors, and most probably occurring after two verses (bridge or chorus) or after two pairs of verse-chorus (bridge). 
Regarding _harmony:_ that songs in major are a lot more common than songs in minor; that there will be an easily discerned tonic, or a chord that feels like "home"; that chord progressions to a very large extent will be built on I, IV and V, and in lesser degree on their relative minors vi, ii and iii and the bVII and II chords. Chords other than these will either 
The Harmonic Language of the Beatles
follow traditional functional harmony (i.e. chords in the dominant direction, plus the minor subdominant and its relative major) or imply a new "modality," using the major chords I, bIII, IV, V and bVII. 
This means that the music of the Beatles and their contemporaries has its starting point in traditional functional harmony, but a functional harmony where the limits for what is allowed are slowly being expanded. Chords close to the tonic on the circle of fifths are combined totally freely; more chords in the subdominant direction appear in the music; and the II chord can be used in the traditional way, but also with a new freedom. In rock music, functional harmony has started a slow explosion, that continues to this day. In the 1990s, it is possible to compose using progressions like (in C major) C - F#m ("Fade Away" by the English group Blur, from their CD "The Great Escape," 1995) or C - A - F - C# - B ("In Bloom" by the American group Nirvana, from "Nevermind," 1991) as the foundation of a song, without being too extreme. The Beatles and their contemporaries very seldom used that kind of chord progressions.
In such latter-day cases it obviously gets more and more meaningless to think in terms of functional harmony: the explosion of functional harmony is completed.


----------



## pianozach

. . . And . . . just like that, John releases what may have been his best, and certainly most popular, album, *Imagine*, on 9 September 1971

A month later two of the tracks from the album are released as a single:

1971.10.11- *John Lennon - Imagine/It's So Hard
*
First off, this is the first single from John that actually had TWO of his songs on it, instead of only one (and a song from Yoko Ono as the B-Side).

*Imagine*, a simple tune with minimal instrumentation, and contemplative lyrics, became a bona fide hit for Lennon.

The B-Side, _*It's So Hard*_, is yet another example of John having a bit of fun using words and phrases that could have a sexual interpretation, as he and the Beatles had done for many years.

Only six weeks later John and Yoko release a Christmas single,

1971.12.01 - *John Lennon/Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band - Happy Xmas (War Is Over) / Listen, the Snow Is Falling*

Well, yes, it's sort of a Christmas song, and simultaneously a protest song as well.

A dispute between music publisher Northern Songs and Lennon over publishing rights delayed the release of "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" in the UK until 24 November 1972

Yoko's song Listen, the *Listen. the Snow Is Falling* was actually written by Yoko back in 1968.

So, here's my complaint with Yoko; her intonation throws her pitch far enough off that you can honestly call it singing off-key, even here, when she's using her 'soft' and gentle delivery. And the song isn't awful (it's not bad at all), but it's a difficult listen largely because of Yoko's vocal.


----------



## Rogerx

I remember buying that Ram album, I think it must be somewhere in the pop section from my vinyl, nor been played more then twice. For me it was a very disappointed album.


----------



## pianozach

Rogerx said:


> I remember buying that Ram album, I think it must be somewhere in the pop section from my vinyl, nor been played more then twice. For me it was a very disappointed album.


A shame you feel that way.

I think that *Ram* and *Band On the Run* are his two finest albums.

I guess I'd rate *BOtR* at #1, and *Ram* at #2, only for the a-little-too-punkish/a-little-too-loungy _*Long Haired Lady*_.


----------



## Luchesi

pianozach said:


> A shame you feel that way.
> 
> I think that Ram and Band On the Run are his two finest albums.
> 
> I guess I'd rate BOtR at #1, and Ram at #2, only for the a-little-too-punkish/a-little-too-loungy _Long Haired Lady_.


You don't like Long Haired Lady, punkish before its time. I've never had a problem with loungy sounds. I've been too interested in how it's done. heh heh ..but I've been accused of it (only briefly, in passing) by my violinist.

When Ram (or RAM) came out, as I look back now, I was in an important crossroad in my life. I was getting married and I had children very quickly after that. We could barely pay the rent and I certainly didn't want to hear about John's big problems (poor little rich boy). I imagined him as having a lot of money ..and yet couldn't handle his psychological blues. At that age I just thought it was such a spoiled attitude. Much later I realized how well he used music to express all those things that many men were feeling during that decade (mid 60s to mid 70s). Just becoming more aware, more than generations of men in the past.

But anyway about Ram. I couldn't shake the suspicion that the Beatles were getting a lot of help from other musicians, older musicians, studio experts and they were so different writing songs than the Rolling Stones and other groups whose music you could tell immediately was composed by young people our age, with the drive (angst) of rebellious rock musicians. There was very little serious information available to read about them. So I was very relieved when Ram came out and I could relate very well with Paul's musical cleverness, all by himself, influenced by his wife and his new life surroundings. I thought as an album it was clever and humorous and sounded very new - compared to everything else in pop music, all the other albums I had been familiar with. But like I said, at that point in my life I didn't have the money to go buying albums and exploring new groups, and it wasn't a priority for me anyway anymore.

From that time on, the negatives of pop music were more on my mind than any of its attractiveness. I mean, as the years went by, I had some criticism of every new wave. I thought the rock music had gotten too electronic and gimmicky, and disco was oh so repetitive, punk rock was too childish because I had outgrown that attitude, 80s music was too slick, over-produced and usually quite silly for my age group. Throughout all those years I always had CM and it had never let me down, unlike pop and new directions in jazz. Of course there are really good songs in every decade and so I concentrated on those singles when I had to prepare something up-to-date in the pop field, or I fell back on the jazz standards of the 30s through the 50s. Only after Beatles music stopped being so cliché, decades later in the 90s, I began memorizing many of their songs.


----------



## Art Rock

Woah! Typewriter flashback.


----------



## pianozach

1971 finished without any more singles released by the ex-Beatles, _*but*_ there were *two* more album releases.

The first was from *Paul*, released under his new band name, *Wings*, on 7 December 1971. The album was *WILDLIFE*, and it was received rather poorly. Where the critics panned the previous album, *RAM*, for being too polished, they panned _*this*_ album for not being polished enough.

Denny Seiwell played drums on both albums, and Paul's wife, Linda contributed vocals to both. Linda also has co-songwriting credit on half the songs on *RAM*, and co-songwriting credit on all but one song on *WILDLIFE*. David Spinozza played guitar on a few songs, but couldn't finish the sessions, and a new guitarist Hugh McCracken was brought in. While *RAM* was credited to Paul & Linda McCartney, the musicians (the McCartneys and Seiwell) comprise 3/4 of his new band, *Wings*, on *WILDLIFE*. The band was complete with the addition of ex-Moody Blues member and multi-instrumentalist Denny Laine.

Paul took the criticisms of *RAM* to heart, and recorded the album as quickly as possible so it would sound "fresh". More than half the songs would be recorded in one take. The album peaked at #11 in the UK, and at #10 in the US.

Surprisingly, the 'band' included a reggae-stylized cover of *Mickey & Sylvia*'s 1957 top 40 hit *Love Is Strange*, which WAS released as a promotional single, although a commercial single release was cancelled due to "poor album sales" (it only went Gold in the US).

The B-Side would likely have been a track called *Breakfast Blues*, which was played on WCBS-FM, where McCartney promoted Wings and Wild Life, on 15 December 1971. The track was later released as *Great Cock and Seagull Race* on the 2012 special edition of Ram. It was actually an outtake from the Ram sessions.


----------

