all about revolver

[scotto]

i'm afraid i must concur with the opinion that "Revolver" is far and away the finest Beatles album.

frizelle may whinge about the lyrics to "Taxman", but put against the mind-bogglingly hateful lyrics of "Run For Your Life", it's not much of a contest. moreover, "Michelle" is one of the most insipid contributions to the repertoire. at least with "Yellow Submarine", they intended it to be silly. the good songs on "Rubber Soul" are just that - good, not great.

"Revolver" on the other hand pretty much owns pop music, and that's it. i think segal's claim that "Tomorrow Never Knows" is the Beatles' best individual track is audacious but you know what, that song alone is indeed so excellent that all of "Rubber Soul" together isn't worth taking to a desert island versus a single MP3 of "Tomorrow Never Knows", i will say that.

your pal,
scotto

[Steve Ellman]

Rubber Soul was the marijuana breakthrough. Revolver was acid. Revelations, both. And both uneven.
The White Album was their most complete statement. Despite all the complaints that it showed the band going their separate ways, it is their most seamless and balanced effort, with the greatest range, vision, and humor.
And just to set this off on a whole other track...Let's acknowledge that the Fab Four's work was surpassed by that of the Clash, who realized a truly global vision, epitomized in the greatest work of art in the English language since the death of William Shakespeare--Sandinista!

[Tunanator]

Sometimes in life it is hard to choose. For example, are we discussing the American, or UK versions of these albums?

In its time,, ,,, Rubber Soul was deemed a superior album. Even by that knobby little violinist who runs around with Zukerman. I don't understand such judgements -- since pornography is in the crotch of the beholder -- but it can be fairly said that perhaps Revolver is the statement of a motif which is developed with greater elan, verve, panache, joy de feeber, savwar faire (as in, are you going to) and jenny sayquor in Rubber Soul.

First utterances are rougher in character. Mine, for example, was WAH! Or perhaps (*grunt*). But they, first times that is, are more honest than the demiurges of polished sophistication, which pander, as does Il Stranjero, to dubious tastes. In the end, the love you take is equal to MC Squared. Well, there it is.

[godfree1]

Revolver is dark acid Beatles; Sgt Pepper is their flower-power. While we acknowledge one as the over-all "better" album, let us not forget the masterpieces of the other: Within You/Without You and Strawberry Fields immediately come to mind.

The White Album is a colorful musical monolith that stands alone in their work, then and now. Abbey Road is sometimes regarded the same way, however.

[segal]

Originally Posted by Steve Ellman

Rubber Soul was the marijuana breakthrough. Revolver was acid. Revelations, both. And both uneven.
The White Album was their most complete statement. Despite all the complaints that it showed the band going their separate ways, it is their most seamless and balanced effort, with the greatest range, vision, and humor.
And just to set this off on a whole other track...Let's acknowledge that the Fab Four's work was surpassed by that of the Clash, who realized a truly global vision, epitomized in the greatest work of art in the English language since the death of William Shakespeare--Sandinista!

Re: your White Album assessment: "seamless and balanced"? Crikey, those are the last adjectives I'd use for that scattershot collection (much of which is fantastic, no question, but in no way is it seamless and balanced). Are you implying "Mother Nature's Son" flows elegantly into "Everybody's Got Something to Hide"? "Sexy Sadie" into "Helter Skelter"? How do you reconcile "Piggies" with "Yer Blues"? That's as balanced as Fox News.

Re: The Clash's Sandinista! being the pinnacle of civilization: What are you drinking/smoking? I admire your audacity, but surely you jest, squire.

[scotto]

schmader: "And finally, to the Forum writer who blasted John's glorious, Rubber Soul-closing 'Run For Your Life' as 'mind-boggingly hateful'—have you ever been in love?"

actually yes, and it's never once driven me to want someone dead if i couldn't have them, but thank you for asking. lennon himself wound up hating that song, referring to it as his "least favorite Beatles song". yes, he picked that one over "maxwell's silver hammer".

-scotto

[David Schmader]

Hey Scotto, thanks for the response, and for taking my question in the facetious manner in which it was meant to be taken.

Still, to me, it doesn't matter that Lennon eventually came to hate "Run For Your Life"—I still think it's a great song, and my main concern is the mistaken idea that the song is somehow misogynist.

Like Eminem's "Kim," Lennon's "RFYR" has nothing to do with misogyny—both are about loving particular women so much they can make you crazy enough to kill, which is a perfectly respectable subject matter for a song, no matter how gruesome the execution can be (I can still bear to listen to "Kim" only once a year or so.)

But compare this angle with that worked by a legitimate (and maybe reformed) misogynists, like Snoop and Ice Cube and Dr. Dre, who for years couldn't seem to get enough of the "bitches ain't shit" shit. Beyond their various holes, women didn't even rate in their worlds of the above "gangsta" rappers, none of which would admit to liking a woman enough to cross the street, much less murder her.

What can I say...I'm an old-fashioned softie....

[Brodeo]

Isn't arguing about this kind of retarded? It's like saying Candelbox is better than Silverchair. There's no clear answer. Both are equally commendable bands. Hell one of 'em is responsible for the Grunge movement here in Seattle (but I won't say which, that in itself is open to interpretation).

[scotto]

Originally Posted by David Schmader

Still, to me, it doesn't matter that Lennon eventually came to hate "Run For Your Life"—I still think it's a great song, and my main concern is the mistaken idea that the song is somehow misogynist.

well presumably reasonable people can disagree on this; i do think it's a misogynist track. i think the emphasis of "little girl" tacked on to the inherent threat of "i'd rather see you dead" is pretty straight-forward evidence that he feels no qualms about imposing a threat because she is, after all, just a little girl. it's not all that atypical an attitude even for 1965, and i suspect part of the reason lennon grew to dislike the song so much is that he matured away from those attitudes to some degree.

curiously, the inter-web tells us that lennon's lyrical inspiration for this song was elvis presley's "baby, let's play house", which includes the actual line "i'd rather see you dead, little girl, than to be with another man". ah elvis, that notable defender of women's rights.

i am, myself, being a little facetious here. it's often a lazy trick to overlay modern sensibilities on top of a piece of art as a short cut for attempting to understand it on its own terms; if that were the only way we looked at art, you'd never see a full production of most of shakespeare ever again. but in the context of this specific discussion, "Revolver" ain't got no "i'm a crazy stalker" shit on it, so there.

-scotto

[segal]

Originally Posted by Brodeo

Isn't arguing about this kind of retarded? It's like saying Candelbox is better than Silverchair. There's no clear answer. Both are equally commendable bands. Hell one of 'em is responsible for the Grunge movement here in Seattle (but I won't say which, that in itself is open to interpretation).

Imagine--people debating online about inconsequential matters… It's the new national pastime--get used to it.

[Steve Ellman]

Originally Posted by segal

Re: your White Album assessment: "seamless and balanced"? Crikey, those are the last adjectives I'd use for that scattershot collection (much of which is fantastic, no question, but in no way is it seamless and balanced). Are you implying "Mother Nature's Son" flows elegantly into "Everybody's Got Something to Hide"? "Sexy Sadie" into "Helter Skelter"? How do you reconcile "Piggies" with "Yer Blues"? That's as balanced as Fox News.

Re: The Clash's Sandinista! being the pinnacle of civilization: What are you drinking/smoking? I admire your audacity, but surely you jest, squire.

Imply? I proclaim: The White Album is a seamless roller coaster of emotional experience, an exercise akin to F.Scott Fitzgerald's test of a first rate mind, "the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise." Thus do I reconcile "Piggies," "Yer Blues," and all the White Album's apparent contradictions. This isn't easy listening--or "elegant flowing"--for swinging bachelors. The full ride of the two discs leaves one with the dazzled balance of a fine orgasm.

As for the Clash: The audacity was theirs, to capture the state of the globe and the human condition in and about the year of our lord 1980, subsuming and recapitulating the entire history of Western popular music of the late, unlamented, 20th century. And--amidst the pathos and the passion--funny as all hell, to boot. Very like Billy Shakespeare.

[segal]

Originally Posted by Steve Ellman

Imply? I proclaim: The White Album is a seamless roller coaster of emotional experience, an exercise akin to F.Scott Fitzgerald's test of a first rate mind, "the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise." Thus do I reconcile "Piggies," "Yer Blues," and all the White Album's apparent contradictions. This isn't easy listening--or "elegant flowing"--for swinging bachelors. The full ride of the two discs leaves one with the dazzled balance of a fine orgasm.

As for the Clash: The audacity was theirs, to capture the state of the globe and the human condition in and about the year of our lord 1980, subsuming and recapitulating the entire history of Western popular music of the late, unlamented, 20th century. And--amidst the pathos and the passion--funny as all hell, to boot. Very like Billy Shakespeare.

I disagree with your views, but respect your ability to articulate them in a convincing manner.

[Steve Ellman]

Originally Posted by segal

I disagree with your views, but respect your ability to articulate them in a convincing manner.

I've never understood why Sandinista hasn't gotten the recognition it deserves. Though it was voted the 1981 Village Voice Pazz and Jop poll's album of the year, its longterm rep, for the majority of rock geeks, seems to be "the sprawling compilation they threw together to honor and escape their contract with Epic." Wrong (though it was probably that, too).
If I had to guess, I'd say the majority were listening for the music they wanted/expected to hear, instead of trusting the band (and what band had earned it more?) and opening up to the experience.
Or maybe--like most everything else that started going truly rotten around that time--it was Ronald Reagan's fault.

[segal]

Originally Posted by Steve Ellman

I've never understood why Sandinista hasn't gotten the recognition it deserves. Though it was voted the 1981 Village Voice Pazz and Jop poll's album of the year, its longterm rep, for the majority of rock geeks, seems to be "the sprawling compilation they threw together to honor and escape their contract with Epic." Wrong (though it was probably that, too).
If I had to guess, I'd say the majority were listening for the music they wanted/expected to hear, instead of trusting the band (and what band had earned it more?) and opening up to the experience.
Or maybe--like most everything else that started going truly rotten around that time--it was Ronald Reagan's fault.

I like most of Sandinista! and admire the Clash's gumption to unleash all those styles on one album; it was gutsy to do that on the follow-up to their most popular (American) album--London Calling--and I'm sure many fans were alienated/angry by it (and many probably explored jazz, dub, reggae, and Motown after hearing it, too). There will always be a segment of any group's fanbase that will resist change from the original template.
I'm still skeptical, though, that Sandinista! deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as Shakespeare.
And I think Reagan HELPED bands like the Clash, because he (and M. Thatcher) gave such artists the impetus to rage (however futilely) against such a blatantly loathesome authority figure.

[Steve Ellman]

Originally Posted by segal

I like most of Sandinista! and admire the Clash's gumption to unleash all those styles on one album; it was gutsy to do that on the follow-up to their most popular (American) album--London Calling--and I'm sure many fans were alienated/angry by it (and many probably explored jazz, dub, reggae, and Motown after hearing it, too). There will always be a segment of any group's fanbase that will resist change from the original template.
I'm still skeptical, though, that Sandinista! deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as Shakespeare.
And I think Reagan HELPED bands like the Clash, because he (and M. Thatcher) gave such artists the impetus to rage (however futilely) against such a blatantly loathesome authority figure.

I've stated my case for Sandinista!, and I appreciate your conciliatory tone. All I can say is, give it another try. A reasonable dose of blotter might enhance the experience, but is by no means necessary. (And who can find any decent acid these days?) As for the Shakespeare comparison: It's a formulation that has stood the test of (my) time for over 20 years now and, at my age, it's one I'll probably take to my grave.
On Reagan and popular music, I disagree. The impulse to rage well pre-dated his reign (since '77 at least, if punk is your measure; earlier than that if you count the apocaplytic Bob Marley), while the triumph of his banality and the ultimate displacement of politics by advertising--which RR embodied--demoralized and marginalized resistance-minded musicians in a way from which they've never recovered. The music of protest and difference will never again be more than additional boutiques in the capitalist fair of lifestyle choices. (Is that what drove your Kurt Cobain mad?) We bands of outsiders may always exist, but we'll never again know the heady thrill of the Clash's idea that somehow, some way, we might actually come out on top. Maybe it's for the best, a mark of maturity. After all, history is tragedy.

[lippy imp]

First, the White Album is a mixed bag. Any album that contains a song as unlistenable and pointless as "Wild Honey Pie" has to move down the list. "Run For Your Life" is no more misogynistic than "Every Breath You Take" or "Under My Thumb". Rubber Soul gets points for having not a single novelty song on it (after all, that's all that "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" "Bungalow Bill" and "Rocky Raccoon" are, when you break it down).
Revolver was just a step up from Rubber Soul in the changing sound of pop/rock, but wasn't better. The Beatles' creativity peaked with Sgt. Pepper's, and everything after that sounded more like the work of a supergroup (i.e. Traveling Wilburies, Cream) than an actual band, particularly the White Album. Had it been condensed into a single album, it would have been great, maybe their best. But taken as a whole, it's an ego-soaked potluck of songs, uneven and occasionally retarded.

[Steve Ellman]

Originally Posted by lippy imp

First, the White Album is a mixed bag. Any album that contains a song as unlistenable and pointless as "Wild Honey Pie" has to move down the list. "Run For Your Life" is no more misogynistic than "Every Breath You Take" or "Under My Thumb". Rubber Soul gets points for having not a single novelty song on it (after all, that's all that "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" "Bungalow Bill" and "Rocky Raccoon" are, when you break it down).
Revolver was just a step up from Rubber Soul in the changing sound of pop/rock, but wasn't better. The Beatles' creativity peaked with Sgt. Pepper's, and everything after that sounded more like the work of a supergroup (i.e. Traveling Wilburies, Cream) than an actual band, particularly the White Album. Had it been condensed into a single album, it would have been great, maybe their best. But taken as a whole, it's an ego-soaked potluck of songs, uneven and occasionally retarded.

First, let me say that while "Ob-La-Di," "Bung. Bill," and "R. Raccoon" are certainly novel, they are hardly mere novelties. All three are much too witty and/or sweetly melodic and/or structurally inventive for that perjorative. "How Much is That Doggie in the Window?" is a novelty song.

For the rest, I refer you to the work of Beatles scholar Alan W. Pollack.

Regarding "Wild H.Pie," Pollack writes: The first thing to note is how the song seems to be purposely placed where it is to keep you diverted and/or distracted while the stage hands change sets, as it were, during the entr'acte separating "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" from "... Bungalow Bill". The gesture represents a theatrical exploitation of the LP album qua "medium" that is not to be under-estimated.
Secondly, this song is, in terms of form, much more of a complete miniature than an offhanded fragment; as long as you're willing to step back and accept a rather minimalistic/schematic definition of "form." Paul would play this trick at least twice more with "Why Don't We Do It In The Road' and "Her Majesty".

Per your "ego-soaked potluck of songs," Pollack writes:All the Beatles' albums are stylistically diverse. Don't kid yourself; this is true even of the early ones some of you are used to dismissing [as] more homogenized and somehow less profound than they truly are. But, against this backdrop, the "White Album" still represents not just a high water mark for sheer number of diverse styles included in a single collection, but it also courts an aesthetic of stylistic surprise, non-sequitur, and sound-bite.

It cracks me up when artistic efforts are criticized as egoistic or whatever. Art is ego.

[lippy imp]

Re:art is ego. I was referring to how the Beatles went from functioning as a band in their earlier material to later acting as a supergroup of songwriters all insisting that their work be represented.

And I don't care what Alan Pollack says. "Wild Honey Pie" is self-indulgent crap and damn near unlistenable. "Theatrical exploration" my ass.

All I'm saying is that if the White Album had been whittled down, it would probably be considered the greatest album by anyone ever. But their individual egos got in the way, and instead we got a mish-mash, some of it brilliant, some of it nonense.

Double albums are essentially the result of the artist's vanity preventing them from knowing when to say "when".

[segal]

Originally Posted by lippy imp

Double albums are essentially the result of the artist's vanity preventing them from knowing when to say "when".

Dude, just off the top of my head, these doubles refute your glib dismissal: Bitches Brew, Get Up With It, Agharta, Exile on Main Street, Zen Arcade, Freak Out!, Double Nickels on the Dime, Trout Mask Replica. I'm sure others will come to mind in a minute...

[Steve Ellman]

Originally Posted by segal

Dude, just off the top of my head, these doubles refute your glib dismissal: Bitches Brew, Get Up With It, Agharta, Exile on Main Street, Zen Arcade, Freak Out!, Double Nickels on the Dime, Trout Mask Replica. I'm sure others will come to mind in a minute...

Uh, London Calling, Blonde on Blonde.

[lippy imp]

Simmer down, now. I never said all double albums are bad, so chill! I own and love Exile on Main St, Zen Arcade, London Calling, Blonde on Blonde, as well as Songs in the Key of Life, 1999, and some others. There are, without a doubt, great albums. No argument. Exile is my favorite all-time album.

Using Exile as an example, I would much rather that had been pared down to a single album, and the leftovers could have been used on the abysmal Goat's Head Soup.

With very little exception, double albums are at least 1/3 filler.

Physical Graffitti, The Wall, 1999, Warehouse:Songs and Stories-- great albums, all. But all of them would have been better had they been condensed into a single album. The moment an artist adds a single substandard song just for the sake of filling out a double album, it's self-indulgent.

[segal]

Originally Posted by lippy imp

Simmer down, now. I never said all double albums are bad, so chill!

I'm chillin'. Your statement seemed to carry a fairly strong negative connotation, but sorry if I misinterpreted it.

Originally Posted by lippy imp

Using Exile as an example, I would much rather that had been pared down to a single album, and the leftovers could have been used on the abysmal Goat's Head Soup.

Oh shit, now you got me riled up again. Goat's Head Soup, contrary to conventional wisdom, is one of the Stones' BEST albums. "Can You Hear the Music?" and "Coming Down Again" rank among Jagger-Richards's greatest achievements. I guess we're just polar opposites and will rarely agree on anything music-related.

What this has to do with Revolver and Rubber Soul, I don't know.

[lippy imp]

I don't think we're polar opposites. We like much of the same stuff. But if we were at a jukebox, we'd probably never agree on how to spend a dollar.

Yeah, I don't know how we got here either. The White Album got overly praised, and I kinda went off.

There are a few good songs on Goat's Head Soup. But "Angie"?? "Dancin' with Mr. D"?? Come on. Imagine how much better it would have been had it included "Ventilator Blues" and "Casino Boogie" instead of those two.

[segal]

Originally Posted by lippy imp

I don't think we're polar opposites. We like much of the same stuff. But if we were at a jukebox, we'd probably never agree on how to spend a dollar.

Yeah, I don't know how we got here either. The White Album got overly praised, and I kinda went off.

There are a few good songs on Goat's Head Soup. But "Angie"?? "Dancin' with Mr. D"?? Come on. Imagine how much better it would have been had it included "Ventilator Blues" and "Casino Boogie" instead of those two.

Maybe it's a nostalgia/drug-intake thing with me, but all those GHS tracks you mention suit me fine, though "Angie" has been overexposed on the radio.

We may not be polar opposites, but we sure have seriously deviating ideas about the bands on which we DO both like.

[Steve Ellman]

Originally Posted by segal

Maybe it's a nostalgia/drug-intake thing with me, but all those GHS tracks you mention suit me fine, though "Angie" has been overexposed on the radio.

We may not be polar opposites, but we sure have seriously deviating ideas about the bands on which we DO both like.

This is getting too warm and fuzzy for me. Exile on Main St. was clearly the Stones' apotheosis, the fulfillment of everything their earlier work had pointed towards. It goes to show that double albums most typically result from artists reaching the height of their powers, overflowing with creative energy. Everything after Exile was a footnote, despite the occasional good, maybe even very good song. As far as I'm concerned, as a band, the Stones have been irrelevant for more than 30 years now, a mere moneymaking machine for whatever mega-conglomerate they're signed to. Thank god the Sex Pistols finally came along and threw a spanner in the works. They at least had the good grace to self-destruct before they could become fully commodified.

Oh, and Lippy, regarding the White Album, you forgot to add "brilliant nonsense." Nor do I see that music that is "self-indulgent" and "nearly unlistenable" is necessarily bad, e.g., "Sister Ray."