The Beatles 'Love' - just hang on a minute

I love this place.There is always a lucid and opposite/alternative view to be found.It does make decision making bloody difficult sometimes though. My wife will still be getting this for christmas though.

The pedant in me says we have "drive my car" and "the word" are from Rubber Soul along with "Help" and "What you're doing" from Beatles for sale, however I do take your point.

But whatever one thinks if the merits of particular phases of the Beatles career I think the main reason for the emphasis on the later tracks is multi-tracking.



SJB

Sloop John B.

Yes when I reread my post this morning, I realised I should have said 'virtually nothing'. Oh and being super pedantic Help is on the LP Help and not Rubber Soul!

As you agree, I still think the point is valid.

Camlan, for what it's worth, I just turned 53, and I first saw and heard The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964. I was instantly hooked.

I think there are several problems with your analysis, the first of which is that The Beatles, up through the very end as seen in Let It Be, were a live band ... up on the roof, in the studio, wherever ... they were rocking! They generally orchestrated their performances more richly and colorfully in their latter development, but the core was always a great live rock 'n roll band.

Another issue is that of repertoire chosen. You may (or may not) be aware that around 100 songs are used in this tapestry (some of which I haven't even picked out yet). That's more than half of The Beatles' official recorded work. (Munch, copyrights aren't an issue here ... the Martins had complete access.) A huge part of The Beatles' collective genius was the broad range of their prolific output, all done in 7 years' time. The Martins could assemble other such albums prominently featuring different songs and one could always ask "What about such-and-such song/album?"

That said, there is one technical consideration in that later recordings would offer more discreetly recorded tracks, whereas older recordings would have more bounced together instruments which can't be separated (although Sgt. Pepper is amply represented on the new album and it's certainly laden with bounced tracks). Still, I could imagine the later tracks affording more flexibility in painting the soundscape. And at a certain point, you have to pick something! It all comes down to what sounds best in context. Musical considerations, too ... key, tempo, etc.

But I really can't abide that The Beatles even had a "golden era" considering that the last album they made, Abbey Road, was as superb as anything they ever did. To me, the golden era of The Beatles was their entire existence ... for me, that's kind of the point about their greatness.

By the way, not to be outdone by another pedant, Revolver is indeed a great album (to me, there is no "greatest" Beatles album ... a series of greatest, maybe). And it's well represented by Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, Yellow Submarine, I Want To Tell You, and Tomorrow Never Knows.

I honestly hear "the sound of the hope of a generation" in all of their music, not the least of which on LOVE.

Fred

It works on it's own level for me. An interesting concept compilation done by people who are sympathetic and associated with the original recordings. Job done.

It doesn't alter my perseption of the original albums one jot - except make me even hungrier, if that's possible, for the full re-mastering of them!

Steve.

Fred,

Good post. Well said.

Acad

quote:

Originally posted by Camlan:
Help is on the LP Help

No Kidding?



SJB

Fred

I'm sorry but rose tinted glasses springs quickly to mind, that is all very eloquent but somewhat removed from the truth.

Far from being a 'live band'in the studio by the time of at least Abbey Road, and probably even before that on Sgt Pepper, The White Album and Let it Be, the band had effectively split up with recording sessions only being attended by the Beatle whose song was being recorded (and that does not mean Lennon and McCartney who by this time were virtually on non speaking terms).

Source - Ian McDonald - Revolution in the Head, the Beatles records and the sixties - Page 280 on 'Oh Darling'

"it appears to have been a genuine group performance (these were very infrequent during the making of Abbey Road, most sessions only being attended by the Beatle whose song was involved)".

'A Great Rocking Live Band' - No.

Furthermore, I cannot agree that Abbey Road is a great album, there are good stand out tracks but Octupus's Garden, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Sun King/Mean Mr Mustard and Polythene Pam/She Came in Through the Bathroom Window are rank poor with some virtually outtakes (I accept this is my opinion and wholly subjective) and would never ever have made an earlier album.

Your other points are well made and accepted but Love consists of 7 listed tracks pre 67 and 19 after - that is not a fair reflection of quality group output - the snippets are irrelevant and as you acknowledge in some cases barely audible.

ps I heartily recommend Revolution in the Head - it's a fascinating book giving considerable insight into the Beatles recording history. ISBN 1-85702-099-5 if anybodys interested.

I'll take the early songs/albums over the late any day. Twist and Shout, I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, I Should Have Known Better ect. ect..

The later stuff sounds pretentious, convoluted and self involved (like much of the worst 70's) by contrast. Come Together sounds like their trying to sound 'cool'. Even the Who's music, from the late 60's, sounds fresher and has more to do with what made rock and roll great. On the 'White' Album, despite many good songs, they sound utterly lost.



Regards

BB

BB

IMHO The White Album is one great album hiding amongst the filler put in to make it a double album. The reason - the infighting that was going on to make sure that each creative force within the group had there fair share of tracks.

Camlan

I agree with your comments concerning 'Abbey Road'. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" sounds like a bad Wings outtake.


BB

It's all so subjective particularly if one has memories associated with the music. I'm 41 and the Beatles were no more from when my memory started so in a way I came to them from a fresh perspective.

I would contend that up until Help! there is some very ordinary recordings (along with some of the best pop singles of the era.)
If the Beatles had disbanded after "Beatles for sale" I feel they would be up there with Gerry and the Pacemakers,Dave Clarke 5 etc. but no more esteemed.

I know where everyone stands re maxwell and his infuriating hammer but "Devil in her heart" doesn't set my pulse racing either.


I love the White album in all it's ragged glory and as far as I'm concerned they went out at their peak with Abbey Road. At various stages in their career there was different songwriters in the ascendancy. Abbey Road certainly has poor McCartney numbers but Lennon and Harrison were very much on song.


........ and "Come Together" IS them sounding cool.



SJB

SJB

You're right it is essentially subjective and I would not question somebody else's musical tastes - it's wholly counterproductive. Where I differ from Fred is the contention that the Beatles were a cohesive band to the end. They just were not and nostalgic looking back will not alter that.

In terms of the Beatle's legacy, I'm 52 and can remember the sheer impact on the UK of the Beatles in 1963 and not in a purely musical sense either - nothing like them had ever been seen before, Gerry and The Pacemakers and the Dave Clark 5 and others just would not have existed without the Beatles. I don't think it's going too far to say that they defined popular music as we know it today and that would have probably been the case if they had split after Beatles for Sale.

It would certainly have been the case if they had split after Revolver in 1966.

quote:

Originally posted by Camlan:
SJB

You're right it is essentially subjective and I would not question somebody else's musical tastes - it's wholly counterproductive. Where I differ from Fred is the contention that the Beatles were a cohesive band to the end. They just were not and nostalgic looking back will not alter that.

Fred can talk for himself but I'm sure he means they still COULD do it live. They certainly DID play a blistering live set on the roof of Abbey Road.

quote:

In terms of the Beatle's legacy, I'm 52 and can remember the sheer impact on the UK of the Beatles in 1963 and not in a purely musical sense either - nothing like them had ever been seen before, Gerry and The Pacemakers and the Dave Clark 5 and others just would not have existed without the Beatles. I don't think it's going too far to say that they defined popular music as we know it today and that would have probably been the case if they had split after Beatles for Sale.

It would certainly have been the case if they had split after Revolver in 1966.

Musically up to "for sale" they were a top notch pop/rnr band. The mania around them at this time would now perhaps be a curiosity were it not for Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, White Album, Let it be, Abbey Road.

I don't think Fred would be talking of "the sound of the hope of a generation" were it not for "All you need is Love" and the Hey Jude satellite worldwide transmission.


But the music is great and thank God we have it.



SJB

I grew up more or less after the Beatles break up, so nostalgia plays no role in my tastes re early/late.

My sisters, who were older than me, by 1970 had no more interest in the Fab Four, there were so many more interesting bands who were popular then. Nor can I remember the Beatles being played much on the radio as a youngster. I can even remember a time in the early 70's when the Beatles were considered passe, they called it bubble gum music.



BB

SJB

I quoted the line 'the sound of the hope of a generation' in my original post. I can't remember who said it but I am pretty sure it referred to She Loves You.

It's a great quote.

I view the Beatles as simply having different periods, for which as an artist, recording or otherwise, is the reality, and should be allowed, for better or worse. The fact that they moved on to the recording studio was bourne out of the very necessity of not hearing themselves when playing live back in the day. The very idea of playing huge stadiums before screaming fans drowning out the sound of the band was not necessarily the best representation of the band.
Also, they were coming up with ideas that back then, simply could not be accomplished by a 4 piece band.

In the studio they discovered and pioneered many new recording principles & techniques that are still used to this day. A great many bands were inspired from some of the new things they were doing in the studio. Bands such as the Beach Boys, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Dylan, to name a few, all were inspired to write and create new things BECAUSE of what the Beatles were doing in the studio.

The resultant number of quality albums produced as a consequence of the Beatles' "studio period" is really remarkable when you consider the standard by todays pop bands.

I firmly believe the Lennon/McCartney song writing team will go down in history as one of the best of the genre. They were the Rogers & Hart of the pop world.

Regards
Max

p.s. They also did the first world live broadcast before a live studio audience of "Hey Jude". That was a pretty cool thing.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable album - a collage of great music.

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:

This is a thoroughly enjoyable album - a collage of great music.

I'd only add a great collage of great music ... it's so musically astute.

Fred