The Beatles why do they sound so different from early Rock

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

What about Johnny Guitar Watson wasn't he doing feedback back in the early 50s?

And Guitar Slim. But both were doing it, I supose you could say, manually - you know, like really just playing the instrument.

MG

As was Lenny Breau, but he was - as I mentioned in my original post - actually fashioning solos out of controlled feedback. It wasn't an "effect." The reason I mentioned him in response to the question whether jazz players were using feedback, tape loops, backwards tape, etc. before The Beatles or other "rock" was for that very reason. It was an architectonic use of feedback. Are there particular recordings of Watson or Slim that you would suggest to hear what they were doing? I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with their playing. Some of Breau's now very hard to find early RCAs utilize what I'm talking about as I recall, and I have a cassette tape somewhere that a guitarist friend gave me years ago - a private recording - that has an amazing drone-based, quasi-Indian thing that would blow your mind; the entire solo is feedback.

I'll have a listen some time.

MG

[Karma Police]

What about Johnny Guitar Watson wasn't he doing feedback back in the early 50s?

And Guitar Slim. But both were doing it, I supose you could say, manually - you know, like really just playing the instrument.

MG

As was Lenny Breau, but he was - as I mentioned in my original post - actually fashioning solos out of controlled feedback. It wasn't an "effect." The reason I mentioned him in response to the question whether jazz players were using feedback, tape loops, backwards tape, etc. before The Beatles or other "rock" was for that very reason. It was an architectonic use of feedback. Are there particular recordings of Watson or Slim that you would suggest to hear what they were doing? I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with their playing. Some of Breau's now very hard to find early RCAs utilize what I'm talking about as I recall, and I have a cassette tape somewhere that a guitarist friend gave me years ago - a private recording - that has an amazing drone-based, quasi-Indian thing that would blow your mind; the entire solo is feedback.

If you go to You Tube you can hear Johnny Guitar Watson "Space Guitar". I don't hear any controlled feedback on that song like I hear at the start of "I Feel Fine". I can tell you one thing this predates Chuck Berry and Elvis as rock and roll and it sounds like this guy influenced Eric Clapton and Hendrix. This guy is uderrated and I never heard of him.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Karma Police

[BruceH]

Put me squarely in the Revolver column. The apex of "moptoppery".

I love Revolver (particularly the "real" British version) but I wouldn't call it "moptop" at all. I associate the term with their early period and the first wave of Beatlemania; say, the first three albums and related singles. Revolver comes near the end of their middle period, a time of increasing eclecticism, experimentation, studio manipulation, and psychedelia. It's long fascinated me that some of the songs on that album ("Taxman," "I'm Only Sleeping," "Tomorrow Never Knows," "And Your Bird Can Sing,") could be considered an early form of techno-rock, and certainly deliver more of a ballsy kick than most of the tracks on Sgt. Pepper.

[Teasing the Korean]

Rubber Soul and Revolver are their two best albums. One is pre-Revolver, and the other is, well, Revolver.

Yes, I was serious about Abbey Road being one of the best, if not the best swan song I've ever heard. As far as Rubber Soul and Revolver go, they are both great albums. But your statement about these being the Beatles' best is quite subjective, wouldn't you say?

Of course. That said, The White Album is my favorite Beatles album; but Rubber Soul, Yesterday and Today and Revolver are the ones that have left the real indelible mark on me. These three albums were like a summation of everything that was great about them from the beginning, and a precursor of what was to come, minus the self-indulgence.

I will also say that at this point in my life I never listen to the Beatles. I prefer their music covered by aging jazz and EZ artists who were trying to get hip to the now sound. Ramsey Lewis's "Mother Nature's Son" album is a real fave.

[Jazzmoose]

Put me squarely in the Revolver column. The apex of "moptoppery".

I love Revolver (particularly the "real" British version) but I wouldn't call it "moptop" at all.

I agree. Revolver is the Beatles album (the British version, though even with the songs cut, the American version is pretty damned good). The problem for me in picking "the best Beatles album" is that my two favorite Beatles songs didn't show up (at least in this country) until extremely late. Give me Rain and Paperback Writer, and I'm a happy camper...

Bev, I came to the party late myself. My first Beatles album was Abbey Road. But it hooked me in no time flat, and sent me searching back.

[Guest Bill Barton]

What about Johnny Guitar Watson wasn't he doing feedback back in the early 50s?

And Guitar Slim. But both were doing it, I supose you could say, manually - you know, like really just playing the instrument.

MG

As was Lenny Breau, but he was - as I mentioned in my original post - actually fashioning solos out of controlled feedback. It wasn't an "effect." The reason I mentioned him in response to the question whether jazz players were using feedback, tape loops, backwards tape, etc. before The Beatles or other "rock" was for that very reason. It was an architectonic use of feedback. Are there particular recordings of Watson or Slim that you would suggest to hear what they were doing? I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with their playing. Some of Breau's now very hard to find early RCAs utilize what I'm talking about as I recall, and I have a cassette tape somewhere that a guitarist friend gave me years ago - a private recording - that has an amazing drone-based, quasi-Indian thing that would blow your mind; the entire solo is feedback.

If you go to You Tube you can hear Johnny Guitar Watson "Space Guitar". I don't hear any controlled feedback on that song like I hear at the start of "I Feel Fine". I can tell you one thing this predates Chuck Berry and Elvis as rock and roll and it sounds like this guy influenced Eric Clapton and Hendrix. This guy is uderrated and I never heard of him.

Space Guitar is pretty wild. I like it! Thanks for pointing us in the direction of You Tube for it. 1954!

It doesn't seem to me to have much connection with the original question of whether any jazz players predate The Beatles in the use of feedback though.

Ah, but we digress...

"I Feel Fine" predates Breau's RCA debut album by some four years. So much for that theory!

Edited November 9, 2008 by Bill Barton

[JSngry]

Johnny Guitar Watson was indeed a BAAAAAAAADDDDDD motherforya, but there ain't no feedback on that clip.

Tell you what though, the man was one of the unsung giants, Johnny Guitar Watson was, and not just in the 50s.

Nobody else was doing shit this consistently hip (or more accurately, shit that was hip like this, in this way) in the 70s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0tF8LxpAKA...feature=related

Tiem for a new thread...

[BruceH]

Rubber Soul and Revolver are their two best albums. One is pre-Revolver, and the other is, well, Revolver.

Yes, I was serious about Abbey Road being one of the best, if not the best swan song I've ever heard. As far as Rubber Soul and Revolver go, they are both great albums. But your statement about these being the Beatles' best is quite subjective, wouldn't you say?

Of course. That said, The White Album is my favorite Beatles album; but Rubber Soul, Yesterday and Today and Revolver are the ones that have left the real indelible mark on me. These three albums were like a summation of everything that was great about them from the beginning, and a precursor of what was to come, minus the self-indulgence.

Always remembering, of course, that Yesterday and Today was not a "real" album.

Put me squarely in the Revolver column. The apex of "moptoppery".

I love Revolver (particularly the "real" British version) but I wouldn't call it "moptop" at all.

I agree. Revolver is the Beatles album (the British version, though even with the songs cut, the American version is pretty damned good). The problem for me in picking "the best Beatles album" is that my two favorite Beatles songs didn't show up (at least in this country) until extremely late. Give me Rain and Paperback Writer, and I'm a happy camper...

Lord, oh lordy, I hear ya! That ranks up there as one of their strongest singles, and those two songs SHOULD (by rights) have been included on Revolver! They were recorded in the same sessions, and have got that Revolver-studio-techno sound, but it's just too damn bad that the Brits had a thing about 'original' singles, and not including same on albums. Finding "Rain" on the Hey Jude odds-and-ends album was one of the major musical discoveries of my life that year.

[A Lark Ascending]

Lord, oh lordy, I hear ya! That ranks up there as one of their strongest singles, and those two songs SHOULD (by rights) have been included on Revolver! They were recorded in the same sessions, and have got that Revolver-studio-techno sound, but it's just too damn bad that the Brits had a thing about 'original' singles, and not including same on albums. Finding "Rain" on the Hey Jude odds-and-ends album was one of the major musical discoveries of my life that year.

I hardly think of The Beatles as an albums band. Yes, 'Rubber Soul' through to 'Abbey Road' have a certain unity about them (though I've always found 'The White Album' a bit thrown together - a hodge-podge of whole songs, experiments, and half-thought-through ideas. Sacrilege, I know!).

But it's as a singles (or individual songs) band that I remember them.

Having said that, I was always annoyed when contemporary singles were not on albums. The album would be around for a few years; the singles gone in six months. 'Best of' compilations with the singles took a few years to come out in those days. Now the second album of a new starlet is a 'best of' (I'm sure I've already seen Norah Jones and Katie Meliahyaahyuhhhhh?????? 'best of's and they only released their first albums around last month!

[Jazzmoose]

They were recorded in the same sessions, and have got that Revolver-studio-techno sound, but it's just too damn bad that the Brits had a thing about 'original' singles, and not including same on albums.

Wow. I didn't realize they were recorded at the same time as Revolver. It's hard to believe that LP could have been even better! Definitely their peak, in my opinion.

[clifford_thornton]

I mean, I really can't believe we're talking about the Beatles on here but okay, whatever. Mal Waldron does a REAL nice version of "Yesterdays."

I can't think of any jazz players using guitar feedback as part of their textural lexicon before the advent of rock music. I can't speak for blues players, as I'm not well versed in electric blues.

Beyond the guitar, would not the organ be a source of feedback/intentional overload?

[Guest Bill Barton]

I mean, I really can't believe we're talking about the Beatles on here but okay, whatever. Mal Waldron does a REAL nice version of "Yesterdays."

I can't think of any jazz players using guitar feedback as part of their textural lexicon before the advent of rock music. I can't speak for blues players, as I'm not well versed in electric blues.

Beyond the guitar, would not the organ be a source of feedback/intentional overload?

And I can't believe that we're talking about Jonestown on an Archive Reviews thread . The conversations around here certainly can tend to be - ahem - not terribly linear. Part of the charm, eh? Just like in "real" life. I agree that Mal Waldron's "Yesterdays" is wonderful.

I shot my own theory about Lenny Breau full of holes, that's for sure. At least on record his amazing use of controlled feedback was contemporaneous with The Beatles or even a shade after. Perhaps the influence went the other way (he recorded several Lennon-McCartney songs, I know that.)

Good point on the organ... I can't think of any examples off the top of my head though.

[Teasing the Korean]

Always remembering, of course, that Yesterday and Today was not a "real" album.

Of course - just like San Francisco isn't the "Real America."

Sorry, but I don't buy into the revisionist Beatles catalog history that has been propagated by EMI and the corporate entity known as the Beatles.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Teasing the Korean

[Alexander]

They were recorded in the same sessions, and have got that Revolver-studio-techno sound, but it's just too damn bad that the Brits had a thing about 'original' singles, and not including same on albums.

Wow. I didn't realize they were recorded at the same time as Revolver. It's hard to believe that LP could have been even better! Definitely their peak, in my opinion.

1966 was very much the high point in the Beatles' career arc. It was arguably the greatest and most artistically successful and consistent period, spawning the "Paperback Writer/Rain" single, "Revolver," and "Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane." "Sgt. Pepper" was when the world got hip to what the Beatles were doing, but it was obvious to fans that things were changing and had been for some time. It was after "Sgt. Pepper" (for which "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" were recorded, but as with "Paperback Writer" and "Rain," they were released early to satisfy the demand for more Beatles product) that the slow decline began. "Magical Mystery Tour" was an ill-conceived project (with the exception of "I Am the Walrus"), the soundtrack to "Yellow Submarine" (not released until 1969, but largely recorded at the same time as the "Magical Mystery Tour" tracks) was a half-assed effort (you can tell how much Paul and John thought of it by the fact that the original material is dominated by George, although (as with everything the Beatles did) there are gems such as "Hey Bulldog"), the White Album is a collection of largely individual efforts (containing much brilliance, but little or no cohesion), and (as I noted above) "Let It Be" was a false start for a never finished project. The Beatles didn't return to the heights of "Revolver" and the two double A-sided singles that bookend it until "Abbey Road." For me, the "best" Beatles album is a toss up of "Revolver" and "Abbey Road" and it's very hard to decide which, in the end, is the better. Most of time, I'd say "Revolver" if you asked me, but "Abbey Road" is so freakin' great that to relegate it to number two status seems to be an insult. To me, theferfore, I declare it a tie between the two. The Beatles never surpassed these two albums.

[BruceH]

Lord, oh lordy, I hear ya! That ranks up there as one of their strongest singles, and those two songs SHOULD (by rights) have been included on Revolver! They were recorded in the same sessions, and have got that Revolver-studio-techno sound, but it's just too damn bad that the Brits had a thing about 'original' singles, and not including same on albums. Finding "Rain" on the Hey Jude odds-and-ends album was one of the major musical discoveries of my life that year.

I hardly think of The Beatles as an albums band. Yes, 'Rubber Soul' through to 'Abbey Road' have a certain unity about them (though I've always found 'The White Album' a bit thrown together - a hodge-podge of whole songs, experiments, and half-thought-through ideas. Sacrilege, I know!).

Hardly. I've long thought of The White Album as the very first 'kitchen sink' album. Other examples of this meta-genre would be The Rolling Stones' Exile On Main St., The Minutemen's Double Nickels On the Dime, Outkast's Speakerboxxx/The Love Below, Sandinista, by the Clash, and certainly Sloan's Never Hear the End of It. You either dig it or not, but it's not an approach that's particularly meant to be cohesive or even strongly coherent. ("Album-as-grab-bag/horn-of-plenty" is more like it.) But not thinking of the Beatles as an album band DOES sound a tad strange, considering it was they (more than anyone else in rock) who pretty much invented the idea of the "album" as an artistic gestalt. They were the first, as far as I know, to actually give thought to programming, to issues of one song balancing another, to (for instance) having an appropriate song end side one as well as a "kick-off" song for side two, etc. In short, the first to see their albums as anything more than a dumping ground for hits and filler.

Of course, you're quite right in that they were the consummate singles band too. Kind of like a baseball player being a terrific fielder AND a great hitter.

[Alexander]

Always remembering, of course, that Yesterday and Today was not a "real" album.

Of course - just like San Francisco isn't the "Real America."

Sorry, but I don't buy into the revisionist Beatles catalog history that has been propagated by EMI and the corporate entity known as the Beatles.

It's not revisionism. Writing out "Beatles '65" in favor of "Beatles for Sale" is revisionism (I think that "Beatles '65" is arguably the stronger package). Most pre-Sgt. Pepper Beatles albums have an American and British version, even if they don't share the same title, but "Yesterday and Today" was in American only odds-and-ends collection, with no British analogue. The album is made up of tracks from the British "Help!", "Rubber Soul" and the few tracks from "Revolver" that were finished at the time (so songs like "And Your Bird Can Sing," "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Doctor Robert" were released in the US before they came out in the UK). So, no: It's not a "real" album, any more than "Hey Jude" is a "real" album. Not that "Yesterday and Today" can't "work" as an album, but it wasn't put together by Martin and the Beatles on any level. It was purely a Capitol records product.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Alexander

[Alexander]

They were the first, as far as I know, to actually give thought to programming, to issues of one song balancing another, to (for instance) having an appropriate song end side one as well as a "kick-off" song for side two, etc. In short, the first to see their albums as anything more than a dumping ground for hits and filler.

I'll agree up to a point. They were certainly among the first in ROCK to think of LPs as more than just collections of songs (although the Beach Boys were certainly heading in that direction, even before the Beatles-inspired "Pet Sounds"). However, Frank Sinatra beat them to the punch by more than a decade. His LPs on Capitol contained a common "theme" and certainly demonstrate considerable thought when it comes to programming.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Alexander

[Teasing the Korean]

It's not revisionism.

Sorry, but it IS revisionism, based on respective numbers of copies sold at the time, the Beatles' agreement with Capitol, and the fact that these were mere collections of songs - not movements of symphonies.

The Beatles signed off on the US releases, and often supplied songs specifically for these albums. Additionally, George Martin frequently supplied distinctive mixes specifically for the US.

Artistic control cannot be assigned retroactively, in that you can't erase history. In the words of critic John Mendelsohn, teen pop acts were treated like begrudged guests by their own labels.

Way more people worldwide at that time heard the American releases than the British. The American versions are just as "real" as the UK versions.

Glue/Switch. That's all I have to report.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Teasing the Korean

[BruceH]

Always remembering, of course, that Yesterday and Today was not a "real" album.

Of course - just like San Francisco isn't the "Real America."

Sorry, but I don't buy into the revisionist Beatles catalog history that has been propagated by EMI and the corporate entity known as the Beatles.

"Revisionist"? Capitol looted songs from the Help, Rubber Soul, and Revolver albums in order to stitch together Yesterday and Today (as well as threw in the "Daytripper/We Can Work It Out" single.) The result was admittedly one helluva pleasing mid-period compilation, but no more an ACTUAL album than The Beatles VI, or The Beatles '65. There's a reason that the Beatles submitted the infamous and suppressed "butcher cover" for Yesterday and Today. We're talking facts here.

[BruceH]

The American versions are just as "real" as the UK versions.

No.

[Chuck Nessa]

How many in this discussion were there at the time? I missed the Vee Jay issues, but heard all the rest in sequence. I do understand the difference between UK and US issues.

[Alexander]

It's not revisionism.

Sorry, but it IS revisionism, based on respective numbers of copies sold at the time, the Beatles' agreement with Capitol, and the fact that these were mere collections of songs - not movements of symphonies.

That's a bit snobby. Clearly, these were not "mere" collections of songs to either the Beatles or Martin, otherwise they wouldn't have cared how the albums were presented. But they did, and if we're going to count the intent of the artist, the UK Beatles catalogue (along with the original UK mixes) is clearly the original "text" of the Beatles' body of work. The American catalogue, however widely disseminated, was a bastardization in that it ignored the intent of the artist and created something entirely different for the sake of commerce. The American Beatles albums were mixed up and truncated for no other reason than to double the number of Beatles releases in a given year (making the American consumer pay twice as much as the British consumer to receive the exact same amount of end-product). This was no "artistic" decision made by the exectutives at Captiol.

That said, I have tremendous affection for the American catalogue and own most of the albums in both US and UK versions (when I can get my hands on them). I enjoy a lot of the American mixes (even the ones considered inferior) simply because they're what I heard first. But I don't discount the fact that if the Beatles and EMI had had their way, there would be no "Meet the Beatles," "Yesterday and Today" or "Beatles '65" (not to mention real rip-offs like the "Help!" soundtrack, which only included songs from the movie in the US).

[BruceH]

They were the first, as far as I know, to actually give thought to programming, to issues of one song balancing another, to (for instance) having an appropriate song end side one as well as a "kick-off" song for side two, etc. In short, the first to see their albums as anything more than a dumping ground for hits and filler.

I'll agree up to a point. They were certainly among the first in ROCK to think of LPs as more than just collections of songs (although the Beach Boys were certainly heading in that direction, even before the Beatles-inspired "Pet Sounds"). However, Frank Sinatra beat them to the punch by more than a decade. His LPs on Capitol contained a common "theme" and certainly demonstrate considerable thought when it comes to programming.

Indeed, but the first in ROCK is what I said, and that is exactly what I meant. (Ya gotta love those Sinatra Capitol albums, BTW, and I certainly do. Although for a time Capitol, in best corporate-asshole fashion, took some songs OFF of some of those Sinatra albums, apparently because they came to think there should be some sort of law against an album having 15 or 16 songs.)

[Teasing the Korean]

Gary McFarland vastly improved every Beatles tune he covered. I have no use for the original versions.

[BruceH]

It's not revisionism.

Sorry, but it IS revisionism, based on respective numbers of copies sold at the time, the Beatles' agreement with Capitol, and the fact that these were mere collections of songs - not movements of symphonies.

That's a bit snobby. Clearly, these were not "mere" collections of songs to either the Beatles or Martin, otherwise they wouldn't have cared how the albums were presented. But they did, and if we're going to count the intent of the artist, the UK Beatles catalogue (along with the original UK mixes) is clearly the original "text" of the Beatles' body of work. The American catalogue, however widely disseminated, was a bastardization in that it ignored the intent of the artist and created something entirely different for the sake of commerce. The American Beatles albums were mixed up and truncated for no other reason than to double the number of Beatles releases in a given year (making the American consumer pay twice as much as the British consumer to receive the exact same amount of end-product). This was no "artistic" decision made by the exectutives at Captiol.

That said, I have tremendous affection for the American catalogue and own most of the albums in both US and UK versions (when I can get my hands on them). I enjoy a lot of the American mixes (even the ones considered inferior) simply because they're what I heard first. But I don't discount the fact that if the Beatles and EMI had had their way, there would be no "Meet the Beatles," "Yesterday and Today" or "Beatles '65" (not to mention real rip-offs like the "Help!" soundtrack, which only included songs from the movie in the US).

And the shitty American Hard Day's Night album, which only had songs from the movie, removing all the side-two songs and replacing them with non-Beatles muzak. A real pet-peeve of mine. I think it's no longer in print, thank God.

Being a total nerd about this back in the day, I bought the complete American and British (LP) catalogs, and quite a few German, Japanese, and Dutch pressings. Some of the American sound mixes I think I still prefer to this day (though I don't really listen to the Beatles that much anymore) and in many ways I still prefer the US Rubber Soul, but for godsake, how can one, on general principles as well as esthetics, not prefer the ACTUAL Parlophone/EMI, Beatles and George Martin-programmed early ALBUMS-AS-ALBUMS to the American mish-mashes??? When I like a musical group, pop or rock or whatever, I prefer their albums to be programmed by the group, not some corporate suit or bean-counter at a record label.

Albums may not be symphonies, but song-programming (choosing and sequencing and so on) is something of an art, or used to be, in pop music.

(And may I say, "Hear, hear" Alexander!)

Edited November 11, 2008 by BruceH