The Beatles - US Albums

[David Ayers]

Am I alone in my preference for early Beatles? All that time arguing in the studio...not good for a band...

[Big Beat Steve]

No, you're not. Here's another one.

But I was sort of late to the game anyway - started listening consciously to music at 13 in 1973 and bought my first LPs at 14 1/2 years in early spring of 1975 so when I got into music the Beatles had already passed into history. But of course you still were exposed to them everywhere.

While many of my schoolmates (who of course were into the then current Hard Rock, Blues Rock, Krautrock, Psychedelic Rock and whatever ...) tended more towards the later Beatles albums, my own rock tastes from Day One leaned much more towards REAL Rock'n'Roll, i.e. Eddie Cochran, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Gene Vincent, et al. So to the extent that the Beatles sounded that essential to me at all, it was obviously their early albums that struck much more of a chord with me whereas I neither could nor would really buy into that screwy, weird Sitar, Oriental, pot smoking, high flying, zonked out stuff of the past-Rubber Soul era, just like out-and-out psychedelic rock and similar genres never were for me. I liked my music a bit more gutsy, immediate and down to earth (but I therefore also understand those who find some of the Beatles tunes on the very early albums a bit girlish).

Another reason why the early Beatles albums should not be belittled IMO - it was THOSE albums that created the huge impact of Beatlemania outside the UK and changed the course of rock music forever (imagine white U.S. pop/"rock" would have been stuck in a Bobby Vee, Ricky Nelson, Bobby Rydell, Frankie Valli etc. rut for much longer ) whereas the later ones were done when the Beatles already were an ultra-established act worldwide and (again IMHO) the impact of those albums had more to do with everybody in the rock or pop world waiting for the next word from the Beatles and the Gospel they would preach therein. Sort of "you can't go wrong with the latest Beatles release" thing ...

Edited January 23, 2014 by Big Beat Steve

[felser]

I also prefer their earlier stuff. I saw them on Ed Sullivan, my first album purchase at 10 years old was 'Beatles 65' (my first 45 purchase was "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' " by the Righteous Brothers, so I got THAT right!). I love and own plenty of "that screwy, weird Sitar, Oriental, pot smoking, high flying, zonked out stuff", it's my go-to music, but then and now I prefer it by other groups, such as the Jefferson Airplane, early Santana, original Love, etc. I had and have the later Beatles stuff, but rarely listen to it.

[Scott Dolan]

It's very interesting to see how many here like the earlier material better. I'm certainly not in that camp, but with my new found appreciation for the earlier stuff, I can see it.

So, a question for everyone. If you could only listen to one Beatles album, which would it be?

Mine would be Abbey Road. That's one of the greatest side 2's in recorded history, IMO.

[Big Beat Steve]

I love and own plenty of "that screwy, weird Sitar, Oriental, pot smoking, high flying, zonked out stuff", it's my go-to music, but then and now I prefer it by other groups, such as the Jefferson Airplane, early Santana, original Love, etc.

Isn't it quite natural that tastes differ?

And exaggeration sometimes helps to convey a message too ...

Though it was spurred in part by one of the Beatles' (Ringo??) much later admission that they indeed had gone wildly overboard with all their Guru and psych stuff in the second part of the 60s.

[colinmce]

I like the earlier stuff better, too. My personal favorite albums are Please Please Me & A Hard Day's Night. But I might argue on an objective level that the White Album is their greatest work, warts and all.

[JSngry]

I actually have that Lou Christie MGM single, and I hear what you're saying about Charlie Calello, but I could never relate to the falsetto voice. There are very few falsettos I like (Little Anthony is one, but even there, it just sounds so strange). The 4 Seasons songs are successful in spite of Frankie Valli's falsetto, not because of it (IMHO).

Agree with you about most falsetto's, including Christie's (MArvin Gaye's otoh, that is the voice of an angel, even if not in the body of one), but for me, the genius of "Lightnin' Strikes" is how there's really three voices at work here, all Christie's. You got the "I'll be good. I WANT to be good" voice, then the "hey, looky there looky THERE voice", and then - and only then, do you get to the falsetto, the voice of the priapic horndog thrusting away. It's throughly, carefully, and quite intentially planned to roll out like that, and even more unsettling is how, after the chorus, after the guitar solo, that's a logical place musically and clock-wise for a fade out, but NO - it comes back right to a wedding day, there's a chapel in the pines, hello bells and gowns RIGHT THERE, but nope, not gonna happen, this motherfucker is flat out saying I AM A DOG I WILL FUCK ANYTHING THAT MOVES EVEN FIVE MINUTES BEFORE OUR WEDDING.

It's some dark shit, really, much more dark than "Rhapsody In The Rain" which is just about two kids fucking in a car. But "Lightin' Strikes" is some disturbed shit masterfully executed (the female chorus who keeps saying "STOP" once his glands get to working, those are there for percussive punctuation, voice of conscience contrast, and most importantly, WOMEN SAYING NO LOU PLEASE DON'T DO THIS TO ME, DON'T DO THIS TO US, yet the dog just keeps on going, he can't stop, he WON'T stop. And everybody knows it. Dog gonna be dog, ya' know? And if you want a dog for a boyfriend/husband, here your's is. That might even be an overdubbed Christie making those "Stops", in which case, oh, that's even worse, you know you're being a dog, you know it's wrong, but you can't stop - WON'T stop. Are you a misogynist in particular, or just a self-loathing sociopath in general?

So yeah, Lou Christie, usually a skillful clever quantity surrounded by excellent craftworks, but in "Lightnin' Strikes" we have, really, one of the darkest, most cynical, and soul-crushing pop records of the 20th Century disguised, quite masterfully, as a cheery ride on the roller coaster at the Sate Fair. In fact, one wonders if one is in fact nothing more than the other, if American personal relationships = cheap carnie rides.

THAT, Dear Friends, is American Pop Music at one of its bests.

[Scott Dolan]

I like the earlier stuff better, too. My personal favorite albums are Please Please Me & A Hard Day's Night. But I might argue on an objective level that the White Album is their greatest work, warts and all.

Yeah, I could see that argument. It's not quite the hot mess that Exile On Main Street is, but still a very curious collection. It was nice to hear them reinvent themselves after the heavy psychedelic stuff from Sgt. Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour.

Oh, and Lon, don't sell me short on how much I've heard The Beatles. From the ages of 7-12, I had their albums in almost constant rotation. Aside from a couple of KISS albums, my collection of records and cassette tapes were made up of the entire Beatles catalog. And that was by design because I didn't want to waste any of my time listening to anything else.

[jazzbo]

Whatever Scott. I hear what you hear in the stuff, but value it less than you. I over heard this stuff and it hasn't worn as well for me as the later Beatles.

[Scott Dolan]

Yeah, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

I'm not sure how this has turned into a competition.

[JSngry]

Anything but Beatles For Sale & Let It Be will be pulled from the shelves without a second thought when the mood strikes (and those two will get pulled after no more than a third thought), each for different reasons. But since I got hip to the Purple Chick series, I'm just as likely to go for those, especially for the session takes. That's where it hit me head on that neither Paul nor Ringo on their own were in nay way "special", but in tandem, they could conjure a real mojo. Interestingly, the session tkaes for the early albums are more musically interesting than those for the later album, which are the more interesting (for me) in terms of "just" music.

Really, though, it's so much a" known quantity" for me now, that the real "discovery" type comes from remixers and other digital-head type examinations.

[Scott Dolan]

I think Paul is one of the most talented bass players in the Rock world. This might be the very first time I've ever heard anyone say that he "isn't special in any way".

His bass line on Something is one of the finest in the genre, IMO.

[JSngry]

Paul was always good. He was special in tandem with Ringo, though. There was a real synergy there.

[Scott Dolan]

Ah, OK. Your previous statement left a lot open to interpretation.

I actually never thought much of Ringo's playing until I got the remastered box and sat and listened to it all very carefully. I don't know if it's because Martin made him more prominent in the mix, or what. But I found a whole new appreciation for his playing while going through those discs. Far more subtle than say, Charlie Watts, but just as rock solid, IMO.

[Jerry_L]

All due respect to Sir Paul, but at times his phrasing sounds a bit too informed by the "Granny music" he adored.

As for John (and Yoko), I could really do without Revolution #9 on the White Album. Never really worked for me, and it's less impressive now that anyone can throw a sound collage together with software. Of course, it's not as bad as Yoko's caterwauling in the Rock and Roll Circus performance.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Jerry_L

[xybert]

When I got the US box, it was such a rush because I didn't own the albums when they came out, just heard them when I went to friends' houses (usually their older brothers owned the LPs) so hearing them now brought me back to when I was 9. Cool! In college, some friends had a few of the UK albums, and that was interesting, but they weren't our albums, y'know? And the US albums definitely sound different than the UK albums - more energy, they sound more alive.

People bought those US albums until the CD era, so it wasn't just a kids thing.

Yeah, I mean, ok, the UK mixes are the originals, and now that I've lived with them, I consider them "definitive" as far as the music goes. But as far as how that music sounds, hey, don't expect me to unlearn what, 20+ years of aural memory. What, just tell myself that everything I heard never really happened?. What kind of retro-revisionist brainwashing is that?

It may not be as dramatic as the differences between the original UK and US releases, but this was my logic, after much agonising, in convincing myself to go with the 2009 Stereo Box rather than the 2009 Mono Box when i finally got round to getting that sorted last year: I'd grown up with the original CD releases in stereo and it's just how i knew and loved the music.

The funny thing is i've grown to love the early stuff, which i'd never listened to on CD growing up, and apparently it sounds much better in mono... so... something something.

[JSngry]

As for John (and Yoko), I could really do without Revolution #9 on the White Album. Never really worked for me, and it's less impressive now that anyone can throw a sound collage together with software.

Nobody ever changes their mind about that one!

However, this is worth at least one listen, more if, like me, you've always found it an "interesting" work. As tape collage, yeah, ok, but as live "contemporary music" orchestral work, hmmm....who knew?

[JSngry]

When I got the US box, it was such a rush because I didn't own the albums when they came out, just heard them when I went to friends' houses (usually their older brothers owned the LPs) so hearing them now brought me back to when I was 9. Cool! In college, some friends had a few of the UK albums, and that was interesting, but they weren't our albums, y'know? And the US albums definitely sound different than the UK albums - more energy, they sound more alive.

People bought those US albums until the CD era, so it wasn't just a kids thing.

Yeah, I mean, ok, the UK mixes are the originals, and now that I've lived with them, I consider them "definitive" as far as the music goes. But as far as how that music sounds, hey, don't expect me to unlearn what, 20+ years of aural memory. What, just tell myself that everything I heard never really happened?. What kind of retro-revisionist brainwashing is that?

It may not be as dramatic as the differences between the original UK and US releases, but this was my logic, after much agonising, in convincing myself to go with the 2009 Stereo Box rather than the 2009 Mono Box when i finally got round to getting that sorted last year: I'd grown up with the original CD releases in stereo and it's just how i knew and loved the music.

The funny thing is i've grown to love the early stuff, which i'd never listened to on CD growing up, and apparently it sounds much better in mono... so... something something.

I went for the mono box just to see what all the fuss was about, and, yeah, I don't know if it sounds "better", but...the early stuff is definitely more punchier in mono, which is, I think, what the object of the game was. And the White Album in mono has some things here and there that are either dramatically different in balance or, a few times, aren't even there in the stereo mix. Enough of a difference that I had a real WTF moment or two, and I couldn't tell you the last time before then I had had one of those with Beatles music.

Just saying, if the opportunity arises, consider it seriously as a worthwhile acquisition.

[Jerry_L]

Revolution #9 is interesting, but it's non-musicality makes the album less listenable as a whole, and it is ironic that John, who complained about Paul's penchant for non-rock "Granny music", still chose to foist this indulgence upon us. That said, It had shock value in it's day, and I dutifully listened to it numerous times on vinyl, mostly since it was harder to avoid than it is now in the digital era. I just listened to that half of the White Album and couldn't help thinking that I could otherwise be listening to much more worthwhile music than that track. I gave it a full listen for old times sake, but I will program around it in the future. Not worth 8 minutes of my future listening time.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Jerry_L

[JSngry]

And yet played live, as by that orchestra in that clip, it becomes very musical, conservative, actually, much more than the record, I think. I was surprised as anybody, but in a world of Stockhausen, Penderecki, Berio, etc., this fits right in. On a rock record, maybe not so much (and it was only years later that I learned of those other musics), but the Lennonos would go there for a while, hardly ever (one might posit never) with good results, but with age and knowledge of what they were referencing, at least now I have a context for the ambition instead of thinking they were just lost in space koo-koos or some such.

Speaking of surprises...

This thing is a worm that eats through your skull and eats your brain into a new place from which there is no retreat. In a good way.

[BFrank]

I picked up the 'stereo' box of UK releases a few years ago, and that's more than enough for me. I grew up listening to the American versions ("Rubber Soul" might have been my first record), but with one exception I'm not desperate to hear those versions again.

I DO want to get the US version of "Help." The incidental music was an integral part of the album for me, and I probably haven't heard that stuff in about 40 years.

I have a friend who's a Beatles collector, so anything I need to know or hear I can get from him. He buys EVERYthing!

[Jerry_L]

That orchestra version of #9 is much more musical than the original, but still no more than a curiosity to me.

The repetition of the phrase does remind me of Monty Pythons "How To Recognize Different Types Of Tree (The Larch)":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPeFd5zQm_Y

Nothing directly to do with the Beatles, but this is a more thematic non-musical album closer (and mercifully shorter):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGuDZr3zSxA

Edited January 23, 2014 by Jerry_L

[felser]

I love and own plenty of "that screwy, weird Sitar, Oriental, pot smoking, high flying, zonked out stuff", it's my go-to music, but then and now I prefer it by other groups, such as the Jefferson Airplane, early Santana, original Love, etc.

Isn't it quite natural that tastes differ?

And exaggeration sometimes helps to convey a message too ...

Though it was spurred in part by one of the Beatles' (Ringo??) much later admission that they indeed had gone wildly overboard with all their Guru and psych stuff in the second part of the 60s.

Of course. I actually thought my previous post agreed with you!

[mjzee]

A friend in college had the first UK release of Sgt. Pepper. There's a weird lead-out groove on, IIRC, side 2; sounds like something being played backwards. Sure enough, when we did play it backwards (at the radio station, put the turntable in neutral and turn the disc back with your finger) we distinctly heard "We're going to fuck you like supermen" over and over...

[Scott Dolan]

Well, that's not very nice.