Finally, I want to comment about another person's critique.  This person stated that "girls/women always leave" and "The Beatles songs depicted that w/o being sappy."  Well, that is life.  People come and go in each other's lives.  It's not always the women who walk away first, either.  The important thing is to be kind to each other and kind to yourself.  Recognize that change will occur whether you desire it or not.  Nothing stays the same forever and if it did, how stagnant that would be.

  Thank you for your wonderful website and allowing people to post their comments.
"Chris Ann"

ArelisTr.aol.com (04/25/06)

Truly!  They are THE greatest band of all time.  I am much like you, in the born-again aspect of my relation to the Beatles.  I had the seem "I hate the Beatles thing," as well as the Stones (not anymore though!) and the Who (no more either, no thanks to Mark Prindle!), but Revolver changed all that.  A truly great band, the truly great band.

Nick DuShane (ndushane.gmail.com) (06/07/07)

When it comes to the Beatles, there is no simple answer. The way I see it, people love to hate them, but they also have no convincing way of discrediting them either.

The most common argument I get in this day and age is that their music or the Beatles are too old. Which is absolute bull shit.  When you think about it the Beatles ant that old and neither is the concept of rock and roll. when compared to how long music itself has been with us. (Keep in mind that the word "Roll" no longer exists in the world of contemporary music. Of course the the definition of the word Rock & Roll in its self is really a matter of opinion. Some think it died with the fifty's) The most important thing to remember when judging any piece of art is to understand what and who the target audience was intended for. in the case of the Beatles its quite simple: Everyone. Throughout there career they evolved and expanded to fit the minds of the great pop weary audience.

Because of this, and due to the complete and total exposure of the band because of the radio and repackaged products over the past 50 years, its impossible to simply like or dislike this group. the main problem with this is the fact that I can never put on a Beatles album at a party and not have some one run for the doors and someone else sing along with all the songs.

Now having said all that. my personal feelings about the Beatles is probably as complex as the music industry its self. there are times where I love them, and other were I come close to hating them.

You see my family did not raise me on the Beatles, hell they barley raised me on any music at all. for most of my childhood I simply followed what my sisters listened to. (Which wasn't much) And my experience was very much like yours.

And after a short time going through their best stuff IE: Rubber Soul through Abbey Road. and then after a much longer period accumulated nearly all their other works (except for the Anthology 1, 2, and 3 and Yellow Submarine)  I have come to the opinion that while the Beatles are still over rated or rather overplayed, their without a doubt one the few bands that are worthy of the title "greatest band" and coming form me that Is a complement.

Patrick Dermody (pdermody.twcny.rr.com) (12/13/07)

We all know that lennon and McCartney are unbelievably great songwriters and they are unlimited when it comes to style.  I guess their only weakness is that they never had as great of a live reputation as say, the who.  But this is understandable.  When they did tour, they were as good as anybody because before the psychedelic age, live renditions of songs didn't go much farther than their studio rendition.  I bet if the beatles toured at the end of the 60s, they would have been a great live band.  But I guess it would be best if they had just one flaw.  Then they wouldn't be so gosh darn perfect.

MiKatz123.aol.com (04/29/08)

i like the  stones zappa eno laurie anderson patti smith mozart lou reed the who bill monroe lead belly the smiths talking heads roxy music ian dury pj harvey clash woody guthrie van morrison yoko ono king crimson nick cave beethoven bowie gang of four dead kennedys the band dylan they might be giants costello beefheart and so many ive yet to discover my fave the beatles.

Tim Light (timlight99.hotmail.com) (8/13/11)

The Beatles came into my consciousness in 1963. I was 10 years old. I had no particular taste in music. I liked church music as much as I liked marching bands, brass bands, Gilbert and Sullivan and Elvis Presley. Then I heard I Wanna Hold Your Hand. I was intensely excited by this sound, which was so different from anything I'd heard before. From then on The Beatles consumed most of my teenage years, causing me to ignore any band that didn't sound like them. It was hero worship on a grand scale.

I was a little taken aback by the changes in their appearance and sound as the 60s progressed, but I managed to adjust, and I learned to love While My Guitar Gently Weeps the same way I loved She Loves You.

Then they split up. I refused to believe it. But fortunately I had supportive friends who introduced me to the delights of The Moody Blues and Pink Floyd, and little by little I readjusted to life.

I'm not going to get all analytical about why the Beatles were so great, I just want to acknowledge that they really were. Their first Best Of compilation (1963-1966 and 1967-1970) ran to 54 tracks, of which only a couple were unworthy of their place, and there were several others that should have been included. Quality and quantity - a rare combination.

Today, I don't often sit down and listen to a Beatles album. It's the kind of music where I love to hear a track played on the radio, or at a party. Some of the later albums are OK to listen through, but other acts tend to get priority these days. Nevertheless, those 7 years were glorious, and I'm so grateful that they happened when they, did, and not when I had grown old and cynical.

And I'm glad they split when they did, rather than indulging in a long painful decline, living on their reputation, churning out sub-standard crap, like so many other big names continue to do. Thanks boys.

Trung Doan (trungtamdoan.gmail.com) (12/13/11)

If you view perfection in music as a group that gets the right balance between writing accessible pop music for the masses and making "high" art and experimental music. You would be hard press to find a better group that fit the description than the Beatles. Even from my perspective where I rate Radiohead as my favourite band of all time (I'll eventually write a response to those reviews), I have to concede that they don't quite get that balance right. Radiohead's music may well be critically acclaimed and may well be popular with the hipster and the snobs but I don't see half of the population of Adelaide celebrating their arrival in the city.

They may not be an objective "best band in the world" but I do think that that they are the most accessible rock band in the world and I do think there is some objectivity to that statement (although I haven't prove it, I'm sure that if you get a poll of your favourite band from fans any subgenre of rock and pop music, the common link between all of them would be The Beatles even if The Beatles don't rate at the top of the pile from every sets of fans). That people with diverse demographics and diverse musical taste can probably find something in their catalog that they like. One of the greatest charms about The Beatles are that they are probably just as influential towards teen pop as they are towards prog rock and they probably had some influence on some avant garde as well. Of the people who I know likes the Beatles, they have completely variant muscial taste. My parents who mostly listen to Celion dion, Mariah Carey, Michael Bolton and other easy listening artist do like the beatles. One of my friends was into avantgarde music and currently writes "feedback" music (which is creating music by just using guitar feedback) who was a beatles fan. i know a few metal heads who like the Beatles. One of my lecturers was a prog rock fan and loves the beatles and of course the beatles are popular within the indie crowd. Beatles are kind of the grand unifier in rock music. Even the biggest informed critic of the beatles, Piero Scarrufi liked Sergent Peppers.

So when I hear people say The beatles are the best band in the world, I generally won't argue with them because from a certain viewpoint, they certainly are (although I will argue if people believe that other bands must have an inferiority complex to the beatles though).

However I don't rate bands based on how much of a grand unifier in rock music they are. I rate bands on whether I enjoy listening to their music.

From my standpoint, The Beatles are one of the greatest band in rock music and belong in the highest tier of rock music but they are not perfect. They certainly have not released strings of perfect album (in fact I don't believe any band in the history of rock music has released more than one "perfect" album). They are not head and shoulders above all their competitor that every band must feel inferior to them, Even if I disagree with some of the anti-hype about The Beatles, i do sympathise with them.

In any case my opinion of the Beatles is that they have written some of the most professionally made and well polished pop songs I have ever heard. One of the most difficult balance of writing pop songs is that it has to be catchy enough to be memorable but not catchy enough to be down right obnoxious and annoying. for the most part Beatles has made it an artform nailing that right balance. I would probably say that they have the most consistently great melodies I have heard. They also one of the best arrangers in rock music. They create music where even years after listening to them, you would notice little instrumental parts and section that you didn't hear before. Their songs are generally densely arrange and generally do not just rely on just chords to carry the music. there's always a guitar fill, or an entrance of keyboards, or some strings/brass/oboe/sitar etc to ensure that the music is always interesting. That you can follow the instrumental parts and enjoy the song.

To me, one of the great test on whether the band is an all time classic band is that if you stripped down the arrangement, the melodies are still strong to carry the song AND simultaneously if you take out the melodies, whether the arrangement is interesting enough to carry the song. The ability to write the music that can do both is the ultimate test. the Beatles can certainly do the former and although I think they are other bands out there that can do the latter better, The Beatles does succeed with the latter as well and there are plenty of songs where I can enjoy the melodies and the arrangement at the same time.

The Beatles are also the most 'efficient' song writers out there as well. One of the core values that I judge music is pacing. I don't like listening to music that drags on and waste my time. I rate artist very harshly when there isn't enough song ideas to justify the length of the songs. I can't think of many Beatles song in the top of the head that does it. Even Revolution no. 9 which I despise, I can't say has bad pacing as it has a lot of ideas to justify the 8 minute time. It's just that all the ideas were put together in an uncohesive and unlistenable manner. The Beatles avoid this by not having excessively lengthy sections and by having the song constantly change. Even if the song follows the basic verse 1, chorus, verse 2, chorus, bridge, verse 3, chorus end etc structure. Verse 2 is not the same as the verse 1 and verse 3 is not the same as verse 2. There are normally subtle differences in arrangement between each section eg. the final verse in Back in the ussr has a one note guitar fill that is not present in the first two verses. The song structure to songs like I want you, she's so heavy, should have been repetitive and boring but with classy arrangement, the song always remains interesting as with every repeating of the section there are differences. Songs like Tomorrow Never knows where it's based on a repetitive rhythm section and just based on one chord (C chord) but the Beatles kept it interesting by varying the atmosphere in the background.

I haven't even mention songs with complex song structure and I'm always impressed when songwriters successfully write songs with what I called linear structure. So just section A goes to section B goes to section C etc without repeating each section. These are songs like Happiness is a warm gun and You never give me my money and the whole Abbey Road medley. This prevents the song from becoming boring due to just repeating sections and only varying the lyrics and nothing else. The only time I can remember a Beatles song that was repetitive at the top of my head was the coda of Hey Jude but I forgive that as the "na na na" is such a catchy anthemic sing-along that it's one of the few times where repetition isn't problematic.

the Beatles are of course very diverse band as well which explain why they are the most "accessible" band. I also think they are one of the most consistent band and that in my top 100 albums, The Beatles had the most contribution towards that with 6 albums (you could even argue 7 because I didn't include Past Master Vol. 2 in that list because it's a compilation).

Now the weaknesses. Now I'll just give a disclaimer that in the scheme of rock music, this is nit picking but these criticism are not judge by the standard of rock music in general but by the standards of other first tier band (or class A or 5 star band if you prefer that label).

Now I mention that The Beatles were some of the most professional song writers I have ever heard and they can write well crafted pop song. However can The Beatles write song that can touch your soul and moved your heart?

Well the answer is yes because there's no way I'll rate a band to be a top tier artist if they can't do that but if I compared them to all my other tier one band (Radiohead, The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, Genesis), I found The Beatles to be relatively least emotionally resonant out of those selection.

I'll just define emotional resonance first. It's music that can emotionally moved someone beyond the entertainment and enjoyment you get from listening to well constructed music. i get enjoyment and have fun listening to all good music because they write well constructed song and that's enough to move me but I don't count that as "emotional resonance". Music that has to go beyond that and "touch my soul" for it to count towards emotional resonance.

There's a few reasons for that. First, the emphasis of The Beatles is still light hearted and to write songs that are fun to listen to. For every serious song such as A Day in the life and Eleanor rigby, there's a yellow submarine and when I'm 64 in the album. It really depends on your stylistic preference on how you view this. Do you view well written 'fun' songs to be equal to well written 'serious' songs? If the answer is yes than this isn't an issue and could potentially be a positive because it makes the album more diverse. If the answer is that, all things being equal, an emotionally resonant song is intriinsically better than songs that aren't emotionally resonant than this potentially is a negative thing. Especially when you compare to bands that completely stack the album with serious emotionally resonant songs in the album instead of just having 4-5 serious songs per album.

Now I admit that this is purely a stylistic preference from my part but it does explain why some people don't rate the band that high. I have to say, some people may find some of the ringo songs like Yellow submarine to be cute, charming and fun but I just find it obnoxious and I do admit that the presence of Ringo songs in their albums had prevented a few F and 10 ratings from me.

2nd thing, neither Paul McCartney or John Lennon (or george harrison or ringo star) are particularly awesome singers. Now I think both Paul McCartney and John Lennon are excellent singers and they do have their moments where their singing elevate the songs but I don't think they do it enough to be rated in the highest tiers of singers If I want to listen to emotionally resonant vocals, I much rather listen to Thom yorke, Bob Dylan, Nick Cave, Kate Bush, peter gabriel, Ian curtis or pretty much all of the other tier one bands (except for The rolling stones as they rate them equal to the beatles in terms of vocals). Considering that vocal is one of the most important component in creating emotionally resonant music that is bit of a draw back.

3rd, The Beatles very seldomly used dynamics to create emotional resonance and they seldomly have songs with an emotional climax for the song to build up to. Now I'll just mention that A Day In The Life is a very dynamic song and does have a climax (the ascending string sections at the end and then the bam on the keyboard) and because of that this is one of only three songs in the existance of rock music I consider to be perfect. However that is the exception (other exceptions are Hey Jude, oh darling, This Boy etc I do realise they do this but not as much as other bands) from the rule. Most of the time Beatles create emotionally resonant music by creating music that sounds beautiful or writing meaningful lyrics that people can relate to. Now people may say who cares how bands create emotionally resonant music as long as they are able to create it. However from my position, what if another band creates music that sounds just as beautiful and has just as meaningful lyric AND the songs has great variation in dynamics and has an emotional climax that they build up to and they do that on a regular basis. I'll rate those bands to be superior in terms of emotional resonance as The Beatles do lack the sense the epicness and bombast of other tier 1 artist. As emotionally moving songs like Eleanor Rigby and For No One and In My Life is, there is very little dynamic changes in those songs.

Lastly, although I would defend late period Beatles from accusation that they are fake and insincere (hell I think Paul McCartney gets way too much stick for that and he is just as emotionally resonant as John Lennon during his work with The Beatles), but I will not defend the pre-Help era Beatles of that. My problem with early beatles isn't that it's simple pop music (like all beatles it's very professionally well made pop). My problem is that I find their music to be incredibly insincere and The Beatles were clearly putting on an act to impress the teenage girls. John Lennon admitted that Help was his first truly honest and sincere song he ever written (by the way, I always believe that Help was an example of the rest of The beatles doing a hatchet job on a lennon composition. doing generic beatles pop arrangement on a song that was a plea for help completely wreck any emotional resonant that song had. I would have loved to hear a stripped down acoustic version of that song). When you have a principle songwriter admitted that he was insincere for large part of their early career, why should I treat their work with sincerity?

All these silly love songs they have written, I really do not believe that they really believed in what they written. Probably the best depiction of early beatles was with the "Across The Universe" movie where they have the main character singing "all my loving" (I know that's a mcCartney song by the way) to his girlfriend before having his trip to england and then subsequently he ended up cheating on her on another women later on in the movie. That's what it feels like listening to early Beatles. I seriously doubt McCartney or Lennon were particularly devoted to their partners as depicted in their early songs. It's one thing singing joke lighthearted songs (like the few in The White Album) it's another thing to sing love songs about how devoted you are to your lover when you clearly faking it.

It was only when The Beatles started writing relationship troubles song when I felt they became sincere. They were certainly sincere in them having fun and them putting in a professional performance but I hardly think many of their early songs "came from the heart". In all honestly, I don't think John Lennon really mastered writing emotionally resonant music until his solo career.

I'll also add that I don't believe the beatles were that "adequate" with their experimentation. I believed that The Beatles reached their peak in their post psychedelia era when they stopped trying to be experimental and return back to their roots but kept the skills they had from their earlier era (this is reflected that The white Album and Abbey road are my two favourite Beatles album). Unlike George Starostin, I DO hold Revolution no. 9 against them in terms of adequacy as this is hardly their first failed experiments. I don't particularly care much for any of the George attempts of sitar music (except for Inner Light). I found those songs to be too too reliant on atmosphere at the expense of basic songwriting and I think that songs like Good Morning, Good Morning may well have complicated time signatures but it one of the weaker song as the melodies are weak. It's due to this and emotional resonance that I do not give Revolver/Rubber Soul and Sergent Peppers a F or 10.

Last minor point, I don't think any of The Beatles were that particular special with their instruments. Normally that wouldn't matter as I rate bands on their songwriting skills but if a song is equally good and equally emotionally resonant, shouldn't the song that achieved that success with more technical skills be rated higher. Shouldn't band with higher technical skills (let say someone like The Who) be rated higher if they had songwriting skills that are just as good as The Beatles?

Overall, I love the Beatles but I disagree with the concept that they were a perfect band and that they release a series of perfect album (I don't think any band has achieved that feat so that's no disgrace). I probably like The Beatles more from a brain point of view rather than with my heart (although I do not deny that they have skills in that area). If I was using George Starostin rating I would give The Beatles 4/5 for emotional resonance and adequacy. One of the greatest band of all time but they are not perfect and they are just one of many equally great rock bands from that era.

The original material on this release made up the bulk of the American bastard Meet The Beatles, and it's not hard at all to see why the group became such huge stars overnight. Most of them absolutely blow away the guys' compositions on Please, with only the somewhat stupid Hold Me Tight marring things a bit.

The album starts on a very high note with the driving It Won't Be Long, a great showcase for the interaction of Lennon's lead vocals, the others' backing vocals, and a short but wonderful riff in the spaces. All I've Got To Do is a nice soothing love song, and then we hit the classic. You know, the number that linked them forever with Ed Sullivan and made them the idols of millions of teenage girls across the country. Of course, the lyrics are slightly dumb ("close your eyes and I'll kiss you, tomorrow I'll miss you," eh?), but the vocal melody is incredible, not to mention the neat Spanishy-kinda-flamenco rhythm track from John. Whee!

Hey, even George finally contributed a song! Don't Bother Me is certainly a long way from his later easterny spiritual numbers, especially lyrically, but it has yet another great melody (the melancholy of it gives a nice little edge), not to mention that his HIGHLY-underrated vocals suit the song very, very well. Even better, the melancholy nature of the piece makes the next number, the silly Little Child, work even better. The exuberant piano and harmonica playing may seem slightly ridiculous, but if you can just momentarily get over yourself, you'll have a hoot. Besides, I love the way they sing, "I'm so sad and looooooonely ..."

Oh, the last two originals of the album are both great, by the way. I Wanna Be Your Man, sung by Ringo, seems somewhat dumb the first time around, but keep in mind that John and Paul orignally wrote the song not for themselves but for the Stones, so that's why it seems somewhat out of character. It's still good, though. Not as good as the AWESOME Not a Second Time, though. It's much more based around the piano than any other Beatles song to that point, but that only serves to make it sound that much more mature and deep. I should also mention that it works absolutely impeccably as the closer of Meet, what with those mournful and haunting harmonies in the fade-out.

Oh, I guess should have mentioned this earlier, but there are still the standard six covers on this here album, same as on Please. Now, you might wrinkle your nose a bit at this, but I personally think they all sound great. A bit primitive, yes, but certainly not bad in any way. Money is a great closer, with John demonstrating what was quite possibly the best pure rock and roll voice in the business (not to mention that that riff is awesome - am I the only that sees the potential for this number to be a great heavy number if properly reworked?). Till There Was You is a nice acoustic ditty with great singing from Paul, Roll Over Beethoven has yet more great singing from George, Please Mister Postman has more great singing from John ... I think you get the idea. Even if you don't really care for the original versions of these pieces, you should at least check out the versions here for the amazing vocals.

It takes a few listens to get into (which is mainly what holds it back from a higher grade), yes, and it is just early 60's pop, but man, WHAT early 60's pop. Heck, this would easily be the masterpiece of that particular genre, if it weren't for what would come next ...

Josh Fitzgerald (breezesf85.email.com)

Not as bad as I thought it to be for oh so many years. I always need to remind myself that it was recorded in 1963, then I realize how innovative this was. Listening to this in the year 2000, it may sound a little corny, but remember- 1963! "It Won't Be Long" is fantastic, as is "Not A Second Time" and even "Don't Bother Me" (soooooo underrated!). What you said about "I Wanna Be Your Man" being written for the Stones is odd proof that Lennon/McCartney were songwriting geniuses enough to write a Stones song! The highlight of "Please Mister Postman" for me would not be the lead vocals, but instead, the backing vocals. I think they sound really awesome. And what about "You Really Got A Hold On Me?" It sounds so ominous (then again, the original Smokey Robinson song was pretty spooky,also). It has a really good melody though. "All I've Got To Do" and "Roll Over Beethoven" are the last good songs for me. The rest don't do too much for my taste, but then again, it's my taste. Yours might be different. Anyway, it's a really decent pop album (remember- 1963!!), and the perfect way to start your Beatles collection. I haven't heard Please Please Me yet, so this is my first of their albums.

TheeRubberCow.aol.com (12/28/01)

not too much to argue with here, just wanted to say that I wouldn't be as hard on lryics like "close your eyes and I'll kiss you...."   Of course, if these kind of rhymes were written today they would be obviously cliched, but you have to remember that these type of couplets were not cliched at that point since they had not been used.  Not that it should make them sound better, just more understandable.

Aprentice (nikus80.hotmail.com) (12/15/03)

I've read in a McCartney interview (or it was in a Martin interview? nevermind (the bollocks)) that they wrote I wanna be your man and then gave it to the Stones, but that doesn't means they wrote it FOR the Stones. The funny thing, Stones' I Wanna Be Your Man became a hit, and it isn't nowhere as great as the rest of the songs on this album.

MATTHEW CONSTANTINE (11/22/08)

I Wanna Be Your Man was busked into shape during a meeting with the Stones - when they arrived they just had the hook, within fifteen minutes they'd worked up the rest of the melody and what few words there are.  This inspired the Stones to start writing their own material.  (And their version, surely, is better).
Hold Me Tight was a leftover from those rushed first-album sessions, hence the feeble excuse for a lyric and the rather off-key/over-enthusiastic vocals.
Thanks for bigging-up Not A Second Time, by the way.

Huw Powell (one.humanthoughts.org) (03/13/09)

No, you're not the only one who hears this song as a potentially "heavy" number.

I used to play it with my guitar teacher at the open mic nights he hosted, and over the "main" riff I would jut come crashing in with heavy, distorted chords over the 3 main notes (I - IV - III - IV). I may have once or twice accidentally broken in to a nasty solo section in the middle, too.

The song has great bones to build on

"Ben" (bbgun_301.yahoo.com) (02/13/11)

This came only 8 months after their first album, and it's a dramatic improvement. Pretty much everything about their first album has been completely overshadowed by this one. No more mercybeat crap, where the first album was more of a hit or miss affair (for a beatles album anyway), this is hit all the way through.

John contributes the best songs here, "It Won't Be Long," "Not a Second Time," "All I've Got to Do," and Paul's "All My Loving" is one of the best songs he's ever did, being a much bigger improvement over songs like "I Saw Her Standing There" and "Love Me Do." The 6 covers on here are great too. Even George has a song here, the highly underrated "Don't Bother Me." Where "Please Please Me" was more of a fresh start for the band, this is really where they got their edge.

Ben Burch (benburch500.hotmail.com) (07/13/13)

If it weren't for "Till there was you" and "Devil in her heart", this would probably be my favorite Beatles album. I basically agree with everything you said here, other than the fact that I've always liked "Hold Me Tight", and "It Won't Be Long" is my favorite here. It's absurd how they chose "I Want to Hold Your Hand" over that as a single.

trfesok.aol.com (12/13/15)

It is amazing how the songwriting jumped in only a matter of months. Although I think there are minuses when compared with the first album then when I first started listening to this music..

The cover versions that were siphoned off of this by Capitol Records to create Meet.. were combined with some older singles to make their patchwork Second Album. So, a lot of Americans wouldn't have noticed that, as a group, these covers weren't quite as good as those on the 1st album. I find "..Postman" and "..Got a Hold.." to be be rather clumsy. "Roll Over Beethoven" was very popular (so much so that Capitol wanted it to be the followup single to "I Want to Hold Your Hand"), but I think it's sort of bland. "Till There was You" introduces acoustic guitar to the Beatles' musical textures, but it's corny. But "Money" is an INCREDIBLE performance. John was the perfect singer for this. I also like that it introduces an element of cynicism that contrasts very sharply with the teen romance themes of the rest of the songs (which is probably why the Stones had recorded a much more muddy version the previous summer).

As for the originals, three -- "Hold Me Tight", "Little Child" (sorry) and "I Wanna Be Your Man" are pretty much throwaways. Although I like the latter, anyway, because Ringo delivering the goofy, barely-there lyrics and the chaotic performance make it into a hilarious number (unlike the Stones' cover, which should be titled "You BETTER Let Me BE Your Man!"). But the rest of them perfectly justify your grading up to a C from the 1st album's A. I agree that "Not A Second Time" (recorded by the Pretenders in 1990) and "All I've Got to Do" are undeservedly obscure, but you don't even MENTION "It Won't Be Long" , with those terrifically enthusiastic call and response vocals. Another potential hit single. Speaking of which "..Hand" and "This Boy" were recorded at the tail end of these sessions. The former sounds sort of too cute nowadays, and the latter was John's 1st attempt at writing a song with those close harmonies that would culminate in "Nowhere Man" and "Because". It wasn't only Paul who wrote that sort of thing!

Yes, despite the flaws, it's got a lot more than the hits..

Anyways, a couple of the covers are really, really dumb. Mr. Moonlight is usually considered the worst recording the guys ever did, and with good reason. The melody is dumb, the organ sounds retarded, and there's really nothing redeeming about it. There's also an 'old-time rock'n'roll' medley sung by Paul, Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey. I guess it's not bad, per se, but it is such a blatant filler of space that it is extremely easy to get annoyed with it.

Still, the rest of them are quite enjoyable. The Berry-penned Rock And Roll Music is neat, and the closing George-sung Everybody's Trying to be My Baby is absolutely hilarious. I mean, it's just kinda hard to think of Harrison as a major sex symbol, so the prospect of women breaking down doors to get to him seems somewhat funny to me. In any case, there's also the gorgeous Holly-written Words of Love that has simply stupendous vocal harmonies, as well as the somewhat dumb but at least amusing Ringo-performance of Honey Don't. I wouldn't want to listen to this stuff everyday, of course, but it's at least decent.

But frig, an album that gets a C deserves more than just "somewhat enjoyable" and "decent" to describe its songs. The eight originals on here aren't just good, they are simply jaw-droppingly FANTASTIC. Even better, they all seem years more mature than the work on Night and With, mainly because they're almost all songs about being hurt by women they love. The opening tandem of No Reply and I'm A Loser set this mood PERFECTLY, and the rest follow. Reply is most notable for having a viciously pissed off middle eight with Lennon screaming and pleading with all of his might, while Loser has some of the coolest and most self-deprecating lyrics yet seen on a Beatles album. Great, grand, depressing stuff. And they follow it up immediately with another great depression number, the sing-a-longey Baby's in Black. Don't you just hate it when girls pine for old boyfriends even when they're in a new relationship? Then that's the song for you.

Moving on is the (lyrically) bitter I'll Follow the Sun, with great singing from Paul (and everyone else, for that matter - the harmonies on this album are nothing short of spectacular). Then, after a few covers, we get the AWESOME Eight Days a Week - the lyrics are somewhat dumb, but that melody, OH that melody. Again, just get over yourself and enjoy it. There's also the beautiful Every Little Thing (which Yes massacred to great effect on their debut) that you may have heard a time or three on your local oldies station, immediately followed by two more great melancholy numbers in I Don't Want to Spoil the Party and What You're Doing. Depressing as hell, but simply gorgeous.

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to listen to this album when you're really down on life, like I am right now, but it might cheer you up to give this a spin a little later and then realize that people have been enduring heartache since the start of time, and that you're not alone. Or something like that. Don't be afraid of this album, even though you'll look at the back and not recognize most of the composers.

Trfesok.aol.com (1/16/06)

Sorry, I really can't agree with the 9. The same rating as the previous two, and better than the next one? Too many covers, and the originals, I don't think are really as good as the ones on the last album or the nex.  The somewhat darker tone of the album is a bit disturbing as well. Still, it is the Beatles, which makes it a more than listenablre album, to stay the least. But not uppermost among their releases, to be sure.

David Andino (davidandino83.msn.com) (10/13/07)

underrated release by the four tops. uh........... hey guys I was just joking about the four tops the black group and also when are you going to review............. VAN HAILSTORM?!!!!!!!!!! did the tour and beating all the limp dick bands and rappers like 50 cent and fall out boy. boy I am not one for commercial bullshit.! 12. 

MATTHEW CONSTANTINE (11/22/08)

Baby's In Black is apparently about the girl "pining for" her old boyfriend who is dead - "though he'll never come back/she's dressed in black", and the much-maligned "only a whim" line indicating that delayed-grieving has suddenly set in...which makes the narrator sound rather cruel and self-centred

By the way, am I the only person who likes Mr Moonlight?  And is somewhat bothered by the uncorrected error in Rock 'n Roll Music, when John gets his tongue in a twist at the last minute?

"Ben" (bbgun_301.yahoo.com) (02/13/11)

A bit more mature than the last three, and the covers are back. They're not as good as the ones on "With the Beatles," (in fact the album in general isn't as good as "With the Beatles,") but it's still excellent. The songs here are more melodic and country sounding than the straightforward power pop of "A Hard Days Night." The first three are very easy to get into, but this one may take some time getting used to. Once again, the album flows together so well that it's kind of impossible to single out songs, but "Rock and Roll Music," "Baby's in Black" and "Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby" stand out more. Not a bad song anywhere (I happen to like "Mr. Moonlight"), it's essential for any beatles fan.

Ehn. I hate to be a party-pooper, but this is the only Beatles album that leaves me feeling almost completely underwhelmed. It doesn't suck, per se (and it's better than PPM, but given that the band had moved out of even being capable of writing slop like Ask Me Why, that's pretty much a given), but ... well, there are a couple of major problems I have here. First, it sounds to me that while they've started taking drugs, they haven't been taking them long enough for them to fire up the old creative processes, you know? Instead of hearing some of the world's greatest songwriting minds on overdrive, like in the next few releases, it just sounds like they're bogged down. They are trying to experiment a bit, but it's mostly falling flat, which brings me to my next point. I honestly believe that by this time, the group had taken the genre of early 60's pop as far as it was going to go, and it wouldn't be until the next album when they would start bringing in as many outside influences as possible. Add in the fact that in some places it seems like they're starting to recycle old material and ideas (You're Going to Lose That Girl, regardless of the cool harmonies, is little more than an inferior rewrite of It Won't Be Long, while the lyrics of It's Only Love belong on Please, except that if written back then they would've rejected them) and the guys were coming dangerously close to self-parody. In other words, if ever the greatest pop group in the history of man could have been accused of stagnation, of all things, this was it.

Mind you, though, that this is just my impression of the album as a whole. If you go song by individual song, it's actually more difficult to find specific weaknesses. After all, a Beatles self-parody is still better than most groups' fresh ideas. The opening title track, for instance, is a deserving classic, with extremely introspective lyrics from Lennon that would serve as a foreshadowing of everything to come later. He also pulls of a neat little Dylan imitation (not just lyrcially, but in the way he sings them) in You've Got to Hide Your Love Away - what a bunch of cool rhymes. In any case, as mentioned earlier, It's Only Love and You're Going to Lose That Girl are somewhat stupid, but he pretty much completely redeems himself with the absolutely classic Ticket to Ride. The melody is wonderful, the chorus rules, and the drumming is REALLY clever. A great way to close out the 'soundtrack' half of the album.

Meanwhile, Paul does pretty well for himself on this album as well, though certainly not spectacularly. The Night Before and Another Girl are great, memorable ditties, but while I would have drooled over them had they come out a year earlier, here I kinda wish he'd hurry up and grow into the Paul of the next few years. Hrm. In any case, you've probably heard Yesterday about a bazillion times, but that doesn't make it any worse of a number. Of course, I'm not sure that it deserves to be the most covered song ever (at least, that's what I've read - I might be wrong), but the strings are a nice touch, and you can tell that Paul actually cares about what he's singing.

Oh, btw, his other two numbers on the album are ok, but not great. At least, not by Beatles' standards. I've Just Seen a Face is at least made memorable by the fact that he sings the lyrics at an almost insane rate, but Tell Me What You See is just kinda ehn. It's just so ... clumsy. The electric piano is a decent touch, but other than that, it just strikes me as filler.

Filling out the album are a pair of covers, the cute but stupid Act Naturally, and the somewhat cool but ULTRA-generic rocker Dizzy Miss Lizzie (with great John vocals), as well as two George-songs. Neither is particularly striking, but you can tell that he's at least trying to be different. I Need You has some somewhat bizarre guitar (that is guitar, right?) noise chiming in from time to time, and while You Like Me Too Much seems vastly different from, say, Something, it still has a solid pop melody, not to mention that one realizes listening to it that his singing voice is not that bad. And the electric piano in the background is a nice touch.

So there you are. For most groups, this would probably be their masterpiece. For the Beatles, it's one of the weakest albums of their career. Feel free to get it, but don't invest too much time in it. Besides, the true glory days were about to begin ...

Federico Fernández (fedefer.fibertel.com.ar) (5/14/03)

Yes John, I can see your point, and after all an 8 is accurate but... Is this really REALLY equal to Please Please Me?. Is it REALLY inferior to Beatles For Sale or With The Beatles with all those fillerish covers? I don't think so. Yes, I admit that most of the songs ("You're Going To Lose That Girl", "It's Only Love", "Tell Me What You See", "Another Girl", "I Need You" and "You Like Me To Much") are not superb Beatles classics and can be a little underdeveloped, but they are not any worse than the originals on the last albums, and certainly BETTER that all those ridiculous covers like "Mr. Moonlight", "Words Of Love" or "Honey Don't", to name a few from the previous album. And "silly" songs like "The Night Before" and "I've Just Seen Your Face" are brillant Paul melodies that deverve the "classic" status, I think. And the classics are the classics; can you find a better trinity than "Help!", "Ticket To Ride" and "Yesterday" in previous albums? (and you'd have to add "You've Got To HIde Your Love Away"). Yeah, maybe on A Hard Day's Night but that is that: neither Please Please Me or With The Beatles or For Sale reached this heighs. I'll admit that "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" and "Act Naturally" are perfunctory stuff that showed the Beatles needed to drop the cover thing, but apart from that I can't see where's the "stagnation", It's just another early Beatles album with the same mesaure of great classics and lesser tunes as always... plus, here there are more originals and for me they showcase no less inspiration than previous things. And I dig the bucholic, relaxed and acoustic feel of the album in contrast to the older electric-guitar based stuff.

I get the feel that you expect more from the Beatles by this point, like if they had already made a lot better and deeper than here, like if you were hoping for a Rubber Soul before its times... that's why you are left underwhelmed. ¡Of course this is not Rubber Soul! But it actually shows some evolution from previous stuff (Better lyrics, string arrangements, low key and subtle shades) Its not a drawback or a letdown; it is the logical transition from the typical early Beatles sound of Beatles For Sale to the big step of Rubber Soul.

Raghavan RANGANATHAN (S3046624.student.rmit.edu.au) (6/15/03)

hey John
I absolutely agree that Help! is overrated. In my opinion it is the closest the beatles came to being more or less like any other band of that time, in the sense that the 3 singles( help, ticket to ride, yesterday) are hands down better than all the other songs. " stagnation" is right, of course...It really seems like they didnt invest too much effort in creating the other songs...
PS: the bizzare sound on " I need you" is george fiddling around with his wah-wah or volume tone pedal...

Trfesok.aol.com (1/16/06)

No, I really can't agree with the "stagnation" charge at all. Sure, the two covers are filler, but there are only two. The originals, for the most part, are big improvements over the last album. The basic bass/two electric guitars/drums setup is starting to give way to more acoustics ("I've Just Seen a Face" -- what a great tune), keyboards and even orchestration ("Yesterday" is really the first time a classical influence shows up in pop, as opposed to strings that have a  corny MOR sound ,such as The Beach Boys "A Surfer Moon"). Some of John's lyrics are maturing. So, what we have, to my ears, is a major rebound from the last album. In retrospect, it can  be seen that the group was in transition, heading for more diversity, but this is still a strong album.

ArelisTr.aol.com (04/25/06)

I disagree completely!!!!  I'm new by-the-way, and I must say I throughly enjoy your record reviews. Back to Help!, I feel that this album is second only to A Hard Day's Night (pre- Rubber Soul).  The Beatles did change the world with Soul, but they started trying with Help!.  The only songs not as classic as the others are "It's Only Love", "Act Naturaly", and "Dizzie Miss Lizzie."  "Love" just bores me; "Act" isn't all that bad, at least it's fun; but "Dizzie" is only second to "Mr. Moonlight" as the worst Beatle song ever. 

  P.S. "You Like Me Too Much" is only second to the title track as best song (IMO), with "Yesterday" and "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" finishing the "best" quartet.

MATTHEW CONSTANTINE (11/22/08)

You Like Me Too Much is notable for being the first song (of the rock era) about a couple who are no longer "in love" but can't quite bring themselves to separate. Oh, and by the way, I love You're Going To Lose That Girl (c'mon, lyrically and melodically it's way better than It Won't Be Long).

"Alainna Earl" (lainnakate.yahoo.com) (02/13/11)

I saw your ratings for Help and they were so amazingly low. Alot of people don't seem to like this one, but immediately I listened to it for weeks on end. Paul seemed to have more confidence on this album as did George. His songs were just as good as, say 'it's only love' which I dislike very much. His contributions were as good or even better than some of Paul and John's stuff, way before The White Album . I don't like the title track that much but , Tell Me What You See, Ticket to Ride, Another Girl, You Like Me Too Much, You've Got Hide Your Love Away and Dizzy Ms Lizzy are the best on the album. All of them are listenable and as I said before, Its Only Love, is the only bad one.

"Ben" (bbgun_301.yahoo.com) (02/13/11)

Ooh man, don't agree here. I don't see any filler here (except maybe "It's Only Love") although I think I see where you're going. Where you probably see this album as having nothing new to offer, I see this album as the Beatles in transition mode (another good example of this would be David Bowie's "The Man Who Sold the World.")

Some songs on here (like "The Night Before," "Another Girl" and "You're Going to Lose That Girl") sound like they belong on one of the earlier albums, but they're not bad songs or anything. The songwriting of John and Paul (but mostly John) has also vastly improved on this album. "Help!," "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away," "You're Going to Lose That Girl" and "Ticket to Ride" are all great songs. Paul's got the magnificent (but overplayed) "Yesterday" and the massively underrated "Tell Me What You See" but he wouldn't really hit his stride until the next album or two. Shit, even George contributes his first songs since "With the Beatles" (not that long, but forever in Beatle years). One of them ("I Need You") is kind of lightweight, but the other one "You Like Me Too Much" is excellent and is probably the most piano driven song he ever wrote. The covers are also excellent, and instead of the standard 6, it's been reduced to 2 and I'm surprised to see they're not very popular. It's a shame this album is overlooked, possibly because when "Rubber Soul" came out it completely overshadowed it. Either way, no beatles fan should be without it.

majora27.gmail.com (03/13/14)

This is probably the only Beatle review of yours that I disagree with. I think it's an improvement over For Sale. Less covers and nearly all the originals are great. You got the obvious classics and then you also have The Night Before, You're Going to Lose.... And possibly my favourite of this album. Prepare yourselves......

Tell Me What You See For some reason I absolutely love this song and have since I first heard it. Too bad nobody seems to like it, Oh Well. I'd probably give this a D on your scale.

I've read in a couple of places the suggestion that, in the original version of this album, the true star was the crowd, despite George Martin's valiant efforts to clean up the sound and make the band audible; if this is true, then the true stars of the 2016 reissue (the first time this album received an official CD release) were the audio engineers who made the band sound crystal clear despite maintaining the clear overwhelming enthusiasm of the crowd. This album captures highlights from various shows the band played at The Hollywood Bowl in 1964 and 1965 (with a small number of bonus tracks for the 2016 reissue), and it's remarkable to hear the band sounding pretty dang alright despite the fact that they could barely hear each other. The performances aren't exactly revelatory, of course, though I do find myself enjoying the cover of "Boys" a good deal more in live performance than I ever did in the studio version; the band is clearly from the era where the purpose of live performance was to emulate studio versions as closely possible, and neither the covers nor the originals tend to differ much from their studio counterparts much (and when they do it's typically because they cut something short, as on "Twist and Shout," or because they rushed through something, as on "Things We Said Today"). And yet, the album does what it's meant to do: provide a sense, albeit only the slightest one, of the madness of Beatlemania, in which the band did its best to perform its material in the context of fans absolutely losing their minds at the idea of being remotely in the same vicinity of the band, without much interest in actually hearing the band. If you go in with appropriate expectations, of a fun and breezy time that may not actually add much to the originals but is a delight regardless, then it's almost certain that you'll enjoy this at least somewhat.

I must confess that, silly me, I didn't much like this album the first couple of times I heard it. Oops. Needless to say, time has corrected this little mistake and allowed me to recognize this album for both the masterpiece it is and as a huge quantum leap forward from Help!. Regardless of what happened, whether Paul actually died of a car accident and was replaced by look-alike William Campbell (one of the weirdest Beatles legends), or whether they all had some sort of religious transformation while in India, or if they finally got some high-quality weed, the fact of the matter is that after this album, rock would never be the same.

First things first, we have the lyrics. The previous two albums might have had bits and pieces of Dylan influence in them, but it was here, undoubtedly because of the massive success of Bringing It All Back Home, that John first really started in his attempts to outdo the master. This is most obvious in the great Nowhere Man, obviously, with its neat lines like "He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody." Cool! There's also the infamous Norwegian Wood, with the great veiled imagery and story that has led to debates on its meaning ever since.

But even when he's not trying to be 'trippy' per se, the lyrics are so much deeper and wiser than before that you almost can't help but cry. Along these lines, we have the BEAUTIFUL In My Life, with wonderfully introspective lines about being able to care both for loves and places of your past and your present. Just read the lines and tell me you're not moved to tears. Also, of slightly lesser stature is the pleasant but-of-course deep Girl, which makes effective use of a well-placed *sigh* in the chorus and nice lines about women who really don't appreciate the value of what they're given.

Of course, Lennon wouldn't be Lennon if he didn't have a couple of nice little rockers filling things out, and both Wait (which, for some reason, doesn't seem to get a lot of recognition among various reviewers) and the ultra-misogynistic Run For Your Life certainly qualify. I don't know if John was just having a really, really bad day, but seeing as how weed was helping him to write lines about killing women, I think it was probably a good thing for all concerned that he started sucking down acid after this album.

And MAN, I haven't even mentioned a single thing about George or Paul yet! Even if neither had contributed a single song to this album, their innovations in the sound of the group as demonstrated on this recording would be completely invaluable. First of all, George picked up the sitar while in India and finally discovered his guru within. His use of such an 'exotic' instrument was certainly unheard of in rock music at the time, and was the beginning of the great sonic revolution that would grip the music world for the next few years. And, of course, both his Think For Yourself and If I Needed Someone are deserving classics, both lyrically and melodically.

Most crucial of all, though, was what Paul started doing with his bass. For the first time, it was treated as an independent and melodic instrument, allowing further sonic expansions. Not that his songs themselves are very serious, of course - Drive My Car is a _car_ song (although it rules incessantly) and Michelle, regardless of the French words, is still just a love song (but WHAT a love song). But if you allow yourself to listen to that mighty bass swoop at the end of Michelle, you will be simply amazed at its grace and power.

In any case, of the remaining songs, the Ringo-sung What Goes On is slightly stupid, but the rest are top-notch. You Won't See Me, I'm Looking Through You, and especially the groovy The Word (a hard-rock love song? Cool!) are all awesome beyond words. I actually considered them filler at first ... silly me. I can't begin to imagine the album without them now.

If you consider this the best Beatles album, I have no problem with that. This is actually my brother's favorite, and really, the melodies are fantastic from start to finish. I do feel somewhat bad not giving it a perfect score, but it gets as high of an E as any album is capable of getting. And just think, they only got better ... What a band.

Kerry & Kayoko Canfield (k2canf.SpiritOne.com)

I read in what I think was a Playboy magazine interview of John that he'd "always hated 'Run For Your Life'." Too bad it's the closer--i.e., the last sound in your ears after the recording ends. I myself find it hard to listen to the song and try to take the disc off before it plays.

Alexander Aigner (aigner_alexander.yahoo.de) (1/08/04)

Hello there,

I just read all your beatles-reviews and I have one little remark regarding the lyrics to "Run For Your Life".

you wrote: "I don't know if John was just having a really, really bad day, but seeing as how weed was helping him to write lines about killing women, I think it was probably a good thing for all concerned that he started sucking down acid after this album."

I don't think weed or any other drug is to blame for those lyrics, because (maybe you know that already)lennon actually lifted that verse from the elvis-song "Baby, Let's Play House" --> "Now listen to me, baby Try to understand. I'd rather see you dead, little girl, Than to be with another man."

http://www.geocities.com/penneylayne/songs/runforyourlife.txt "I always hated 'Run For Your Life'," John said about Rubber Soul's closing track. He openly acknowledged that he lifted two lines from Arthur Gunther's "Baby Let's Play House", an early hit for Elvis Presley during his time recording for the Sun label in the mid-fifties.

or http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1248.html

Written by Lennon, this was the first song recorded for Rubber Soul, and the last on the album because it was one of the songs he liked the least. Lennon had said that it was one of those songs he just "knocked off just for the sake of writing a song." Lennon got the idea of the first line from an Elvis Presley song from 1955 titled, "Baby, Let's Play House," with Lennon referring to this as an old Presley song, but it's origin dates back to 1954, when it was written in Nashville by Arthur Gunter. It was recorded on October 12, 1965.

cheers from vienna
alexander

Trfesok.aol.com (02/12/05)

Well, the Beatles didn't get to India until after Magical Mystery Tour, so that wasn't it. Not that it matters. This is where the Beatles truly hit their stride. "What Goes On" is really the only clunker (did they speed up the tape on purpose with those goofy backing vocals?). "Wait" is actually a Help! outtake, but it fits in perfectly. The first of their four true classics.

  Bob

MATTHEW CONSTANTINE (11/22/08)

They hadn't been to India yet!  The "Indian" scenes in Help weren't filmed there (can't remember where, though).

What Goes On - This is notable both for its unusual phrasing (a ten bar verse, then a twelve bar chorus that isn't a blues), and its pre-history.  Based on a song fragment John had been toying with since 1963, the verses (written in '65) were co-written by Paul and Ringo (who contribued to the lyric).

Wait and Norwegian Wood are (genuine) John and Paul co-writes (Paul modified the tune during the minor-key sections of NorWood, whilst Wait was evolved phrase-by-phrase just like their earlier songs).  Paul may have contribued to the music of In My Life, but we're not sure.

Girl - the "sigh" is a masturbatory gasp-for-breath, surely! (Bear in mind the "tit tit tit" backing vocals)

"Ben" (bbgun_301.yahoo.com) (02/13/11)

Now we agree here. Although John still had the better songs, this is the first album where Paul contributed a large amount of good ones on his own. He showed hints of becoming a major songwriting force on the previous albums with songs like "Can't Buy Me Love," "All My Loving" and "Yesterday," but this is where he really gets going. The album is a dramatic leap forward for the band, and where the last two albums showed hints of the band coming out of their merseybeat days, this is where it's all over.

The songs are much more mature and diverse than anything they released before, and there's even a little experimenting on a couple of tracks, like a fuzzbox on "Think for Yourself" and a sitar on "Norwegian Wood." Not a weak song (or moment) anywhere. Again, it's hard to single out any songs because they're all excellent.

Forgive me if I gush a bit too much in this review, but I'll just have to make this clear up front. This here album is, BY FAR, my favorite album of all time. PERIOD. When I took this sucker home after getting it from Best Buy and listened to it breathlessly four times straight before having to go, I knew from that point onwards that I would never again feel guilty about loving the Beatles. Anyways, I've tried to avoid going into too much detail about individual songs in the rest of my reviews for the group, but because I am scared that somebody might not actually be totally familiar with this simply amazing work of art, please allow me this indulgence.

This here sucker kicks off with this weird, weird voice counting in, "1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4" with some bizarre noises in the background before this catchy bassline starts up and you start getting hammered over the head with these feedbacky chords. Then George, (George of all people) starts in lyrically with the group's first ever serious political statement. Taxman, it's called, and it's simply awesome. I am particularly fond of the way that at first the instrumentation is restricted to the left channel with vocals in the right before both ends gradually begin to mix until your whole head is swimming in simultaneously melodic and noisy protest music. Whee!

Up next is Paul with Eleanor Rigby, quite possibly the most depressing rock song ever recorded to that point. You know, it's the one with those ultra-depressing string parts going in the background while Paul sings us the sad tale of a lonely old nun and her regret that she had never had a family for herself. In the end, she dies, remembered by nobody, and not even with any religious benefit. OW! In any case, the melody is gorgeous beyond words, and the idea of receiving such a sad, melancholy song from Paul, of all people, causes you to stop and really think about humanity in general in a way that few have accomplished before or since.

What's really weird, though, is that the next song, by John, is a nice, mellow number about sleep, of all things. It really is strange, if you think about it ... history remembers John as the vehement protester and bitterly sad pessimist, while Paul was supposedly this bouncy writer of lighthearted songs, with George content to just sit in the background doing his whole sitar and guru thing, but within just the first three tracks of this album, all of that is completely turned on its head. Then again, that's probably a large chunk of why I love this album to death. In any case, I'm Only Sleeping should be the college (or IMSA, for that matter) student's fricking national anthem, in that the 'sleepy' atmosphere of the song PERFECTLY matches the lyrics. "Please don't wake me, no don't shake me, leave me where I am, I'm only sleeping."

George is up next with his easterny Love You To, which is, really, the single song that solidified my love for the group. My goodness, the primary instruments are a sitar and a tabla, but George manages to make me HEADBANG to this song. Not that the melody is particularly 'hard', of course, but somehow everything is combined in such a way that perfection cannot do it justice. If you don't believe me, just listen to the flow of "Make love all day long" through the short bridge to the next set of verses ("Make love singing songs") and tell me that you're not absolutely hypnotized by it.

Just when you're starting to run out of breath, Paul comes to the rescue with the nice love ballad Here, There and Everywhere. My dad says that there was no better song to slowdance to when he was younger, and while I might not totally agree (*ahem* Nights in White Satin *ahem*), he definitely has a point. Besides, the melody is much more sophisticated than any generic 'prom' numbers that one might find today, and as such it would be silly to classify it as filler in any way.

The same goes for the next song, the most controversial on the album, the infamous Yellow Submarine. Ok, I can see where one might be somewhat put off by the silliness, I guess, but MY GOODNESS people, it has the VERY DEFINITION of the sing-songy melody. It just flows SO WELL. In addition, the silly sound effects in the background never interfere in any way whatsoever, instead bringing an even bigger smile to your face than could otherwise be achieved. Not to mention that Ringo's voice is perfect for this type of song.

Closing out side one is the first real manifestation of acid-use by Lennon, the trippy and melodical-as-hell She Said She Said. The lyrics are generally considered revolutionary in that, while they don't actually come out and say anything about drugs, it is obvious that they involve a conversation between two people completely 'tripped out.' They sometimes border on nonsensical, but that's only in thought structure, if you know what I mean - no "shining flying purple wolfhounds" here.

Next, we have a 'classic' McCartney number in the bouncy and very happy Good Day Sunshine. If you're having a particularly bad day, I'm not sure I would recommend listening to it, but otherwise, the uplifting number of the piece can't help but bring a HUGE smile to your face. "I feel good in a special way. I'm in love and it's a sunny day" are typical of the song, so be careful. As usual, though, the melody absolutely rules.

The first real 'guitar rocker' of the album comes next, and it's a REALLY good one. And Your Bird Can Sing has all sorts of cool guitar harmonies, but even without them, the song would rule because (a) the John/Paul vocal harmonies are, quite possibly, the BEST to date, and (b), the melody is just so damn good. Goodness gracious, why couldn't John start taking drugs earlier? Not that he was at all bad before, of course - he was stupendously good, but man, now that he had started sucking down LSD he was unleashing them at the same frequency most of us belch (forgive me, I couldn't come up with a better analogy).

In case you think that you're completely in the clear and that you can continue bathing in 'happy' songs, in comes Paul with For No One, which Prindle once referred to as, "the most depressing song I've ever heard in my life." I won't argue. In case you don't know, it's about watching a loved one cease to care about you or anybody, for that matter. "And in her eyes you see nothing, no sign of love behind the tears cried for no one, a love that should have lasted years." Um, er, wow. There are other lines just as depressing, but they make me too sad to type them. In any case, anybody that tries to say Paul is a bad lyricist seriously needs to give this a spin.

Lennon is up to bat next with another guitar rocker in Doctor Robert, which has actually struck me as the weakest song on the whole album. Not that it's bad, of course, but it doesn't really stick with me in any way, and I honestly don't know what to write about it. It's just harmless-but-fun-while-it's-on guitar pop. Oh well. I would rather have Paperback Writer on here instead, but I guess that would cause such an immense pleasure overload that I would never stop listening to this album at any time, including to sleep, eat or go to class.

Coming into the home stretch is George's little ditty I Want to Tell You. In case you don't know it (and why would you if you haven't bought this album?) it's basically an anthem of wanting to say an abundance to somebody or about something but being more-or-less confused and perplexed about where to start. It might seem confusing at first, but if you give it a couple of listens, you should come to recognize it as, well, a cool little 'teenage-themed' song. At least, I felt confused a lot of the time myself back in the day. Was it just me? I'd wager not, but whatever ...

Paul's Got to Get You Into My Life is up next, and it RULES. I actually expected to dislike the song because of all the horns, but the truth is that they help things considerably, and besides, the melody, once again, is FANTASTIC. The chorus, the main verse melody, and the amazing fadeout come together to produce an almost unbelievable effect. Good lyrics, too. Commentators on amazon.com and other places that like to make fun of Paul are dumb. Just my opinion, of course.

Finally, we have what many consider the best song of the whole album, the proto-techno Tomorrow Never Knows. John is singing through a vocoder, Ringo is bashing up a storm, George is chiming in with some sitar in the background, but mostly it is the total abundance of sound effects in the background. How did they do this? I want to know! This sounds incredible today. I especially love that whatever-it-is playing that neat little seven-note melody over and over again, but the horns, tape splices and loops, plus whatever the rest of it is, combine for this amazing otherworldly effect that must be heard to be truly believed. Wow.

In any case, if you don't agree with me giving the highest Beatles rating to Revolver, that's fine. Anything from Rubber Soul through Abbey Road is fine by me. But, I will tell you what I feel pushes Revolver over the top. While the individual songwriting abilities of the Fab 4 had yet to peak, this is the last time that I hear them truly functioning as a band. Sure, the bickering wouldn't start until The Beatles, but this was the last album where the band didn't have a true 'leader', if you get my drift. And with all of these monumental songwriting forces combined into one (along with producer George Martin, who deserves a TON of credit for this album), it should be little wonder that they produced such an incredible masterpiece. And with that I close. Amen.

George Starostin (gstarst.yahoo.com)

... Oh, and BTW, that was a terrific review of Revolver there on the site. One minor nibble - I think Harrison DOES have a penchant for acute political/social critique, so 'Taxman' is not really an oddity. Just remember 'Piggies', for instance. And in his solo work, he does have that bug... though sometimes it makes up for horrible results (ever heard 'Cockamamie Business'? YUCK!)

Jamie Anthony (janoy.lineone.net)

Yeah, revolver is a great album. And I'm even one of those guys who doesn't like overrating the beatles. But revolver....probably the best "pop" album I've ever heard in my life. But I felt you kinda down-played "Doctor Robert" - it's a song about a Doctor in the sixties that John knew who used to prescribe LSD to his patients. Maybe you knew that. You must love the chorus bit though - "well well well you're fee-ee-eeling fine", or the bit that goes "You're a KNEW better man, he help YOU to understand, he does everything he can, Doc Robert". Well I do anyway. Tomorrow Never Knows is probably my favourite. Or maybe "I Want To Tell You". yeah, I felt like that when I was a teenager, too. Think I still do know. Love the song, though. Love the album. Straight 10. or 15. or whatever.

Robert Grazer (xeernoflax.jack-the-ripper.com)

Since the author of this site has gone ahead and said every single decent thing possible to be said about this album, I will not repeat the words he wrote in his excellent review by praising every song on here. Instead I will list the few things that I dislike about the undeniably classic release. Normally I would write these things in my complaints area, but I really don't think that will be necessary.

So let me start my complaining with track three, "Love You To." I really don't like this one a whole lot. The sitar is really stupid and I find the actual tune of the song to be really forgettable. Since I usually don't skip tracks when I listen to albums, I sit through it. But I'm really happy when it is over.

"Good Day Sunshine" is a little too happy for my taste; I much prefer the more down and depressing numbers on the album. It is not a truly bad song, but I am also happy when this one reaches its end.

As I mentioned in my intro paragraph one of the things I really dislike about the beatles is that many of their songs are too short. "And Your Bird Can Sing" is a perfect example of this. No, no, no, the sing is hardly bad. It is one of the best on the album. But I still believe that another few minutes couldn't have hurt in the least.

Those are my problems with the album. In the end it does not really matter as this really is a great classic. While it is certainly not my pick for favorite album, it IS is good choice, better than many othrs that I have seen. I may be the Beatle's best or it may not be. I don't know. Call this your favorite, I can respect that. We all have our own opinions and the author of this site has stated his.

Best Song: "Elenor Rigby" and "For No One"

Rating: My Scale: ***** John McFerrin's Scale: 10? Please don't hate me if I think that this album only deserves a high very high 14.

"Fernando H. Canto" (sirmustapha.ig.com.br) (2/26/03)

I believe that this album should be called "Machine-Gun", because it's exactly what it feels to me: A lot of great songs and great ideas being shot at me at an insane rate, leaving me really dizzy, wondering what the hell just happened. I don't know, but these songs, great as they might be, don't stick together. And I'm in for cohesive albums. So I can't give this album a 15, but no problem in giving it a 14.

I mean, the songs themselves are almost all great. Except Good Day Sunshine. No matter what, I cannot enjoy this song the least. That unrhythmical chorus and that badly crafted melody only make me genuinely wish the guys had something better to do with these 2 minutes. It's not even a *happy* song. It's *Cheesey*, with a capital C. All that "happiness" sounds so fake and industrial that it makes me depressed, no matter how happy I am at the moment. And know what's more? He talks about his feet burning as they touch the ground... And he gets *happy* with that?! I HATE it when this happens! Argh. This song is so sick it makes Doctor Robert sound like the guys' masterpiece. Not that I don't like Doctor Robert, it entertains me a lot. I dig George's singing, for some reason.

Yeah, enough ranting on Good Day Sunshine. I'm not even angry at Paul, because he wrote For No One and Eleanor Rigby, and I really, really like these two. There's Here, There And Everywhere, that I wouldn't call filler, no matter how much alcohol I may ingest. Got To Get You Into My Life is here, too. Now this is a happy song. But it kinda makes me wonder... Good Day Sunshing, For No One, Eleanor Rigby, Got To Get You Into My Life... Was Paul trying to use the *least* number of band members possible when making these songs? I mean, Paul and George don't do anything in any of these tracks IIRC, and Ringo only plays for real in 2 of them! What the hell?

Whatever. I dig Paul's and George's songs here a lot. Taxman and I Want To Tell You, I adore these songs. The former rocks, and the lyrics are cool. The latter is... so true. I can relate to such a situation perfectly. And that guitar line and those piano arrangements are really, really neat, and oh, those harmonies. And Love You To? What a unique song! Of course, we also have I'm Only Sleeping, which I adore, She Said She Said, which I also adore, And Your Bird Can Sing (is this a Paul or a John song?) which I also adore, and Tomorrow Never Knows, which I... you can guess. What a twisted song, this one. The best in the album IMO, but only by a byte.

Anyway, "Machine-Gun", hell yeah. But still, I embrace this album with passion. Good Day Sunshine doesn't hurt the rating the least. After all, it's *one* song among *thirteen* excellent others. But I still can't award it the big 15 for the 'cohesion' factor. I haven't given Dark Side Of The Moon a 15 for nothing.

Langas de los Langas (putolangas.hotmail.com) (7/21/05)

Very nice Revolver review; I completely agree with you, this is my favourite Beatles album, and I've loved them since I started listening to music.

Just one or two comments: my best choice for this album is, with no doubt, 'Eleanor Rigby', the cleverest and most tragic lyrics Paul ever wrote, and with that absolutely GORGEUS arrange for strings, courtesy of Sir George 'the-fifth-Beatle' Martin; and, em... are you sure she was a nun? I think she was just an old, single, lonely woman, what here in Spain we call 'solterona' (sure you have a word for that, too). But anyway...

My favourite moment of the album is that TERRIFIC guitar solo in 'Taxman' (which was actually recorded by McCartney!!! who ever said the man could only play the bass?) although the horn solo in 'For no one' also makes me quiver. And, yes, I also would rate 'Doctor Robert' as the worst song in the album (not that it's bad, but...)

And an advice: if you are really interested in how they recorded 'Tomorrow never knows' (or any other Beatles song), I can only recommend you to acquire the wonderful book 'Revolution in the head', by Ian MacDonald, a review of EVERY SINGLE BEATLES' SONG with details such as who-wrote-what, who-played-what, what-does-it-mean, how-on-freaking-earth-did-they-manage-to-make-it-sound-like-that!!! and so on. Very interesting, I'm telling you; ideal to read while you actually listen to the songs, and find new details you had never noticed before.

Cheers from Madrid. Keep on with your good work!

Sergei (swamprock.mail.ru) (04/10/07)

Yes, I absolutely agree with your opinion about "Revolver". Let all those who thinks differently go in ASS! Will difficultly be defined with a choice of the best track, it can be and Love You To (I really love this melody and "elastic" sitar's sound!), and magnificent And Your Bird Can Sing, and For No One (nobody could express SO grief about the lost love!). A masterpiece, the best of the best's best.
PS: "Revolver" in due time became for me the present revelation, I too consider this disk as best at The Beatles. It enters into mytfavourite albums (with Crimson's " In The Court... ", " Strange Days " by The Doors and Van Morrison's " Astral Weeks ").

Kolby Kramer (gkkramer.gmail.com) (05/03/07)

Hey John,   As you may recall, I e-mailed you telling you about giving Revolver a try, since I used to hate the band entirely (especially Ringo Starr, being a fellow drummer).  Well, I got that among other albums by the band (Sgt Pepper's, The White Album, and Abbey Road) as well, and I've allowed some time to actually listen through and digest them, with the exception of The White Album.  My thoughts about the group have changed significantly!  I never understood the praise that was washed over the band until I listened to their later material (since I still pretty much feel the same about their early stuff).  Revolver is by far my favorite out of their catalogue of later works (I love "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Your Bird Can Sing"!!!), and I have no ill feelings towards any of the other albums I've heard from their later years.  I still need some time to digest The White Album, but Revolver is definitely a classic along with Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper's.  Thanks for your review, which prompted me to give the band a second chance; it was definitely worth it.

PS: I still hate Ringo as much now as I did before.  It's a drummer thing, I suppose.

Trfesok.aol.com (04/29/08)

My absolute favorite Beatles album, as well, deserving of all the detail and praise you give it here. Although the three songwriters are all of on different tangents (and I would argue that they actually start losing a "group" sound here), it still seems that the band members are still all on the same page. "Love You To" and "I Want to Tell You" lack a little bit in the melody department. And "Yellow Submarine" is a kiddie number, but it is excellently produced. These are very minor complaints, because as you said, every song is a gem.   Two random special moments: Paul's highly sophisticated lyric on "For No One" (already beyond stuff like "Michelle"); the terrific lead guitar parts on "And Your Bird Can Sing". That also is a strong candidate for favorite song, although, I agree, how can you pick?   Sandwich the "Paperback Writer/"Rain" single (also from these sessions) in between the original Side 1 and Side 2 to add to the already mind-blowing experience.

  My first memory of experiencing anything from this album is rather bizarre. On the old Saturday morning Beatles cartoon show, they would have a "sing along" segment, where they'd show the lyrics of stuff like "She Loves You" accompanied by goofy cartoon images of the band so you could, of course, sing along. Well, one week, they did "Eleanor Rigby", accompanied instead by stark, colorized photos of stuff like old people, tenements, graveyards, etc. What were they thinking?! Seeing this, along with lyrics like "Eleanor Rigby/died in a church/and was buried along with her name./Nobody came." , was quite frightening to my little nine-year old mind!   After wondering  today if I just imagined this, I found that this thing is actually now posted on YouTube. The cartoon producers evidently didn't catch on that the Beatles were no longer doing just simple kid music.  Even today, the song makes me feel a bit uncomfortable...

  Oh, and a P. S. to Kolby Kramer:  listen to the drumming on "Rain". That might change your mind about Ringo. Amazing.

MATTHEW CONSTANTINE (11/22/08)

She Said She Said is also notable for its very-carefully-concealed shift into waltz-time during the middle-eight.

I'm Only Sleeping and And Your Bird Can Sing are probably about acid.  Doctor Robert is about a drug dealer (and I dig those funky vocal `harmonies'!) and Got To Get You Into My Life is about Paul's belated discovery of acid.

Tomorrow Never Knows - John isn't singing through a vocoder: it's a Leslie cabinet (the vocoder probably wasn't invented yet).  Many of the tape loops are sped-up or slowed-down sitar and tamboura parts (there's no live Indian instrumentation on the track!)

"Benjamin Burch" (bbgun_301.yahoo.com) (03/13/11)

As much as I love this album, I really can't bring myself to say a lot of stuff about it. Maybe because so many other things about this album have been said that my opinion will be irrelevant, but I'm putting in a review anyway. The album is PERFECT, not a bad song or moment anywhere. The album flows together perfectly, the songwriting has improved 100% percent since "Rubber Soul" and the group is really on top of their game here.

Eric Benac (sonicdeath10.hotmail.com) (07/13/12)

Great review of a a great album. It's probably the Beatles loudest album (all those guitar overdubs!) and as Starostin put it, their "coolest" album. I have little to add except to state that, from what I've heard, Paul prepared most if not all of the tape loops and sound effects in "Tomorrow Never Knows." I don't know if anybody else pointed that out (I didn't read through all the comments) but it's an interesting point to ponder.

In fact, I've also heard that Paul originally wanted "Yesterday" to have an ELECTRONIC arrangement. Just imagine the possibilities...

I think that much of the venom often directed towards this album only exists because Pepper is given many accolades and titles that, well, it doesn't really deserve. For one thing, it is not a concept album; yes, there's the famous title track and later reprise, which more or less create the idea that the intermediate tracks are part of a performance by this weird cabaret band, but other than that, the songs don't tie into each other at all. This, in turn, also irritates a great many bashers of the album - the most frequent comparison is to The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, which not only comes much closer to matching the definition of a 'concept' album, but also does a greater job of uniting the songs under a common sound, with richer harmonies and heavier orchestration. Pet Sounds is quite good, yes, but it's also, um, a bit monotonous. On Pepper, though, the sound never even approaches monotony, and as such listening to this album is as pleasurable an experience as one can find.

Another aspect of the hype surrounding this album is that it is often regarded as one of, if not the most innovative and experimental albums of all time. Now, mind you, there is some grain of truth to that; it was the first album to have lyrics printed on the sleeve, it made far greater use of tape loops and splicing than ever before seen, it made effective use of sound effects, and all in all the production (particularly the orchestration) of George Martin was nothing short of brilliant. But it is nowhere near the most experimental album of the era, and I am the first to admit this - besides Revolver, we also had Pink Floyd introducing us to the dangers of psychedelia with Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Frank Zappa introducing us to unfettered weirdness with Freak Out! (and that doesn't even bring up the insanity of Absolutely Free), and of course Jimi Hendrix showing us all what an electric guitar was fully capable of with Are You Experienced?. All of these, from a pure 'experimental' standpoint, blow away Pepper, I fully admit.

BUT, if I may so, Pepper is the most important experimental album of the era. Right or wrong, newcomers such as Zappa and Floyd could be dismissed by 'the establishment' as little more than pretentious, noisy wankers whose time would soon pass. After all, let's face it, unless you already have an 'in', revolutionary and wave-making ideas can easily be ignored. But for the Beatles, the unquestionable kings of popular music of the day, to take it upon themselves to try and advance past the amazing production techniques of Revolver and balance them with the great songwriting that the world had become used to, THAT could not be ignored.

This, in turn, leads to the most important aspect of Pepper, and that is that if the songs were just so-so, it could easily be cast aside. But the songs are FABULOUS. On the surface, it just seems to be a bunch of dippy pop songs (and even if that were true, I could say, "yeah, but WHAT dippy pop songs"), but they are SO much more than that. First of all, the melodies are absolutely top-notch, start to finish. Second of all, the lyrics are just great - often playful, but just as often deep and highly introspective. And third, the instrumentation by the quartet is terrific. The drumming is extremely underrated (the fills on here are great), George's sitar and guitar sound great, and Paul achieves yet another quantum leap forward in his bass playing, continuing to turn the bass into a truly independent instrument.

I don't think I necessarily need to go into detail about every song on here, though I will make mention of a couple things throughout. First, With a Little Help From My Friends (with good singing from Ringo), Getting Better, Fixing a Hole and When I'm Sixty-Four, to my ears, are not just 'stupid pop songs.' As stated before, the lyrics are truly deep and meaningful in their own way, all discussing insecurites of present and future. Second, She's Leaving Home is NOT 'intolerably saccharine' as was stated by some genius on amazon.com. Saccharine tracks never grab your heart and stomp on them the way this song does (or at least the way it would if everybody had the same tastes as me, if only). Third, For The Benefit of Mr. Kite gets way too much criticism; the melody is great (in fact, Yes stole it for the main melody of The Revealing Science of God six years later), and it's not as if it's bouncy and happy - that minor key is kinda ominous, y'know? Fourth, Within You Without You, George's sitar extravaganza, is just brilliant. As Prindle so perfectly described it, it is, "total Indian music slammed entirely inappropriately into a Western pop song format." Just saying "it's stupid and boring" is something I can't really understand; it's so wonderfully wrong that I can't help but love it. . And fifth, if you're mad about the lack of guitars, check out Lovely Rita and Good Morning, especially the latter with its energetic guitar lines in the middle (and speaking of that song, I sure do love the sound they get out of the brass there).

And, of course, the finale. A Day In The Life gets tons of widespread consideration for the title, "greatest rock/pop song ever" and, while I don't find myself wanting to listen to it that often, I'm not totally sure that I can think of a pop song that offers more aspects about which I can freely gush. The melody is easily the best on the album (which is definitely saying something), the middle part with Paul is great, and ... well, you probably know what's coming. I have to tell you, that part where Paul sings, "somebody spoke and I went into a dream" and John comes in with that dreamy, gorgeous "aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh" ... I would have to say that that part is among the most brilliant, most cleverly crafted, and simply most beautiful moments in all of rock. At least, it's one of the best moments in my music collection, which might not say much to you, but it says something to me.

This album rules. When I first got it, I probably would have only given it, ehn, a C or D or so, but I was dumb. There have been greater albums in rock history, but not many. Buy it.

Awake600.aol.com

Well I'm not one of those that wants to spew venom on this album, but I will admit to being very anti-hyped about it - in the original incarnation of my site, I actually gave it an 8, and I actually didn't like "A Day In The Life" that much! While I will say it's not overrated in terms of historical importance and the unprecented changes it caused around that time, a few of these songs so much to be desired that the maximum I could ever give this one is a 13. "She's Leaving Home" is way too sappy for my tastes, "Within You Without You" is`a dirge that really bores the hell out of me (it's still really hard for me to remember it), "When I'm Sixty Four" is fun, but a little too schmaltzy and certainly not anything great, and "Good Morning Good Morning" seems too gimmicky and also pales in comparison to the other massive statemements on here. All these songs are way behind the standards of Revolver and Rubber Soul (which I totally agree with your 15 and 14 respective ratings on) in terms of melody, which was the aspect where the Fab Four could REALLY not be beaten. "Fixing A Hole", meanwhile, is good but too interchangable with "Getting Better".

Nevertheless, even with those four kinda weak songs and the one just 'good' one, I can still give this album a fantastic rating (9/13) because the other songs are classic! Despite my initial reaction to it, "A Day In The Life" is beyond spectacular, and could very well be the greatest single song they ever did - what amazing creativity and drama there, while the first four tracks (including the short opening title cut) is one of the best stretches on any album ever made - the lightweight, but phenomenal, pop of "With A Little Help From My Friends", the surreal, psychedelic masterpiece "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds", and the infectious as anything ever written "Getting Better" are hard to be topped. The engaging, twisted carnival atmosphere of "For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" and the corny in a great way "Lovely Rita" also work extremely well.

Vaughn (2mosrite.home.com)

On the topic of The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band...       I have had conflicting feelings concerning this work since the first day I listened to it.  While it was a goldmine of interesting concepts that doubtless shaped my perception of music, as I grew older I turned away from SP, embracing the more apparent harmonic genius of The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night and Rubber Soul.

    Listening to SP again today, I find that I had overlooked this album's greatest aspect-- its significance as a feat of sound engineering.  Reading a recent interview with George Martin in Bass Player, I was made aware of the tone-shaping equipment with which he was equipped to record Paul's bass.  Paul ran his flatwound-strung Rickenbacker 4001 (same setup as Roger Waters used on Piper...) into an Altech tube compressor.  Martin would then "EQ" the signal with none other than a bass and a treble control provided by the console!  According to George Martin, Paul spent many late nights in studio two recording and rerecording his parts until his fingers could work no more.  He played a working bass line on each song, and then composed a new, better bass part to replace the simple one.  The brilliance of McCartney is in the transition from those root-notes to the elegant lines we hear on the final mix of SP. Honestly, even though my emotional attachment to the album is low (as opposed to Rubber Soul, Let It Be, Magical Mystery Tour), Paul McCartney's musicianship on this album made me want to study music.

TheeRubberCow.aol.com (12/28/01)

I guess I would consider it a concept album (and for this reason only) because even though there aren't anymore recurring themes in lyrics or music besides the reprise, it just seems to flow from track to track more than almost any other album I know, kind of like it is one 45 minute composition.  An analogy would be that I would consider Dark Side of the Moon a concept album even if there were no repeated lyrics or "Breathe" reprises in "Time" and "Any Color You Like."

"Fernando H. Canto" (sirmustapha.ig.com.br) (2/26/03)

Okay, I'm gonna comment on the silly topic of "concept album or not." I don't think it is. A Concept Album has an ideology, it wants to tell a story or talk about one theme, as a whole. Dark Side Of The Moon is a concept album because it's more or less like an essay about life and insanity. If you look, even the instrumentals follow this theme (The Great Gig In The Sky, about death). The Wall, Tommy, Quadrophenia, The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway are all concept albums because each of them tells us a *story*, thus having a common theme. Sgt. Pepper's, though, doesn't tell us a story, either revolves around a common theme. Each song has a different theme, a different concept, and none of them have any common theme. I mean, When I'm 64, for example, has nothing to do with She's Leaving Home, or Good Morning Good Morning or any other song. The reprise of the title track only exists to make us think of the album as a "live performance", but this is no concept. If it was, every live album should be a concept album...

What intrigues me, though, is that following this line of reason, The Who Sell Out shouldn't be a concept album, either. As Sgt. Pepper flows like a "live performance", Sell Out flows like a "radio broadcast", and I don't consider this a 'concept'. The tracks don't revolve around a common theme, and only the commercials do have a common theme, but I see no significance on this. So, I don't think The Who Sell Out is a 'concept album', as everyone dubs it. There is an 'idea', a 'concept', but not in the strict sense of the word, if you know what I mean.

But enough of rambling, I don't really think this album is perfect or anything close to that. I don't care if it's groundbreaking, music-wise or production-wise. Most of the songs are great, but there isn't a big *strength* on it. Of course, A Day In The Life is a complete masterpiece, and it alone makes me sure to give the album at least a 14. But I don't think it goes over that. I dig She's Leaving Home, With A Little Help From My Friends, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Lovely Rita, and most of the other songs. But there's nothing really spectacular in the album as a whole. It's the Beatles, yes it is, but this is hardly enough reason for me to give it a 15. Still, excellent album.

Aprentice (nikus80.hotmail.com) (12/15/03)

I'm listening to Sgt. Peppers again and I've noticed what it is the thing that made me dislike all the songs a little (thus putting this lower than AR, White album, Revolver, MMT, and Rubber Soul). personal. Some songs change in a weird way that I cannot describe, but my ear notices it. Most beatles songs change from part to part in a perfect way (even on the song to song changes of abbey road), but here they don't. it clicks in my head, it happens to me with the verse to chorus change of LSD and Fixing a Hole, many parts of She's Leaving Home, some parts of Mr Kite, even on A Day in the life (in the "I went to a dream" to "aaaaaaah" change, although both parts rule too much). My favourites songs on this album are exactly the ones that don't suffer from this: Title track, Getting Better, Within You Without You, When I'm 64, Lovely Rita. although A day in the life suffers from it, and I'm not a fan of the "musical orgasm", the main melody, the paul melody, and the "aaaaaaaaah" melody kick SO MUCH ASS that I just can't not like the song. It's weird, because most people don't seem to notice it. I guess I am the wrong, but I can't help it. I've grown to like the songs anyway, I don't hate them, but those changes still click on me a little. Give me Abbey Road any day of the week.

P.S.: Mr. Kite has a superb experiment which is to cut tapes and paste them in a random order. It's great!

Trfesok.aol.com (02/23/05)

What made this album such a phenomenon is that it perfectly matched  advanced experimentation in production with accessible, catchy songwriting. Not too many could pull off both is such a brilliant way. I also enjoy the last album more for a number of reasons -- some of these numbers, taken out of the album's context, actually sound more dated, even though it came later.("When I'm 64", "WYWY") And the songs are slightly tilted more to McCartney, which would become more problematic later. Still, based on its peaks ("A Day in the Life", especially, I agree), you could make the argument for this as their best.

James Hunter (jhmusicman12.hotmail.com) (01/09/06)

um. . . Pet Sounds is monotonous?  I hate you rotten kids. . . and your little dog, too!

. . . sorry.  Pet sounds has me brainwarped and now I must comment when someone says something even remotely negative.  Anyways, I got Sgt. Pepper's long before I got the other Beatles' albums, so Sgt. Pepper's feels a lot different than the others to me (then again all the Beatles albums feel different from each other in that aspect)  My favorite album for a long time before I started developing my CD collection.  Sgt. Pepper's is my second-favorite Beatles album. (The White album is numero-uno.)  but it's still a flippin' flantastic album.  And Pet Sounds is not monotonous!

Patrick Dermody (pdermody.twcny.rr.com) (12/27/07)

Greatest album of all time? Might as well be.  But it isn't even my favorite beatles album (like you, I prefer Revolver to this).  But thats not to say Sgt. Pepper is extremely innovative, not just because of the production values, but because of how this set the model for many other art rock albums to comes.  Not to mention that these are some of the best melodies I've heard. 

"Benjamin Burch" (bbgun_301.yahoo.com) (03/13/11)

As much as I love this album, I have to sadly admit that it's not the greatest album of all time as it's commonly hailed. Sure it has the most creative songs the beatles have ever managed to come up with, but this is like my fourth or fifth favorite beatles album. Having admitted that, the album is fantastic, not a bad moment or song anywhere.

Ivo Samuel Giosa Domínguez (ivosamuelgiosa.gmail.com) (09/13/16)

Everybody knows how much this album RULES, even if it is the hardest album of the Beatles to get into, along with The White Album, if just because of trying to guess what makes this one stand out. Abbey Road has its mature feel to it, it's probably their most guitar heavy, it has the suite... The White Album has that crazy level of diversity, Rubber Soul has all those cute folk-pop melodies and... well, you know the drill.

I think that what makes this album special is because it feels like the most finished, worked, polished and perfected piece of pop music ever. When I listen to this album, I can feel the love and dedication that every song received. Plus, they all have neat production tricks, be it the crowd on the title track, the weird instrument at the beginning of Lucy, the rainy feel of Fixing a Hole, etc.

All in all, I think it's useless to discuss the songs. But I'd like to talk about the concept itself. As everybody has pointed out, this album isn't a concept album, even though it started like it. BUT... I like to think of it as such. Basically, it goes like this. To me, this album feels like watching a theater play. It starts with the introduction in the title track, and then we see a string of stories that start becoming more and more dark and depressing as we reach the middle, as it usually would do in a typical film, play or book. Then, things start getting better and happier with "When I'm Sixty-Four" and we finally are overjoyed when we get to the reprise, where the play reaches it end. And here comes the moody part. Have you ever been in something BIG? You know a camp, a concert, a play, a party or some event that makes all your problems and worries go away? Where you get the feeling that nothing goes wrong and you feel as happy as you can be? You know that feeling when you get back home and realize that nothing has changed, life goes on, and you have to face your usual worries again? That feeling, to me, is what A Day in the Life is about. You've just watched a great play and now you have to get back to your usual day to day. In that way, the album, to me, gets another layer of emotion and depth that helped me to end up falling in love with it.

Well, or maybe not. This album is flawless, anyway. Buy it now!

The 'sequel' to Sgt. Pepper, this was actually somewhat panned by critics upon its release. Most likely, this is due to the fact that the 'style' of the two albums is extremely similar - both rely heavily on orchestration and sound effects with little emphasis on 'traditional' rock instrumentation (of course, it might also have to do with the fact that the TV special to which the first side of this album is the soundtrack is apparently very, very wierd). Well, critics are dumb. Actually, I honestly don't know if this is stronger or weaker than Sgt. Bilko, and as such I can't really say if this is a 10 or an F (I settle on the latter, but it's a really arbitrary call). But really, who cares?

Like Pepper, the album kicks off with a 'scene-setting' title track, and Magical Mystery Tour easily matches Sgt. Pepper in quality. Of course, the lyrics make little sense - just what is the 'Mystery Tour' anyways? - but the melody rules, as usual, and John's backing vocals are simply impeccable. After this song, though, the album starts to turn dark, much darker than Pepper. I know that that may seem strange to read, but doesn't Fool On the Hill seem melancholy to you? Yes, it has a nice, pleasant melody, but ... dunno, it just seems to me that the fool would be kinda lonely, even if the lyrics say otherwise. Whatever.

The next two tracks are dark though, no matter what you try to tell me. The instrumental Flying is simply bizarre, with a simple drumline accompanied by random mellotrons, strange basslines, and very trippy backing vocals. Of course, it's kinda strange to have an instrumental on a Beatles album, but it's still cool. Even stranger, though, is George's absolutely, positively creepy Blue Jay Way. Every so often, these 'woo-aah' string sounds come out of one speaker, and Harrison is singing this wierd minor-key melody about being lost in a fog and asking us to 'not be long.' Err, um, hmm. As usual, though, it rules. As does the fifth song of the EP half of the album, Paul's bouncy ditty Your Mother Should Know. It has no point, of course, but it's fun, catchy, and all of that jazz that seems to accompany every song that Paul wrote from about this point onward.

And then there's the centerpiece of the whole album, the infamous I Am the Walrus. Say what you will about this number, but you have to admit - this is one creative number that John came up with. From the creepy bending strings parts in the into and outro to the cool Dylanesque psycho lyrics to all of the sound effects stuffed into the mix by Martin, it is difficult to find a song stranger or more unpredictable than this in the Beatles' discography. But that's for the better, if you ask me - I dig creativity, after all. It's not the most 'experimental' song of the period, of course, but it's undeniably one of the best. And besides, doesn't it kinda seem like a protest song, of a sort? After all, in a way, John's saying that regardless of all of the strange things around him, he IS the walrus .. er, um, or something.

Side two is no less impressive, comprising of the A-sides released by the band in '67 (whee!). The highlight of these, of course, is unquestionably the greatest double A-side of all time, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane. SFF is another one of John's great Dylan imitations, but it is also the band's 'psychedelic' peak, if you get me. The mellotron, flute (or is that a recorder?), and the strange outro combine for an absolutely unique listening experience, one that must be heard a number of times to be truly appreciated. Penny Lane, on the other hand, is a cute little Paul number about John's experiences as a child living at, well, Penny Lane. I probably don't need to say much more about it, of course - in all likelihood, you've heard it already.

Besides two more incredibly catchy pop anthems (Hello Goodbye and Baby You're a Rich Man), the other major highlight of side two is John's anthem of the whole '67 atmosphere - All You Need is Love. The repeated "love love love" chants, the stupendous melody in the verses, and the great chrous with its accompanying fade-out are all incredible beoynd words, and simply leave you flabbergasted that the group could put out such incredible music in addition to the Pepper masterpiece earlier in the year. Plus, it is absolutely HILARIOUS to hear Paul (not John as I once thought) break into She Loves You above the choral masses as they all chant "love is all you need love is all you need."

Once again, I really don't know how to conclude the review other than to say something to the effect of, "if you don't own this, BUY IT NOW," so I guess that will have to suffice. Seriously, though, it is truly a testament to the band's greatness that they were able to come up with two virtually perfect albums IN THE SAME YEAR and still have enough gas left for more masterpieces ... of course, you might not like it. If that's the case ... well, poop on you then.

Lillestrøm Stasjon (lillestrom.stasjon.hysjhysj.net)

First of all I'd have to thank you for terrific in-dept analysis of the albums. With myself having gotton to know the beatles-material in a way very simular to yours. Being 25 now, and been a great fan since I was 10, but I have to disagree with you when you speak sow armly of MMT. I think you are being unfair to Sgt.Pepper by comparing it to MMT. With Pepper being the result of a recording process from beginning to end, MMT is the complete opposite with greater parts of the material being compiled just to put together a soundtrack. I've always looked at MMT as a compilation. When rewieving MMT, I think it's only fair to at least leave out "Strawberry fields", "Penny Lane", keeping in mind that the double-A-sided-masterpiece-of-a-single-is pre-Pepper, andt herefore not made this album. The same goes for "All you need is love", being a project having nothing to do with MMT. And with "Baby you're a rich man" being the B-side on that single, I feel that they should be left out, too. You're now down to a 7 track album. One of these is an instrumental track (Flying), and two other are among their weaker work in my opinion (Your mother should know & Blue Jay Way). Now the single "Hello goodbye/I am the walrus" is released about the same time as the MMT-album. At this point, you have two tracks only being available on MMT, that are worth releasing. They are "MMT" and "Fool on the Hill" and they should have made these two a single. I think the album and the movie is a terrible idea to begin with, and MMT ruins the streak of great albums. "Yellow Submarine" ofcourse being an even worse example of that.

(author's note): This comment does have a point - MMT is as close to a 'bastard' Beatles album as exists today (and wasn't it an American release anyways? Wouldn't surprise me a bit). But, and I definitely stand by this, judging from the actual song selection, this 'compilation' deserves NOTHING less than a 15.

Robert Grazer (xeernoflax.jack-the-ripper.com)

Well if you've been following my reviews, which I doubt anyone is, you can read in a previously written Abbey Road review that at that time Abbey Road was the only Beatles album I owned, but I planned to change it. So I got Magical Mystery Tour. Now I personally like this one better than Abbey Road. The songs seem better formed. Take "Something" and hold it up against "The Fool on the Hill." I'd take "The Fool on the Hill." "Something" is not bad at all, but most of the tracks on MMT beat it, and plenty of the other tracks on Abbey Road. Don't think I'm bashing Abbey Road, I'm just saying that MMT is better.

The first thing one notices about MMT is that it has been SOAKED in drugs. If there is anyone out there who thinks "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Flying" were written clean and sober, I'd have me a good hearty laugh. But still, all the songs on here are great. "Penny Lane" and "All You Need is Love" are classics. Hell, they're all classics! The title track (best Beatles title track?) is also superb.

BEST TRACK: "I Am The Walrus" is a rather sick random hilarious druggy collection of words. Or maybe they aren't random; maybe there is a deep meaning behind all of it, but I'm too lazy to look. However, I like sick random hilarious druggy collections of words. The music is great too.

COMPLAINTS: Sometimes it seems a little TOO druggy....

RATING: My Scale: ***** John Mcferrin's Scale: 9(14)

No1Yanks23.aol.com

hi im matt reyes, and ive read many of your comments from georges website, i love hearing your thoughts as well as Nick Karns, Ben Greenstein, Rich Brunell, etc. About your review of Magical Mystery Tour, it's great. I agree its a 15, its a weak 15 though. Best songs are Strawberry Fields (best beatles song ever IMO), Fool on the Hill and I am the Walrus...once again great job on the page...cant wait to see your Metallica section!

Kerry & Kayoko Canfield (k2canf.SpiritOne.com)

Although I grew up in a musical household, with a father who played standup bass, and although I was doubtless subliminally aware of the importance of bass to beat music in general (having listened to rock radio from the time when "rock" still included "roll"), it was "Penny Lane" that really made me take notice of the bass itself for the first time. Since I was "raised on" classical music (and played piano at an early age), it amazed me to hear a bass line of which JS Bach himself could conceivably have been proud accompanying a pop song! Of course, then I started picking up on all the other amazing things Paul was doing with the instrument. Why, for instance, does he confine a what should be a low part to high notes on "Rain" and "Paperback Writer"? Rhetorical question, of course--it simply tickled me to hear it, since in no way does it make either of those songs fail to rock. Decades later, now (after picking up on myriad bass players' contributions--love your appreciation of the Who's John Entwhistle, btw), I'm playing bass myself.

TheeRubberCow.aol.com (12/28/01)

I believe that the flute sound in "Strawberry Fields Forever" is a mellotron.  But what a strange album!  The only conplaints from me are that it seems with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's they were taking just the right amount of drugs to make something comlpetely refreshing and inspiring, but with this it sounds like they may have been soaking in a little to much, which makes for great songs like "Strawberry.." and "Flying" but I think it's in the sound and production that gives me a feeling of being a little too tripped out, but that could also be Martin's fault, or possibly the extra-sunny cover art.

Ashley Bergman (ashleythewriter.hotmail.com) (7/30/02)

A little history on "I am the Walrus" which you may know, but it didn't seem like you did in your review.. John wrote this song to tantalize the critics who spent too much time analyzing his songs, and trying to discern what the songs actually meant when in truth a lot of the time what John said was what he meant: no hidden meaning... He was getting sick of it all, you see... It's been recorded that when he finished writing the lyrics to this one, he turned to a friend and said "Let the fuckers try to figure that one out"... Anyway, thought you'd be interested...

"Fernando H. Canto" (sirmustapha.ig.com.br) (2/26/03)

I wonder what's the point of Lillestrøm discussing this album, song by song, without actually considering their quality. It's not a compilation, this album, since none of these tracks appeared in any other album before. The A side was the soundtrack EP, the side B are a couple of singles, and this makes no compilation. Even if it was, it's nothing short of excellent.

For some reason, I'm more inclined to give this a 15 than I am on Sgt Pepper. The album is more consistent, and each song is, at least, great. The A side singles on side B are all, um, perfect (Penny Lane! I LOVE Penny Lane!), the "less known" songs (Your Mother Should Know, Baby You're A Rich Man, Blue Jay Way) are all great, and not to count Fool On The Hill, the title track, and, of course, I Am The Walrus. Thus, I can enjoy this album start to finish, without any kind of complaint. Even Flying is great, in its own right.

Nathan Schulz (isrpgmaker.hotmail.com) (8/07/04)

I think this album is stronger than Pepper because of slightly more complex orchestration, and the title track is better (Not to mention it has no irritating reprise).  This album also feels more eastern and decadent.  In addition, its not as lightweight as Pepper, providing less light pop numbers.

  Best Song: I Am the Walrus

9 (15)

Nathan Schulz

Trfesok.aol.com (02/23/05)

This was really the only time that the Beatles did a sidestep in their evolution, which is why I think it tends to get slammed a little bit. But if it had been released as a double album with ...Pepper... , it would have been hailed as another masterpiece. It is very much a piece with the last one, what's everybody's  problem? "Your Mother Should Know" is a bit of a retread of "When I'm 64". And "Blue Jay Way" is a bit draggy, although you can tell that George's Indian work influences the droning sound it has. But that's about it -- everything else is terrific. I personally think that the Beatles passed their peak after this, as the group lost cohesion.

  As for the movie -- well, the Beatles enormous talent in music did NOT extend to film. It's basically an amateurish, druggy mess. But some of the performance sequences are pretty cool, especially "I Am the Walrus".

MATTHEW CONSTANTINE (11/22/08)

Blue Jay Way is, in part, about LSD-induced insomnia (like I'm So Tired the following year!) I Am The Walrus - for the best theory of what this song is about, see Ian McDonals's Beatle book.

Baby You're A Rich Man - an underrated gem, I think - dig the sarcasm in the lyrics, the sped-up keyboard masquerading as an Indian oboe, and that "you're a rich fag Jew" bit in the fade-out!

Personally, though, no-one can convince me that Hello Goodbye and All You Need Is Love are not complete and utter crap.

"matt faris" (7headedchicken.gmail.com) (01/13/11)

Many years ago, (back when I was on AOL), I contributed a comment to your site accusing the album of being too psychedelic. Well, that was before I had ever actually tried any psychedelics. Back then, I didn't even know what "The Fool On The Hill" was about. I also believed what I was told by some that the makers of this album were just doing "drugs" in general when they made it. Now I know the difference between what The Beatles themselves tried to warn their listeners about as being dangerous, and natural substances that God put on the earth. Granted, I haven't tried any of the dangerous ones, but what I've learned from the ones that are natural have showed me that people who make this kind of music are trying to help people. You said in your review that some of the music is dark, but I don't think they were trying to make people sad or scare them; I think they were trying to lift us up. I'm pretty sure that the line "Now that you've found another key/what are you going to play?" in "Baby, You're a Rich Man" refers to this decision. And, if they wanted to end the album with "All You Need Is Love", then yeah, I'd say they were trying to help people. I think it would be beautiful if music and the world in general could get back to this mentality. By the way, doing psychedelics isn't the only way one can come up with music this brilliantly creative. You can also pray, meditate, listen to other creative music for inspiration, fall in love, or just experience life with an open mind. As for what some people are saying about this not being a "proper" album, I agree with you in that it does have a consistant sound and flow, and what matters to me is that when I listen to "Magical Mystery Tour", "The Fool On The Hill", "Flying", "Blue Jay Way", "Your Mother Should Know", "I Am the Walrus", "Hello Goodbye", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Penny Lane", "Baby, You're a Rich Man", and "All You Need Is Love" in that order, I'm in a better mood than before.

"Benjamin Burch" (bbgun_301.yahoo.com) (03/13/11)

I sadly have to tone the rating down for this one because of the mediocre "Your Mother Should Know." The first time since like "Beatles for Sale" where the Beatles have taken a step down rather than up. It might be due to the fact that only seven of these songs are actually new, and it is pretty tough to follow a monster run of albums like "Rubber Soul," "Revolver" and "Sgt. Peppers." Having said that, I still like every other song on this album, but my personal favorite is the majestic "Strawberry Fields Forever."

Well, after spending the last couple of years completely revolutionizing the musical establishment, the Fab gang took a badly needed break. They had decided that they were more or less sick of psychedelia (not to mention getting sick of each other) and they wanted to try something different. So what do you do if you've supposedly taken music to its ultimate height? Why, you do everything! The result is an album that is, by FAR, the most genre-comprehensive and diverse album in the history of pop music.

So anyways, there are two main schools of thought when discussing this album - the half-empty and the half-full approach. The half-empty school likes to say that the album is filled with more filler than one can shake a stick at, with novelty crap spread all over the place and ruining what would otherwise be an absolutely stellar single album. And I do admit there is something to that statement (not much, but it's there). Interspersed among the gems are two of the very, very few Beatles songs that I simply COULD NOT STAND for a very long time. The first, found on side one, is a clumsy-as-hell number by John entitled The Continuing Adventures of Bungalow Bill. For the longest time, I could never get past that opening section without getting seriously irritated, and I made it a point to skip it every time. It grew on me, though; the verses are actually quite pleasant, and I like the way John sings, "Andallthepeoplesing" right before each time the band goes into the chorus. In any case, the other song, found on side four, is Paul's 20's-style Honey Pie. I used to be of the opinion that, yes, it's just another example of Paul pulling a perfect imitation of ye olde 20's pop, but that it was so obnoxious as to be intolerable. Truth be told, I still don't particularly like it, but I have found that I my admiration for Paul's ability to milk and perfectly nail a style that was largely otherwise forgotten in rock music has grown over time, and as such I no longer skip it, as I can at least be amused by it on an intellectual level.

"So what about the rest?" you may ask. "Don't you think the presence of blatant filler tracks like Wild Honey Pie or Why Don't We Do It in the Road? or obviously uninteresting tracks like *insert track that you think should have been cut to make this a single album* or useless nonsensical noise like Revolution 9 automatically invalidates the idea of giving this a 10?" Well, from a certain angle, the answer is probably yes; it just so happens that I fundamentally disagree with the underlying beliefs of that particular point of view. An argument I see made by a lot of people is that an album, by definition, is nothing more than a collection of individual songs. Consequently, so the argument goes, the quality of an album is solely a function of the quality of each of the songs as a stand-alone track, and as such an album like The Beatles can't possibily be considered one of the great albums of all time.

I really hate that argument; I consider it just as invalid as if somebody were to say to me that the quality (i.e. how much money you expect to make from it given the amount of risk you expose yourself to by owning it) of a portfolio of financial assets is solely a function of how well you expect each of the individual assets to perform, an idea that (hopefully, if they've been paying attention at all) any junior or senior finance major should be able to tell you is complete nonsense.

*WARNING* FINANCE ANALOGY:

If I own a portfolio of only crude oil features (traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange), I'm basically making a very speculative bet on the price of oil (if the price of oil goes up, I make money, if it goes down, I lose money). If I own a stock portfolio of only airline companies (which have to buy gasoline, which is made from oil, and who want to pay as little as possible for the gas they purchase), I'm making another very speculative bet on the price of oil (if the price of oil goes up, airline companies have to pay more for gas, which is bad for them, and the price of the stock goes down; likewise cheap oil means they have to pay less for gas, which is good for them, and the price of the stock goes up), in the opposite direction. Now, for the sake of argument, suppose that each of those two portfolios has the same expected return (say 15%) on investment over the next year (because you don't actually know in advance whether the price of oil will go up or down). If I own a portfolio of *both* crude oil futures and airline company stocks, the losses from the futures (if oil prices fall) will be largely offset by gains in the airline companies, and vice verse if oil prices rise. Consequently, not only will the expected return of this combined portfolio still be the same 15% you'd get from owning only one of the two portfolios, but it will be a much less speculative 15% expected return than you'd get from holding either of those two portfolios alone (in other words, the quality of the two portfolios combined is much higher than the sum of the individual qualities of the two portfolios).

So what's my point in that analogy? My point is that evaluating an album solely on the quality of the individual songs makes as little sense as evaluating a portfolio of financial assets solely on the quality of the individual assets, and the reason for this is that it neglects the idea that songs on an album interact with each other in determining the quality of the album. If Cry Baby Cry were just somewhere in the middle of side 3, Revolution 9 the second to last track on side 2 and Good Night still the closer, the impact they'd have on the album's quality would be nowhere near what they have as the album's closing lullaby/nightmare/"it's alright it was only a dream you're here safe and sound" suite. If the album opened with Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da instead of the piano/guitar-rock glee of Back in the U.S.S.R, or if the brilliant psychedelic debunking that is Glass Onion didn't occur on side 1, or if the three "animals" songs (Blackbird, Piggies, Rocky Raccoon) weren't in a row, or if (lots of other things like this) weren't just the way they are, this album wouldn't (and couldn't) be anywhere near as powerful as it is. Yeah, I suppose that in a way relying on the sequencing to make an album seem better than it could be is a kind of cheating, but would that all bands would cheat in this way ...

I've also seen some people argue that the diversity of this album is actually a negative, that for an album to really "work" as an album it needs to have a cohesive sound and vibe to it. To an extent, I agree; lots of people have their special personal favorite "vibe" albums of this sort, and I'm no exception (To Our Children's Children's Children and Close to the Edge immediately come to mind with me). At the same time, though, I really have to be in a certain mood to get the maximum enjoyment out of them that I can, and if I'm not in that mood I can tend to get tired of the vibe as those kinds of albums go on. On the other hand, I can be in any sort of mood to enjoy The White Album, because if a song with a style or vibe or whatever comes up that I'm not feeling particularly in synch with, it's not a problem because it's gone in a bit anyway. For me, that is the advantage of diversity, and the reason that I will sometimes give albums extra props for that very diversity.

As with a lot of Beatles albums, it's tough to write a review of this without going off on tangents and largely neglecting the songs themselves. Of course, that's both (a) the songs on this thing are mostly so amazing that trying to adequately describe them is one of the very definitions of futility, and (b) I don't feel like I have to "explain" them, to hack through all the minute details of their makeup to describe what it is I'm feeling at every little passasge of the songs. In other words, I don't see how I would ever need to defend these songs, whereas explaining the appeal of, say, Sound Chaser can take a little time. Man, it would almost certainly be easier to write a review of what I don't like on the album, and to just assume everything else is perfect. Ok, let's try it:

Wild Honey Pie: Fillerish and stupid (even though it's fun in its stupidity)

The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill: Already mentioned

Helter Skelter: Guitar sound is too thin to kick as much ass as it potentially could.

Long, Long, Long: Nice, but TOO QUIET

Honey Pie: Already mentioned

There, I've just given you all the cons that I see in The Beatles, which leaves 25 tracks of stuff I absolutely love. Hee.

There are many people who think this album is overrated. Good for them. I, on the other hand, rate this as my second favorite album. Not just my second favorite Beatles album, I mean my second favorite album period. For me, this album is a total masterpiece - it may not break much new ground, but it does lift the existing ground to a level never before approached. It's one of those albums that, for me, defines what rock and pop music is, the way Highway 61 Revisted defines "classic rock" for me and Exile on Main Street defines "roots rock" for me. I cannot imagine my collection without it, and frankly I don't want to imagine my collection without it.

Lillestrøm Stasjon (lillestrom.stasjon.hysjhysj.net)

You pretty much wrap it up here. However I think it's fascinating to imagine White as a stellar single album. I never like the idea of changing such a classic, but for just a moment, let's see how it would look if I got to pick the songs.

1. Back in the U.S.S.R. (great opening)
2. Dear Prudence
3. Glass Onion
4. Ob-la-di Ob-la-da (just coming up witht itle....)
5. While my guitar gently weeps
6. Happiness is a warm gun
7. I Will

1. Martha my dear (love the piano-intro and the jazzy horns on this one)
2. I'm so tired
3. Blackbird
4. Cry baby cry
5. Mother nature's son
6. Sexy Sadie
7. Revolution (7" edit, it simply rocks)

At this point feel bad about having to leave out Julia, Savoy Truffle, Birthday or maybe Rocky Raccoon. My single White Album is already big, keep in mind that playing time is the most importantf actor regarding the pressing quality or how loud the pressing gets. Physical space equals headroom on vinyl, but since the original B-side contains ninef ull-length-songs, I let this issiue pass. Another problem is the nearly untouched A-side, which is great, but it leaves a rather strange B-side. I feel that the rougher rock songs are weaker than the ballads, if I may call themt hat. This leads to a lot of slow songs on my Side-B. But I chose to stick with the best compositions, and end with a rocker in Revolution.

Awake600.aol.com

A while back, I borrowed the second disc of this one out of the library (which was separate from the first that wasn't present), and while I was floored by the trio of opening songs, the last half of it sort of underwhelmed me. Since then, though, I acquired the whole album (plus a few more Beatles albums to boot), and I have to say this comes extremely close to the quality of Abbey Road (so it would be another 15 for me, easily), which just may be my favorite album ever at this point, I don't even know anymore. Prindle's idea that more Beatles is better Beatles works for me, and it almost makes it their best album. It's gotta be the most diverse album I've ever heard by a longshot, and there's also no better album where the songs flow so well into each other, which makes even the stuff I'd call subpar, an extremely small amount that this is, integral to this flow. It almost has to be a challenge to most to be able to pick 40-47 minutes of the best material in a hypothetical 'single album' situation and not feeling guilty about leaving off certain other songs. But just for fun, I'll play here.

I'd leave most of the acoustic material on, just because they're some of the most extremely gorgeous stuff they (particularly John) ever wrote. "Dear Prudence", "Blackbird", "Julia", and "Mother Nature's Son" are the first locks. The remaining of the trio that starts off disc two, "Birthday" and "Yer Blues", as well as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Happiness Is A Warm Gun", I'd also leave on. Maybe "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da", "Martha My Dear", "Piggies" and "Helter Skelter" too, since they're among the best attempts at diversity and I love them to death. And to be faithful to the original opening and closing, I'd also leave on "Back In The U.S.S.R." and "Good Night" (though the latter, while it has grown on me a heck of a lot lately, isn't at this moment a favorite). There, that's 14 songs that'll still fit on one record, right? I hope.... if there's still room, I'd add the single version of "Revolution". The problem is, though, this selection would be at the expense of the original album flow, where it seems like each song is naturally designed to follow/precede its' surrondings, and overall diversity.

No1Yanks23.aol.com

i think this is a perfect score. Theres only about 13 minutes of filler (wild honey pie, why dont we do it..., honey pie, rev. 9) The rest is pure gold. Make it into one album? Ok thats 14 songs lets see:

1. Back in the Ussr
2. Dear Prudence
3. Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey
4. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
5. Sexy Sadie
6. Blackbird
7. Happiness is a Warm Gun

1. Julia
2. Revolution (single version)
3. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da
4. Birthday
5. I'm So Tired
6. I Will
7. Hey Jude

Yeah I know, I kind of cheated here. I included 2 singles but they were recorded during the white album sessions, I was gonna actually put on Lady Madonna but its not from the sessions.

TheeRubberCow.aol.com (12/28/01)

That is correct.  "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" and "Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me and My Monkey" are definately not filler.  They were always my favorite from this one, even as a kid, and listening to it now, they seem like the songs that I would appreciate more now.  I guess I was a strange kid.  But would you consider the structure of "Happiness" to be slightly progressive in nature?  Or would it just be a medley/suite?  Anyways, it think each one of it's parts are unique and interesting and it feels complete when it's done.

"Fernando H. Canto" (sirmustapha.ig.com.br) (2/26/03)

Probably this one follows even more the "Machine-Gun" thing I've talked about on Revolver, but for some reason, I appreciate this one more. Because I feel there is a common thread holding the songs together, and they flow well. And, of course, there are a *lot* of them, and virtually all of them are excellent. Very varied, very tasty, this album. Very few tracks that I could consider "weak" (Everyone's Got Something To Hide Except For Me And My Monkey, maybe). I don't even mind The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill, even though it's a bit too long. And I don't mind Revolution 9, either, even though THAT one should be shorter. 5 or 6 minutes is enough, I think. Rating? Can't decide. Give it a 15, whatever.

Rick Wolfe (rickwolfe8.cox.net) (5/31/03)

I respect the review thoroughly, and thanks for giving Me and My Monkey its well-deserved praise. But does anybody ever stop and think about Helter Skelter? Helter Skelter is the hardest song of the sixties and the first step in heavy metal. If I were to make The Beatles a single album, it would look something like this:

1. Back in the USSR
2. Dear Prudence
3. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
4. Happiness is a Warm Gun
5. Rocky Raccoon
6. Don't Pass Me By
7. Blackbird
8. Glass Onion
8. Birthday
9. Yer Blues
10. Everybody's got smoehting to hide
11. Sexy Sadie
12. Helter Skelter
13. Revolution 1
14. Cry Baby Cry
15. JULIA!! Yeah!!

Raghavan RANGANATHAN (S3046624.student.rmit.edu.au) (6/15/03)

This is my fav album by the beatles,.of course, it might seem a bit thin when compared to the arrangements on "Pepper" and all that, but the songs cannot be beat. Well, it is on this album that we will find the fellas at their most natural, relaxed and doing things that they find the most interesting( without caring too much about public or critical perception). Lennon, in my opinion has already started displaying forthcoming tendencies of his solo carrer, "yer blues", "julia" are perfect "Plastic Ono Band" prototypes. Paul just fools around and is the responsible element for the overwhelming diversity...well, i dont know what else to say about it...ok, later

Aprentice (nikus80.hotmail.com) (12/15/03)

Of course, it could have been a great single album, the best beatles album, but if you can make a single album of this and still be happy, you don't love it nearly as much as I do. Simply, there are so many great songs here, and many MOODS, that most people cuts will dissapoint most people.

My favourite songs are:
Helter Skelter
Sexy Sadie
Yer Blues
Glass Onion
Happiness is a warm gun
cry baby cry (I used to play it a lot in the guitar)

  Yes, for some reason I don't like the slow songs that much, but mind you, I love Honey Pie, I love I will, I love Martha My Dear. BUT CAN YOU MAKE A SINGLE ALBUM OUT OF THIS? YOU CAN'T! FORGET IT! And that's why I think Abbey Road isn't THAT much better than this.

Trfesok.aol.com (04/29/08)

I have very mixed feelings about this one. It's not among my favorites, mainly because darker elements are introduced, mostly by Lennon. His songs are mostly sarcastic ("..Bungalow Bill", "Glass Onion" ..Monkey..", the very bitter "Sexy Sadie") or angsty ("Julia", "Yer Blues", "I'm So Tired"). Not that they aren't good songs, but they aren't necessarily fun to listen to. Plus there are a couple of real nightmares in "Revolution 9" (clearly created while under the influence of Yoko) and "Helter Skelter" (whose mood is reinforced for anyone who remembers the Manson murders). I even find "R9" listenable under the right circumstances, but it is really out of place. McCartney's stuff is, of course,  mostly lighter and more whimsical. But the extreme contrast in songwriting makes the record a more difficult listen than a typical Beatles album. Harrison's quartet is winner, with "Long, Long, Long" the weakest. But that's only because of the mix -- it's hard to hear his voice. "Dear Prudence" and "Cry, Baby, Cry" are really lovely, gentle Lennon, quite a shift in mood from the rest of his stuff. Among all of this, there are really only a couple of songs that I can't stand -- "Wild Honey Pie" (really bad singing) and the stupid "Rocky Racoon". I'm not interested in hearing Paul imitate a redneck, no thanks. Still, it's clear in retrospect that the Beatles were on the verge of flying apart at the seams, given the lack of cohesiveness of the album.

Huw Powell (one.humanthoughts.org) (03/13/09)

One passing thought on the white album, that I thought you almost got to and hen didn't write. Yes, it's overwhelming and a bit sprawling, *but*, if you take the idea of paring it down to a single album combined with no one agreeing one which half should survive, logically, what they did was an interesting experiment - let the buyers make their own "single LP" with their own favorite songs from it. Myself, I can never make up my mind, and often listen to it by skipping songs, different ones each time, depending on my mood.

"Benjamin Burch" (bbgun_301.yahoo.com) (03/13/11)

Shows the beatles doing a large number of different styles, and mastering every one with ease. Even RINGO has a writers credit on here (the country "Don't Pass Me By"), and John, Paul and George's songwriting skills are developing at an alarming rate (as usual). I'd only knock off about three or four songs from this album.

Extremely underrated, but it's not difficult to see why. Although all of these songs were written and recorded during 1969, it was only released in 1970 as somewhat of an 'afterthought.' By this time, nobody in the group at all liked anybody else in the group (well, except maybe Ringo - everybody loves Ringo), and the result is that the album sounds much less like a group effort than even Abbey Road, which was recorded later. And in the fact that the songs have an extremely countryish flavor to them and that the production is not done by George Martin, but rather by Phil "wall-of-sound" Spector, and the end result is often ignored by even hardcore fans.

Actually, to tell you the truth, I should only give this album a C or D. BUT, I give it an additional point for being of the greatest 'comfort' albums I've ever owned. It's very 'homey', if you get my drift. The opening Two of Us, for instance, is a great countryish ditty that just happens to have an exceptional melody and terrific lyrics about not-so-countryish topics (burning matches and lifting latches, among other things). The country motif doesn't end there, though - Lennon's I've Got a Pony is kinda dull, but George's bluesy For You Blue is wonderful, with a great slide guitar melody to boot (neat!), and I've Got a Feeling is just incredibly haunting. It's the one with two seperate melodies, one by Paul and one by John, set to the same drum beat and sung at the same time by each. Knowing what we know now about how much they hated each other at the time, hearing this (LIVE, no less) today can't help but run chills up and down your spine.

The meat of the album, though, is in the more 'spiritual' numbers of the record. Two of these were released as singles, but I am one of the few that prefers the album versions, strings and choirs and all. First, we have Lennon's attempt at a truly 'universal' anthem, the beautiful Across the Universe. The lyrics are good (though apparently John himself was ashamed of them in a few years) and the melody, as usual, is impeccable. And, of course, we have the infamous title track, an absolutely timeless classic written and sung by Paul. In my own opinion, it is especially effective if you think of it as Paul addressing the fans re: the group's impending demise, but even if you don't think of that, the song is still gorgeous, with a truly moving guitar solo from George in the middle.

The other two 'spiritual' numbers that I mentioned, by the way, are George's I Me Mine and Paul's Long and Winding Road. Apparently, Paul was absolutely furious with the wall-of-sound approach that Phil took with the latter, and many fans vastly prefer the string-less version found on Anthology 3, but I like this one just fine (I like the other one too, though). On the other hand, there is no question that Spector was the savior of I Me Mine, in that he needed to repeat the song one full time in order to bring it up to a reasonable length, but also in that the gospel nature of the track really does call for layered vocals and all that rot. If you wish, you may view it as a worthy successor to While My Guitar Gently Weeps from White, but it's a solid song in its own right.

This is not an impeccable album (I'm not a big fan of this live version of One After 909, and stuff like Maggie Mae and Dig It, while entertaining, are really dumb) but the good stuff is really good, and that's enough for me. And I didn't even mention the most famous song on the album, the 'rockin' Get Back, an extremely solid upbeat track that served as the third single from this release. In any case, this was certainly a strange way for the Beatles to end their career together (sort of), and many critics panned the album upon its release, but no true Beatles fan will be ashamed of this. Or the grand finale, for that matter ...

Lillestrøm Stasjon (lillestrom.stasjon.hysjhysj.net)

I will have to agree 100%, Phil Spector did a great job here, but the combination of the live-feel and hiss sound, makes the album colder than George Martin's style on, say Abbey Road. The album is one of their best, the material is probably better than on Abbey Road, and it is the making of it that is it's weakness. If Let it Be had been recorded as a studio album (in Martin-style), it could easly have become the undisputed masterpiece of their career.

Ashley Bergman (ashleythewriter.hotmail.com) (7/30/02)

"well, except maybe Ringo - everybody loves Ringo" -- this is what I say all the time... can you help but love him?

Anyway, correction: "Lennon's I've Got a Pony" I think you mean 'Dig a Pony..." :P OH, but I hear you about "I've Got a Feeling"-- Can't you hear the competition? It's definitely one of my favorite Beatle songs for the reasons you mentioned, and because it's so awesome how they came together to sing both parts... I've never heard the original version of "Long and Winding Road" but I enjoy the strings-- I think they make the song more poignant and effective, and I think "I Me Mine" is a beautifully bitter George song.. perhaps my second favorite Beatle-George song... following "Something"... maybe third, following "Here Comes the Sun"...

Kerry & Kayoko Canfield (k2canf.SpiritOne.com) (10/16/02)

I recently watched a video compilation of various televised performances of the Beatles. Interspersed among them were two filmed performances of a couple of songs from Let It Be ("Two of Us" and possibly "Across the Universe"? Not sure now.). Lennon and McCartney appeared to be playing and singing from two separate rooms! Viewed with knowledge of the history of the band and of what was happening personally among the Fab Four at the time, those two clips were *so* sad. I don't mean disappointing in a critical sense, but literally saddening. I found myself scrambling to efface that feeling by listening to almost anything recorded before then, in the days when the band was more than the simple sum of its parts and actually having a good time.

Gordon Ovenshine (gordon.ovenshine.sru.edu) (08/16/06)

I agree with one reviewer who said Let it Be could have been The Beatles best album with Martin-style studio production, especially if Apple improved song selection and sequencing. The album came out in May 1970.

Here's what it should have been:

Side 1

Get Back
Two of Us
Dig a Pony
Across the Universe
For You Blue
Let it Be

Side 2

Don't Let Me Down
Old Brown Shoe
Long and Winding Road
I've Got a Feeling
Ballad of John and Yoko
Get Back Reprise

Trfesok.aol.com (07/07/07)

A lot of people had trouble with this one because they saw it as a betrayal of the original Get Back concept -- namely, the live-in-the-studio-with-no-overdubs thing. Then, Spector tried to have it both ways, with some numbers still like that, and others with his big production. So, the album is a bit of a jumble. But I think that the only number he wrecks is "The Long and Winding Road". I remember hearing on the radio at age 12, thinking, "There's something wrong with this song." The Anthology 3 version proves that it was pretty sappy song to start with, and then Spector really turns it up to 11 on the schlockometer.  The strings and choir are more appropriate on "Across the Universe".  Definitely an improvement over the original Past Masters mix. " I Me Mine" is really the track that benefits from Spector's dramatic arrangement. I like the alternate guitar solo and the turned up horns in this version of the title track as well. However, I don't like the fact that they didn't perform the tag at the end of this version of "Get Back" -- this one  is not finished! 

  The rest of the material ranges from OK ("I've Got a Feeling" and "One After 909" are fun and sound like they were enjoying themselves ) to throwaways. I find "For You Blue" to be rather dull.    The Anthology 3 version at least has a better piano part. And "I Dig a Pony" -- while the guitar riff is really catchy, John's usually interesting wordplay ("I Am the Walrus" and "Happiness is a Warm Gun", for example) is just sloppy here. "I rolled a stoney?" What's that? These sound like dummy lyrics that John never got around to polishing. Irritating. On the whole, though, despite the occasionally unsettling atmosphere, the top songs show that the Beatles hadn't lost it yet. If it had come out when it was supposed to -- before Abbey Road -- it would probably have been regarded  better. It just can't compare with their real final album.

Doug Pitts (dpitts.waystationinc.org) (01/13/14)

The most frustrating thing is the version of “Get Back” on here. It doesn’t have that fantastic outro of the single, with its hilarious spoken part by Paul (”… and a low neck sweater”). Possibly because Spector wanted to carry the tradition of a Beatles album not including the concurrent single (or at least not the exact version as on the single, e.g., the George Martin Let it Be single differing from the Spector version)? Although this rule was already broken with Something/Come Together out at the same time as Abbey Road. Or possibly because he wanted John’s “I hope we passed the audition” as what is heard at the very end (Paul speaking first is too similar to John’s speaking). It seems like the single version, which fades after Paul’s speech, could have been altered or returned to its original form with a “complete” ending, cross-faded to the applause then John’s remark.

Not to say that the album is always necessarily serious, of course. Besides the infamous ending suite (discussed later), highlights (if you can say that this album has highlights, that is) are Paul's Maxwell's Silver Hammer, about a guy who goes around murdering people with a magic hammer, and Ringo's Octopus' Garden, probably the best song he ever wrote. Critics of the album (and they exist, unfortunately) often point these out as examples of how crappy the Beatles were by this time, but, I'm sorry, but they're just WRONG. The melodies are impeccable, as usual, and the whole band makes sure to make the songs as goofy as they deserve to be.

Another track that doesn't really get the credit it deserves is I Want You (She's So Heavy). There are many people who get very bored by the ending 'jam', with the same riff repeating over and over again as a wall of tension builds and is cut off when you least expect it. But of course, I disagree with them - the fact is that this song is essentially the Darth Vader to Hey Jude's Luke Skywalker, a menacing, growling number that's supposed to fray your nerves and crush your soul before quickly seguing into the cheerful Here Comes the Sun. I don't know about you, but I really dig stuff like that.

Elsewhere, you get your regular anthems (Come Together, with that cool bassline and neato drumming), your beautiful love anthems (Something, called the greatest love song of all time by Frank Sinatra himself, and the melancholy Because), your heated and passionate cries for love (Oh! Darling), simply bizarre numbers (You Never Give Me Your Money, where the line "Soon we'll be away from here, step on the gas and wipe that tear away" is for me, for some reason one of the most resonant moments in the band's catalogue; Sun King) and, of course, the suite. You see, the group had a bunch of stupid little outtakes sitting around on their own that wouldn't have worked as individual songs, so Paul had the great idea to splice them all together into one long number. John hated the idea, but it really turned out well, I think. The music is great and really gets you pumping, whether it's the silliness of Mean Mr. Mustard, the sudden and loud acoustic chords coming into Polythene Pam, the great melody to She Came In Through the Bathroom Window, the GORGEOUS Golden Slumbers, the anthemic Carry That Weight or the hilarious The End, where the group basically sums up their entire musical and life philosophy ("In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make) as well as giving us a stupid drum-solo parody. It's absolutely amazing, and hearing it for the first time when I was getting into the band really made me think this was a worthwhile band after all.

I really don't know what else to say. NO band has ever had a better swan-song than this (and yes, I'm aware that to make that statement in full confidence, I'd have to have heard the last albums of every band ever, but this album is sufficiently good that I feel I can say it within a really freaking wide confidence interval), and I doubt that will ever change. If you don't like it ... well, I'm sorry, but I just won't be ever to fully understand you.

Robert Grazer (xeernoflax.jack-the-ripper.com)

Oh boy. I hate reading reviews that overrate albums, but I also hate writing reviews that contradict those that overrate. Ok, this is the only Beatles album I currently own (I lost a couple of the others I had, stupid me, don't worry I'll buy more soon) and I like it, don't get me wrong. It is a wonderful album and I do love it. However I do not hold the belief that this album is perfect. There are some bad songs on here. For starters, I never liked "Come Together." It drives me nuts. I can't explain it. Another one I never liked was "Oh Darling." It's one of those songs that seems to try a little bit to hard to be great, and misses the mark. As far as the second side goes, most of the songs are pretty even in that level of "Beatles Good" that the majority of people with any musical taste hold above most standards for other music. The only song on the second side that falls short of the "Beatles Good" level and falls into the "Beatles Decent," which is still good by normal standards, is "Mean Mr. Mustard." It's pretty good though. Ok enough complaining. "Octopus's Garden" is EXCELLENT! I'm serious, that is a great song, The Beatles at their best (or Ringo anyway). And "Polythene Pam" is the best on the second side.

BEST TRACK: Oh, definitely "I Want You (She's so Heavy)." Perfect song. That ending jam thingy is awesome! I love it! Of course there is more to the song than that. The main verses and such are excellent, and I love the basslines all throughout the song.

COMPLAINTS: "Come Together" and "Oh Darling"

RATING: My Scale ***** John McFerrin's Scale: A very affectionate 9(13) in fact, even a 9(14) if I'm in a good mood. Think of it as a 9(13.5). Now I feel better.

Kerry & Kayoko Canfield (k2canf.SpiritOne.com)

The dueling guitar solo(s) in this prove absolutely that it does not take a lot of notes to play outrageously rocking guitar. In fact, too many notes get in the way; yes, less really is more! This bit still has more guts than most shamelessly testosterone-fueled guitar solos ever recorded by anyone at all.

Stephen B Marseille (sbm82.columbia.edu) (7/21/01)

This is somewhat injudicious of me - to reduce my comments to so brief a thought - but I really question why you should take a point off Abbey Road simply because it is so powerful that you can't listen to it 5 times in a row. That seems to have nothing to do with its rating - or perhaps it does, but in its favor. For example, while I'm not an industrial music fan generally, I see Nine Inch Nails' "The Downward Spiral" a masterpiece, an easy 10 (15) in the genre... but it is so gut-wrenching that I couldn't play it twice in a row...

TheeRubberCow.aol.com (12/28/01)

I would have to agree with Steven there, but I also understand your point of view and know exactly what you mean.  There is also a sense of lethargy creeping about on the album, and it's hard to pick out, too.  I sometimes have said that this is my favorite Beatles album, but have questioned that notion, just because of this.  Maybe it really is because of the tensions that were going on at the time, but it seems like such a great album with some kind of muffled energy/anti-energy crying out that they were not enjoying doing this.  I have also noticed this on Pink Floyd's "Animals", another great album that is slightly weighed down by this elusive phenomenon.  Anyone else notice this?

Brian R. Aust (baust.nc.rr.com) (3/25/02)

First off, to respond to TheeRubberCow's comments about a certain "muffled energy/anti-energy" thing going on for this album that conveyed that the Beatles were not enjoying this, well, you're actually factually correct. The Beatles certainly knew that this was their very last album in the making and they knew that what they were hearing develop was a very special, wonderful album in the works.... but they were so completely sick and tired of each other that the negative feelings and animosity from the White Album sessions simply outweighed the good things going on. It's a poorly-kept secret that there were never more than two Beatles working in the studio at any one time, ever, during the making of this album --- usually Paul would start things off, laying down the basic tracks and etc., and John would come in after Paul left and dub in his own vocals and guitar, etc. The album as a whole sounds much, much tighter and "unified" than the group really was -- a very masterfully and carefully crafted illusion.

Even so, for years and years now this album has been at the very near top of my alltime favourite albums lists, and it certainly is my favourite Beatles. The "Big 4 John" songs off of Rubber Soul (Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Girl, In My Life) may pack a bit more of an emotional punch, but this album really represents the group at their peak. A classic example of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Sure enough, you slap "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" into the middle of a Badfinger or Macca solo album, and it will be nothing more than a mediocre "granny-pleaser" (to quote John) --- but in the *context* of this album, the song takes on a new life all its own. It BELONGS.

BEST TRACK: The suite, especially Mustard-Polythene-Bathroom. Because, Something, Here Comes the Sun, and You Never Give Me Your $$ are all in the running as well. But as we all know, there ARE no weak tracks when it's Abbey Road we're talking about.

WORST TRACK: In a pinch, Sun King. I suppose it does kinda drag.

RANK IN BEATLES DISCOGRAPHY: #1, but it's part of the "Big 4 Albums" (Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album, Abbey Road). Although Abbey can certainly be ranked the best of the 4, these rankings are irrelevant because one CANNOT do without these 4 albums --- all are purely, truly, unequivocally, absolutely essential in their own way, and no person on earth can be vilified if the Beatles' album they select as their best/favourite is one of these four.)

"Fernando H. Canto" (sirmustapha.ig.com.br) (2/26/03)

The 10 (15) for the Beatles, in my opinion. This is the total opposite of "Chain-Gun", for me. It's cohesive as hell. And I'm not talking only about the 15+ minute suite. Oh, before I go on, I wanted to say that, at least in my mind, since Carry That Weight reprises You Never Give Me Your Money, both it and Sun King are part of the suite.

And, oh yeah, the other tracks rule as well. I love Because (mellow and creepy), Here Comes The Sun (uplifting and gentle), Come Together (corrosive, amusingly corrosive), Something (gorgeous beyond words) and I Want You (simply brainstorming). But what appeals me is how this album is extremelly cohesive and, well, more of an *ALBUM* really, not just a collection of tracks. This is what I like it. Oh, and it's also probably the most emotionally strong of the Beates' records. I like everything about it, there's nothing I can do but award it the big 10.

Nathan Schulz (isrpgmaker.hotmail.com) (4/07/04)

The drumming from "Come Together" is actually played backwards.  Once you know this, it seems obvious because the drum beats are not accented, rather, they increase in volume instead of fading away.

Rob da mailman (RobertoV.webtv.net) (02/12/05)

A funny side note about Frank Sinatra and "Something" - he introduced it one time as his favorite Lennon/McCartney song. He was more than a little surprised to learn later that it was a George Harrison song. George always got a nice little laugh out of that. I agree with you in that this album is definitely the best swan song by any group in musical history.

SolomonsOther.aol.com (06/25/05)

Abbey Road is the Napoleon Bonaparte of the Beatles catalogue. Short, powerful, and kicks your ass all across Europe shortly before he's sent to Alcatraz, then breaks out very briefly for one more fling (Let It Be!!) until he's tossed out again and forced to endure a long history of bad solo releases and stained reputation. Oh, those whacky islanders!!

daniel penner (dzpenner.hotmail.com) (05/03/07)

Agree completely with your 9(15), as all the beatles albums starting from Soul don't deserve any lower. However, I really don't feel what you and (I think at least) George say about Abbey Road being emotionally crushing. For me, it happens to actually be the most stale and "going through the motions" Beatles album of the classic period. Most of the songs just sound finished and tired, but in a lazy way, not an emotional one (Come Together, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Because, The End, Mean Mr. Mustard). The only songs that really move me are You Never Give Me Your Money (COMPLETELY agree on the "step on the gas" moment), Oh Darling!, Golden Slumbers, and Something. Oh and I Want You, which moves me in a 73-74 era King Crimson way (a GOOD thing). Of course its stale feeling doesn't make its melodies any less perfect ("She Came In...", anyone?) ana an easy 15 and ONE OF (Red? Pink Moon?) the greatest swan songs of all time.

Trfesok.aol.com (07/19/07)

The Beatles, amazingly, pulled themselves together -- or looked like they did - for this one. You wouldn't have known at the time that they were falling apart. Far more cohesive than the White Album and Get Back.  The unsettling vibes from those two albums are  pretty much absent.  The closest thing to negative feelings is a sense of sexual desperation both in "Oh, Darling" and "I Want You".  As musicians, the group peaked here -- there's some incredible playing from everybody in the group. I do think that some of the songwriting ("Something", "Maxwell's..", "Octopus' Garden", "Because") isn't quite up to past peaks in some places, but in others ("Here Comes the Sun", "Come Together", the medley),we do get some of the best material the group ever did. "The End" is the perfect, well, end to the album and the band. It's too bad that Let it Be and Plastic Ono Band appeared after this to leave a very sour aftertaste around the group's breakup.

klbax63 . (klbax1963.gmail.com) (05/13/16)

The way I have come to describe Abbey Road is just to say that "The Beatles Last record was their best". "Because" is my favorite track and the production on the entire album is total greatness I always feel a little sad when albums finished because 1.it's The Beatles final album and 2. Abbey Road in my opinion shows The Beatles had yet to peak. If they could have just taken a break from The Beatles to release solo stuff like a lot of bands started doing in the 80's, I'm sure that was not even considered as an option in 69 . I was born in 63 so I've known who they were and had heard their as far back as I can remember but it wasent until I was 13 that I started listening seriously. I pretty much started buying and listening to the albums in their order of release but Rubber Soul was their first album I owned because it was the only Beatles Album my dad owned anyway I was fully aware of how great they were . But I still remember the day I got "Yesterday and Today" of course I was familiar with the biggest tracks but when I heard "And your bird can sing" for the first time I was blown away. I was introduced to their music and track listing order from their Capital released albums and wasent until the catalog was released on CD that I heard them in their true EMI released versions that I was able to hear The true greatness of Rubber Soul and Revolver anyway Dig your reviews How are you with the Monkees??

Steven Knowlton (steven.a.knowlton.gmail.com) (12/13/16)

On CD, the end of "I Want You" does segue quickly into "Here Comes the Sun."

But as the Beatles imagined it, the song would cut off in the middle of the note and just leave the listener in utter silence until she went over to flip the record. It's even more devastating like that.

You may have noticed in my reviews for the early albums that I never mentioned some of the group's more infamous songs, such as She Loves You, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, and so forth. This was not a sign of neglect on my part, but rather it is due to the fact that back in the 60's, it was common practice (in fact, the norm) to issue singles separately from the full albums. Of course, the American bastard releases often contained these singles, but they also had the disadvantage of only providing about 25 minutes of music per disc, resulting in an absolute mess of a discography. Fortunately, the record company came up with a perfect solution - issue the non-album singles on a pair of compilations, and the result is this and Past Masters 2.

Now, it is possible that you've uttered an oath to violently hate the early pop-style singles of the group, in which case you'd better stay away from this. But if you like the early stuff like I do, you'll have a hoot. You probably know the two previously mentioned songs, but you might not be familiar with some of the early gems, like From Me To You, Thank You Girl, This Boy, Yes It Is ... the list goes on. There's also the great I Feel Fine, known mostly for being the first recorded instance of feedback, but the riff is simply golden.

Oh, other gems include German versions of She Loves You and I Wanna Hold Your Hand, as well as the Long Tall Sally EP, a collection of three traditional rock'n'roll covers and a John original, I Call Your Name. Fortunately, they're good - by 1964 standards, they really let it rip, so the songs are more enjoyable than they could be.

Even if you're skeptical, it still might be worth your while to buy this album. At least get it for historical purposes, and please don't be ashamed for having a copy of She Loves You around - it's an awesome song.

Kerry & Kayoko Canfield (k2canf.SpiritOne.com)

Don't know if this is mentioned by anyone elsewhere here. When I was in junior high school, home sick in bed one day listening to the radio, I heard the song "From Me to You." Pleasant tune, but the announcer never said who the performer was. Flash forward a year or two. I heard "From Me to You" by the Beatles, and found out that it was credited to Lennon and McCartney. Wait a minute, I thought--I'm positive that the earlier rendition I'd heard had not been the Beatles; my memory was certainly not flawless, but being a musician myself, I was certain I recalled definite tonal and performance differences. No way to check, though, I never heard that earlier rendition *ever again*, and I never heard from anyone else that they had heard it either. So for years I'd occasionally stumble across that weird little discontinuity in my memory banks, wondering about it. Decades later I was reading the entry on the Beatles in the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll, and although I realize Rolling Stone is not universally appreciated as an arbiter of taste--and they definitely don't have all their "facts" straight--I came across the following interesting factoid: There *was* an earlier release of "From Me to You"--by Del Shannon, known by most for his greatest (and really only) hit "Runaway." I tend to accept Rolling Stone's attribution as genuine because I'd read elsewhere that The Fab Four knew Del Shannon personally (I think he himself was from England). Wow! I thought with relief--I had not been audio-hallucinating; I really *did* hear somebody other than the Beatles do this Beatles song on the radio before I ever heard them do it!

Trfesok.aol.com (02/23/2005)

It almost works as an actual Beatles album, rather than a compilation. Personally, I'd rather see these tracks added to the appropriate albums instead. (Most of their singles were recorded at the same sessions as the albums, but released separately in the UK.)  "Matchbox" and "Bad Boy" seem like throwaways, and the German remakes and the single take of "Love Me Do" don't add much new, but that's about it for filler. "Slow Down" (which actually was an American Top 40 single) and "Long Tall Sally" (along with "Twist and Shout", "Money" and "Words of Love") are two of the few covers that rival the Beatles' original material. Although  "I'm Down" is a much better upgrade of the latter.  A great summation of the original sound of the Beatles.

Huw Powell (one.humanthoughts.org) (03/13/09)

It actually *wasn't* normal practice in the early 60s for bands not to put their singles on LPs - the opposite was more true - an LP would feature and try to cash in on a couple of singles.

But, what George Martin wanted to do was give the fans "more for their money" - ie, if you were buying the singles, when you bought an LP, you didn't get a bunch of overlap.

Sadly, this meant that SFF/PL did not end up on Pepper - imagine how much greater Pepper might have been if they did? They were the first songs finished, and the band hadn't released a single in a while, so out they went.

If you think MMT is great, try dropping 4-6 of the singles on it into the middle of Pepper (since CDs allow for 70-odd minute albums...).

For starters, we get Day Tripper, which has the greatest Beatles riff of all time (a riff so good that Jimi Hendrix used to cover it regularly). What catches my attention, though, is the way Paul's voice melts so seamlessly into John's in the "taking the easy way out" part of the verse melody. Had anybody tried that before? I doubt it. Oh, the B-side, We Can Work It Out, is just as good, an ultra-melodic driving pop number that slows to a crawl during the chorus, to very good effect.

Next, we have Paperback Writer and Rain. PW is a terrific rocker with a cute and ironic story about a man who wants to be a paperback writer and writes about a man who wants to be a paperback writer. I used to just love it; now it's arguably my favorite Beatles song, ha. Meanwhile, Rain is one of the band's first true 'psychedelic' numbers, and has one of the great mantraesque choruses of all time, "raaaa-aaaa-aaa-aaaaain, I don't miiiiiiiiind." I don't actually know their chart history, but if this didn't hit #1 in a heartbeat, I will be shocked. The thing which amazes me most about them (though I guess this is more about the band in general), though, is that these two songs, two of the best the Beatles ever made, were left off of Revolver in favor of weaker songs like Doctor Robert and Good Day Sunshine, AND YET Revolver is still unquestionably the best album I have ever heard. Absolutely amazing.

Jumping to 1968, we encounter the infamous Lady Madonna, a neat piano-driven rocker with a fitting brass section, cool "ha-ha-ha"'s spread throughout, and yet another memorable chorus, "seeee how they ruuuuuuuuun." The B-side, a strange Harrison excursion into Indian music entitled The Inner Light, isn't nearly as good, but it's at least tolerable. If you like sitar, that is.

But then we hit the centerpiece of the album, the Hey Jude/Revolution single, and suddenly everything else seems to be child's play. Regardless of how much it gets played and how overrated it tends to be by some people, Hey Jude is simply an outstanding song, and I adore the "na-na-na-na-na-na-na" coda. It could go on for an hour and I would love it. So there. Even better to my ears, though, is Revolution. If you doubt the group's ability to seriously rock, you need to give this song a listen or three. The riff is solid, the gain plentiful on the guitars, and it is graced by perhaps the finest pure rock singer in the world at that time. Sure, the version on The White Album is nice, but whereas that comes across as just a slow, mellow protest number, the single version is a menacing, pissed off machine. Whee.

From the Let It Be sessions, we have the single issue of Get Back and its B-side, Don't Let Me Down, both with pianist Billy Preston. Both are good, of course, and the ultra-pessimistic lyrics from Lennon in the latter are really quite funny. They aren't as good as some of the earlier stuff, in my opinion, but then, few things are.

Next up to bat are the ultra-amusing The Ballad of John And Yoko and the B-side, George's Old Brown Shoe. The lyrics to the former are absolutely hilarious, as they pretend to a guide to the travels of John and Yoko as they attempt to have their honeymoon or something like that. I don't care for the "Christ you know it ain't easy" part of the chorus, which was enough to get the song banned by numerous radio stations at the time, but the rest of the track is harmless enough. And OBS is solid - it sounds little like what we typically expect from him, but then, so does For You Blue, and that track rules.

Finishing things off are a triplet of tracks, two of which are from Let It Be and one of which is the title track's bizarre B-side. This version of Across The Universe was not actually a single, but rather it appeared on a charity album for the World Wildlife Fund. It's no worse than the original, but not particularly better, though. Meanwhile, Let It Be is good, but it's near impossible to hear Harrison's middle guitar solo, if it's there at all. Too bad - it's still a great song, though. And finally, You Know My Name (Look Up The Number) is wierd and funny beyond words. I refuse to explain this one - suffice it to say that at one point Paul is is purposefully singing like Mel Thorme. You need to hear it for yourself, at least once.

No record collection is complete without this sucker. This, along with PM 1, is the only Beatles compilaton you will ever need. So go get it.

Trfesok.aol.com (03/06/05)

Not nearly as consistent as the first volume, due more than anything else to the group's rapid evolution. I think most people would pick "Hey Jude", rather than "Paperback Writer" as the best song, but I certainly understand your position. Like anything else from the Revolver sessions. It's great. I wonder if anyone else besides Todd Rundgren ever noticed how much "Rain" resembles "She Said, She Said"? (Check out his cover version). But it's another fantastic job -- Ringo does his single best drum performance here. (By the way, since it was on the B-side of "PW", it only got to #23 or something like that). "The Inner Light" is George's best Indian-type song.. really beautiful music and lyrics. The only duds, in my book, come from Lennon. I don't particularly enjoy the rawer stuff he put out in this period, like "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (really bad punning on the chorus, by the way) or "Don't Let Me Down", but that's just my personal preference, I suppose. Plus no one was as really interested in his feelings about Yoko as John thought they would be. And "Across the Universe" is the only Beatles track that could be termed "sloppy". Uncharacteristically poor production -- it's no wonder that they gave it away. However, no Beatles fan can do without everything else here.

Chris Baldwin (chris_baldwinn.hotmail.com) (6/11/05)

Actually We Can Work it Out wasn't the b-side of Day Tripper, the songs were a double a-side.

Sheehan, David (07/13/12)

Not much to say about this except concerning ‘You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)’…I am hard pressed to think of a more fitting closing track to the entire Beatles discography than this one. Obviously the Past Masters discs are arranged chronologically by release date so while this song was not recorded last, it was the B-side of the Let It Be single, so it comes last here. The recording was actually started sometime during the Magical Mystery Tour sessions, and it was shelved/tinkered with for awhile and then was completed around the time of ‘The Ballad of John and Yoko’ (April ’69). But it’s a fitting conclusion in my opinion because it basically ends their run on such a loveable, goofy, irreverent note that it’s almost more moving than the emotionally devastating finale of Abbey Road (though Abbey Road had its own self-deflating ending in ‘Her Majesty’, but that’s for another comment). Only The Beatles could put such disparate material (Let It Be/You Know My Name) on the flip sides of a single and get by with it. I love it.

The other half, then, while inferior from a songwriting standpoint, is much more interesting from an historical point of view. Virtually all bands of that day had a common pool of cover songs from which they would draw for live performance (and often for studio), and the Beatles were no exception. Hence we get to hear the fabs running through the various standards of the day, and they actually do a pretty good job with them. They were certainly no less instrumentally capable than most bands of the day, and their voices were well-suited to the material too. Plus, there's some good old fashioned stereotype breaking too; John croons well, and Paul rocks well. And ... crud, I'm writing the same review of this album that's been written by 90% of everybody who's ever tried to review this.

Ok, so it's not enormously essential for a Beatles fan. It's loooong (more than 2 hours!), it's expensive, and it's kinda monotonous. But doggone it, it's fun, and it's the Beatles. Don't get it unless you just don't have any urge to listen to your other Beatles albums, but don't ignore it either.

I've chosen to review all three Anthologies together simply because I really don't feel like pouring through 6 hours of demos, alternate versions, and various live stuff. Not that I mind having them, of course - I'm a pretty hardcore fan, and it's groovy to pull one of these out every so often and hear stuff like the All My Loving performance on The Ed Sullivan Show or some of the Pepper and MMT tracks before various orchestral instruments were added.

But what perplexes me is as why anybody but hardcore fans would want this stuff, especially when each is $30 a pop. Actually, I probably wouldn't have more than one of them if my mother hadn't randomly decided to get me all three for Christmas. The fact of the matter is that while it is intriguing to realize that even demos by the Beatles sound better than most other groups' best work, very few, if any, of the renditions on these albums are better than the standard fare.

There are gems, though - the 'new' songs on 1 and 2, Free as a Bird and Real Love, respectively, are great, for instance. You also get to hear stuff like If You've Got Trouble, which definitely should have been the Ringo vocal number on Help rather than Act Naturally, and even some stuff from Paul and George's early solo albums. Oh, and on 3, there is the actual rooftop rendition of Get Back, the one that they played just before they got hauled of downtown to the police station.

Ok, look. The music on these things is almost all good. Inferior or not, virtually every track is a small world unto itself. Just remember that these are NOT the "lost legacy of The Beatles," as they were advertised. They are priceless historical documents, and really not much more. But they still deserve grades this high. Further proof that the Beatles are the greatest group ever, if you ask me - even the 'cast-aside' and primitive stuff is wonderful. No wonder the 'good' stuff is so amazing.

TheeRubberCow.aol.com (12/28/01)

What surprises me, since you bring up the price of these discs, is why when they put the Red and blue album on CD they made them two discs and charge $34!  I've even seen them in the mall for over 40, (and I don't live in Calfiornia.)  I know someone who has the Red Album on CD and I put in to see how long it was: half an hour each disc.  They could have put it all on one disc with almost 20 minutes to spare and then try charging $34!  sorry, had to get that out.

Patrick Daniel Squatriti (jehudas_2.hotmail.com) (10/21/03)

Hey man, Patrick here again, writing about your Beatles Anthology review. Just wanting to know what you think of Anth.2's version of "Tomorrow Never Knows". I thought it was the most brilliant thing ever to have recorded when I first heard it. And I probably still do.Ta.

Trfesok.aol.com (02/23/2005)

These are, basically, legal Beatles bootlegs. Some of this stuff has been out on bootlegs for years. Why shouldn't the Beatles make money off of this stuff? The stuff on the first volume isn't going to convert anyone, but it's interesting. It does prove that the Beatles weren't great live (but few early 60's groups were). The early "Can't Buy Me Love" is the most energetic. "Leave My Kitten Alone" is a decent For Sale outtake, although it's too bad that "You Know What to Do" was lost instead of being done up for the album instead. "In Spite of All the Danger" is way over the top as a title for a simple teen doo-wop song, but it's entertaining. And the very first "Love Me Do" illustrates perfectly why Pete Best had to be replaced -- the tempo varies way too much for a two minute song. Still, I agree -- new folks should buy all the proper albums first before getting this.

Anton Jägare (antonjagare.hotmail.com) (03/13/10)

I'm probably completely crazy here but...doesn't 'Real Love' sound like something straight from GodWeenSatan: The Oneness?

Otherwise, I actually rather enjoy these little albums, but they certainly shouldn't have been advertised as the great lost albums or whatever, and even the most desperate fanatic in search for more material should definitely start exploring the Beatles' solo careers before even getting close to this.