Beatles Thoughts

A couple of days ago I spent an invigorating couple of hours listening to the music of The Beatles, shuffling from album to album. Immersing myself in this music is always a life-affirming and uplifting experience, but a few things occurred to me, mostly concerning the nature of the songs written by Paul McCartney and John Lennon.

The songs were credited to "Lennon-McCartney", but many of them were primarily individual efforts, written in full by one songwriter or the other. Some opinion-formers have tended to pigeon-hole the two men, asserting that John Lennon wrote the edgy and perceptive stuff while categorizing McCartney's songs as more shallow and superficial. I never subscribed to this assessment, and closer inspection of the Beatles canon supports my view.

It was around 1964 that the songs started to become more "mature" and profound, but it was not always the frequently cited "contemporary" influences which had a direct affect on the subject matter in the songs. One interesting thread is what I call Paul McCartney's "kitchen sink" songs, such as "Eleanor Rigby", "She's Leaving Home" and "Lady Madonna". In those tracks everyday concerns are explored, but these are ones which the English in particular find awkward to discuss openly. Middle-aged loneliness, rather than youthful heartache. The generation gap between parents and offspring. The struggles of single mothers.

McCartney was often accused of being excessively sentimental in his post-Beatles career.  In the Fab Four, however, balancing factors were at work, and they helped imbue some of his songs with real authenticity, realism and focus. Of course, these balancing factors worked both ways, and this mechanism and its consequences were part of the magic of the group. One musician's presence or influence placed a check on the perceived "excesses" or flights of fancy of the other. And of course when there was genuine collaboration, the results were often spectacular, as witnessed on "We Can Work It Out" and "A Day In The Life", for instance.

The personal and creative dynamics operating within the Beatles contributed significantly to a highly developed and acute feel for quality control, as if they possessed some kind of sixth sense which helped them to determine what worked, and what didn't work. Considering the volume of material which they released in a relatively short period of time, and how experimental and innovative they were, there were very few lapses in taste. People have offered quasi-mystical explanations for this sensitivity and chemistry, but I prefer to believe that it was just a happy combination of circumstances, personnel and psychology.  These elements help to explain why The Beatles always appeared "relevant", seeming to be in tune with their audience, and with the times, without having to try too hard.

Incidences of this "sixth sense" can be found in the sentiments expressed by McCartney in songs such as "Yesterday", which is more often acclaimed purely for its melodic and musical strengths. "For No One", from Revolver,  is in the same vein. And of course "Hey Jude" exhibited that habit of harnessing and articulating universal feelings practically, simply and memorably without appearing mawkish.

Was John Lennon's approach more intuitive, instinctive and mercurial? A lot, but not all, of his stuff was introspective, existential or abstract, perhaps reflecting his innate personality and his background or upbringing, just as McCartney's temperament may go some way to explaining the character and backdrop of his own songs.

I find myself having these reflective moments whenever I go back to listening to Beatles records intensively. This is another thing which makes them so special and unique, setting them apart from those bands which, while possessing abundant technical and virtuoso proficiency, could never match The Beatles for humanistic depth and that ability to touch the soul.

Rubber Soul - The Beatles - album review

For a long time, it was blithely stated that "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was the greatest Beatles album. However, reason eventually prevailed, and that particular accolade was transferred to "Revolver". It was then predicted that the consensus of critical opinion would move backwards in time again, to identify 1965's "Rubber Soul" as their finest record. That process, correctly in my opinion, has never quite materialised, but "Rubber Soul" remains an important album for several reasons.

John Lennon I think once said that this was where the contemporary influences (by which I presume he meant Bob Dylan, folk-rock and 60s soul) started profoundly affecting the Beatles' work. These influences were arguably manifesting themselves earlier, but on "Rubber Soul" they have been subsumed maturely and naturally into the framework of the group's overall sound and dynamic.

This is certainly a more "mature" record than "Help!".  The latter indisputably contains some great songs (the title track, "Ticket To Ride", "Yesterday", "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away"), but much of the rest is shallow by the Beatles' standards. Of course, certain non-musical "lifestyle" factors had been at work since 1964, and it could be that on "Rubber Soul" the band had finally worked out how to best channel and harness these to generate creative energy and focus.

It almost goes without saying that the lyrical content was growing more experimental and varied. By late 1965 even the "love songs" display an enhanced worldliness and sophistication. It would take further spiritual awakenings and the introduction of other stimuli, before the full flowering of the "Revolver" period would emerge. That said, The Beatles were already exhibiting that uncanny tendency to be in tune with the way in which the socio-cultural wind was blowing, without being seen to "force the issue". Songs such as "The Word" are evidence of this.

There was also a sense that this album marked the next phase of the group's evolution, Beatlemania as such having reached its zenith on the preceding American tour. On "Rubber Soul", The Beatles exude the confidence of people who have begun to master the studio, whereas on the previous records they sound as though they are still chasing something. Psychologically, they are already entering the post-touring mentality and ethos, beginning to expand their horizons and explore new territory.

I'm not sure whether this album has historically been perceived as a "Lennon" album.  The songs which have lingered longest in the popular consciousness ("Norwegian Wood", "Nowhere Man", "In My Life"), were his creations. On the other hand, Paul McCartney's presence looms large, not just in his songwriting contributions, but also in his vocal and instrumental versatility and ebullience, which always enriched and enlivened the other members' songs. To me, it genuinely feels like a collective effort, as indeed would "Revolver".

There is still some filler here, but it is superior filler, and by and large it does not tarnish the overall impression of a strong album. If anything this is despite rather than because of the running order; the record does rather tail off, with weaker material predominating towards the close.

This is probably my fourth favourite Beatles LP. "Abbey Road" is glorious pop/rock with added poignancy, "The White Album" is a sprawling and engagingly chaotic document of its times, and "Revolver" is an effervescent case of the Swinging Sixties merging into the counter-culture and psychedelia.  "Rubber Soul" cannot claim that kind of cogency, but it is nevertheless a satisfying listening experience.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles - album review

When the recorded output of the Beatles is discussed, the 1967 album "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" is a touchy subject. Some rather lazily proclaim it as "the greatest album of all time", while others seek to distract attention from its (minor) shortcomings by emphasizing the record's cultural and social impact and importance.

I first heard "Sgt. Pepper" in its entirety about 25-30 years ago, when a member of my family purchased the vinyl version. I was somewhat underwhelmed, although admittedly my musical palate was woefully under-developed at that stage, and I had yet to appreciate the greatness of the Beatles in general. To my ears, it all seemed a little lacking in drama and "punch". In those days, anything which did not feature blazing guitar riffs and power chords I treated with a touch of disdain.

I re-appraised the album again in the mid-1990s, when the whole "Anthology" project re-ignited my interest in the Fab Four, and I explored their entire back catalogue. My assessment was more nuanced, and my by then more discerning ears were more receptive, but it still did not live up to the "the hype". In fairness, by that stage "the hype" was being counter-balanced by the surfeit of Beatles scholarship available, much of which placed "Sgt. Pepper" in its proper place, and tended to champion "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul" instead. One is tempted to wonder whether that line of thinking itself has now become tired and dated.  Personally, these days I prefer "The White Album" and "Abbey Road", but that's another story!

One thing I would say is that "Sgt. Pepper" cleverly "tricks" people into thinking that it is better and more substantial than it really is. This is partially due to the lavish packaging, the "aura" of a concept and the astute sequencing of the tracks.

John Lennon was later dismissive of the notion that this was a concept album, pointing out that his own contributions were "autonomous" songs, not intended to nourish or realize any greater goal. Ringo Starr I think was nearer the mark in one of the "Anthology" videos when he implied that the group started out with the loose intention of making such a record, but then decided just to record songs. He did correctly observe, however, that the finished article retained some of the flavour of embracing some vague central theme. Lennon was accurate in his suggestion that people became convinced that there was some "concept" because the Beatles said so! The mesmeric power of the Beatles having its effect on public and press alike?  Was major criticism of the Beatles still something of a taboo in 1967?

The album exudes a polish and a charm which mask the deficiencies. A very "clean" sound is evident, partially resulting from the lesser role allotted to electric guitars. Paul McCartney I think has remarked that around that time he was striving for such a sound, perhaps inspired by the achievement of Brian Wilson on the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds". The music-hall flavour of much of the music here helped to nurture the Sgt. Pepper "myth". Other artists had already been experimenting with such styles, but their adoption by the Beatles gave them mainstream acceptance and credibility.

The opening sequence of songs ("Sgt. Pepper", "With A Little Help From My Friends", "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds") generates momentum, even if on closer inspection the material is unexceptional and relatively shallow. The momentum is not maintained, as the album then goes off on various tangents.

Of course, with "Friends" and "Lucy" we come to one of the main talking points which surrounds the work. What are these songs really about?  The Beatles were thought to take delight in teasing people by making songs open to certain interpretations, and may have enjoyed poking fun at those in the media and elsewhere who had a tendency to over-intellectualize rock music. One of the strengths of the Lennon-McCartney stable was its capacity to make the compositions work on more than one level.

Some of these numbers have acquired a reputation and popularity somewhat out of proportion to their artistic merit. They might not have merited much attention if they had been performed by Fred Bloggs. In the event, because they were "Beatle songs", minute scrutiny, and a plethora of cover versions, were sure to follow.

Many of the songs on this LP lack the incisiveness of other parts of the Beatles' discography, and I would also dispute the assertion that "Sgt. Pepper" represented the apotheosis of the Swinging Sixties. That accolade belongs, in Beatles terms anyway, to "Revolver".  Did the 1967 record, together with the double A-side single "Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane", instead signify a watershed of sorts, before the Sixties went in another direction entirely?

The relative roles and contributions of the individual Beatles bear close examination. It is commonly regarded as a "McCartney album", and it's tempting to regard this as the point at which Paul, in tandem with George Martin, began to assume something of an ascendancy. Yes, he did come up with the "concept", and by some measurements contributes more than the others, but to say that he dominates the record is erroneous. The album's piece-de-resistance was largely the brainchild of his partner/rival. Lennon was mildly dismissive about "Sgt. Pepper" in later years, ironic indeed when one considers "A Day In The Life". Maybe he was resentful at how the project came to be perceived as a Paul vehicle, or perhaps his attitude reflected tensions which were just beginning to emerge within the group.

George Harrison is mostly a peripheral figure on this particular record, a blip in the steadily burgeoning influence which he had been enjoying within the Beatles. Even his song "Within You, Without You" is eclipsed by "Love You To" from the previous year. It has been hinted that George's blossoming interests outside the band contributed to this temporary plateau in his contribution.

"A Day In The Life" can be difficult to get one's teeth into unless the listener concentrates on what John Lennon is trying to say, and absorbs the symbolism of the arrangements. Once these things are accomplished, its glories become clear. Paul's middle section adds to the effect, and prevents the piece from becoming over-earnest, but as an example of Lennon/McCartney "syncretism" its importance has arguably been a touch exaggerated. One thing I would contend is that "A Day In The Life" is another example of how the Beatles (and their producer) possessed some intangible musical "sixth sense", which enabled them to determine what worked and what didn't.

"Sgt. Pepper" is pleasing and distinctive in its utilization of unconventional sounds, these primarily extracted from conventional instruments. Keyboards (and occasionally guitars) are made to emit sounds which do not outwardly resemble those traditionally associated with them. This quality the album shares with "Pet Sounds", and is also symptomatic of the time and care which the boys were able to lavish on their creation.

The songs forming the heart of the album ("Getting Better", "When I'm Sixty Four", "Lovely Rita" and "Good Morning Good Morning") are all beautifully crafted, and because of the band's humour and joie de vivre, immensely likeable. However, they fall short of genius in their own right as individual pieces. The album's supporters will point to the part these tracks play in making up the "Sgt. Pepper" mosaic, the big picture which makes it an "album" in the truest sense of that term.

"She's Leaving Home" appears to polarize opinion, amongst the critics at least. There is a fine line between capturing a mood perfectly and descending into over-sentimentality, and a few people have tentatively insinuated that the line was crossed by this number. I adopt a middle view, and tend to regard it as a cousin of "Eleanor Rigby". As a take on inter-generational tension and strife it is less overtly strident and subversive, but more affecting and poignant, than most of what was being written on the subject by others at the time.

So how do we judge "Sgt. Pepper", leaving aside personal tastes?  It signalled a further intensification of rock's elevation to that of an art-form worthy of cerebral discussion, and cemented the Beatles' place in the vanguard of that process. The musical merits of the record will continue to be debated so long as there is air to breathe, but in pop-cultural terms it might be the single achievement for which they will be best remembered.

Revolver - The Beatles - album review

Of all the albums recorded by The Beatles, perhaps none more epitomised the Swinging Sixties than Revolver, released in 1966.  Embodying some of the sunny optimism of the time, but also exuding a sophistication and a keener affinity with counter-cultural concerns.

This record was made when The Beatles were still a touring band, before their retreat into a more reclusive and studio-bound existence. Although some of the tracks on Revolver are very much studio creations, others very much inhabit guitar-band territory, with added "attitude" and occasionally tinged with a nascent psychedelia.  One can discern the influence of 1966-era Beatles guitar-orientated material in the New Wave groups of the late 1970s and early 1980s, and even in later indie bands.

Having said that Revolver exudes the vibrancy of its era, it is also worth noting that the scope of its lyrical concerns was very broad, encompassing more social commentary than before, and containing many references to emergent underground culture. The Beatles were by no means unique in exploring virgin subject matter, but the sheer variety of the topics on Revolver is remarkable. Death, taxes, loneliness, consciousness, war and mind-altering substances - they are all there.

It is often said that the complementary strengths and approaches of Lennon and McCartney were some of the ingredients which made the Beatles special.  However on Revolver such simplistic pigeon-holing is not really applicable, as both men are in creative and restless form.  It cannot be smugly declared that one songwriter's contributions are edgy and subversive, whilst the other's are more conservative.  The fact that both rise to the occasion, and push themselves, helps give the album additional depth and sweep.

The record's closing track, "Tomorrow Never Knows" doesn't so much close the book on one era, as open a door and peer into an exciting but unpredictable future.  I would argue that the song has been excessively acclaimed in purely musical terms, but symbolically, and as a statement of intent, its effect was startling, probably more so on their peers and the "in crowd" than on Joe Public.

The continued blossoming of George Harrison added another dimension.  His often contradictory concerns were being projected with greater clarity, as exemplified by "Taxman" and "Love You To", and this greatly augmented the group's eclecticism and mystique.  This was the stage at which George truly advanced from being a mere guitar player to something much more integral.

Many of the songs on Revolver are pervaded by a peculiar, almost sleepy and indolent, ambience, which sets it apart from the warm crispness of Rubber Soul and the flawless perfectionism of "Sgt Pepper". Production techniques may have played a part, but there could have been other contributory factors.

There were sign-posts for the future, with unconventional instrumentation and studio experimentation, but The Beatles never lost sight of the fundamental importance of good songwriting and craftsmanship, and these sensibilities are on full display on tracks such as "Got To Get You Into My Life", "For No One" and "Here, There and Everywhere".

Listening to the record, I am also reminded of the apparent effortlessness with which this album was turned out. On other Beatles albums, for all their undoubted quality and charm, one can sense how hard they were trying.  On Revolver, very little feels "forced" or calculating.  It was as if creativity and ideas were flowing naturally from the musicians, with no need for gimmicks or pretension.

Revolver represents a peak of sorts.  Other artists would have sensed that they had nothing further to say, but time would amply demonstrate that The Beatles were in many respects only just beginning....