Yesterday (2019 film)

 It recently occurred to me that, even as a very keen and longstanding fan of The Beatles, I had still not seen the 2019 "Beatles-themed" film 'Yesterday', directed by Danny Boyle. Anyway, I finally put this to rights, and thought I would offer a few thoughts on the movie.

The basic premise of the story is that Jack Malik, a struggling singer-songwriter, is involved in a traffic accident, following which he transfers to some alternate reality, an alternate reality where the music of The Beatles has never been heard. He then, in effect, passes off The Beatles' songs as his own compositions, and becomes a global sensation.

However unlikely and "frothy" the film is in its implementation, it does have its positives. The Jack Malik character is relatable and likeable, and these elements are well brought out by Himesh Patel's performance. Some of the other characters, especially Jack's friends, are likeable too.

This possesses many of the characteristics of the romantic-comedy genre, but with added surrealism and strangeness. As with many other modern movies, it contains too much CGI and "artificiality" for my own tastes, although I appreciate that not everyone is overly bothered about these things. When visuals start to become less organic, my interest wavers.

One of the (minor) issues I had with 'Yesterday' was the essence of the storyline. As a lover of the music of the Fab Four, I found it troublesome and elusive to grasp the idea, as The Beatles are so ubiquitous and pervasive in our culture and in my own psyche. That said, it is quite cute and touching to see the music portrayed as being heard for the first time. 

The decision to base Jack in deepest Suffolk was a sound one, and makes this a bit different from other similar British films, which tend to be rather London-centric. Ed Sheeran's role wasn't quite as irritating and cliched as I might have suspected.

It is a difficult film to sum up; it is neither particularly hard-edged or excessively corny. "Quirky" is possibly a good term to use. Perhaps I should just learn to accept relatively undemanding culture on its own terms, rather than insisting that it should always say something profound or enlightening.....

A Hard Day's Night - The Beatles - album analysis

In assessing the back catalogue of The Beatles, one curious thought has assailed my mind. It occurs to me that the album "A Hard Day's Night", though a highly accomplished and engaging work, is somewhat overlooked and underrated, if not exactly forgotten. So why the relative indifference?  This is possibly because the record gets rather lost in the shadow of the film of the same name, which admittedly is a charming and sharp piece. 

For me, the album represents a very definite and solid staging point in the group's maturation and development, but such accolades are normally reserved for the albums which followed it, including "Rubber Soul" and parts of "Help". 

There is a peculiar solidity and compactness about "A Hard Day's Night", insomuch as it has little in the way of egregious filler material (what filler exists is skilfully concealed) or "outlier" tracks. The "holes" which characterize many albums of that era are not perceptible, and the "Merseybeat" elements are slowly evaporating.

The record also possessed a distinct stylistic or sonic unity, and ironically this particular quality may contribute to a perception that it is "samey" and lacking in variety. This impression is actually illusory, but by the same token close scrutiny is required to draw out the material and cut through any misconceptions.

It is noteworthy that this record contains only "Lennon-McCartney" song-writing credits, and this tendency doubtless helps to bolster the feeling of uniformity when regarding the work. One thing which I think can be said for certain is that "A Hard Day's Night" is not a transitional album; it captures The Beatles in a stable, buoyant and self-confident place. 

A point to remember is that the group managed to maintain such excellence and focus amidst a hectic and demanding schedule of touring and other activity. Even the Beatles were human, however, and similar feats proved beyond them in late 1964 and into 1965. The seeds of "Rubber Soul" can be discerned here, I would contend, but the full realisation of that promise would have to wait, delayed by the workload imposed by their commitments.

The burst of creativity and ideas emanating from John Lennon at this time may have saved "A Hard Day's Night" from a fate similar to that which befell "Beatles for Sale" and "Help". Also, the adrenaline and excitement of the first portion of 1964 helped to forestall ennui and world-weariness. This album has a reputation as a "Lennon album", but Paul McCartney's contributions, as composer, vocalist and instrumentalist are impactful and of a high standard.

The earthy and organic textures of this LP are intriguing, and possibly stem in part from the breadth and pervasiveness of the influences which the members of The Beatles were absorbing in 1964, including folk music and the nascent folk-rock scene. 

I feel that the absence of cover versions imbues the record with a forward-looking, streamlined and purposeful identity and momentum. This is almost akin to a crystallization of their development and growth to date. The ascent to the next level was perhaps less smooth and straightforward than they might have envisaged.

"Thinking out loud" slightly now, but this collection inaugurated what I have tended to view as a distinct phase, spanning 1964-65, one of more acoustic-tinged fare, a maturing of the songwriting, and the eventual forsaking of the rock n roll covers. It could be argued that the relatively disjointed nature of the two albums which followed "A Hard Day's Night" was an inevitable consequence of the process of evolution.

As mentioned earlier, it is recognised that John Lennon's personality and song-writing predominate on these sides, but that Paul McCartney's all-round musical panache and exuberance contribute greatly to the overall effect. Additionally, McCartney's own songs make up in interest and quality what they lack in sheer volume. There is an argument for saying that this is the first Beatles album where the complementary strengths and traits of Lennon and McCartney really interact and make their presence felt in a noticeable and meaningful way. Lennon's restless energy and brooding spirit mesh with McCartney's dynamism and optimism, the facets reacting agreeably in elevating the group to new heights.

Examining the record track-by-track, I would say that the title song tends to be taken for granted, but it is very impactful, with its famous opening "chord" and the arpeggiated ending. The music in between those two points is very impressive, having a raw rhythm and blues feel, and in that sense it is a quintessential Lennon song. This number deserves to be re-appraised in isolation from the film of the same name.

"I Should Have Known Better" is eminently likeable, and for me it typifies a slight incongruity with some Beatle songs of the period, that of maturing musical content and aspirations, but progress was not necessarily reflected in correspondingly "advanced" lyrics. However, the Dylanesque harmonica and a pleasing melodic base override any minor reservations.

The next song, "If I Fell", is an example of sumptuous Beatles vocal harmonies of a kind which they should really have tried more often on record. It is also emblematic of the fluent melodicism and musicality which are characteristic of the LP as a whole.

Although George Harrison did not get one of his own compositions on to the album, he was allotted a lead vocal spot on "I'm Happy Just to Dance with You". By no means a masterpiece, but it also emits some of that spark and charm which graced almost everything which they touched around this time.

"And I Love Her" is a number which displays the burgeoning sophistication of The Beatles as song-writers and musicians. There is also a hint of a "confessional" style of lyrics, exploring relationships and personal experiences in a more advanced manner. The song is pleasantly tuneful in the customary McCartney way.

I always found "Tell Me Why" to be filler material of sorts. It sounds good and it helps to fill out the album running order, but the filler here is less jarring and conspicuous than in the releases made by their contemporaries. It has some brio and joie de vivre, and Lennon's vocal is quite forceful and memorable.

"Can't Buy Me Love", one of the record's most famous songs, is another one which illustrates a growing polish and confidence in the group's work. I suspect that tunes such as this one brought more people of the older generations into the Beatles' camp, as it swings like some jazz and "easy listening" recordings. The production is also smooth and clean.

From the same territory as "Tell Me Why" comes "Any Time At All", a song which is not from the top drawer, but which packs quite a punch. It has sufficient atmosphere and melody to maintain the interest and the attention. Lennon once again impresses on vocals, and the piece exudes some assurance.

"I'll Cry Instead" is another of those tracks which is unexceptional, but which blends seamlessly into the fabric of the project. There is a country and western flavour, and this genre crept into the band's output in the period 1964-65, courtesy in part of Ringo Starr's musical leanings. Also, country music is not a great leap from the rockabilly so beloved by all four Beatles. I detect a Rolling Stones vibe in parts of this song, the verses especially.

Another highlight, in a quiet way, of the collection is "Things We Said Today". The lyrics are interesting and the song has an affectingly enigmatic, almost haunting, quality. It signals a shift away from formulaic song-craft.

Probably the weakest effort on the record is "When I Get Home". It is rather uninspired, but never genuinely becomes a "sore thumb", in the sense of tarnishing the overall effect of the album. It is not quite as bad as some reviewers have alleged, and it has a few interesting moments.

"You Can't Do That" performs an important role in the running order. Its R & B flavour imbues the album with some rhythmic incisiveness and breaks up the diet of folk-rock and beat music which pervades the LP. 

The closer, "I'll Be Back", is another slice of "wooden" folk-inflected music, epitomizing the forward-looking dimensions of this work, and anticipating the "Help" and "Rubber Soul" eras to come. 

On reflection, "A Hard Day's Night" is one of The Beatles' most impressive and solid achievements. The hallmarks of the early days are still there, but the future direction and influences are also visible. A crucial and coherent part of the canon.

Now And Then - "new" Beatles song

 I am sure that I was not alone in my eager and curious anticipation of the release of "Now And Then", billed as the last Beatles song. I have to confess that I was there, refreshing the page on my chosen streaming service as the time of release approached. So, what do I make of "Now And Then"?

Inevitably, when appraising the single, people are going to draw comparisons with "Free as A Bird" and "Real Love", the two Beatles tracks which emerged from similar foundations and source material, and which formed part of the Anthology projects in the 1990s.

For me "Now And Then" betrays more signs of its origins than its aforementioned predecessors, but at the same time the production and the arrangement which surround the lead vocal feel more organic and restrained.

The atmosphere of the track is somewhat mournful, enveloped in a kind of wistfulness. My initial reaction was that this is apposite for our times, a sense of melancholy, ennui and nagging anxiety. Was this general tenor intended to tap into the perceived public mood of 2023? I'm not really sure, but it was one of the first characteristics of "Now And Then" which jumped out to me. It may be another case of that perennial Beatles facility for effortlessly evoking the zeitgeist. 

On the face of it the song lacks the "charm" and ebullience of, for instance, "Real Love", and even its musical subtlety, but that may be missing the point; on reflection, "Now And Then" should perhaps be viewed more as a "mood piece", rather than as a hook-laden potboiler. 

In putting the track together, they resisted the temptation to try too hard to make it "exciting", relying instead on the qualities of the basic song, then judiciously embellishing the raw material, as it were.

I think they have done a commendable job in playing to the song's strengths and lyrical direction, as opposed to making it into something that it wasn't. Having suggested that the overall ambience is downbeat, I think that the instrumentation and arrangement are in keeping with the reflective nature of the words. The piano and electric guitars are tastefully done, and Ringo Starr's drumming exhibits his distinctive "feel" to some effect.

So, overall a creditable effort, provided that the listener did not have excessive expectations beforehand. It sounds "modern", which to some degree is inescapable, but it has a personality and an effect. 

With The Beatles (1963 album)

With The Beatles, the sophomore album by the Liverpudlian beat combo, was seen as a step up in polish and sophistication, if lacking some of the infectious naivete and spontaneity of the first record.

It has been observed that more time and care was taken over this one, as evidenced by the arty (and much imitated and parodied) cover design. The darker, less frivolous ambience does reflect a maturing of sorts, but in purely musical terms  the progression is perhaps only slightly discernible to the untrained ear.

As on the debut, they start off proceedings with a strong album-only track, although "It Won't Be Long" emerges as a fairly mediocre song upon closer inspection.  It is made memorable and impactful by the taut and urgent way in which it is put together, with fine vocal interplay and meaty guitar parts.  Lots of action packed into just over two minutes, with little time to draw breath.

A trend which emerges for me is how much more measured and in control the band is on this record. Quiet confidence and a less frenetic flavour. John Lennon excels vocally throughout, and songs such as "All My Loving" exhibit a growth in musical finesse and savvy. As has been frequently pointed out, it seems remarkable that compositions of this quality could be consigned to being "mere" album tracks.

It is worth acknowledging at this juncture that the record is not uniformly strong.  There is some filler, such as "Don't Bother Me"  and "Little Child", but the running order is cleverly arranged and paced so as to make the album seem slightly stronger than it really is. Versatility is much on display, with the boys having excursions into something approaching Tin Pin Alley ("Till There Was You").

As on several of the Beatles' early albums, we are served up a mixture of original numbers and cover versions. The covers are of variable quality here, it should be stressed. The rendition of "Please Mr. Postman" is a wonder of control and vibrancy, both Lennon, on lead, and McCartney and Harrison, on harmonies/backing vocals, starring. Their interpretation of "Money (That's What I Want)", packs a considerable punch, if less immediately likeable than some of their other covers.

The version of "Roll Over Beethoven" feels rather perfunctory and uninspired, but one wonders how different it might have turned out had McCartney or Lennon taken the lead vocal. "You've Really Got a Hold On Me" is interpreted with great acuity and restraint, once again the voices blend and intertwine beautifully. The group seemed especially suited to covering songs in this style or sub-genre.

For all its status as a song which became a Rolling Stones single, "I Wanna Be Your Man" is rather turgid, and helps complete the complement of filler. It is not surprising that the lads felt no qualms about "giving away" this song to their nearest British competitors.

"Devil In Her Heart" is minor but enjoyable, with some pleasing harmonies and chord changes. The Beatles in their element in many ways.  "Not A Second Time" is a fascinating and mildly "experimental" creation which is often forgotten, but it exudes in a quiet way some of those qualities which would soon place The Beatles well beyond the reach of most of their contemporaries.

So to sum up, With The Beatles is an advance on its predecessor, even it it less enjoyable and exuberant in an immediate sense. The musicians sound less anxious to please, having surmounted some of the pressing obstacles on the first record. The signs of their more folk-rock-orientated and acoustic phase, which was only months in the future, are not really there, but this only underscores the feverish and dynamic nature of the Sixties and the Beatles' artistic development.

Help! - The Beatles - album review

When I first bought the Beatles' albums on CD, in the mid-1990s, and listened to them in their entirety for the first time in my life, I remember being especially impressed with Help!, because of the pristine clarity of the stereo mix, the prevalence of electric piano and the jolly ambience of some of the songs.

As time has gone on, however, I have come to realize that this record is perhaps the most uneven in the Beatles' illustrious catalogue. It contains songs which are symptomatic of major artistic and philosophical advancement and insight, but these triumphs are interspersed with some rather insipid and lightweight material.

So whilst Help! exhibits clear signs of a growing maturity, it also betrays evidence of the "tiredness" and lack of inspiration which had also been deemed to have characterized Beatles For Sale. However, I would opine that "For Sale" had more coherence and substance.  Some of the "filler" on this 1965 release is little better than that being purveyed by other beat bands of the mid-60s.  The lifestyle changes and influences which the Beatles were encountering in 1964/65 did not have a uniformly beneficial impact on their work, and this may help to explain the inconsistency.

The reason why this album at first appears better than it really is, I think stems from the production and arrangements, which manage to conceal the mediocrity of a few of the songs. "The Night Before" is an example of this. Other tracks which are great performances, rather than masterly songs, would include "Another Girl" and "Your'e Gonna Lose That Girl", with their intricate vocal and guitar parts.

The version of "It's Only" which features here is, I think, inferior to the one later included on the Anthology 2 collection.  "I've Just Seen A Face", though, is Paul McCartney at his best, an engaging gem of spontaneity, exuding an energy and conviction which is sometimes lacking elsewhere.

Little else needs to be said about "Yesterday". It is another one of those Beatles classics which benefits from the group's (and George Martin's) uncanny aptitude for taste and quality control, knowing instinctively how to treat a high-quality idea, creating the requisite mood without blemishing or clouding the essential quality.

"You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" is a simple but sublimely profound song.  Several interpretations of the lyrics are possible, and several were likely intended, I suspect. It doesn't push itself too hard, a hallmark of the group at its best.

The title track also feels very natural and unforced.  Its words hint at some of the pressures which were having a bearing on the combo's output, whilst clearly illustrating their increasing willingness and capacity to articulate such emotions poetically and credibly.

The most energetic and assertive number on the record, "Ticket To Ride", is not totally out of kilter with what was being produced by the Beatles' contemporaries, but it is somehow rendered futuristic by some standout features. Ringo Starr's thundering but idiosyncratic drumming, and McCartney's brilliant harmonies, elevate it beyond the ordinary.

For me, the fly-in-the-ointment, is the cover version of "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" which closes out the album. In truth, it is not that bad a rendition, but it rather does signify the confusing and disjointed nature of the work. One expects the final track on a Beatles track to be a hint of impending growth and development, and its presence on the album would have been less egregious if it had been hidden away somewhere in the middle of the running order.

This is a fine record, for all its flaws, but despite the consummate quality of some of the music, as a project it still feels rather thrown together.  The stresses and strains of the treadmill of fame were clearly exerting some effect, but that undefinable magic pulled them through, and they were to go from strength to strength as recording artists.

The Beach Boys

There exists in the rock music world a "pantheon", reserved for those artists deemed to be the most influential, creative and innovative. The Beach Boys are generally in there, but I get the feeling that for some this is a rather grudging accolade, and they are in some respects still misunderstood and underrated.

Several reasons can be put forward to explain why The Beach Boys' image is nebulous. Their career was long, fragmented and frequently messy. There was little of the bookended tidiness which characterized the reign of The Beatles.

Some even accused them of being "derivative" of people like Phil Spector and Brill Building pop, and of course some of their early material contained riffs and rhythms reminiscent of Chuck Berry. Let's face it, though, most bands and singers wear their influences on their sleeves early in their careers.

The very name "The Beach Boys" didn't exactly help either. It propagated the idea, in the public consciousness, that they were inextricably linked with sun, sea and surf, and it was something of a millstone in that respect. Even relatively early in their career The Beach Boys were producing work, such as "The Warmth Of The Sun", "In My Room" and "Don't Worry Baby", which exhibited a reach and an outlook which utterly outstripped most of their contemporaries and also transcended the constrictions of whatever "scene" they might have been associated with.

One can see, with closer analysis, that these early gems were pointing the way forward towards "Pet Sounds", "Smile", an so forth. A view of human emotions and love which went beyond the cliched depictions which were so prevalent in pop music at that time, into something almost spiritual in nature, complemented by the sometimes otherworldly beauty of the music, especially the vocal harmonies. Direct comparisons are invidious, but I would say that The Beach Boys were at the very least "level" with their British counterparts in 1964 or thereabouts, both in technical terms and in the emotional and philosophical depth and maturity of their outpourings.

It is often difficult to escape the feeling that people do not really listen to Beach Boys records. They go into it with preconceived notions of what the music is, and what it represents.  The true nuances and charm of the music, the originality of the arrangements and the strength of the concepts, pass them by.

"California Girls" has been seen as a turning point, or a watershed of sorts, because of the circumstances under which it was conceived by Brian Wilson.  Some of the advances present in the song are subtle and almost imperceptible.  However, the wonderful introduction is striking to behold, and there is a sense of greater scale and sweep.  The Beach Boys were subject to the same influences and "revelations" which were expanding the horizons of rock's other principal exponents in the mid-Sixties. A certain spirit can be detected in "California Girls", as if a door was slowly being opened onto a new and more colourful vista.

"Pet Sounds" very much bears the stamp of Brian Wilson. It does have a coherent flavour, if we conveniently overlook the fly in the ointment that is "Sloop John B".  Brian does much of the singing on the record, and the arrangements throughout have a uniformity.  The power of some of the songs is almost overwhelming ("Wouldn't It Be Nice", "God Only Knows", "Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder)", "Caroline, No"). It makes few compromises, and this contributes to its artistic weight, because it makes an overall statement about the auteur's view of himself and the world around him. Uncommercial, maybe, but the single greatest album released by The Beach Boys during their peak years.

Not long after "Pet Sounds", things began to fall apart, although "Surf's Up", arguably the group's greatest individual song, was originally spawned by the "Smile" sessions, eventually being completed and surfacing in 1971. The "Smile" songs and ideas display breathtaking ambition and originality, in advance of almost everyone else around at the time.  Of course, not all of these ideas were properly realized, and some would opine that the project was excessively experimental.  However, it is a sign of how far rock music had come, and of how visionary Brian Wilson had become.

So, for me a reappraisal of The Beach Boys is long overdue. I don't always think that they the general public admires them for "the right reasons". They should be revered for their sublime earlier masterpieces, and the fruits of the "Pet Sounds"/"Smile" era, but all too often the public (and the mainstream media) place excessive weight on the chirpy "surf" tunes.

The Beach Boys did not display the same consistency, stability and concentrated creative staying power as The Beatles and others, but at their very best they produced pop/rock music which has seldom been equalled.

Out Of The Blue - Electric Light Orchestra - album review

In the corridors of music history, there is a curious tendency for a consensus to emerge about what is a particular artist's best album, when that artist has produced other work which is far more deserving of that accolade. I put this down in part to lazy "scholarship", and the herd mentality which guides these matters.

I am inclined to think that Electric Light Orchestra's Out Of The Blue does not quite, in the cold light of day, live up to the uncontested glow which has surrounded it since its 1977 release. It does contain some entertaining and enjoyable tunes, and it is overflowing with the craftsmanship for which Jeff Lynne is rightly famous. The Beatles leanings are still clearly evident, with increasing echoes of Roy Orbison in some of the ballads.

The quality of the songs and the level of inspiration are uneven though, even allowing for the quota of filler material which turns up on most double LPs. The production and sound are steadily growing distant from the more earthy and organic character of the group's earlier works, and too many of the tracks are bathed in a certain clinical sheen, which unnecessarily obscures and stifles potential nuances.

Notwithstanding my criticisms, what is good on Out Of The Blue is very good indeed. The curtain-raiser, "Turn To Stone", does not fall victim to the excessive lushness which is evident elsewhere. There is abundant melodic invention and energy here, the latter largely stemming from the bass-synth which propels the piece along, and the "detached" feel of the vocal.  The song has its own persona and dynamism.

A song which has a similarly infectious charm is "Sweet Talkin' Woman", with some pleasingly intricate vocal arrangements, and the song manages to maintain its bite and momentum, a tribute to Lynne's innate pop sensibility.  These qualities are also on display on "Across The Border", one of those interesting and quirky "minor" tracks which pop up throughout ELO's canon.

Many of the tracks betray a genuine effort to convey atmosphere, story and mood - "cinematic" thinking, one might even say.  "Night In The City" is a case in point, although on reflection the song somehow loses its impetus, and never quite lives up to its impressive and evocative opening stages.

The weaker material is largely concentrated in the "middle" of Out Of The Blue, and this may be one of the reasons why it appears better and more consistently strong than it really is.  "Believe Me Now" is a likeable if throwaway vignette.  The "Concerto for A Rainy Day" (side three of the vinyl LP) was a clever idea, but does not really work for me, with the glaring exception of "Mr Blue Sky".

"Mr Blue Sky" has over the years gradually become Electric Light Orchestra's signature tune, and I discern that it is a distant relative of The Beatles' "A Day In The Life", although it is philosophically much less profound or ambitious. It is the song's innocence and kaleidoscopic zest which I find irresistible, rather than its musical complexity.

The double-album format permits the odd bit of experimentation, such as the instrumental "The Whale", as well as excursions like the endearing paean to the band's home town, "Birmingham Blues".

The album's concluding track, "Wild West Hero", harks back to the Eldorado days in its outlook, and is one of the group's forgotten gems, possibly because it is deemed to be less "radio friendly" than some of their other hits. The production becomes excessive towards the end, and this negates some of the melodic charm, although the bombast may have been intended to sign the album off with a grandiose flourish.

So, there we have it. A collection of melodic, lovingly crafted pop/rock songs, and some vague sense of cohesion,  but the sound is becoming overly formulaic even in 1977.  Out Of The Blue is definitely worth checking out, but for a more satisfying and authentic take on Electric Light Orchestra, seek out On The Third Day, Eldorado or A New World Record, or indeed any of their earlier releases.

Revolution In The Head - The Beatles' Records and The Sixties - Ian MacDonald

The Beatles and their music have probably commanded more acres of print than any other pop-culture phenomenon in human history. However, if you are just looking for one book to condense the relevance, spirit and impact of their music, then Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head is the one to go for.

As well as exploring how the Beatles shaped, and were shaped by, the Sixties, this work analyses, song-by-song, the group's discography.  As a consequence, an enhanced and broadened understanding of the decade and The Beatles is imparted, even if this does not claim to be a "biography" as such.

The "Introduction" sets the scene, and it is forcefully but subtly argued, offering some observations and theories about the Sixties, the special qualities of The Beatles and, for example, how the differing styles of Lennon and McCartney came about. There is a detailed and perceptive look at 1967 and the counterculture, and how these phenomena were regarded by subsequent generations. Some might find these passages heavy going, but they are essential to the overall message of the book. For me, the most noteworthy thing to emerge was the notion that The Beatles and their peers were among the first to vigorously harness social and cultural shifts which were probably already in progress even before the Sixties dawned.

The "commentary" on the Beatles is hugely entertaining, engrossing and authoritative, packed with anecdotes and astute insight. The author's knowledge and understanding give the articles a real fluency, and in citing influences for songs, he doesn't always give the "obvious" reference points, so the reader's grasp of Sixties pop will be widened. Lesser-known figures and records are brought in from the historical cold.

It is worth pointing out that the author does not pretend that everything the Beatles recorded was beyond reproach. He speaks out when he feels that something is weak and mediocre, or when a lapse in taste has occurred. Some of his opinions on certain tracks may even be uncomfortable reading for long-term fans (for example, "All You Need Is Love", "Nowhere Man", "Across The Universe"). He also highlights examples where The Beatles were following musical fashions instigated by others, and stages where others had stolen a march on them.

Having read quite a bit about The Beatles over the past couple of decades, it seems to me that it is "fashionable" to deride certain songs, or to excessively laud others. MacDonald advances cogent and carefully argued reasons for his views, aided by his trained and perceptive ears, and this challenges us to be intellectually honest, even with hitherto cherished songs, and this has to be a healthy development.

One of the real delights of Revolution In The Head is the resourcefulness with which MacDonald brings out the nuances in the music, coupled with his keen sense of when The Beatles exhibited that intangible magic which often placed them in the vanguard of things.  He goes well beyond the superficial and the elementary in explaining the and interpreting the meanings and motivations behind the music.

Also, the book is admirably compact and concise, and even though the subject matter is very ambitious in places, the words are usually proportionate. It doesn't pretend that everything was wondrous and epoch-making. It gives a summation, and moves on.  In short, this book is immensely readable and vibrant....

Through the studies of the Beatles' records, we are also able to trace the development of the members, in terms of artistic influences and social outlook. This is most clearly discernible to me in the cases of John Lennon and George Harrison. In addition, the evolution of the "pecking order" within the band is a sub-plot, often related to the waxing and waning in the relative creative vigour of Lennon and McCartney.

As the songs are tackled in the chronological order of the commencement of their recording, we are also able to see the maturing in the songwriting, and the increasing willingness to experiment in the studio. One is also struck by how The Beatles maintained their musical standards, despite being faced with what seems to modern sensibilities to have been an absurdly hectic and gruelling schedule, often recording multiple tracks in a single day. The spur of competition in the creative process is also illustrated, both within the group itself and with their peers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Perhaps the most compelling sections of this book are those which deal with the period when Swinging London was at its height. The feverish energy and excitement of those times is palpable, and one can gain a real feel for the bubbling inventiveness, the exchange of ideas and the sunny optimism.

You possibly won't agree with everything which the author says, but the quality of the writing and the scholarship here wins the day, blending erudition with enthusiasm.  This book will enrich your understanding of the Beatles and that era, and it will also enrich your life.

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.

Eldorado - Electric Light Orchestra - album review

They may not be too fashionable, but I retain a fondness and respect for the music of the Electric Light Orchestra. My brother got into them long before I fully appreciated their merits. Jeff Lynne's pop craftsmanship and gift for melody were the band's major assets. Refreshingly ELO did not set out to change the world;they simply aimed to make good music.

In declaring my liking for ELO's work, I would stress that my tastes have gravitated more and more to their earlier records, in the main the period ending around 1976/77. This phase of the group's career combines some progressive and experimental elements with impeccable pop/rock influences, most conspicuously The Beatles.

Prominent amongst the early releases is 1974's Eldorado. A concept album, it seemingly explores the dreamlike visions of a person striving to flee his dull existence. It was also their most lush and "polished" album up to that point, from a production and sound standpoint. It is possible to contend that other ELO albums contain stronger individual songs, but few hang together like Eldorado does. 

As befits any self-respecting concept album, this record is bookended by an overture/prologue and an epilogue/reprise/finale. The first proper song is "Can't Get It Out Of My Head". To coin a phrase, this one is more deceptive than it sounds, and which in its ability to implant itself in the psyche more than lives up to its title. It contains a few evocative lines, and was a hit single of some magnitude in the USA.

"Boy Blue" appears to relate a tale of a conquering hero returning to his hometown. There are some mildly interesting lyrics and some pleasant instrumental flourishes, but somehow this song fails to genuinely grab me or animate my imagination.

"Laredo Tornado" is a different matter. There is plenty to hold the interest, including sections which almost verge on the funky (not a word commonly associated with this band!). Jeff Lynne's facility for tunefulness is on display, and effective use is made of electric piano and what sounds like a clavinet. The strings on this track have real personality, presumably because they were performed by the band members rather than the session "orchestra".

The next number, "Poorboy (The Greenwood)" may have been intended as a "cousin" of "Boy Blue". It sounds vaguely similar , but has greater dynamism. The song's "protagonist" evidently sees himself as a Robin Hood type figure. The backing track features the familiar piano-bass-drums set-up which would proliferate on ELO records, although the drums sound sinuous and agile.  The group's drum sound would only become ponderous and excessive a bit later on.

With its blatantly Beatlesque leanings, "Mister Kingdom" is one of the LP's high points. The words directly address the "concept". The chorus is quite stirring, and the orchestration remains just the right side of ostentatious.

"Painted Lady" is somewhat unusual for Electric Light Orchestra, with its almost bluesy or jazzy flavour. Not a very imaginative song for me, and it does feel a little out of place among the more abstract and ethereal excursions which predominate on Eldorado.

A curious piece on more than one level, "Illusions in G Major" clearly owes a lot to Jeff Lynne's rock n roll heritage.  It also reminds me of one or two songs which appeared towards the end of the life of The Move. The lyrics are intriguing, and are possibly the most exotic or surreal on the record.

The title track features a simple but enticing melody in the verses, albeit offset by a dose of bombast in the choruses. I imagine that in studying the lyrics to these songs, many people will allow themselves a knowing smile, having recognized visions and dreams similar to those in their own supernatural wanderings.

So, one or two tracks are functional, but they function as part of the greater whole. An intriguing and entertaining journey, and a brave attempt at doing something different. Not a masterpiece by any means, but it is still one of ELO's most noteworthy achievements, and also serves as a healthy slice of escapism...

A Hard Day's Night - The Beatles - film review

A Hard Day's Night, released in 1964, was the Beatles' first movie, and by common consent their best.

The reasons why this picture succeeds where other Beatles celluloid efforts didn't are quite simple. They didn't try too hard, the plot was kept simple, and minds were not cluttered by grandiose visions or pretensions. The film is clothed in an "arty" veneer, largely due to the fact that it was made in crisp, evocative black and white. The pace is fast and breezy, brimming with the self-confidence of its time. And of course the music is wonderful!

The movie revolves around a journey made by the Fab Four to appear on a television show, and the associated activities of Paul's "grandfather", played by Wilfrid Brambell. In amongst all this there are musical set-pieces.

The opening title sequences set the tone with their slick editing, preparing us for the impending "journey". The scenes on the train are some of the best remembered, including the encounter with the man in the bowler hat (played by Richard Vernon). Here one of the main themes of the film is seen, namely the lads coming into contact with people and situations outside their normal milieu, and their cheeky irreverence with regard to authority figures and social class. The Beatles' humour helps to smooth the edges.

Of the Fab Four, Ringo Starr arguably displayed the greatest aptitude for acting and the comedic requirements of the film. John Lennon's wit and impishness carried him through. A few people have made disparaging remarks about Paul McCartney's acting here, but I don't think he fares too badly. Describing the band as "the new Marx Brothers" and Ringo as "the new Charlie Chaplin" was hyperbole, but there is no doubt that they exhibited a naturalness on screen, in this movie at least, and this contributed to an air of informality which is most endearing.

There is some attempt to depict the Beatles' routine, including their hectic schedule and the demands of the fans and fame. Occasionally this feels artificial, but generally their charm wins the day. The "non-acting" segments are more convincing, almost having a documentary-like flavour. The implication of some scenes I think is that the Beatles were isolated and suffocated by their fame, whilst others are having enormous fun on their coat-tails.

The various small "sketches" and vignettes help to give A Hard Day's Night a distinctive quality. The "shaving" scene involving George Harrison and John Junkin, with John Lennon clowning around in the bath, springs to mind. Odd surreal touches like these lift the picture out of the ordinary, and hold the interest.

The "Ringo on the run" scenes have been justly acclaimed, both for the acting and the cinematography. Was the moral here that "normal life" is just as lonely and complex as life in the spotlight of millions?  All existence has its disappointments, its downsides and its dark sides.

Some of the social commentary is quite subtle, most notably when the guys meet "media types", who represent a transitional stage between the old school of the fifties and the Swinging Sixties generation. The film gently pokes fun at some of the cliches and absurdities of the showbusiness crowd

Brambell, Junkin and others add a solidity and a substance to the acting. Victor Spinetti delivers a nice comedic stint as the morose director/producer at the television studios. Spinetti's "hairy" sweater is also the sartorial high point of the film!

Although the story drifts a fraction towards the end, this is still a charming document of a period in time, as well as fine entertainment.

The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour Movie - review

Derided by some, misunderstood by many, the Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour" film, released in 1967, remains one of the most hotly debated episodes in their career.  I recently watched the movie again to see if the picture would become any clearer in my mind.

In a few places I have seen it described as the prototype for the road movie. I'm not totally convinced by this assertion;surely there were lots of road movies before 1967?  It is certainly a road movie of a kind, with a strong current of English humour running through it, and of course suffused with the psychedelic aesthetic of its time.

The core of the narrative is a charabanc trip, something of a British institution, at least back then. I don't feel that The Beatles were belittling traditions such as this. In view of their own backgrounds, they may even have been seeking to romanticize such things, with a bit of mild satire added.

For me they were poking fun more generally at contemporary straight society and its absurdities, as well as some more pernicious aspects of British life which had become archaic in the context of the Swinging Sixties and its attendant social change. Some of the symbolism is there in the film, although sometimes half-buried in the dialogue or the behaviour of the minor characters. "A Hard Day's Night", the group's first movie, explored similar territory in a more conventional, less cryptic, way. This being The Beatles, it was all done in a gentle, impish manner which the Establishment would not find unduly threatening.

Much of the critical disdain aimed at "Magical Mystery Tour" back in 1967/68 stemmed from its perceived amateurishness, and its alleged pretentiousness. As I think Paul McCartney has pointed out, they didn't set out to produce a glossy mainstream film, but instead it was intended to be quirky and off-the-wall.

The problem was that the media and the public would not "allow" The Beatles to come up with anything deemed to be even slightly self-indulgent. Surely though, by the middle of 1967 they had earned the right to be experimental? As for the charge of amateurishness, I am torn between a feeling that this was intentional, and therefore essential to an understanding of the movie and its ethos, and a nagging sense that they tried and failed to do something more polished. The former theory ultimately holds sway every time...

Allowing for the occasional raggedness, intentional or otherwise, there are some great visuals, such as those in the "Fool On The Hill" sequence, and the footage which accompanies "Flying". Several scenes stand out, such as the one in the restaurant, where John Lennon shovels food on to the woman's plate. Another favourite passage of mine is during "Blue Jay Way", where the four guys are filmed playing cellos in a large garden. For all the "arty" sections, though, I must admit that my favourite part is the drunken sing-song on the coach....

One thing which can be said for "Magical Mystery Tour" is that it is fast-moving. No scenes linger excessively, and the brevity and the diversity of settings are both assets. This of course is conditioned by the patchwork format of the film. The randomness and the chaos succeed in holding the attention.

Even if The Beatles had emphasized beforehand that this was an art-film, and an experimental venture, they would still probably have not escaped the critical barbs. However, one must also say that it is no better or worse than many similar films of that era, and it has the advantage of being less self-conscious than most, with a hint of traditional English self-mockery helping in this regard. It is a harmless period-piece, if not a masterpiece.  And of course, the music is wonderful...

Beggars Banquet - The Rolling Stones - album review

One or two critics have asserted that Beggars Banquet, released by The Rolling Stones in 1968, is the greatest album of the Sixties. I might not go that far myself, but it is certainly a wonderful album, and one which helped to usher in the band's most creative and turbulent period.

The group, clearly ill-at-ease during the psychedelic era, appeared to be much more at home in 1968's changing cultural and social climate.  They were also more comfortable performing rootsier music, and these sounds somehow more closely reflected and complemented the uneasy or revolutionary sentiments which were supposedly prevalent in '68.

Beggars Banquet also witnessed a solidifying of the Jagger-Richards axis, as their songwriting became ever more prolific and and focused, and Brian Jones' influence gradually diminished.  Did the image of Keith Richards as the "heart and soul" of the Stones arise from necessity, as he was obliged to perform many of the functions previously undertaken by Jones?

In the past, I have tended to view some of the songs on this record as trite or lacking in cultural finesse, trying a little too hard to reflect the tenor of the times. However, after repeated scrutiny I would say that surprisingly little of it sounds corny or misjudged nowadays. I wasn't around in 1968, so I can't comment on how it might have sounded in the context of what was "going on" in those days.  The Beatles did seem to evoke the uncertainty and edginess of the time more acutely on "The White Album", with a minimum of effort and the conspicuous absence of any soap-box, but then again popular perception would have expected the Stones to put out a more overtly "angry" and visceral commentary.

The sound and production have a distinctly earthy flavour to them, redolent of honest toil, and therefore in keeping with the ethos which may or may not have been underpinning the project. Whether this was a conscious effort is difficult to say; what is certain is that the album would not have had the same gravitas and vigour had it been given a smoother and more polished sheen. The guitars (both electric and acoustic) sound splendid throughout.

As opening tracks go, "Sympathy For The Devil" takes some beating, and does kind of set the tone, both musically and atmospherically. The Stones had hinted at such "menace" in the past, but here was its most vibrant and stark manifestation. Opinions may vary as to precisely what Mick and Keith were getting at here, but none can deny that it captures the essence of the album and the popular image of 1968.

If "Sympathy For The Devil" is seen as being a standard-bearer for the spirit of Beggars Banquet, then tracks such as "No Expectations" and "Dear Doctor" are its DNA, with their acoustic bluesy rawness. The former features one of Brian Jones' last notable musical contributions as a member of the Rolling Stones, in the form of his haunting slide guitar part. The rendition of "Prodigal Son" is in a similar vein.

Of course, another song which attracted, and continues to attract, much attention is "Street Fighting Man", with its nicely ambivalent lyrical outlook and its blistering acoustic guitars. What it perhaps lacks in melodic subtlety it more than makes up for in power and robustness, and the instrumentation is pleasingly fuzzy.

I used to dismiss "Jigsaw Puzzle" as superior and stylish filler, but over time it has grown on me. The lyrics sound less and less like a poor man's Bob Dylan the more I listen to them, and the melody is deceptively vibrant and clever. Some more good slide guitar here, and nice separation between the instruments ensures that the rhythm section and the piano can be appreciated with some clarity.

Some people might dismiss "Stray Cat Blues" as a mere prototype for future Stones endeavours, or even "Stones by numbers", but in my view it is one of their finest and most formidable album tracks. Many elements coalesce to make it memorable, including the riffs and feline guitar lines, Charlie Watts' muscular drumming, and Jagger's lascivious vocal delivery.

The set is concluded with the two most obviously "blue collar" and "proletarian" items, "Factory Girl" and "Salt Of The Earth". "Factory Girl" is a rather charming and unpretentious number.  The song which follows it is musically strong, although the "anthemic" choruses can be grating, and the excessive second half of the song rather spoils the effect for me . Very much "of its time", and it is therefore churlish to be too harsh forty-seven years later.

I would say that Beggars Banquet ranks very high for me as far as Stones albums are concerned, second only to Exile On Main Street I would say.  There is very much a demarcation between what was recorded in 1968 (we should include the single "Jumping Jack Flash" in such deliberations) and what had gone before. This record is not as immediately enjoyable or accessible as Sticky Fingers, Some Girls or even Let It Bleed, and it might seem like hard work to begin with, but soon enough its abrasive self-confidence becomes evident.  Essential to an understanding of the Stones and the evolution of their music.

Please Please Me - The Beatles - album review

Perhaps "Please Please Me", released by The Beatles in 1963, is not the greatest debut album in rock history, but it is an endearing work which merits close inspection, even if it is difficult to be totally dispassionate when assessing it, because of the "Beatles" factor.

One of the most well-known things about the record is that most of the tracks were recorded in one day. A mixture of Lennon-McCartney originals and cover versions, it has a touching and infectious naivete. Even so, it is daunting to think that less than five years later these same musicians were writing and recording "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Penny Lane" and "A Day In The Life".

The running order is adroitly arranged to spread out the stronger performances, and it expertly conceals the weaker material. "I Saw Her Standing There" and "Twist And Shout" serve as formidable bookends, and help to make the record seem better than it actually is. I sometimes think to myself that the Beatles must have been playing better songs in the clubs than a few of those which ended up appearing on the album. Was the inclusion of some "safer" fare a sign of the band's eagerness, and that of their manager, to reach as wide and mainstream an audience as possible? 

The material may be less interesting than that found, for instance, on the group's sophomore effort, but there is a real unity and cohesion here, doubtless stemming from the compressed nature of the recording session(s), and therefore having more to do with overall energy and atmosphere than musical styles as such.  In some ways the strength of the individual numbers is less important than the overall effect. It is even arguable that when this LP was put together, Lennon and McCartney had not yet got fully into their stride as songwriters, separately or in terms of collaborative efforts. They only became truly prolific, in terms of quantity as well as quality, a little while later.

The opening track, "I Saw Her Standing There", still retains all of its freshness, joyousness and exuberance over fifty years after its appearance. It encapsulates that almost intangible magic which lifted The Beatles well above the nondescript, and fulfils this role much more potently than most of their later, supposedly more "mature" output. The main ingredients are the raw but likeable vocals of McCartney and Lennon, the semi-suggestive lyrics, and Ringo Starr's idiosyncratic drum fills. As a whole the song feels like a statement of intent, although probably not intended as such at the time.

In amongst the relative filler, there are some gems. The title track possesses many of the qualities of "I Saw Her Standing There", with the once again the contrasting voices of Lennon and McCartney blending to considerable effect.

Of course, "Twist and Shout" forms a rousing climax to the set, with John Lennon's searing vocal a consequence of the rigours of the legendary one-day recording session. The other members of the band perform admirably, in the knowledge that Lennon's voice might not have been able to withstand the strain of another take had any mistakes been committed.

"There's A Place" is often cited as a prototype of the more "grown up", confessional song writing which would become much in vogue in later years, but I think that its importance in this regard has been inflated, probably because this is The Beatles we are dealing with, and not some other group which disappeared into obscurity. Other artists were also beginning to dabble with the introspective around that time, anyway.

This record feels like a group effort, although George Harrison's contribution is perhaps more subdued, and less prominent, than the others. The competitive spirit, which might always have been there, did not emerge until the band had really broken big. Did the need to make that initial breakthrough breed solidarity and humility in the ranks, or at least ensure that those things were suppressed?

So in all honesty not one of the truly great debut albums, but immensely enjoyable on its own terms and as a period piece.

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.

Books About Music

In recent times I have got out of the habit of reading books about music, concentrating instead on history and fiction. However, the arrival of the New Year may persuade me to dust off some of the music-related titles on my shelves. Here are a few of my favourites.

One of the best reference works I have encountered is the fairly monumental AllMusic Guide To Rock, which summarizes the works of a huge diversity of rock, pop and soul artists, giving album ratings as well as brief reviews. Each act is also accorded a brief biography, and there is also an effort to summarize each genre and sub-genre. The sort of book in which to become happily immersed, both to rekindle old tastes and to develop new ones.

As far as scholarly works are concerned, Ian MacDonald's "Revolution In The Head" has a deservedly high reputation. Basically an analysis, song-by-song, of the music of The Beatles, cross-referenced with the social upheavals of the Sixties, it is a riveting read, and it fully merits the acclaim which it has been afforded.

Another Beatles-related book of some import is "The Complete Beatles Chronicle", written by Mark Lewisohn.  Meticulously researched, it basically lists, in chronological order and in remarkable detail, what the Fab Four were doing on each day during their career, whether it was a concert, a recording session, a radio show , a television appearance or something else. Lavishly illustrated, this is another engrossing read, and a reminder of just how frenetic the Beatles' schedule was, especially in the period 1962-1964.

Also well worth seeking out is "Waiting For The Sun", a chronicle of the Los Angeles music scene by Barney Hoskyns. It does not just concentrate on the "obvious" artists, but explores the development of various musical sub-cultures, the careers of influential people, and also the changing character of the music industry itself.

As far as biographies are concerned, Johnny Rogan's books out Neil Young and The Byrds are hugely comprehensive and enjoyable.  Recommended too are Philip Norman's book about The Rolling Stones, and Barney Hoskyns' work dealing with the story of The Band.

Dave Marsh's "The Heart Of Rock & Soul - The 1001 Greatest Singles Ever Made" is a strident and thought-provoking work, not for the faint-hearted, but impossible to put down once begun. It probably helped to jolt me out of some of my musical complacency and inertia, even if I didn't agree with all of the author's opinions.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to do some reading....

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.

The New Beatles

I have recently been listening to some of the music made by the Welsh band Badfinger, whose story constitutes one of the more tragic tales of unfulfilled potential and thwarted hopes in music history.

When they first emerged, Badfinger were hailed in some quarters as the heirs apparent to the Beatles, who were nearing the end of their time. Badfinger were signed to the Apple label, had assistance and patronage from George Harrison and other members of the Beatles entourage, and also exhibited some Beatles characteristics, in their songwriting prowess and their facility for performing melodic pop/rock.

It is probably unfair to make definitive assertions about Badfinger's ultimate potential, because of the way in which their career was plagued and punctuated by false starts and assorted contractual hassles. It may be argued that these setbacks and difficulties hindered their artistic development, and inhibited experimentation and progression. Sadly we will never know whether they could have become as versatile as the Fab Four.

So what other bands could conceivably have inherited the mantle of Liverpool's finest? The auguries for the Electric Light Orchestra were propitious, but the early departure of Roy Wood meant that the enterprise became directed wholly by Jeff Lynne. If the Wood/Lynne duo could have been made to work, then who knows what might have transpired.  Such partnerships seemingly require an element of the "yin and yang" about them, complementary and contrasting talents and personalities which balance each other out to create magic. Examples which spring to mind are Lennon and McCartney and Jagger and Richards. Were Roy and Jeff just too similar, meaning that the tension was never dissipated?

Of all the bands around in the early 1970s which might have justified the tag "the new Beatles", 10cc appeared to have the requisite raw material at least.  Songwriting capability in abundance, a quirky sense of humour and lots of instrumental talent. However, whenever I listen to 10cc's music I feel a sense of frustration, rightly or wrongly, that they never quite stretched themselves. Their singles, whilst superbly produced and crafted, and highly entertaining, seemed to focus excessively on pastiche and satire.

Who knows, maybe there is a young band somewhere out there now which has that intangible magic and chemistry, and which will eventually find itself in the right place at the right time. I doubt it somehow, but I hope I'm proved wrong....

Pet Sounds - The Beach Boys - album review

Such an aura surrounds this album that on initial listenings the primary reaction can be one of disappointment or anti-climax. However, this is an album which demands repeated attention before the melodies and messages seep into the psyche. The process took a little while for me. I, like countless millions of others, was raised on the Beach Boys' naive but infectious hits of the earlier years. Undeveloped or immature musical antennae were ill-equipped to discern the musical signposts which pointed the way towards the glories of "Pet Sounds".

As time passes, the thing which occurs more and more to me about "Pet Sounds" is its overall cohesiveness, in musical and spiritual terms. This sets it apart from the Beach Boys' previous output, and that of many other people for that matter. The backing does not sound like it was created using conventional musical instruments, but by some otherworldly implements. This factor, and the conceptual unity of the subject matter, permit the songs to blend together seamlessly and naturally. The only blemish in this happy scenario is "Sloop John B", which comes perilously close to marring the whole effect....

Was this a Brian Wilson solo project in all but name? Well, he had been exerting greater artistic pre-eminence and control for a couple of years prior to these sessions, and it is fair to say that most of the other Beach Boys were almost reduced to cameo roles, Carl Wilson's glorious vocal on "God Only Knows" being one of these. Brian appears to have handled much of the singing on the album himself, and block harmonies are not as abundant as elsewhere in the Beach Boys canon. As had been the trend, top session musicians provided the bulk of the instrumental prowess.  In this respect, the approach was quite uncompromising, although the end result would seem to justify the thoroughness and care lavished on the production.

"Pet Sounds" shines like a beacon because of its distinctive character and sound when set against the other trend-setting and groundbreaking rock and pop releases of that period, including those by the Beatles and Bob Dylan. "Pet Sounds" almost existed in isolation, on the surface not influenced by its immediate contemporaries and "rivals". Conversely, it served as a shock or wake-up call to others, notably Paul McCartney.

It is possible to contend that "Pet Sounds" was an alternative way of viewing what was "going on" in the mid-Sixties, or maybe a slightly different way of interpreting or channeling the spirit of the era. Others had hinted at similar preoccupations, but this was presented as a fully-formed creation.

"Pet Sounds" has the same kind of immersiveness and all-encompassing engagement more normally associated with classical music. It appeals to the senses in a manner more subtle and surreptitious than most "rock" music. For all that, it is still replete with hooks and pop sensibility. In a sense, the voices and instruments are indivisible and indistinguishable from each other, all equally important in setting and expressing the emotions . One greater "mood piece", and a concept album before such a notion was fashionable.

The journey commences with something adhering to the concept, but which is also accessible - "Wouldn't It Be Nice".  The work is anchored and signposted with such gems as "God Only Knows" and "Caroline, No". For me though the tracks which most acutely exemplify the spirit of the album are the eerie instrumental "Let's Go Away for Awhile" and "Dont Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder).

Lest anyone form the idea that this is all sentimental candyfloss , there is also much angst and soul-searching in there ("I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", "I Know There's An Answer").  Brian Wilson famously dubbed "Pet Sounds" a "teenage symphony to God", and the record does depict and explore a range of emotions encountered by young people, but not exclusively by young people;the themes are universal.

Even allowing for its mystique and reputation, I imagine that "Pet Sounds" still confuses people when they first hear it, because it is so distinctive. If it wasn't as socially significant as other records of its time, then as an artistic achievement it still stands up today.  In a strange way, it both operates as a monument to its time, and exists outside the strait-jacket of being categorized as "sixties", because of its dreamy and ethereal flavour and its sonic composition. Even the sleeve photograph, which has come in for much ridicule, somehow adds to the effect. By 1966, artists were expected to come up with outlandish or esoteric cover art. On "Pet Sounds", the words and music say all that needs to be said....