(Sept. 24, 2018) - Today is early Christmas for Beatles fans. Apple has released a few selected tracks to preview TheWhite Album box set, set for release on November 9.
Those tracks are the Esher demo, the take 5 backing track and the brand-new 2018 stereo remix of Back in the U.S.S.R. Here's our verdict:
The Esher demo
Each of Paul's double-tracked vocals is placed on a separate channel, with the lead on the left and the harmony on the right. Paul is literally harmonizing with himself, and the blend sounds seamless. Similarly, the main acoustic guitar (playing rhythm) is on the left, while a secondary acoustic strums on the right. Again, smooth.
Later in the song, other elements such as handclaps and slapping the guitar appear on the right channel, and a tambourine on the left. These elements are discreet, yet distinct. The detail in these secondary instruments, even buried in the mix, is startling.
All that hiss from the original 4-track reel-to-reel tape from May 1968 has been completely removed. A slight complaint may be the absence of a higher end, such as on the tambourine. But this version is a sonic upgrade that's light years from those raw tapes.
Verdict: A
Take 5 instrumental
The only surprise with this backing track is hearing George at the start sing a few bars during warm-up and comment that he's been "wonderful on the last two takes" presumably to Paul, the composer of Back in the U.S.S.R. After that, the band launches into a slow, bluesy instrumental run, starting with the guitar squeal (we hear in the released take at the end of the jet plane intro). The bass and drums are mixed up, giving this track a lot of muscle, while the guitars sound dirty and biting. This is a good rock band. Sure, it's a fun listen, but, honestly, how many times will you play this? Me, I consider instrumentals interesting at best, though this certainly is.
Verdict: B
2018 stereo mix
The main attraction is Giles Martin's new stereo mix. After his stunning work on last year'sSgt. Pepper remix, expectations are high for his White Album. He does not disappoint.
Just like Pepper, the lead vocal and drums are placed squarely in the centre, making the song soar after the jet-engine intro. Those sound effects remain woven in the left channel while the barrel-house piano rolls along in the right. George's growling guitar stays in the right, as well. All elements are well-balanced and complement each other. No instrument awkwardly sticks out.
The song is clearer than ever before. The bottom end is warm and powerful. The high end sparkles with detail. This mix is a pleasure to listen to on headphones, and it shakes a room when played on a sound system.
Overall, this Back in the U.S.S.R. rocks. It packs a punch similar to the mono mix. Arguably that mono mix still delivers more force, but this 2018 mix is the best stereo one, hands-down. This track promises that the 2018 White Album will rock. Play loud.
Sgt. Pepper week continues. The BBC celebrated the 50th anniversary of the landmark album by broadcasting a brand new one-hour special that aired yesterday (June 3) on the BBC (and PBS in the U.S. and Canada), Sgt. Pepper's Musical Revolution with Howard Goodall.
Noted British classical composer Goodall narrates this special which explores the making of the album by showcasing snippets of outtakes (some culled from the various 2017 Pepper CD sets, other exclusive to this series) and illustrated by archival films and photographs as well as striking visual effects. The special is an unofficial sequel to The Making of Sgt. Pepper, the fine 1992 doc that is part of the Super Deluxe box set.
The key difference here is that the Goodall special lacks new appearances by any of the remaining Beatles or their confidantes. Instead, Goodall takes us on a musical lecture-tour of the Pepper sessions. His musical observations are insightful and new even to lifelong fans of the album. Like a good teacher, Goodall offers insight but speaks in terms that don't sail over our heads. Here are some things we learned:
1) In December 1966, EMI recording engineer Ken Townsend (far right) joined the fast and dreamy versions of Strawberry Fields Forever by slowing down the fast one to match the tempo and key of the slower one. He accomplished this by manipulating the electricity supply feeding the tape machine. Remember: there were no computers in those days, just magnetic tape machines. And no, George Martin didn't pull this off, though he oversaw it.
2) The influence of Little Richard on Penny Lane. No surprise that Paul was a huge Little Richard fan, but Richard's double-time rhythm (heard on such hits as Lucille that The Beatles covered on BBC Radio) had a direct effect on the piano performance on Penny Lane.
3) Now consider that the piano performance of Penny Lane is actually four different pianos mixed together.
4) The musical "wash" that appears twice in Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite consists of one-second snippets culled from various calliope recordings (circus organs) that producer George Martin had engineer Geoff Emerick splice together at random. Okay, maybe this is not news to some Beatlefreaks, but the Goodall special isolates several splices of them so you can hear them individually--and that is a revelation.
5) John's vocal was recorded at a slower speed, so he sounds younger (and higher in pitch) in Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, a song that's based on a child's fantasy (Alice in Wonderland).
6) Paul's melancholy vocal in She's Leaving Home is rooted in the ancient "modal" tradition that Paul would've absorbed from Anglo-Celtic folk songs he heard growing up in Liverpool.
7) The numerous shifts of rhythm (taal) in George's Within You, Without You are absolutely normal in Indian music, though unusual, if not radical, for Western rock music.
8) George's vocal is actually a compromise between Western and Indian conventions. The latter "stretches" single words over several bars--and this bears no comparison in Western songs, certainly not rock. The Goodall special features an Indian singer demonstrating how Within You, Without You would be sung in the Indian tradition, which is light-years from Western music.
9) The glissando orchestral "rush" heard twice in A Day in the Life was inspired by avant-garde composers such as John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen (above). John, and especially Paul, were curious about these composers. They all share a spirit of musical adventure.
Fifty years, almost to the day, The Beatles have properly mixed Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in stereo. Producer Giles Martin and engineer Sam Okell have reconstructed the album by sourcing the original tracks to present vocals and guitars that sparkle and bass and drums that roar.
Martin has centered the vocals, forever erasing the ugly extreme panning which segregated vocals to one channel and almost all instruments to the other. On every track he has added new details from guitars, keyboards, tablas, strings and backing vocals that ring out of speakers and headphones alike. Layers of sound that The Beatles and his father George with engineer Geoff Emerick first constructed in the winter of 1966/67 burst across the stereo picture in songs such as Getting Better.
Pepper was never my favourite Beatles album. (Revolver is.) In fact, Pepper was down my list. I listened to the 1967 stereo all these years and lamented how the album just lacked something. Too whimsical in places, not enough weight. Sounded flat. However, this 2017 remix makes me reassess Pepper. I now see its depth and appreciate its complexity. Its sheer force is now undeniable--and exciting.
Overall, Martin and Okell have injected the overall album with power and dimension. Long buried in the original 1967 stereo mix, Ringo's drums propel virtually every song, balancing the whimsy in tracks, such as Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite, andadding menace to others, including Good Morning, Good Morning.
Sgt. Pepper rocks.
Oh God, you may be thinking, another bloody Beatles reissue. Not at all. This release is not a re-master, but a brand new mix. It ain't a paint job and scrub, but an entire re-design by shifting vocals and re-organizing sounds to realize the effect that The Beatles originally intended in spring 1967. The band oversaw three weeks of mono mixing, but weren't ever around for the stereo mix that lasted three days. Mono outsold stereo in 1967. The audience lagged behind the imagination and ambition of The Beatles. In turn, their Pepper would propel stereo's dominance, usher the rise of the long-playing record and spark the transition of "pop" to "rock."
Giles' stereo mix takes its cue from the mono mix which was the mix that The Beatles intended the world to hear. Mono packs a sonic punch, forceful and aggressive, compared to the thin 1967 stereo. Here's a review of each track, plus the single that was originally planned for the album, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane:
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Opens with snare drum on the left channel, a much louder bass that rumbles in the center and a guitar that now snarls on the right. The guitar offers far more detail than before and sounds like Jimi Hendrix. The guitar continues to slash as Paul screams the vocal in the centre to create an exciting dialogue. Backing vocals are spread across both channels in exquisite detail. An amazing opening. Verdict: Excellent With A Little Help From My Friends
Vocals are centered, and the overall track has a mono feel except that Paul's melodic bass dominates the right channel. This is one of the simpler tracks of the album, so there are no sonic fireworks, but all the elements roll along in the right place. Verdict: Good
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
The opening keyboard riff dances across the left and right channels to mesmerizing effect that runs through the entire track. It's a subtle, but brilliant touch as if enticing the listener to run down the rabbit hole with vocalist Lennon. John's vocal is centered, anchoring the song. Drums, tamboura are center-left, while Paul's bass is center-right in a delicate balance. This is one of the few tracks where Ringo's drums aren't pushed to the forefront, and I understand why. That would have smothered the sound collage that Lucy creates. Verdict: Good
Getting Better
The fireworks return with this track. Paul's bass is right upfront and gives the song a whallop that was missing before. Again, vocals are centered. New to my ears were the guitars chiming in both channels and the piano plucking in the right. Ringo's high hat sparkles in the left. The remix shows off the layers of sound like never before which hum together like a mighty machine. Verdict: Stunning Fixing A Hole
The opening keyboard has never sounded so detailed. Ringo's drums are predominantly left, guitar mostly right (except the solo) and Paul's vocal at center to anchor the sound picture. Backing vocals also mostly right, but the panning is balanced, not lopsided or distracting. Verdict: Good She's Leaving Home
The first thing you notice is how fast this track is, nearly as fast as the mono (which never sounded right to me). This mix demands some adjustment, because I'm used to hearing the slower 1967 stereo version. But in direct comparison, the slower version sounds melodramatic. Also, Giles has separated the individual stringed instruments across the channels giving them room to breathe while allowing Paul's vocal to dominate in the center. Faster, less emphasis on the strings, less melodramatic. Also, John's key background vocals are more distinct and detailed. Overall, a well-balanced track. This faster version gives the song more urgency and bite. Verdict: Surprising at first, but overall good Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite
This was one of the worst-mixed songs on the 1967 stereo, your typical hard-pan with the vocals 2000 miles away from the instruments. I hated it. Centering the vocals is a huge step forward here. Secondly, the individual instruments are separated across left and right, and each rings clearly. The difference is immediate and amazing. Third, Ringo's drumming adds weight to a song that was whimsical, even slight, before. And fourth, the wash of sound at the end is downright dazzling. Another WOW moment. Verdict: Stunning Within You Without You
Every instrument, stringed and Indian, sparkles on this track. They are spread across both channels instead of lumped together into a dull mess as before. George's vocal in the center literally bridges both sets of instruments. Most astonishing is the extended musical break starting at 2;23 where Giles exploits the soundscape to contrast and blend the Indian and Western instruments. Hands down, this is one of the most breathtaking moments of this remix. Verdict: Stunning When I'm 64
Brushes-on-snare on the left, clarinets on the right and Paul's vocal in the middle. Simple and it works. Verdict: Good Good Morning Good Morning
Crank this one. This new remix is a monster rock track. Ringo drives a tank throughout this song, adding a layer of menace which injects John's lyrics about a dull day with paranoia and chaos. And I mean that as a compliment. Another WOW moment. This remix is light years from any you've ever heard. Verdict: Stunning Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (reprise)
Given the bass-and-drums boost of every track before, it's a slight letdown to hear this mix. On the 1967 mix, this track rocked the hardest, but no longer. Is this a bad mix? Not at all, but it doesn't surprise like the others. Paul's vocal, though, is crisper, and you can hear him scat in the fade out just like he does on the mono mix. Verdict: Okay A Day In The Life
Mixed feelings. John's vocal is centered throughout and--for once--I miss the extreme panning. In the 1967 mix, his vocal starts in the extreme right than gradually shifts to the center and eventually hard-left, counter-clockwise. I miss this sense of disorientation and movement. That said, every sonic element on this track rings clearer with more detail, notably John's unearthly Ahhhh at 2:46. And the final piano chord is a knock-out punch. Verdict: Mixed feelings Strawberry Fields Forever
Actually remixed in 2015, but the structure is the same as the other tracks: centered vocals and individual instruments and effects delicately mixed on the left and right channels. The svarmandal still deliciously sweeps across the soundscape. Again, the instruments offer detail and immediacy. Verdict: Good Penny Lane
It's subtle, but this is one of the most radical remixes. It's not a hard rock song, but a collection of vignettes that Paul imagines of his hometown, Liverpool. Storyteller Paul is front and centre. Flourishes appear discreetly on the left and right channels, like the piccolo trumpet solo on the right, or the fireman's bell on the left. Again, subtle. My only complaint is that the trumpet near the end of the song is slightly buried in the left channel. (If anyone's asking, on my iPod I've placed SFF/Penny between Within You Without You and When I'm 64 and chucked Lovely Rita altogether.) Verdict: Good
OVERALL: Though imperfect, the 2017 stereo remix is the new definitive mix of Sgt. Pepper. It comes closest in capturing the Beatles' intentions and in conveying the complex soundscapes created in 1967 when the band was limited by four-track technology. All vocals, instruments and sound effects burst with fresh detail. Centering the vocals is a leap forward and boosting the drums and bass restores the visceral power of this rock album that used to be found only in the mono mix. My only real misgiving is the vocal placement in A Day In The Life, but the remixes of the title track, Getting Better, Mr. Kite, Within You and Good Morning are breathtaking. This remix firmly places this album in the 21st century and (partially) restores Pepper's reputation which has been overshadowed in recent years by Revolver.
It was the age of vinyl and I had worn out the grooves of the 1973 Apple/Capitol double-compilation 1962-66 ("red" album) and had eagerly taken him home the companion 1967-70 "blue" album from Sam the Record Man on Yonge Street in Toronto. I threw the disc on my father's turntable, cranked it up and dropped the needle on side 1 of the album. I heard this funereal dirge (Paul's mellotron) then this ghostly voice intoning, "Let me take you down..."
What the fuck?
It sounded like shit. It sounded too slow. It sounded ugly. It was Strawberry Fields Forever, released 50 years ago today in the UK.
Like a lover you grow to understand her idiosyncrasies, it took me a long time to first understand just what the hell John Lennon was saying when he sang, "I think I know of me, ah yes, but it's all wrong" and more time to appreciate just how good the song was.
I wasn't alone.
On March 11, 1967, Dick Clark played the video of SFF and Penny Laneto an audience of American teenagers. Most of them had heard I Want To Hold Your Hand, Help! and Yellow Submarine, the band's last number one, and the clever ones would have clued into Tomorrow Never Knows,but this song blew them away...or confounded them. The reactions after seeing the "film" what we call "video" now) included:
"I thought it was great."
"I don't like their hair."
"They looked older and it ruins their image."
"It was funny."
"Their mustaches are weird!"
"Looked good."
Pete Townshend was one of the first to hear the single before release. He noted that Lennon looked gaunt and nearly unrecognizable, and the music that emanated from the turntable was strange:
Brian Epstein had summoned me, with Eric Clapton, to be the first two artist-peers to hear "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane", The Beatles' new recordings, on an eight-track tape recorder. John was nervous, I remember. He was with Cynthia, his first wife, and she seemed more relaxed than he was. After we had heard the tracks, I was speechless.
The New Musical Express' Derek Johnson wrote: "Certainly the most unusual and way-out single The Beatles have yet produced – both in lyrical content and scoring. Quite honestly, I don't really know what to make of it."
The Beatles, like contemporaries Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Brian Wilson and soon Jimi Hendrix and, in jazz, Miles Davis, strove to push the boundaries into new sounds, but they risked leaving their audience behind. Just ask The Beach Boys, whose Smile confused a lot of their fans in the late-60s. With its backwards tapes, slowed-down vocals, audio loops and avant-garde sounds inspired by Stockhausen, Strawberry Fields Forever invaded the pop charts. In the week it was released, the U.S. top 10 looked like this:
1 KIND OF A DRAG - The Buckinghams
2 I’M A BELIEVER – The Monkees
3 RUBY TUESDAY – The Rolling Stones
4 GEORGY GIRL – The Seekers
5 (We Ain’t Got) NOTHIN’ YET – The Blues Magoos
6 LOVE IS HERE AND NOW YOU’RE GONE – The Supremes
7 98.6 – Keith
8 TELL IT LIKE IT IS – Aaron Neville
9 THE BEAT GOES ON Sonny and Cher
10 GIMME SOME LOVIN’ - The Spencer Davis Group
Some fine songs by great bands here, including The Supremes and Spencer Davis, but the closest song approaching SFF in inventiveness was Ruby Tuesday by their alleged rivals, The Stones. SFF and Penny Lane sounded like something from outer space.
It's a crime that SFF reached only number 8 on the U.S. charts and with Penny Lane only 2 in the U.K. Now it's universally lauded as the greatest Beatles--or rock--song next to A Day in the Life.
What happened?
Once in a while a piece of art will reach its audience that's ahead of its time and the audience must catch up. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good example. The Beatles began as a teenybopper band and SFF/Penny Lane announced them to be artistes. This single has endured as a masterpiece and its influence is incalculable.
Me, I hated Strawberry Fields Forever, and now it's my favourite song of all time. Period. It speaks to me like no other. It doesn't just entertain me, but moves me. It means something. A book, a movie, a painting, a song, whatever. You are what you love, and I love Strawberry Fields Forever. It will play at my funeral and birthdays. It is true and beautiful. It will always be a part of me, and we all need a piece of music like that.
Renown Beatles historian, Mark Lewisohn, recently concluded a three-week research trip to Cleveland (the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame archives) and New York for volumes 2 and 3 of his epic biography, Tune In, by sitting for an interview at Toronto's Metro Reference Library.
An overflowing audience of over 200 heard the Englishman answer questions about the Beatles pivotal year, 1966. After all, his talk was part of the ongoing Beatles 50 T.O. celebration, centering on an exhibition [read the Rowboat's review here] and featuring walking tours, more talks and even a fashion show.
Lewisohn confirmed that the Beatles were first heard in North America on a Toronto radio station, “because Canada has a strong connection to Britain that American doesn't have. Canada tuned into the Beatles before America did."
This was an attempt by the photographer, Bob Whittaker, who was edgy and liked to do impressionistic work...The Vietnam War is raging by '65/66 and America is deeply involved in it and that is part of the ferment that is going on in this period. It was just a comment, but they obviously could have said, "No, we're not doing that." They didn't. They joined in and did the session.
George never liked it very much, but he did go along with it. John Lennon was the one who pushed for this to be an album cover. There's something extraordinary about a guy who will want something like that as his album cover when you consider that most people believed that the Beatles' core audience was young girls. So, this is a very shocking thing to do, very much in-your-face as we would call it these days. But that's what they wanted.
In Boston there's a swamp filled with 30,000 of these record covers. I was last week in Pennsylvania with a guy who used to work at the Capitol Records pressing factory and his job was to dispose of (I'm not sure) 10,000 record covers. He had to watch them be pulped at a shredding place.
Would Elvis had been asked if he was bigger than Christ or was '66 the year it had to happen?
The times they were
a-changing. Everyone was growing up....Through the sixties the
audience is maturing. With the Beatles comes an advancement in that
maturing process, then others join in like Bob Dylan and the Rolling
Stones...
The Beatles were always different in England. When they came here to North America or anywhere they were travelling, they were “on.” They were like working. When they were home in England, their lives were so much different, much more calm and they were always open to reasonable approaches from journalists that they liked. They were interviewed extensively. They had none of the protection that the stars surround themselves with these days. You could phone up the office and say, “I'd like to interview John ideally tomorrow for Sunday's paper." The PR person would phone John and he'd say, “Yeah, okay.”
In this case, Maureen Cleave who was a journalist for the London Evening Standard who they really, really liked – because she was smart and savvy and interesting and witty, and John had a bit of an affair with her once. In 1966, she approached Brian Epstein and said, “I'd like to do in-depth interviews with all four of them and with you Brian, and these will run one a week in the London Evening Standard, whole page. I'll just go over to their houses and
we'll talk."
In John's one, he said he was reading a lot, as he
always was—he was a voracious reader of books and newspapers—and
he just said that the Beatles in a sense were more popular than
Jesus, because churches in England in the 1960s were empty....We can get 50,000 people to our shows, and the churches were empty.
That in essence was what he was saying. As John said later, he wasn't
knocking Jesus for that or boasting that we are bigger, more
important. It was just so common. It ran in the British newspapers.
There was one letter in the Guardian about what an interesting remark
to make. I'm not sure if that's true, but interesting. And then it
went quiet. There were a couple of pieces in America. Funnily enough,
there was a piece in a Detroit newspaper in April. The piece
ran in England in March, but in July it got picked up by one of the
American teenage girls magazines called Datebook.
Datebook put it on
the cover: We're bigger than Jesus. And it just kind of sparked.
They never held it against Datebook. They liked the editor very much.
They kept a relationship with him. [Managing editor Danny Fields, who
explains why he published the “Jesus” remark in the video below.]
He was on that tour. He was not booted out. He wasn't responsible for
the chaos that ensued.
In the new film, Eight
Days A Week, Paul
McCartney remembered the bigger than Jesus rumpus. What
a big story that was for a few days,
and says that John was a broken man by it. I'm really cross about
that, because John was not
a broken man by that. I wish Paul hadn't said that, and it's not
right. But on camera that day he chose to say that and they included
that, and that's going to be part of the history now. John was never
a broken man and John apologized only for the way in which the words
were couched or the fact that anybody may have been upset by it. He
never actually apologized for what he said.
The second book takes place after 1962. Where are you going to end up after the second volume?
In the asylum, I think.
How are you going to approach this, because a lot of what's happening after December 1962 [where volume 1 ends] doesn't happen in England anymore. How are you going to span the globe and go through all the libraries and dig out this information?
(thinks about it) Yeah. (audience laughs) I'm not quite sure. I've been researching volume 2 and 3 from the beginning. I started this project in 2003. When you do a project like this, the research you just have to find whatever you find whenever you can find it no matter what period it belongs to.
The focus in the earlier years obviously was the early years. I was always finding good things for the next two books. Now, my focus is strictly volumes 2 and 3...
I've been a lifelong lover of libraries and archives and there is a great deal to be found if you know where to look and you have the sensibility for how libraries and archives work. The Beatles' story has the very richest of paper trails. Not just paper. There's every kind of artifact you could ever imagine that is out there waiting to be found. A lot of it is known about substantially, but there is plenty more.
I came away from New York with that [spreads his arms] many original carbon copies of letters from the Beatles' management office from the 1960s, almost every one of which is revelatory, almost every one of which allows me to put real flesh on the bones of a story that people think they know but actually don't, because the tellings of the history tend to haven the sequence of: they made this album, then they went on tour, they made this album, then they made that film, then they went on tour.
What happens in between is as interesting if not more, because I want to make these books – as the first one is – about human beings. I hate the word “icons” or “iconic.” It's overused to death. Or “legends.” The Beatles weren't legends or icons. They were just human beings who expressed themselves this way and found that that was having a major effect without them wishing it on the whole world or substantial part...
I want to tell the story from the inside out, who they were, how they coped with everything that was going on, what their homes lives were like. I'm interested in what happens the day after the tour finishes and they're back home and they need to come down again and start seeing their friends and smoking what they want to smoke. Also, I want to look at it from the outside in, because the Beatles' effect on people everywhere on all ages, colours, creeds, classes was unparalleled.
Hair is the ultimate symbol of revolution in the sixties. It's the ultimate thing to piss off your schoolteacher or parent or factory foreman -- and that was entirely due to the Beatles. It was a revolution and that needs to be told....
I haven't started writing volume 2, and that will take a while, because the assimilation of this material is an immense undertaking, just the structuring of this. I like information and detail in these books, but I don't want the reader to be bogged down in that. I really want this to be a light, engaging, easy page-turner, which is not an easy thing to accomplish with the density of information... 2028 might by when volume 3 comes out, but I might still be researching it. It'll be when it'll be.
For years, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was considered rock's greatest album. In the U.S., Rolling Stonemagazine has long ranked it at #1 while Pepper sits in the prestigious Library of Congress' National Recording Registry for posterity. Critics on both sides of the Atlantic first in 1978 then 1987 awarded Pepper the top spot.
Then, Revolver stole the crown. It topped the 2000 Q magazine list of the 50 Greatest British Albums Ever; VH1's greatest albums in history list (2001); the Virgin All-Time Top 1,000 Albums list; and 2013's Entertainment Weekly's greatest albums in history.
1966 ad for the U.S. Revolver
So, what happened?
Probably the tide turned when the 1987 CD issue of the UK version of Revolver finally reached American fans. Since the album's stateside release 50 years on August 8, 1966, American listeners were stuck with an inferior version that omitted I'm Only Sleeping, And Your Bird Can Sing and Dr. Robert. Since 1987, generations have grown up on the complete 14-track album which restores the absence of John's missing songs and rectifies the balance of Revolver.
1967 ad for the U.K. Sgt. Pepper
Further, those GenX'ers and Millennials didn't live through the Summer of Love, which Pepper shaped. Instead, the younger generations grew up with a critical distance and simply listened to the music.
That said, Pepper remains the favourite of many rock and Beatles' fans, but so does Revolver. Below, we (the Doc exhalting Revolver and the Guv championing Sgt. Pepper) debate the merits and weaknesses of both albums.
Doc: Sgt. Pepper had the greatest
impact of any Beatles -- or rock -- album, but in terms of
songwriting, performance, innovation and vision, Revolver is
superior. Revolver captures Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr
hitting their creative peaks at precisely the same time. They were abetted by an experienced, yet adventurous producer in George Martin, and a hungry, innovative
engineer in Geoff Emerick.
Guv: Revolver is the latter
part of the Beatles' transition to studio band, but it's still not fully
realised. It's patchy. The studio band is still finding its wings.
Pepper, on the other hand, stands as a whole. I clearly remember the
first time I heard the album as a teen. It blew my mind. As an album,
it was greater than its parts and evokes an atmosphere -- a place, a
time, a psychedelic, swinging 60s Liverpool.
Poetry & fantasy Doc:Pepper is an
achievement of the highest order, too, but it's an excursion into
fantasy and whimsy and not terribly personal or profound, except for
A Day In The Life.
Guv: Pepper as an album is
more complete, more realized. It's a painting, a watercolour. Revolver
is a collage that is best viewed in segments.
Doc: The songs on Pepper are
as varied in style and subject matter as those on Revolver, but
because the former is packaged as "Sgt. Pepper's band" there's an illusion of unity. It's a
collection of songs, that's all, and those songs simply aren't as
memorable as Revolver's.
Guv: It wasn't really a
concept album, but that's what it is. And it's not just the
packaging. The flow of the album is a listening experience. I can dip
in and out of Revolver. Pepper is an album I listen to in total.
Doc: The overall flavour of
Pepper is self-conscious fantasy, a la Mr. Kite and Lucy and the
title track itself. Mind you, the fantasy
is dazzling...
Guv: While I agree it's very
much fantastical, I don't for a moment believe it's self conscious.
Lucy and Kite both have brilliant and creative origins: a child's
drawing and an Elizabethan poster - both ideal candidates for songs,
and neither is self-conscious. And the instrumentation
on those two tracks is highly inventive. Original, stunningly
beautiful soundscapes to listen to.
Doc: I find the lyrics on
Revolver are more personal and therefore resonant. Pepper is fun, but
Revolver touches me.
Guv: Exactly! Pepperis fun. It's
not wildly introspective, which is what acid [LSD] did for them, but full
of humour and wit. The backing vocal lines in With A Little Help From My Friends. The humour of Lovely Rita ("What do you see when you turn out the lights? I can't tell you, but I know it's mine", "took her home, I nearly made it," & "sitting on a sofa with a sister or two") Nudge-Nudge, wink-wink.
Doc: That's my point: Pepper
is indeed fun, more fun that Revolver, but Revolver is grittier. The
songwriters began writing introspectively with Rubber Soul, then went
full bloom with Revolver, but the acid-Carnaby Street scene pushed
John and Paul into whimsy and fantasy.
Guv: Oh, come on! Once again you're picking on Rita and Friends? Just how introspective and reflective do you find Yellow Submarine?
And Taxman is just George complaining about how much he had to pay the government.
As far as protest songs go, it's hardly Dylan! And what's wrong with
Whimsy and Fantasy?
Doc: Nothing, but Pepper is
90% whimsy and fantasy. It needed a personal, poetic song like
Strawberry Fields Forever to balance it out.
Guv: Again I come back to
listening experience. Put on Pepper and I'm transported. A
fantastical world. I can close my eyes and be lost for 43 minutes.
Robert Freeman's dazzling cover for Revolver that was rejected. Freeman photographed the covers of With The Beatles, Beatles for Sale and Rubber Soul.
The George factor
Doc: One area where Revolver
triumphs over Pepper is the diversity of voices. Revolver boasts three George songs and the rest are split between Paul and John. Pepper is
overwhelming Paul. You barely hear George. John shines with Lucy and
A Day In The Life, but his presence is weaker than usual. I love the
contrast of voices on Revolver and miss that interplay on Pepper.
Guv: George shone on
Revolver, no doubt. But an album is not about democracy. It's about
the best songs at the time. It was a mistake to leave SFF and Penny Lane off
Pepper, for sure. I know Paul can be twee (i.e. the verses of Getting
Better) but John was there to balance that with, "It can't get much
worse." Paul countered this by softening Lennon's seriousness, for example, with his interlude in the middle of A Day In The Life.
Doc: Look at side 1 of Revolver:
George's Taxman (an angry song with a funky bassline and a blistering
guitar solo), the sad eloquence of Eleanor Rigby with a restrained,
but effective classical backing, taking Yesterday a step further),
then dipping into psychedelia with John's dreamy ode to daydreaming in I'm Only Sleeping with the backwards guitar.
Then, we turn 180-degrees into India with Love You To, which rocks as hard as
any Beatles song, only it's done with a tabla and not a Rickenbacker.
Guv: But it's disjointed. It
doesn't flow as well. And this is where tone comes in. Revolver works well
enough, but as I suggested, by accident.
Doc: My point about Revolver
isn't about democracy, but diversity. You have three voices -- and
personalities and world viewpoints -- contrasting each other. In
Pepper, those viewpoints are glossed over by fantastical songwriting
and elaborate musical arrangements. What may be a jumble of
songs to you, is to me like reading an anthology of the greatest
short stories of all time from cover to cover.
An early version of Klaus Voorman's cover for Revolver before the photo montage.
Guv: Even an anthology of
short stories needs a unified theme and flow.
Doc: Revolver flows.
The unity lies in the consistent level of musical invention and economical writing of
every song. There's no fat on this album and each song is reaching
for a new sound and expression. For example, the long, "elliptical" fade-in of I Want To Tell
You is seductive and smart.
Guv: Of course there is fat
on Revolver. Yellow Submarine belongs there? It's a throwaway, charming kiddie song. Love You To is good, but hardly vital.
Doc: Oh, please,
The Revolver sessions, spring 1966 at EMI Studios on Abbey Road. (photo: Robert Freeman)
Words & music
Doc: The lyrics in Revolver
are more personal and the songwriting is economical. Lyrics get to
the point and they are sharper. Take any line out of Eleanor Rigby,
which is one of Paul's finest lyrics ever ("and was buried along
with her name"); or the sardonic Taxman ("If you take a
walk, I'll tax your feet"); or the sadly nostalgic She Said She
Said ("When I was a boy, everything was right'); or the
enigmatic Tomorrow Never Knows ("Lay down all thought surrender
to the void").
Guv: Those are fine
examples, but you can counter those lines with a bunch from Pepper.
"And the time will come when you see we're all one and life
flows on within you and without you".
Doc: Pepper has its moments,
lyrically, but they are fewer and far between. "I used to be
angry young man, me hiding me head in the sand" in Getting
Better is honest and powerful. "See the people standing there
who disagree and never win and wonder why they don't get in my door"
is a rare instance of Paul talking to himself (a la John). Then, of
course, you have A Day In The Life.
Guv: I won't deny Revolver
pushed envelopes both instrumentally and in arrangement. It was a
huge leap from Beatlemania's boy-meets-girl. But Pepper took it a step
further and the studio became another instrument like never before. I would argue that has never been surpassed. Elaborate, textured,
layered, but not self-conscious.
Doc: On Revolver, some songs
just didn't need elaborate arrangements, like Here There and
Everywhere, She Said She Said and Good Day Sunshine. They could have
been performed in concert. Pepper songs were all
intended for a full production. I can't imagine Lucy in acoustic.
Listen to the isolated tape loops that appear in Tomorrow Never Knows
Guv: Revolver was a band
still in transition, from teenyboppers to studio masters. Their minds
and imaginations were opened by acid, and they needed to replicate
that experience on vinyl. They had time to experiment in the studio,
and were fortunate to have willing accomplices in Martin and Emerick.
And they did it so well. Revolver is, indeed a masterpiece. But by
the time they got to Pepper they had more control, more time (they'd
stopped touring) and were able to practise and develop their parts.
Paul's playing is more melodic than every before. Revolver took them to the final camp, but with Pepper they reach the top of the mountain.
Doc: The fantasy of Pepper
is imaginative and beautiful, but there is a shallowness to it as
well. Revolver's songs are more personal and direct, so they touch
the listener. Also, there is a diversity of voices on Revolver
that is lacking on Pepper. (The Beatles could have rectified this by
including Strawberry Fields Forever.)
Guv: That's where Pepper
works. It's Psychedelic Music Hall.
Doc: Revolver is a
collection of sounds, many new to listeners in 1966, yet still fresh 50 years later.
There's Indian raga,
Memphis soul, Beach Boys harmonies, a children's song, an acid trip
and classical strings on an album that has no weak moments.
Read more of our special coverage celebrating the 50th anniversary release of Revolver: Cos I'm The Staxman: What if the Beatles recorded Revolver in Memphis?
Part of the Rowboat Syndicate's coverage celebrating the 50th anniversary of Revolver
review by Allan Tong
When The Beatles Rocked Toronto is long on Toronto history, but short on the Beatles.
Promoted as "Metropolitan life and music in the mid-60s," the exhibition (running through Nov.12 at the St. Lawrence Market's Market Gallery and part of a larger celebration, Beatles 50 T.O.) does just that. A detailed written timeline, vintage living room furniture, Yorkville coffee house posters, a giant map of the downtown music scene and archival photos detail the vibrant mid-60s scene in Toronto.
This part of the exhibition succeeds. It illustrates uptight, WASPy Toronto invaded by white kids playing folk music and rock 'n' roll. There are mementos of folkies including Joni Mitchell, Gordon Lightfoot and Neil Young who graced the coffee houses of Yorkville, then a hotbed of teen rebellion (and today a millionaire's playground).
A glaring omission is Bob Dylan.
In September 1965, Dylan recruited Ronnie Hawkins' (a legendary Toronto rockabilly singer) band, The Hawks, to back him on his tour. Dylan was transitioning from a folkie into a rock star, and the Hawks (later The Band) would join him. The marriage of Dylan's lyrics with electricity revolutionized popular music in 1965 that directly influenced The Beatles. And Toronto played a key role. So, where's Bob?
This half (literally more than half the floor space of this art gallery) of the exhibition does not connect with The Beatles. True. It's important to offer context so that audiences today can understand the impact The Fab Four had on North American cities like Toronto. However, the Yorkville scene consisted of coffee houses where folk singers played. How did The Beatles fit? The exhibition feels like two separate shows: one about mid-60s Toronto music, and the other about The Beatles' three Toronto concerts in 1964, 1965 and 1966.
Visitors, of course, will pay more attention to the The Beatles' part of the exhibition. There is the requisite memorabilia: a tour program, bobbleheads, trading cards, an oversized comb, a Beatles wig, and a Toronto Telegram magazine picturing John in a ridiculous nightgown on the cover. The jewel is a pristine "butcher" cover. All fun and fine.
More intriguing are Canadian items that few fans have seen: ticket stubs from the Toronto shows, a Cadbury Chocolate offer to buy Beatles photos, CHUM radio station record charts, a rare concert poster, and a Canadian fan club membership card and newsletter. Capitol Canada head honcho, Paul White, contributes much of his own vinyl, including a company newsletter, dated Nov. 22, 1963, declaring "BEATLEMANIA" INVADES CANADA that outlines his record release schedule and strategy. (The exhibit proudly notes that the Beatles conquered Canada a year before the U.S.)
White shares some reminisces in a video that is part of a larger loop. No, there's no footage of The Beatles here, certainly not the concerts or interviews with screaming fans. Instead, there is a Toronto music program that ran on TV. Shamefully, most of this video is marred by out-of-synch audio.
That's right. There's not a single second of film or audio of any of The Beatles' concerts, press conferences or even news coverage (i.e. CBC-TV). Collectors have this already and some of it is available on the internet, but something - anything - deserves to be part of this exhibition. This is inexcusable.
The Beatles play Maple Leafs Gardens, Toronto, on Sept. 7, 1964 (photo: Boris Spremo)
The closest we get to reliving the concerts are two slideshows capturing fans clamouring outside Maple Leaf Gardens, Toronto's venerable, old hockey arena where The Beatles performed, and of the band itself performing onstage and hosting press conferences. Photographers Boris Spremo, John Rowlands and Lynn Ball share many amazing images. Fans scrawl graffiti on the Gardens' back door, and weep and scream in and outside the venue. Watching this, I wondered, What happened to these teenage fans? Where are their reminisces in this exhibit?
Another glaring omission is the complete absence of Revolver. Though the band played no music from this album, the entire point behind the August 1966 tour was to promote it. Similarly, there's zero reference of The Beatles getting fed up with touring and soon winding down Beatlemania. There's no explicit mention of the Bigger Than Christ furor, Tokyo demonstrations and Manila fiasco that forever drove the Beatles, which in turn makes the 1966 Toronto concert all the more important. 1966 forced Sgt. Pepper. Yet, none of this context is here.
The visitor gets close, but not close enough. When The Beatles Rocked Torontois a nostalgia trip for Boomers who lived through the era, but they will gain no deeper understanding of The Beatles. Casual fans and those born after the 60s will enter a time capsule and get a taste of Beatlemania and Toronto music, but will not understand the significance of The Beatles on Canadian society. They were a big pop group, that's all.
At $10 admission and supported by the Toronto and Ontario governments,When The Beatles Rocked Toronto is a cash grab. Read more about Revolverhere.
This is the first in a series of features celebrating the 50th anniversary of The Beatles' landmark Revolveralbum.
Innovative in sound and lyric and influencing rock bands decades after its release 50 years ago today, Paperback Writer was the first Beatles' single to be greeted by disappointment.
It was the first single since She Loves You to fail to immediately hit #1 upon release, though it would covet the top spot for two weeks on both the U.K.'s New Musical Express and American Billboard charts. Critical reaction was mixed. In 1974, British music critics, Roy Carr and Tony Tyler, wrote that "opinions still differ as to the merits of Paperback Writer, the first Beatles single to receive less-than-universal acclaim."
Today, that's astonishing to read, but then again, Paperback Writer and its brilliant b-side, Rain, are considered two songs created well ahead of their time.
Can you hear me?
A few weeks into the Revolver sessions on April 14, 1966, Paul McCartney strolled into the EMI Recording Studios on Abbey Road, sat at a piano and confidently declared to his bandmates, "Gather 'round, lads, and have a listen to our next single."
Paul then pounded out a catchy tune about a wannabe writer, and directed John and George where to harmonize. "It was obvious to everyone in the room that this was an instant hit," engineer Geoff Emerick recalled in his memoirs, Here, There and Everywhere.
Artistically, both sides of the single broke from the traditional boy/girl lyric found in all previous hits, including the Beatles' recent We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper.Trite love songs still ruled the charts (and still do today), but by mid-April 1966, Bob Dylan had revolutionized popular songwriting with his 1965 albums, Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited, which burst with abstract images and symbolist poetry. No love songs here.
Paperback Writer would be Paul's first "story" lyric, where he tells a tale in the third person, namely about an aspiring writer whose son works for the Daily Mail and wants to get a novel published.Paul delivers a sharp vocal, but the highlight is the refrain, sung in harmony with John and George and drenched in heavy echo.
Sonically, Paperback Writer alsoboasts a gorgeous, fat bass line that was inspired by American soul records from Stax and Motown. The bottom end never sounded like this on any Beatles' (or British) record to this point. The Beatles were tired of hearing superior bass on American records and demanded a change. "Pull out all the stops," Paul instructed the band's new recording engineer, Geoff Emerick. "This song is really calling out for that deep Motown bass sound."
Long technical story short, Emerick experimented by wiring a loudspeaker as a microphone to max out Paul's bassline, which, by the way, he was playing from a beefy Rickenbacker instead of his "thinner" Hofner violin bass.
Paul also played the fuzzy lead guitar (though some believe it was George) which was also the Beatles' first distorted guitar. 1966 Beatles is noted for this sound which reflects the music their peers were making from London to San Francisco. Paperback Writer as well as Rain owe more to the Yardbirds' hit of the previous summer, Heart Full of Soul, than the clean twang of I Want To Hold Your Hand. The Beatles did not invent this sound, but helped popularize it.
The same goes with the b-side, Rain, which was every bit as inventive as the a-side, but decidedly less commercial. It's widely considered the band's finest b-side, though in my book, it's really on equal footing with Paperback Writer, like We Can Work Out complements Day Tripper.
This Lennon track owes an obvious debt to the Byrds, the California band that was in turn influenced by The Beatles' 12-string Rickenbacker sound. However, the lyrics, which were definitely not boy/girl, were inspired by LSD that John was starting to drop regularly around this time.
Studio trickery here amounted to slowing down the rhythm track to make it sluggish and playing the vocals in the fade-out backwards. Though George Martin took credit for this innovation, it's more likely (as corroborated by engineer Emerick) that John got stoned on hash one night and accidentally spooled his reel-to-reel tape backwards on his home deck. The sound blew his mind.
The song creates a dazzling, colourful world of its own that the listener can slip into for three minutes, like Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole. However, the sound texture of Rain would've been too far out for 1966 radio, and for years it was a nearly-forgotten gem.
In the digital age, Rain finallygotten its due. Until 1987, the track was not featured on any album, including compilations, and found only if you picked up the Paperback Writer single. Even then it was mixed only in mono. However, I would argue that the wide-panning stereo on today's releases it terrible. Ringo's high-hat is to loud in the mix, and the stereo picture is too disjointed with vocals and instruments separated by a thousand sonic miles.
A word about Ringo's drumming. Ringo himself feels that Rain features his best drumming, but I disagree. His shining moment came a few weeks later in mid-1966 when The Beatles recorded She Said She Said.
I can show you
Paperback Writer/Rain was a preview of their forthcoming album, Revolver. I suspect that few fans realized it at the time, but The Beatles in June 1966 were searching for new sounds and tired of their cute moptop image. Like all great artists, The Beatles were too talented to stand still. Sure, their records would continue to sell millions and top the charts, but who was really listening? Unlike She Loves You which launched The Beatles in 1963 Britain or Hey Jude which would become their biggest-selling single, Paperback Writer/Rain would be overlooked in its time and not fully appreciated until many years later for its originality and innovation.
