• I agree about Revolution #9 & the comments about Yoko. I know John loved her but she should never have been allowed near the studio.


    As for songs I don't like, there is a bare handful.


    I Will - Paul being too schmaltzy here. It's cloying.

    Hold Me Tight - Paul again, not very convincing.

    Good Night - Ringo singing a JOHN song, not that it sounds like that. It's out of place.


    Honestly, I struggle after that. Even some of the early covers like Matchbox & Bad Boy, I like. Although I can do without Dizzy Miss Lizzie.

  • Regardless of how anyone feels about "Revolution 9," I can't say I blame them. I used to look down on it myself, mostly because that seemed to be the expected reaction.


    Now I think of it as an example of how expertly the whole mishmash of material on the White Album was sequenced, apparently by George Martin. As musicologist Alan Pollock points out, if R9 had to be on the album, 2nd to last is the only spot that works for it.


    I hear the album's ending stretch as follows:

    "Cry Baby Cry" (one of my favorites on the album) - not quite a lullaby

    "Take Me Back" - a subtle transition out of wakefulness

    "Revolution 9" - a nightmare, in restless sleep

    "Good Night" - the real lullaby (and what Beatle could be more reassuring than Ringo?)


    BTW, I've heard a couple of John's early albums with Yoko. Compared to those, R9 is an absolute masterpiece.

    The Seat Bunny!

  • That's a very interesting way of viewing those tracks.

  • Regardless of how anyone feels about "Revolution 9," I can't say I blame them. I used to look down on it myself, mostly because that seemed to be the expected reaction.

    Isn't in a way what happened with Whodunnit? It was released as a sort of annoying, obnoxious joke and it was broadly received in that way , except, some fans ended up liking it. My point there would be, and it applies to Revolution#9 too, are we fans over-indulgent in a way? Would we give songs like these even a remote chance if they hadn't a certain name stamped on it? To me, songs like these are a clear example of emperor's new clothes. They are what they are, nothing else and nothing more, even when the Beatles or Genesis wrote them.

    Edited once, last by Fabrizio ().

  • Isn't in a way what happened with Whodunnit? It was released as a sort of annoying, obnoxious joke and it was broadly received in that way , except, some fans ended up liking it. My point there would be, and it applies to Revolution#9 too, are we fans over-indulgent in a way? Would we give songs like these even a remote chance if they hadn't a certain name stamped on it? To me, songs like these are a clear example of emperor's new clothes. They are what they are, nothing else and nothing more, even when the Beatles or Genesis wrote them.

    All songs are what they are. And I think in fact quite a few dedicated fans will often go the other way and be extra-picky about their favourite bands' releases. Many others will of course react as you said and be much more accepting than less enthusiastic listeners. I think Who Dunnit largely got the reaction the band expected and to some extent wanted - I think TB said they hoped to really annoy the more 'old-fashioned' fans. I'm not sure if it's noted anywhere whether Lennon wanted fans to specifically be annoyed by R9, but he must have known that would be one very likely reaction, along with bafflement, confusion and possibly boredom. I'd guess his thinking was at least partly what you just said - this is this, it is what it is, make of it what you will.


    I can go as far as saying I don't mind Who Dunnit. It earns a few points from me simply on the basis that it is, indeed, what it is. I like the whole stripped-down approach to that album, even more so when I learned they abandoned what they'd done at first because it was sounding too Genesis-y. That song kind of sums up that thinking, and also I like some of its sounds and textures. Beyond that, it's never going to be high on my list - it didn't make it onto my 6-disc compilation - I just don't detest it in the way many seem to. I don't think it comes under Emperor's New Clothes because it's not pretending to be anything other than what it is.


    And for me, neither is R9. However much intent Lennon may have had about any 'meaning', like any track once it's out there it's up to the audience. For it to be an Emperor's New Clothes job it would have to have been revered by many as a deep artistic statement. I honestly don't know if it has been.

    Abandon all reason

  • I hadn't ever thought of that final sequence in that specific way, but have always loved the ordering. Something about that sequence has always made an impression on me. Those tracks, including the Take Me Back snippet (jaunty-sounding as it is), have something a bit creepy about them. Yes, even Good Night. But maybe that's just me.


    This has just reminded me of something; back in the 90s one night I decided to put this album on when I went to bed. I turned the light off and got into bed and gradually drifted off. I woke up, with that momentary confusion you sometimes get when waking up, in the middle of R9. For a few seconds I was completely disoriented and slightly alarmed with these weird noises and voices in the dark.


    You probably had no interest in reading that, but I wanted to mention it as it suddenly came back to me!

    Abandon all reason

  • And for me, neither is R9. However much intent Lennon may have had about any 'meaning', like any track once it's out there it's up to the audience. For it to be an Emperor's New Clothes job it would have to have been revered by many as a deep artistic statement. I honestly don't know if it has been.

    Fair point.

  • "Would we give songs like these even a remote chance if they hadn't a certain name stamped on it?"

    There are quite a few Genesis songs I'm sure I wouldn't find very interesting if they hadn't been by Genesis, especially some of the early ones. That said, I probably would have found "Who Dunnit?" hilarious, and "Revolution 9" creepy and fascinating, regardless of who they were by. Still, I do think that R9 benefits, in my brain at least, from its context on the White Album.


    "You probably had no interest in reading that, but I wanted to mention it as it suddenly came back to me!"

    Actually, I did find that interesting.

    The Seat Bunny!

  • I love every Larry Williams cover they did. This one, Bad Boy, and Leave My Kitten Alone. John is fully committed on the vocals.

    According to Anthology 1 Leave My Kitten Alone was written by Little Willie John & covered by Johnny Preston. It's a favourite of mine as well.

  • So, since we are talking about them, perhaps and just for fun, someone can answer the Question I personally am unable to answer, at least when it concerns their tenure in the band: John or Paul? And why?

    Edited once, last by Fabrizio ().

  • The Beatles, as we know them, wouldn't have existed without either John or Paul, so IMO you can't choose one over the other...and since they're a two-headed monster, if you remove either head the monster dies...which is what eventually happened to the Beatles. Once the split happened, the solo career that meant the most to me was Paul's. I don't like my music to be politically motivated, and that was the path John chose for his solo career. Love 'em both though.

  • The Beatles, as we know them, wouldn't have existed without either John or Paul, so IMO you can't choose one over the other...and since they're a two-headed monster, if you remove either head the monster dies...which is what eventually happened to the Beatles. Once the split happened, the solo career that meant the most to me was Paul's. I don't like my music to be politically motivated, and that was the path John chose for his solo career. Love 'em both though.

    Solo careers are a whole different thing and imho John has pretty much squandered his. A couple of good albums and handful of good song but for my money that's about it and it is a crying shame. I don't mind an artist being political, as long as he is sincere and there is some coherence and imo John was neither. One might argue that Paul was too often….harmless but he did what he did and was rightly unapologetic about it. As for John&Paul with the Beatles, I would agree it is difficult to pick one over another, I find myself defending either when someone makes a definitive call in that area. It's not difficult considering the songs both wrote. I would venture that John was instrumental in becoming successful, he was a true original and a bit far off, whereas Paul was perhaps more conventional. In return, I would perhaps say that Paul was crucial in keeping that success, he was imo the most gifted musician in the group and although different from John an equally gifted songwriter. Ultimately though, they needed each other to compete and give their best and they kept each other in check, something they missed sorely in their solo careers.

  • Just my opinion. but the only think bold about it, is slapping it on a Beatles album. It could have been titled Revolution#8 and have whole different sounds and atmosphere and it it would have been the same…...Equally audacious. It was basically John AND Yoko goofing around. That said, if you like listen to it it's quite OK but let's not kid ourselves into believing there's some sort of artistic merit to it. We would do no justice to one of the greatest songwriters ever.

    Interesting, you begin by offering "just my opinion", but then insist on making a declaration to imply that a judgment of "artistic merit" must be some kind of consensus that conforms to your personal point of view.


    You can't have it both ways.


    You can like or dislike the piece of work, but you can't insist that your opinion has universal agreement.

  • So, since we are talking about them, perhaps and just for fun, someone can answer the Question I personally am unable to answer, at least when it concerns their tenure in the band: John or Paul? And why?

    Both. They were equally important.

  • Both. They were equally important.

    I agree, both were excellent writers. Just look into their solo careers and that includes the whole band too.. But together, they were dangerously good!...^^...... Sometimes great bands need that in their music.


    One writer is not good enough..