#3 – The Beatles – Revolver (1966)

May 1, 2015

RevolverIt’s nice, in its way, that all the albums in the top five hover around a specific period of time, and all speak to each other in more or less direct ways.  Of course, three of them are all by the same band, but even the other two–Pet Sounds and Highway 61 Revisited–join in on that conversation to some extent, the former falling between Rubber Soul and Revolver and serving as a mutually inspirational/ arms-racey bridge between them, and the latter having established a kind of intelligence and depth in pop songwriting that influenced all of these albums to one extent or another.  If you’re not a fan of this era or these artists, of course, it’s not nice at all that they’re cluttering up all the top spots.  But for my purposes, it seems like a pretty solid grouping, and a validation of my own prejudice that popular music peaked in this mid-60s window–due in part to these five albums, but also to lots of other incredible music, much of it non-album oriented, that was being made at the time.

Of the three Beatles records that populate every other one of the five top spots, this is the middle one chronologically, and also in Rolling Stone’s ranking.  This follows the traditional narrative that The Beatles’ middle period, generally regarded as their artistic high point, followed a linear upward progression culminating in their glorious 1967 masterpiece, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band–the number one greatest record of all time according to this list.  There is, however, a competing narrative, itself pretty well established by this point, which holds that, really, the whole  idea of Sgt. Pepper–its concept and its bright, attractive packaging–seduced everyone into thinking it was their best album, whereas actually, Revolver represents their true artistic high water mark.  Proponents of this theory feel that this is the more solid set of songs over all, and the point at which the group’s studio (and psychoactive) experimentation was new and exciting enough to really change the way everyone thought about how pop music could sound.  In this view, Revolver is secretly the genuine psychedelic masterpiece of The Beatles’ career, and Sgt. Pepper comparatively sort of an uneven confection that couldn’t even hold its alleged “concept” together for more than a few songs.  It parallels the argument that, while everyone talks about 1967 and the “summer of love” and all, really 1966 (the year my father graduated from high school, incidentally) was the year that everything really got cool, and that by 1967, it was all kind of for tourists, existentially speaking.

I’ve generally steered clear of picking a side in this argument, averring my preference for the warmer, simpler pleasures of Rubber Soul.  For the sake of this project, and in the absence of having been able to listen to any of the albums for a number of years, I have committed to remaining neutral in deciding a favorite until the very end, although so far Rubber Soul is holding strong.  I don’t know if it was just the mood I was in listening to this one, or if my expectations had grown too high or what, but I found myself almost shockingly underwhelmed by it.  I mean, of course it’s a great album–one of the greatest–and of course I love it, and will continue to listen to it for the rest of my life.  But right on this listening, thinking of it in relation to the albums that surround it, I found myself kind of let down by its neither here nor thereness.  The music on Rubber Soul, while admittedly not as adventuresomely orchestrated or augmented by backward tape loops and the like, at least presents a relatively unified aesthetic front–it all hangs together quite nicely and the songs feel more than incidentally related to each other.  And looking ahead, while its true that Sgt. Pepper doesn’t continue to reference its specific conceit–that The Beatles are this other, brightly attired community band or something–the quality of cheerful, carnival psychedelia pervades most of the album, and once again the majority of the songs–though there are exceptions–feel of a piece with one another.

But this album in many ways doesn’t really have that quality.  What it does have is all The Beatles arriving at a new level of artistic achievement and adventuresomeness together, but approached from radically different angles.  For the most part this works quite well, and most of the songs that comprise the album are both individually great and not in the main jarringly incompatible with each other.  But there is definitely more than one thing going on with this record that gives it an almost disjointed quality.  It’s all great enough that one tends to forgive this, but it also colors the experience in a way that, at least for me this time around, made it feel like slightly less of a real album than either of the other two that surround it.

One hates to make it all about drugs, but, well…it’s definitely all about drugs.  Because one can’t listen to this record without hearing with almost embarrassing clarity that the rest of the band–or at least John and George–had taken acid by the time this album was recorded, and that Paul had not.  So (leaving George aside for the moment), while John and Paul were both operating at a very high level making unprecedentedly rarefied, spectacular music, it’s almost as though their creative processes–so closely intertwined just a few years prior–by now existed in separate and not entirely reconcilable universes.

In the main, I think it’s the emphatically psychedelic music on here that one most immediately associates with this album and its legacy as a real groundbreaker.  At the same time, those tend to be the parts that have not necessarily aged all that well.  The tape loops, the backward guitar parts, the influence of Indian music, the shimmery guitars–by now they’ve become cliches, but at the time, no one had ever heard anything like it before.  “Tomorrow Never Knows,” which closes the album, is the most famous example–a masterpiece of unconventional song structure and studio trickery, fleshed out by lines lift from The Tibetan Book of the Dead.  It really is an amazing piece of work, and yet I confess that I never quite loved it.  I think it’s very much a “you had to be there” kind of track–something that would have felt unearthly and world changing in its time.  But those of us born into the world in which it already existed have had to work a little harder to properly appreciate its magnitude.  It’s not really like a…catchy number.  I’ve grown in my ability to appreciate both its innovative technique and its starling effect, and yet it remain not really my favorite piece of psychedelic music.  The stuff Brian Wilson was doing on Smile, for example, which was directly influenced by this music, strikes much deeper into the heart of the psychedelic experience, at least to my ear.  In some ways, I think I always sort of took this track for granted, and it wasn’t until its rather stunning use on Mad Men (so shocking in part because the royalties The Beatles’ music commands means that one never hears their songs on TV) that I was able to almost put myself in the position of someone who had never heard anything like it before.

“She Said She Said” fares a little better, at least in that its more of a real song.  But it’s also never been a big favorite of mine.  Hearing it this time in its full glory (good mono pressing playing through a tube amp) was perhaps the most I’ve ever enjoyed it.  The wall of affected guitar noise that runs throughout and shifts about it is truly stunning.  I especially like the upward sense of where the music goes in the “when I was a boy” part.  It’s really just the “like I’ve never been born” melodic hook that I’ve grown to find rather cloying over the years.

“I’m Only Sleeping” is in spirit more of a weed song, but its backward guitar solo sounds invitingly trippy–dreamlike, I guess you’d call it–and is perhaps my favorite of the “special effects” on the album.  It’s the first such moment on the album, and the one that, to me, holds up the best.  I like how the guitar part, though backwards, makes a certain kind of musical sense in the context of the song.  It’s like the musical equivalent of the way “the man from another place” speaks on Twin Peaks.  It’s one of three songs that Capitol pulled from the American version of the record, which is the version I grew up with.  The change, while abhorrent, was less convoluted than some, because they didn’t add in any tracks from elsewhere.  It’s just a shorter, slightly worse version of the same album.  However, it’s noteworthy that “I’m Only Sleeping” is really the only of those three tracks that I have come in adulthood to feel as an essential part of the album.

The other two songs they pulled, “And Your Bird Can Sing” and “Dr. Robert,” are great songs–even minor favorites of the period for me.  And yet in their comparative straightforwardness, I don’t find them all that well situated here.  Even though one is a delightful piece of nonsense and the other is about a drug dealing M.D., and both are by John, neither of them feel all that druggie to me in a way that would make them fit this album (or at least my scheme of divvying it up) more naturally.  Both songs are especially strong in the guitar department, but it isn’t any kind of phase shifted or backwards or otherwise weirdly affected guitar.  “And Your Bird Can Sing” is in some ways all about the guitar riff–a neat, angular little composition unto itself, whereas “Dr. Robert” finds George giving us a warm, almost overdriven update on his classic Carl Perkinsian style.  Though I’d surely feel different if I’d grown up with the real album, I must confess that I kind of liked these two songs better as they fell on Capitol’s Yesterday and Today album.  (I think I need to find a copy of that record, or at least dig out my old one from my Mom’s basement.)

George also lands with what kind of qualifies as a psychedelic number on “Love to You,” although it’s perhaps better understood simply as a spiritual song.  In general, it’s not a phase of Harrison’s writing I’m all that fond of, and indeed, I don’t love this song.  The conclusion of it’s chorus–“I’ll make love to you, if you want me to”–seems kind of blunt and rude almost, especially as it arises up abruptly out of a lot of vaguery about impermanence and whatnot.  Still, the track itself feels a little more muscular than some of his other, more tepid quasi-Indian songs like “The Inner Light.”  I’m surprised to learn it’s actually George playing the sitar, because he’s shredding pretty hard on that thing.  And, while its virtues are limited for contemporary consumption, it is kind of cool to imagine people hearing this stuff on a pop album in 1966.  It certainly doesn’t sound like anything that came before it.

George’s other two songs are less explicitly psychedelic/spiritual, but both weave in trippy elements in pretty effective ways.  “Tax Man” is the best of the lot, and a fine choice of opener for the album, at least musically.  It’s got a nice hard, sharp sort of attack to it, and its repetition of the titular phrase gives it a faintly comic bookish feeling, referencing Bat Man, I suppose, and also kind of echoing Johnny Rivers’ “Secret Agent Man.”  Its famous guitar solo is the trippy part, but its in a harder, more spastic vein of psychedelia, almost prefiguring the kind of dissonant Coltranesque soloing that would become popular among Bay Area bands in the years that followed.  It’s a great solo, and a fine, tight song.  The only thing that weird about it is that it’s kind of just about George Harrison complaining about having to pay his taxes.  It seems an oddly quotidian, whiny subject for a song–and kind of an oddly conservative sentiment to find at the outset of what is regarded as one of the founding documents of the psychedelic era.  “I Want to Tell You” is a decent one too–a little more vague feeling, like it could have used a bit more tightening up.  But it stands up pretty well, and introduces some cool, trippy backward tape parts at the end that resemble the sound of one of those pitchy Middle Eastern horns.

That leaves us with the much cleaner, profoundly unpsychedelic Paul songs.  To his credit, he does engage in a bit of studio trickery here and there that mirrors, if tentatively, the psychedelic excursions of his bandmates, but they feel more like incidental effects than something central to the songs’ conceptions.  I guess the closest he gets to cleaving in a trippy direction for a whole song would have to be “Yellow Submarine,” which really sounds like someone who has never taken drugs at all trying to write a druggie song.  Still, it’s got an easy, campfireish sensibility to it, and it earns some points for being the first Beatles song that most kids probably ever get into.  I don’t think it really merits having been a single (though it did quite well), but it’s a harmless enough little trifle of a song that interrupts only slightly the progression of the more mature songs that surround it.  More troubling to me, at least most days, is the cloyingly bright “Good Day Sunshine.”  It tries to be simply a cheerful, optimistic little pop song, and every once in awhile I can hear it that way.  But mostly, it tips over into that vein of mawkishness that prefigures much of the unlistenable dreck of McCartney’s solo career.  He feels good…in a special way.  Slightly better is “Got to Get You into My Life,” which shares a bit of that same over-brightness, but at least adds some horns to give it the patina of soul music.  It’s not terribly soulful, but it’s a good enough little tune, especially in its arrangement of horns and the guitar parts in between.

But really, the places where Paul really shines on this album are in a series of small, delicate art music pieces.  It’s a range of McCartney’s output that began with “Yesterday” and seemed to kind of peter out after “She’s Leaving Home,” but finds its fullest expression on this album.  It’s Pauls’ biggest contribution to the serious and groundbreaking qualities of the record–making lovely, quasi-classical songs almost in the vein of Schubert’s lieder in the context of a pop album. It’s what he could do to move the music forward on his own steam while his bandmates were reaping the benefits of having severely altered their consciousness–and it does count for something.

Truthfully, I don’t love the most famous of these, “Eleanor Rigby,” which seems kind of bathetic and overwritten, and whose sawing, arpeggiated melody starts to grate on me by the end of the song.  Perhaps its just that I was exposed at too young an age to Doodles Weaver’s fine evisceration of the song to ever quite be able to take it as seriously as it’s asking to be taken.  (Although in a poignant denouement, I just learned that Doodles Weaver killed himself, which sort of folds some gravity back into the whole thing.)  Much more satisfying to my ear is “For No One,” a chillingly polite little song of heartbreak whose structural formality nicely mirrors the iciness of the couple growing apart in the songs lyric.  It’s piano accompaniment is so harpsichordishly staccato that an almost funky kind of rhythm starts to emerge subtly and almost incidentally beneath song’s classical trappings.  It’s punctuated by a sweet, clear horn solo of the type McCartney would reprise on “Penny Lane.”  I think it’s a very fine song, if not exactly a fun one.  Also very fine is “Here, There and Everywhere.”  Rhythmically, it has more of a modern–or at least in the twentieth century ballpark–feel to it, but the delicacy of its melody, the sweetness of its harmonies and its subtle arrangement makes it belong to this camp of what I’m calling Paul’s “art songs.”  It might even, in its own quiet way, be the among the best songs on the album.

The only question is, how does a song like “Here, There and Everywhere” tie in with a song like “Tomorrow Never Knows”?  What possible conversation could those two songs have with each other that wouldn’t swiftly devolve into mutual rankor and misunderstanding?  I don’t think there’s a good answer for that, except that by the force of The Beatles’ presentation, it all kind of works out.  It’s almost like the White Album of the mid-period in that way.  On this one, they were still all getting along and collaborating and working together toward something, but to some degree, the basic differences in artistic and even existential orientation become hard to ignore nevertheless.  Perhaps that tension–or just diversity, I guess you could call it–is part of this album’s appeal.  And yet, at least this time, I found it a bit distracting.  If Sgt. Pepper is not as innovative as this one, or not as strong song to song, I would say in its favor that it at least manages to blend its various elements together in a way that feels a bit more harmonious and cohesive, more on the same psychoactive page, and if only for that reason, might still trump this one after all.

Source: the 2014 Mono Reissue.  On the strength of Rubber Soul and the other records I’ve heard from this set, I had really high hopes, and yet I found myself a little unsure of how I liked the way this one sounded.  It felt maybe almost a little too transparent, like I could feel the spaces around all that studio trickery a little too acutely.  It seemed to kind of thin out in places, and bunch up in others.  Maybe, although it contradicts both my own expectations and the popular consensus of the day, this one works better in stereo.  And maybe my slight reservations about the album as a whole was in part a function of this sonic uncertainty. Or maybe I was just cranky at the time.

8 Responses to “#3 – The Beatles – Revolver (1966)”

  1. rodney Says:

    …or maybe it was just badly engineered, as Geoff Emerick overcompressed it and was still learning what he was doing. All the pressings of Revolver I have heard are blown out. That said, I far and away prefer it to Rubber Soul, whether the songs work cohesively together or not.

    • Huh. Well, thank you. That’s a useful, if unfortunate, piece of information. I had never noticed before, but I guess hearing it under more ideal conditions “revealed the limitations of the source material,” as they say. Do have a preference for mono or stereo on this one?

      And, yeah. One would be hard pressed to argue that this one doesn’t represent a great leap forward in artistic achievement over Rubber Soul. It’s just, getting back to that question of vibe, or the residue of feeling an album leaves you with, I feel better after listening to Rubber Soul.

      • rodney Says:

        Well, since you asked, I always prefer the mono up until the self-titled album. With Revolver (original pressings), the tube lathes actually contribute to the muddy fuzziness, and solid-state pressings usually are preferable (anything after 1969, mostly). So the new mono box or 2009 mono CD is about as good as the presentation will get, clarity-wise.

      • Cool. Thank you so much. I’m still pretty new at the audiophile game, so I really appreciate this kind of insight. And it may spare me the temptation of ever plunking down for an original pressing of this one! So far, I think I agree with you on mono most of the way up (though I’ve never done a real side by side comparison). I think my one exception would be Magical Mystery Tour. Or at least the pressing of it I have–the German Horzu pressing (which I believe is somehow the only pressing that boasts true stereo on “I Am the Walrus”) sounds more vibrant to me than the one in the recent mono box. My only point of comparison between the recent mono pressings and the originals is A Hard Day’s Night, since that’s the only original parlophone pressing I own. I did a comparison and found the sound between the two encouragingly close. If there was any slight difference, it was that the original seems many a little warmer and more cohesive, and the new one sounded a little crisper and more detailed. But they were very close.

  2. Bob Jordan Says:

    What puzzles me is this statement: “I don’t see too much difference between Revolver and Rubber Soul,” George Harrison once said. “To me, they could be Volume One and Volume Two.”

    As you mentioned in your review of Rubber Soul, Help and some of the 1965 singles foreshadow its sound. Much of Revolver is unprecedented, with all due respect to Brian Wilson. Whatever limitations we may note today, the impact of this record on pop music history is astounding.

    I may need to do a side by side of the mono and stereo cds of this record. Damn I am really beginning to lust for a turntable!

    • Bob Jordan Says:

      I did a quick A-B comparison, using a cd from the mono box set of 2009, and 24-bit FLAC files, of Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, and Tomorrow Never Knows. I found that, while the stereo FLAC files were less muddy, the stereo mix is the antiquated style of having the vocals panned hard to one side or the other. Thus the mono “felt” more balanced. Is there a stereo mix of this record done in a more contemporary style of stereo balance and panning?

      • Thanks for doing this. Yep, ever since I got hip to the mono copies, I have been similarly distracted by that kind of hard panning on a lot of their records (although starting with Magical Mystery Tour, the stereo mix seems to feel a lot more vivid and lively). My recollection from the reissued stereo CDs is that only one of the albums (either Help or Rubber Soul, I forget) got a more recent stereo mix, back when the albums were first being prepared for CD in the 80s. But otherwise, we’re stuck with the original mixes. I also remember reading comparative reviews of the stereo and mono boxes, and its conclusion was that Revolver sounded better in mono for the most part, except that “Tomorrow Never Knows” really need to be heard in stereo.

    • Yeah, that one always has been a bit of a puzzler to me too. I guess I can see where they do have that kind of “volume one and two” quality to them, with Help! and Sgt. Pepper feeling like something distinct from that pairing on either end. But to say there’s not much difference is, of course, absurd, since the difference between the two is probably the biggest single leap they made in sophistication.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: