The Beatles Reader Comments

Greg Shibley - Wow. A couple hours ago I was trolling around the internet looking for a copy of the cover photo to the Beatles' Decca audition tapes when I came across your site. I read every review you wrote on the Beatles and all solo stuff by Paul and John. I was enjoying it so much that I would put on whatever album I was reading about and skip around to whatever song you were dissecting at the moment. I'm pleased to say I agreed with almost everything you said; I won't bother pointing out where I disagreed, since I'm sure you've heard all that before. Regardless, I was struck by the care and obvious thought that went into what you wrote. Thank you for the work.

Ian's Music Reviews - Thanks so much for taking the time to write. It's nice to get feedback every once in a while, and it's nice to know that someone out there is enjoying the site. I'm glad you agree with most of my assessments, but please feel free to email me if you feel I've lost the plot on some of the reviews. I'd be curious to see which ones those are.

David Milazzo - Again, I perfectly agree with all of your reviews except the ratings of Please Please Me and Beatles for Sale. You say that Please Please Me is their weakest record at an eight, while instead giving Beatles for Sale a 'high seven' and stating that it's Please Please Me's superior. Now I realize that you were merely stating that while Beatles for Sale was the superior album, it was also a letdown after A Hard Day's Night. Letdown it may be, I still believe that there is a distinct separation between Beatles for Sale and Please Please Me. While the For Sale as a whole sounds tired and apathetic, the highs of the album blow anything that Please Please Me does out of the water in my opinion. Those being 'No Reply,' 'I'm a Loser,' and Eight Days a Week' (and arguably 'I'll Follow the Sun,' a sweet little melody). I just think the strength of those three songs, along with a solid but not spectacular selection of covers and filler elevate it to a level slightly above that of Please Please Me.

Ian's Music Reviews - I'm glad you brought this issue to my attention, as there appears to be some inconsistency on my part in the Beatles For Sale review. By all rights, I should lower the rating of Please Please Me to a 7, and upgrade Beatles For Sale to an 8. You are right, the best tracks on Beatles For Sale are better than those on Please Please Me (well, apart from I Saw Her Standing There), and there is more filler on the latter album as well. I will change the rating as soon as possible.

Rod Goertz - This is to advise you that I wish to cancel my subscription, effective immediately. I have cancelled all my credit cards and closed my bank accounts, and also ask you to return the keys to my house and car, as well as my first born child. I sent them to you in my initial burst of enthusiasm on finding a music reviewer who acknowledges the greatness of Abba, who is aware of the Rye Catcher's defining role in 21st century pop, and who is able to add a worthwhile and well- reasoned perspective to the much discussed subject of the Beatles. That all changed, though, when I came across the silver-tongued reviewer's sly advice to "skip"--i.e., not hear, ignore, cast into the void, etc.--the great "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite".

I hold to the verbal plenary theory of divine inspiration of Sergeant Pepper's. If mere mortals decide that can snip out this or that according to their whim, where will it end? Suddenly it's not "Getting Better"? There's nobody "Fixing a Hole"? The loveliness of the meter maid is no more to be found? Or perhaps we don't like roosters, or are too busy to listen fully to the last mighty chord of the album?

I for one do not wish to be stuck in the long dark "Wednesday morning at five o'clock" of the soul. I'd rather be there on that day with the Henderson's, dancing and singing, when Mr. Kite finally flies through the air.

Perhaps some time spent drifting past the cellophane flowers will convince you of the Truth.

Ian's Music Reviews - I regret to inform you that your subscription cannot be cancelled, and that all personal items - children and keys included - will remain the sole property of Ian's Music Reviews.
As for your "comments," I must admit I was surprised by the venomous tone of your email. I was particularly shocked by the suggestion that I have never spent time drifting past cellophane flowers. This is clearly false, and I demand an immediate apology.

Rod Goertz - Just came across your site and wanted to say that I'm delighted and impressed. In particular I wanted to congratulate you on not being afraid of generating a little controversy by urging listeners to "skip" that overblown piece of inanity known as "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite". Take away all the crashing and banging and what have you got? A bit of silliness about horses waltzing and so on. The sooner the listener can move from the dark intensity of "She's Leaving Home" to the melodic inventiveness of "Within You Without You" the better for him. Too many people consider Sergeant Pepper's to be a sacred and inviolable whole. I'm glad to see that you for one are willing to say that, unlike the emperor, Mr. Kite is all dressed up with no place to go.

Ian's Music Reviews - Thank you for your kind words. When I wrote my Sgt. Pepper review, I was certainly aware that I was stirring the pot, and though I admit my criticism of Mr Kite was a tad hard, I stand by my analysis. I agree with you that Sgt Pepper should not be regarded as a sacred an inviolable whole (although it must be regarded as a work of genius). In fact, the Beatles themselves had trouble agreeing on a running order for the songs, not to mention the fact that Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane were intended to be the building blocks of Sgt Pepper until EMI decided to issue the songs as a single. I guess all I was trying to say is that Sgt Pepper doesn't need Mr. Kite to be great, whereas Mr Kite most certainly needs Sgt Pepper to be listenable.

Rod Goertz - Oh oh--who is it this time, Jekyll or Hyde? Just me this time, my usual venomous and kind self, or is that "kind of venomous"? In all seriousness, great stuff, and I don't know how you manage to have two, count them, TWO people of the tiny persuasion to care for AND get up this website as well. But of course, I'm mystified by all things digital (as well as the concept of multi-tasking).

As for my schizophrenic rants, I stand by both of them, especially the first. This is because Sgt. Peppers, as the second tape I ever owned, is filed under "May not be deconstructed" in my mind. And as a child, of course I liked the "child-like" songs best, of which Mr. Kite is pre-eminent. You must forgive my little outburst, my last illusions were destroyed when your review made me consider that everything, even this, can be questioned. Hence my cruel suggestion that you don't like crinkly bits of coloured plastic, or the act of drifting past them. How would you have come to develop such a fondness for "Fake Plastic Trees"

Ian's Music Reviews - Thanks for taking the time to read these reviews - heated debates about music is what my new website is all about. Hopefully more people will stumble upon this site, and I can get even more feedback. I really enjoy writing these reviews, but I don't often have enough time to do so (I probably won't be able to write any more updates until mid-December).

By the way, I don't actually hate Mr Kite. I think it's a bit overrated, and hasn't aged particularly well, but I think that advising the reader to "skip" the track is a bit of an overstatement - one that may need correcting in the future. Being irreverent is one thing, but being stupid is quite another. And who am I to criticize something as original and imaginative as Mr. Kite?

Al Brooks - The reason Sgt. Peppers is rightly called overrated is because though it IS very good it isn't, as has been claimed, the greatest recording ever released. If something is hyped up too much it will be pulled down from its pedestal.

Ian's Music Reviews - Yes, I agree with your assessment. For years it was lauded as rock 'n roll's ultimate masterpiece - almost to the point where it overshadowed some of the Beatles' other great albums. In recent years, there has been a sort of critical revisionism taking place, where Sgt Pepper is no longer rating at the top of critic's "top albums of all-time" lists. However, only a fool would assert that it isn't one of the best albums of all-time, and even though it may not be the "best" Beatles album, it is undoubtedly their crowning achievement as recording artists.

Rob Eustace - Long time, no comment!!! but just read your Let it Be Naked review and am pleased to say that I totally agree with your assessment. For a more complete breakdown of my personal problems with this particular release I would refer you to the review I wrote over at MJA a couple of years back, incidentally I also rated this unnecessary release a 6 out of 10.
    In summary this is a straightforward attempt by McCartney to present his own version of events thirty years after the original release. Yes the track listing is possibly stronger, some of the versions presented here are arguably an improvement over the originals, it generally is a more polished product than the 1970 original and were I reviewing this as a previously un-released lost Beatle album I would undoubtably rate it as a 9.5 or 10. But this is not the case, this is simply blatent self indulgence by McCartney I'm afraid. Wasn't the whole concept back in 69 to present a fresh, back to basics, warts and all Beatles album after the sheer majesty of Sgt Pepper and the sprawling mass of diversity that was the White Album. Whilst people might argue that a "back to basics" product is not what Spector delivered in 1970 I would still suggest it still sounds closer to the original game plan than McCartney's new "un-orchestrated" but equally "neat and tidy" version ever could.
    The Glyn John's mixes were simply too rough and ready to be released as a Beatle product back in 69 and was Spector's production not in reality a fair attempt to bridge the gap between the bootleg quality of the Glyn John's mixes and that of a studio produced release. You can say what you like about which version is the best, whether it be Spector, Glyn John's or McCartney's Naked, the biggest joke is surely the idea that everyone should toss their 1970 classic aside in favour of this new version simply because McCartney says "this is how it was meant to be". This is apparently "the bands" version of the album, I see as being a little more singular than that and as you rightly point out Lennon's quotes surrounding Spector's version "say it all".
    Having said all this I still regard the biggest insult of Let it Be (Naked) as the second bonus disc. What is that all about, 20 minutes of incompleteness, misc studio banter wrapped up with tantilising snippets of tracks. I still haven't played this disc all the way through and those that do will surely never do so more than once, shame on you James Paul McCartney.

Ian's Music Reviews - Thanks for writing. Yeah, there's little doubt that Let It Be (Naked) is a bad idea, from the terrible pun of a title right down to Paul MvCartney's attempts to pass off his beliefs as the entire bands'. I read your review of it on Music Junkies Anonymous (which can be accessed by clicking on this link):

*http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/beatles.html#NAKED

I definitely agree with your review, and agree with your premise that the bonus disc is an affront to intelligent people everywhere. Surely they could have found something more interesting from the Get Back sessions than this drivel! After all, they recorded everything they played. I have heard more interesting bootlegs from the era than this stuff.
By the way, what do you think of the new Love album? I was surprised by this one. In fact, it blew me away. I've fallen in love with the Beatles again as a result of this CD. The concept behind it sounds really cheesy, but they've pulled another one off with this album. The remastered sound is amazing too - the music sounds like it was recorded yesterday.

LOVE (2006)

Rob Eustace - Mixed reactions to this one really I'm afraid, I too was extremely apprehensive about this one and was relieved to find it was nowhere near as bad as I anticipated it might be, however after a dozen listens I can't help beginning to feel that Love is a bit of a missed opportunity.
     Parts of the album work better than others, yeah I know its stating the obvious but it pretty much sums up my general feeling on the set. The Good: "Eleanor Rigby" complimented by the longer intro, "Hey Jude" with the coda refreshed by the new mix, "Tomorrow Never Knows/Within You Without You", everyone loves it doesn't they??, works incredibly well, "Drive My Car/TheWord/ What Your Doing" & "Get Back" both being equally impressive sections. There are others and when Love's good its great, when its not its simply mediocre and the lesser parts I'm afraid would have driven me to reject this final mix and demand more of the producers.
     What brings Love down for me is it's simply not consistent enough in its overall approach, at times tracks are more or less left in their original form, whilst at other times it gets little too messy for its own good, its the songs and sections that balance these two elements that work the best for me. I think I'd like to have seen one long suite of songs with no fade outs at all, possibly with Pete Townshend style repeating themes and passages to tie the piece together, I kinda end up feeling that its a great idea not completely realised. If I'm going to be hyper critical the older tracks feel a little out of place among the wealth of later material to me, particularly "I Want to Hold Your Hand" & "Help", neither track works for me and spoils the flow somewhat, the new string section to "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", was it really necessary??. Its occasionally feels a little crudely edited, listen to where the piano intro is cut into Lady Madonna, is it me???. Whilst I agree that the tracks sound crisper and fresher than they have ever been presented before I still think a better option might have been to have used more alternate takes in the mix to create a far less familiar feel to the album than it ultimately retains. I guess it sounds like I detest this album but that's not really the case, its just that I always feel that Apple Corps underachieves time and time again in their concept and marketing of the greatest body of work in music history and I kinda just wish they'd leave it alone.
     Love has been pretty well received in the UK which surprised me a little, I do wonder how well this collection would have been received had it been produced by anyone else and not included the input of George Martin. Martin's involvement kind of gives the package an official endorsement where others may have received a less receptive response to the "mashing up" and "editing" of such classic material.
     I've probably been a little hard on this one as its an enjoyable listen at the end of day and probably an 8/10 for me, I just can't help feeling this could have even better conceived, what's the odds on a sequel?????.

Ian's Music Reviews - Glad to hear from you again. So, you're a bit disappointed by The Beatles' Love? I've listened to it constantly over the past 2 weeks or so, and the novelty hasn't worn off yet for me. It has made me fall in love with the Beatles all over again, and I think the Martins did a great job. That being said, you do make some valid points. I agree that the album would have been better if they had made it into one long suite of songs. The first dozen or so tracks are joined together, so why not go all the way and segued all of the songs together. As you said, a Townshend-like usage of repeated themes may have been one way to achieve this. And yes, a couple of the edits are a bit awkward. The Lady Madonna one sounds OK to me, but the part where "What You're Doing" kicks in in the 'Drive My Car' mash-up sounds a bit forced. The other one that sounds a bit "off" to me is where Come Together merges into Dear Prudence - I can't discern any similarities in these two songs that would indicate that this is a good idea.
On the whole, though, I really like the album. Some of the mash-ups are brilliant. Whoever thought of the idea of combining the Octopuses Garden melody with the Good Night orchestra bit is brilliant - I can't believe that it works, but it does. I also don't mind the inclusion of the older songs.
Will we see any more of these kind of Apple projects? Probably, although I have a feeling that the Parlophone remasters will be coming out next. Also, I won't be surprised if other bands start doing these kind of "mash-up" projects too.

Esal - I just got this CD given to me today for Christmas (Merry Christmas by the way) and am listening to it again for the second time while writing this. It's such an easy CD to have totally mixed feelings about. Being a Beatles fan from the beginning kind of makes it impossible to not have a bias and listen to in a really fresh vein. Actually, for me anyway, it's impossible. As much as I hate to say it the truth is this CD could be exact reproductions of what I already have and I'd still love it. That's what makes so many of us Beatle fans easy marks I guess. Especially come Christmas time.
    Anyway I like this CD even though there's a lot of things I think could have been done better and I agree with Rob who looks at this as a "missed opportunity". It would be the easiest thing in the world to run through each song dishing out praise and taking shots that probably should be taken but that still wouldn't change my opinion or anyone else's. Sensibly I shouldn't rate this as higher than a 7/10. It has too many flaws but the raw material is so f*ckin good that when combined with the much better production values... I like it! It makes me feel good and that is after all what music is supposed to do.
    Generally I love the material and the sound quality. I also like that the Martins didn't go anywhere near as overboard as I was afraid they might have with the mashing and additional orchestration. I remember what George Martin did with a band I used to really like called America and cringed at the thought. Specifically I think the job done on Yesterday tacking on the Blackbird intro was surprisingly smooth and fit nicely. The Within You Without You / Tomorrow Never Knows is easily my favorite piece on this CD and I NEVER would have guessed these two songs could be merged into something that wouldn't sound like a train wreck. Absolutely wonderful!
    What I don't like about it generally is that it has a tendency to become cluttered with too many snippets and sound bites that may fit but still don't sound like they belong there. Strawberry Fields is probably the worst offender although 'The Sun King intro/Why Don't We Do It In The Road' transition into Lady Madonna/Hey Bulldog medley really is bizarre. At this point I realized I was munching on a bowl of Martin soup with Beatles crackers crushed into it. Kind of tasty but the crackers are too many different flavors to be mixed together like this.
    I guess what it amounts to for me is that this is a good album even if it's not a Beatles album. It's a George/Giles Martin album using Beatles material as a media. The Beatles material is fantastic (always was and always will be). For the most part the Martins did a great job and it's obvious they really knew what they were doing. It's technically masterful although I don't think this is anything like they way the Fab Four would have done these arrangements. Then again it's hard to say as old men (especially artistic and socially conscious ones) rarely think the same as when they were youngsters.

Ian's Music Reviews - Thanks for writing, and Merry Christmas! I've been listening to The Beatles' Love CD a lot since it was released last month, and I'm happy to say that the novelty hasn't worn off yet. Truth be told, I don't think it ever will - it really is a great album.
I think you hit the nail on the head when he said that it would be too easy (and a waste of time) to nitpick the flaws or heap praise on the best bits on Love. It is what it is - a great album full of timeless songs presented in a fresh, dynamic manner. The sound quality alone makes it worth buying if you are a Beatles fan. Of course, the CD isn't perfect, and, as you pointed out, there are a few tracks where the mix gets a bit cluttered (by the way, I liked your "Martin soup" metaphor), but I still don't think that Love represents a "missed opportunity." I think that for the most part, the Martins exceeded expectations, and there are even a few truly amazing "mash ups" that may even improve on the original versions (I'm thinking primarily about the "Tomorrow Never Knows/Within You Without You" and "Mr. Kite/ She's So Heavy" hybrids). I don't think that anyone could have foreseen this.
I too struggled with giving this album a rating. For a while I thought of giving it an 8 (which is what I probably would have done if I were a "professional" reviewer attempting to keep some semblance of objectivity), but the more I listened to the album the happier it made me feel. I couldn't help but give it the highest possible rating - it has been a long, long time since I've forged this kind of positive emotional connection with an album. Hearing this CD really reminded me why I love The Beatles so much, and why I was obsessed with them for so many years. You're probably correct in asserting that Love is more of a "Martin" album than an actual Beatles album. But then again, George Martin played such a large role in Beatles history that it would be foolhardy to dismiss Love based on this fact alone. It's not really a "Beatles" album, but it is great, great music.