Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The Beatles, Album by Album--Revolver
This is the point where the Beatles leave the rest of the pack behind forever. This is by my tally the second masterpiece from the Fab Four (go Hard Day's Night!) and their first Grand Artistic Statement. One of three great albums from '65 and '66 that changed rock music forever (along with Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited and the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds), with Revolver we find a band maturing emotionally as they innovate stylistically. I have said earlier that the joy of the Beatles is watching them grow album by album. On this we find them reaching the emotional ambiguity and confusion of young adulthood. But along with this comes the grand ambition of a group of four guys who really want to leave their mark on popular music forever.
I'll admit that this album was not a favorite of mine upon first listen. It is very unlike everything that came before it in that it doesn't feel like a pop album. Their songwriting seems much less catchy than normal as they try to veer away from traditional pop songcraft towards something new and untapped. But through many repeated listenings I have come to discover that this is a "state of mind" album. (Paraphrasing here, something not worth listening to twice isn't worth listening to once.) While perhaps it does not cover as many musical styles as the White Album would, Revolver's songs each have their own emotional/intellectual state which remains sealed off from everything around them. They are each like individual short stories or films. I love that about this album. And that really pushes forward the idea that this is a band reaching adulthood, that they want to try to document everything around them and especially what is happening inside of them. There are songs on here about their reaction to fame. There are songs on here about the desire to connect with other people. There are songs in here about the essential meaninglessness of human ego. And there are songs on here about yellow submarines. No album manages to be as broadly encompassing of the human condition in 35 minutes or so as Revolver does. Each song has its own unique world of sound and lyrics, something which was a first for this (and any) group.
What enabled this great leap forward for the Beatles was a greatly increased devotion towards the process of album-making itself. There was a gap of eight months between Rubber Soul and Revolver, with only one single ("Paperback Writer"/"Rain") released in the gap, which did show signs of the path the group was heading down. This was the longest gap ever between releases for a group which was previously cranking out hits faster than their audience could consume them. Feeling increasingly withdrawn due to the pressures of their relentless touring/filming/recording schedule, the group would play their final tour dates immediately after Revolver and then begin to work solely in the studio. This was an unprecendented step, to say the least. But it showed their increasing focus on creating music instead of just being a financial act there to make money. Revolver is right when this happens.
The increasing time in the studio led to a quantum leap forward in sonic experimentation. Right from the first seconds as Harrison's "Taxman" starts with studio chatter and a loose countdown, the Beatles have abandoned the crisp productions of their previous efforts for something more organic and free-form. Like all great records, Revolver has its own sound. Where Blonde on Blonde has "that thin, that wild mercury sound," Revolver has a bright, brassy, trebly, clear sound, showcased best on songs like "And Your Bird Can Sing" and "Got to Get You Into My Life" and "She Said She Said." To me the edgy, angry sound is somehow mixed with the black and white picture on the cover. That perfectly illustrates it. It's an acid-rock sound that cuts through the air from your speakers or headphones into your brain. It represents a group full of increased attitude (George's bitter rant against the England's taxation system in "Taxman"; Lennon's "Queen Jane Approximately"-like dirge against materialistic women in "And Your Bird Can Sing"), increased uncertainty (the stuttering disconnect between internal feelings, intellectual ideas, and external communication in George's "I Want to Tell You"), and increased ambitions (all of it). There are almost too many aural moments on this record for me to try to talk about, but it should be noted that all are used to add to the atmosphere and character of the song. Everything is in service of the songwriting. Note the beautiful backwards guitar solo in "I'm Only Sleeping," a song about a disconnect from the outside world and a retreat into dreams. Note the chaste, virginal quality of "Here, There and Everywhere," which is perhaps McCartney's prettiest song, written about long-time girlfriend Jane Asher. It was purportedly inspired by Pet Sounds and perhaps specifically "God Only Knows," and while it can't reach the high summits that that track inhabits, what song can? The melody is so delicate it feels like it could fall apart at any second. I love the Eastern-sounding guitar part as Paul sings "And if she's beside me I know I need never care."
The lyrics on here are also a giant leap forward. Gone are the mostly earnest romantic tracks of their past. Instead there are songs about any number of subjects that had never been tackled before in popular music. "Love You To" is a song about the temporal nature of reality and human existence complete with an entirely Indian orchestration. "Doctor Robert" is about a drug dealer. I can't even tell what "She Said She Said" is about. At this point, you can tell the Beatles felt comfortable enough with their own abilities that they could tackle anything and everything and turn it into great music. I think out of all the Beatles, Paul benefitted the most from their transformation into a studio band. Inspired by Brian Wilson, Paul took to the studio with great enthusiasm and a willingness to try new things. His songwriting on here shows tremendous maturity, especially on "Eleanor Rigby" and "For No One." "Eleanor Rigby" showcases his tremendous ability at writing songs about other people that can shape a portrait of a life in only a few, well-chosen lines. He is like a great short story writer in his deft characterization and his ability to emphathize with others. John was able to create great songs about himself and his own personal demons, while McCartney could great ones about other people he saw around him. Perhaps this is finally the ultimate difference between a happy person who could emphathize with others and an unhappy person who we ourselves could sympathize with. "For No One" is one of the most emotionally devastating songs ever about a relationship gone sour. What makes this song so wrenching is that the two former lovers don't even recognize each other anymore: "And in her eyes you see nothing/No sign of love behind her tears cried for no one" and "She says that long ago she knew someone but now he's gone." Paul perfectly depicts the feeling of loss--loss of one's lover, but most of all of a part of him/herself--that really is the hardest part of a breakup, and he manages to do this in just over two minutes. The musical accompaniment for this is absolutely gorgeous.
Nothing quite says "Revolver" like the closing track on here, "Tomorrow Never Knows." I usually try not to put up a video of the obvious songs on these records, but in this case I couldn't help myself. Driven headlong on to the bowels of hell once again by Mr. Starr's fine drumming, this must have been an absolutely fucking mindblowing song when it came out back in '66. It still blows me away. I consider it to be the greatest psychedelic song of all time. The Chemical Brothers and many others have based their whole careers around trying to surpass this song, but I question whether anyone will. Lennon sings like a banshee on here, quoting Timothy Leary quoting the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Sound effects (largely created by Paul) blow out of your speakers as you feel external reality slipping away as you float downstream.
While no song up until this point had attempted to capture the psychedelic state like this one, I think it bears mentioning that, though drug-influenced, I don't find this to be a druggy record. The songwriting is too concise and focused on here. Sgt. Pepper I do think is a fairly druggy record, and for that reason I find it a bit unfocused compared to the diamond clarity of this record. Drugs and Timothy Leary-style psychedelia were just one of the many influences on Revolver, along with Eastern philosophy and music, showtunes, the Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, soul music, and God knows what else. This is really one of the first times where all of the Beatles' many influences were subsumed into their own style. Everything sounds completely their own here. And at this point, no one else sounded like the Beatles (not that they weren't trying). Their time in the studio paid off as they came out sounding like no one else in the world. For a long time this album wasn't given enough credit compared to Sgt. Pepper, because until the Beatles records were released on CD in '87, America could only listen to Revolver in a different version than its original British LP release (it was fairly commonplace for American versions of British records to be different--don't ask me how it was different, since I have only listened to the CD version). When people finally heard the original version of Revolver, its critical and public reception has steadily increased until the very high pinnacle where it's at now. And I genuinely feel that that reputation is deserved.
--Edward
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I won't lie, I'm a bit sad no one ever commented on this post. This is probably my favorite that I ever wrote.
ReplyDeleteAh, I knew I missed one (or more) of these. I remember trying to go back through to comment on each. I remember reading this, but I always put off the commenting off to a fault. Lemme read again.
ReplyDeleteNice capitalization of Grand Artistic Statement. Is that in reference to something or is it just awesome capitalizing for signifying something brilliant (or both)?
ReplyDeleteI love the power of the Beatles, Dylan, and the Beach Boys crossing streams in the mid-sixties. Good God. How were people able to handle it all coming out and shattering everything? Did they take it for granted and think that it was just always going to be that awesome? Were people jaded back then and thought the 50s and early 60s were already too good? I like the idea of these things being present, of people crying out on the streets when the albums hit the stores, of people giving up their jobs, spouses, and religions to follow the music.
As you could probably guess, I love "state of mind" artwork. I've always been partial to things that left the hooks for something stranger or more out there, especially when it is done by artists as talented as the Beatles were. I love that they gained the trust and faith of so many with their clean-cut looks and hooks, and then were able to take people onto their trippy submarines, whereas if they tried that right off the bat I doubt many if any would have so easily climbed aboard.
Here, There, and Everywhere ftw. Excellent point about how it sounds so fragile it could fall apart at any moment. It's so fleeting but at the same time vulnerable.
To return to one of the earliest topics of DiMB, god love the "increased devotion towards the process of album-making itself". The parts of name-writing I loved the most were when the names were entities of their own but then further embodied some broader capsule of the list as a sort of album.
Very interesting about the original release of the US version versus the British version - why did they all (meaning this and the Stones ones you've told me about) vary so much?
And strong points about the black and white acid rock clarity of the album being drug-influenced and clear rather than druggie sounding and hazy. Big distinction. Also, I especially loved the distinction you made here, "Perhaps this is finally the ultimate difference between a happy person who could emphathize with others and an unhappy person who we ourselves could sympathize with" for the difference between Paul and John. One of the deepest points and reason why they balanced each other as they did.
The capitalization of GAS wasn't in reference to anything in particular, although I've seen the like done before. I will boldly take credit for this instance, however.
ReplyDeleteAs to how people in the '60s reacted to the peaks of pop music they were beholding, I think it was probably a mixture of realization at the greatness of the greats, as well as probably some taking for granted that bands like the Beatles and the Who would trail-blaze things for future artists to dig deeper along their path of pop art album-creation, eventually reaching even greater heights. I doubt anyone thought that no one would equal the Beatles or Bob Dylan or the like in terms of rock music, but that seems to have been the case. You can never tell how things will be at the time. In my opinion, I do not believe they will ever be surpassed in the genre, but who's to say that music just as great will not be created in other styles?
I think only artists as talented as Lennon/McCartney, Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, or the Velvet Underground (and, to a lesser extent, Radiohead) really have succeeded in terms of experimentation and abstract songs in terms of rock music. Usually when bands try to make experimental-sounding music, they tend to fail. You really have to have a mastery of the basic rules of form before you try to "break the mold," so to speak. This is why artists like Picasso or Stravinsky or William Wordsworth are able to create shocking artistic revolutions, while still being able to stand up over the centuries for their work (whereas many "trend-setters" disappear so soon after they set out to "shock" their audiences). All of these artists could create traditional forms with complete mastery before they sought out to break the rules that they already had a complete understanding of. Only with this knowledge of why certain rules are there in the first place is one able to break them with lasting results. All too often I see musicians trying desperately to come up with some sort of original sound when they can't even write a decent melody or harmony to save their life. I would much rather people try to learn the basics of music before they try to "change the world" (something almost no one does when it comes to music). Even an album as abstract as Revolver has more melodic hooks and moments of evocative beauty on it than any straightforward pop record that is out today. And this is probably why I'm more impressed with many mainstream artists today than I am with their so-called indie contemporaries. There is nothing wrong with creating a catchy song. 99% of the time, one shouldn't try to reach beyond that without having a mastery first of creating beautiful and endearing music.
The US and British versions of British Invasion artist albums were often different because they were released on different labels. American labels made more money by chopping up the British albums into more pieces, thereby selling more product.
And thank you about the last part. That was one of my favorite insights I've ever come up with.
Interesting about the people receiving the music in the 60s. Makes sense though. And I agree that artists should realize, practice, and be able to master the basics and the "rules" before pushing past them.
ReplyDeleteI would say that I also appreciate pop artists today that can write a good hook and produce hits over and over and are successful at it. However, I'd also say that more indie bands than not (of the successful ones) do have a grasp of the basics, pay tribute to the rules and styles of old even, and then they write with their own voice. I don't think of them as trying to "break the mold" so much as going back to the melodies and harmonies of old because they grew tired of the Nickelbacks on the radio. Some even started out more as not-on-the-radio but then embraced pop by storm with success like Weezer (or Kings of Leon with less sustainable success in the pop department). I'd say that indie bands like Wilco, the Arcade Fire, the Decemberists, Sufjan Stevens, TV on the Radio, and even newer artists like Bon Iver and Florence and the Machine all have managed to produce solid albums with melodies and hooks. Much of their music is already used in movies, tv, and is starting to get played on the radio as well as compete for awards with their pop-music counterparts. It is actually becoming a part of pop music and more mainstream (why it's "indie" and not "independent") because it is catchy and good enough. I don't think of those artists as trying to break the mold so much as trying to bring something to the table they missed in music, whether its instrumentation, a particular sound, a care in production, or even just a spirit of being new and celebratory in marking time with music. I think that's the same with pop music when you see how dedicated artists like Beyonce, Rihanna, and Katie Perry are at creating the many, many hits that they do. I guess my point is that the perceived gap is not so wide as it used to be, and whatever fans of the indie bands that wish for the days when the bands weren't as popular and they had them all to themselves need to get over their proud "I found them first" hipster bullshit that gives good music a bad name. If it's good music, it should be shared.
Interesting. What do you think is narrowing the gap between indie and pop music?
ReplyDeletehave to do this in 2 comments because of the character limit - BRACE YOURSELF FOR SPILLAGE!
ReplyDeleteI think it is television that is actually taking over the role of radio for the role of pop rock and indie rock and thereby narrowing the gap. With the rise of an audience increasingly seeking a cult-like relationship to dramatic shows - particularly HBO and Showtime type shows, but even the main network ones that start to mimic movie-type production - where people sit down and watch entire seasons or even a series in a three-day span, there are certain hooks that these shows bring to getting their audience. One of those is the long song-drenched montage to provide an emotional kick (albeit a pretty easy one) to the end of their episodes. I first remember seeing these in the few episodes I've seen of LOST. Basically, shit goes down in the first 2/3 or 3/4 of the episode, and then the characters reflect or even do something active but in slow motion, all so long as this song-you've-never-heard-before perfectly pushes your emotions in pace with what you're seeing.
I think the show producers must have seen the kinds of reactions that these montages generated because they're copied over and over in so many dramatic shows. The key is that because indie music is often so vast and hard to sift through online on youtube or anything where you have to search directly for the band, this song-montage acts a sort of radio, finding the audience songs they don't know but are going to want to look up after the episode ends. Eventually they will even start expecting to find good music in their favorite shows and will look to the shows for the general current of what's on the rise. The main reason I know this is happening is because one, I've done it myself by looking up songs from the absurdist easy-watch and a bit hokey dramedy, Chuck and found websites dedicated completely to the soundtrack of the entire series. And then two, on youtube, on many, many of the songs of bands I find and like, I see comments galore of from people who watch Entourage, Scrubs, Grey's Anatomy, Chuck, Breaking Bad, Weeds, Californication, Gossip Girl, Skins, even the Twilight movies, and then they all reference the places they found them on youtube comments, as in "I saw it on Chuck!" or "Thumbs up if you found this on Gossip Girl" - there then becomes a heated debate youtube-slob-style about whether anyone should care about where they saw it first, if it's cooler to not find it through a show, or the inevitable and my favorite, "What the hell is Chuck?"
Additionally, I think the "coolness" or whatever the shows gain by playing these songs that just under the surface also lends itself to advertisers, who have been playing music for ages with there ads. But they too want to be at least watched rather than muted in between Hulu segments or cutoff completely when people DVR things, so they try to get in on it and play indie music - especially the car commercials (or maybe it seems that way because 70% of all the commercials seem to be for cars).
The other non-FM radio source I'd say is actually on the internet with Pandora and the dozens of other music sites that recommend related music to something you like. Again, the youtubers commenting often reference finding something through Pandora (I have found new music there often) as these sites recognize how tough it is to navigate indie music when there's an ocean of it online and the radio isn't playing any of it (unless you're talking XM radio).
And then eventually after all these shows and commercials and websites push this music toward the mainstream, a new audience arises for these bands that had only previously had local support and random online support. With the new support across the country and even world, people will start buying tickets for all the massive musical festivals that these bands show up at, the sort of Costco of live music consumption. But even on a smaller scale, the bands will have audiences in cities wherever they go just because it's now so easy to find their music online once one knows the name of the band.
ReplyDeleteThe final transition onto the FM radio might be the hardest to decipher why certain bands make it on and not others. However, at least in this area, I know DC101 reserves a block of time dedicated to bands on the rise that they're looking to pull into the main rotation (on Sunday evenings), so I imagine other stations pull similar moves, because inevitably, the bands are known by so many people through sources other than FM radio (even known through the Grammys when the Arcade Fire won album of the year) that FM radio has to start playing these bands or be considered behind the curve. Because of this I do think radio is getting better and indie music is becoming or is almost already there as pop music. I also didn't realize how much I thought about all this, haha. Essay-rant concluded!
Hmm...interesting points. So you think that TV is one of the biggest factors when it comes to spreading the popularity of indie music? I had never thought about that before. Certainly the Internet and blogs like the infamous Pitchfork I think are probably the main source of finding out info on new bands, but perhaps the TV is indeed a big one. It's funny to think of the elitist hipsters who push more vocally for these bands than anyone else finding them out on a show like Weeds or Chuck. That's hilarious to me for some reason--the image.
ReplyDeleteOne of my least favorite parts of any TV show is when they do that stupid slow-motion montage set to an "emotional song." God, talking about taking me out of the moment. That is my least favorite part of every season of The Wire, in fact, and the only time it really breaks that thin veil of reality.
Yeah, the sites online definitely influence and probably dominate how music gets around, especially since music mostly comes from online stores whether legally or illegally, but TV is sort of the dark horse in using new music and in a powerful way that would make people go seek out the music afterward.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that a lot of times the TV show's use of the song takes me out of the moment and feel like I'm being hand-held into some sort of emotion, although there are times on certain shows when it fits. But overuse of it is already such a threat, it'd be hard for any show to use it well anymore.