The Smiley Smile Message Board

Beatles for sale gets unfairly criticized for being a 'step-backward'---but what exactly is 'progress' and why is it so important!?!?

"Beatles for Sale" is a damn good record with some cutting edge songwriting on it.
They were kind of learning how to be electric and acoustic at the same time and getting some pretty cool blends.  "Hard Days Night" had less of that.  "Any Time At All" was pretty progressive in that regard with its piano work, but you get the sense that "If I Fell" and "And I Love Her" are the ballads. "I'll Cry Instead" and "Hard Days Night" the rockers.  "I Should Have Known Better" and "Cant By Me Love" the lovable mop-top dance numbers-- "I'll Be Back" and "Things We Said Today" kind of the moody mid-tempo numbers, etc.  I mean, it's a movie soundtrack, you know what you are getting!

"Hard Days Night" has some pretty hot country numbers on it--"Cant Buy Me Love" and "I'll Cry Instead"--this was a relatively new thing on that album and something they would expand upon the next record.  Country was a vein that allowed them to be more emotionally expressive via story lyrics and musically complex in its flexability for chromatic runs and omni-presence of dominant 7th interplay that the Beatles were complete masters of (along with Major 7ths and 6ths of course!!)  There were many musical lessons to be learned in the genre.  Plus, it gave "George" a great opportunity to show what he had learned from Chet Atkins records.  Country a step backward?  Where the hell do you think they were going with their current single "I Feel Fine" or with their next blockbuster, "Help?" 

"No Reply" is a cutting edge composition that would have been among the best on HDN.  Great story lyrics and a wonderful chord pattern and harmony on the "I Nearly Died" sections.  The bridge is purely raucious in the HDN tradition.

"I'm A Loser" is a wonderful lyrical development--light years beyond "Any Time At All" or "I Want to Hold Your Hand" --a tremendous harmony, a great swooping baseline, tremendous playing from George, and again, a very forward chord pattern with it's alternations of F and D (not d minor mind you!)

"Spoil the Party" is an absolutely brilliant blend of Everly's harmonies and Goffin/King style songwriting.  I mean, what two part harmony in the rock canon is better than "I....Still....Love....Her?"

For your moptop fun tune, "Eight Days A Week" is pretty perfect and durable.  IT almost seems like a distraction from the album.  An album they seemed to know exactly what they were doing on.  But with its incredible drum sound and harmony on the chorus (I lo-o-o-o-ove you" it looks forward to "Help" and "We Can Work It Out")

The Lennon/McCartney gems did not stop there.  "Baby's In Black" was another Everlies nod, and a unique one at that.  They kind of threw it together as a sea-shanty waltz with a really ballsy delivery.  George's searing guitar intro and solo sealed the deal.

The schmaltzy "Mr. Moonlight" continued the tradition of schmaltz that started with "Taste of Honey" and continued through "When Im 64" and "Honey Pie"--it's the Beatles.  You had your schmaltz on HDN with "Tell Me Why"--a better schmaltzy song, but to tell you the truth, I have always really liked Mr. Moonlight.

You wont find a Beatle obscurity more loved than "Every Little Thing"--a romantic, strong John offering with a wonderful instrumental bridge and tympani that looked forward to some of the experiments they would get more vested into in "Rubber Soul"

Paul's "What You're Doing" is not tremendous, but still has a memorable melody and some great shouting back-up vocals.  It's kind of the "Happy Just to Dance With You" of the record.  Some wicked hooks, but expendable. (for that matter, the Cyrkle version of "Happy Just to Dance With You" is MUCH better.  Deal With It.

In my opinion, the momentum killing "Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey Hey" is one of the more boring things the Beatles have ever done and in a heartbeat should have been scrapped for the AMAZING AMAZING "Leave My Kitten Alone"--if there is a headscratcher in Beatles history it is WHY didn't they put this song on "For Sale"--
did Ringo not like his drum fills, could it have been that petty???

Speaking of Petty, the cover of Buddy Holly's "Words of Love" is an effortless throwaway.  Not without its charms but indeed more reminiscent of the relaxed feel of their BBC shows where they would play any number of covers and INDEED a step back, I'll give you that.  It's completely unambitious, and almost just seems like they were looking for material.

The same can be said of the somewhat better, but still non-essential "Rock And Roll Music..."  So in this regard, the album is a step back--only by virtue of the inclusion of the non-essential covers.  But NOT by virtue of its originals.  So many better choices for covers.  "Soldier of Love" um, yes.  That one. 

So you heard it hear first.  "Beatles For Sale" ripped my head off when I first heard it in 1996.  I called it the 'first alternative music' for its unique chord structures.  "Loser" and "Every Little Thing" are great examples of what I mean.
If there are any Beatles fans on this thread that have avoided the album because of its 'reputation'--this craziness must stop.

Not enough Macca content on this album and I'll follow the sun is not one of my fave macca song's, too many cover's
but your right "every little thing " is underrated ! 

sh*t, I forgot "I'll Follow The Sun"--
that's a very sublime Buddy Holly nod in my opinion!!!

No, not as good as "If I Fell," but WAS ANYTHING EVER?

It is certainly better than "Tell Me What You See"

It's just an overlooked (as much as the Beatles could be) and unfairly maligned album.
It's utterly honest in it's beautiful weariness.
John continues his songwriting supremacy with a fabulous 3-song suite of regret, sorrow and paranoia at the top. No Reply is one of the great story-songs, paranoid and jealous in the great Lennon tradition.
I'm A Loser sounds nothing like Dylan, but it's one of the great folk-rock songs anyway.
Baby's In Black is as great as the Beatles ever got, a country death waltz with Everly harmonies.
Rock And Roll Music is overrated, one of Chuck's least inspiring songs, but this version at least kills the rancid Beach Boys version.
I'll Follow The Sun shows that Paul was still not too prolific, as he recycled this song from the 50's, but he meets Joohn's challenge with this mournful, gorgeous arrangement.
Of course, he's gotta show how versatile he is, so he then proceeds to put Little Richard to shame on his own turf, shredding Penniman's Kanas City/Hey Hey Hey Hey medley. Pure rock, the way it should be played, the way it should be sung.
Mr. Moonlight is godawful, but at least it's a weird, obscure cover choice. And Lennon's voice is great.
Eight Days is John and Paul at their best, setting the template for pop music forevermore. Even the STones had to rip this off, in their "I'm Free". Viva fade-in's and explosive non-choruses.
Words Of Love is one of the canniest and hippest cover choices in the catalog, a semi-obscure Buddy Holly song that they manage to surpass with wonderfully close two-man harmonies, similar to what the BB's would do with the Everlys' Devoted To You on the Party album. Heaven on wax.
Honey Don't is the first of two killer Carl Perkins covers, originally sung by John in their live set, but here smartly given to Ringo, who simply nails the humourous rockabilly vibe. George simply channels Carl here. You can see the smile and the little shuffle-dance when listening to this solo.
Every Little Thing is how pop music should sound. Deal with it. It's mindblowing, pop on a high, high level. You can just feel how intense songs like this must have sounded on US shores. I mean, tympani???? Lennon's voice is so heartbreaking and beautiful-sad.
I Don't Want To SPoil The Party may be the most convincing country song in the catalog, evidence that John could nail a genre without even trying when he was firing on all creative cylinders. Again paranoid, hopeless, self-pitying and negative, the way we like our John. Great harmonies and Perkins-soloing, again.
What You're Doing is Paul's finest between Things We Said Today and Rubber Soul. Amazing melodies, hooks to spare, perfectly modulated and earthy. Heaven-rock. Jane does him wrong for the first time, the first in a string of wounded-love classics in the McCartney canon.
Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby is one of the great Beatles album-enders, country-blues-rock, stomp-the-stage-to-dust, dig-this, we-do-it-all, good-night.

Incredible album. Really.

Lennon's singing voice was really at a peak during this period, IMO. I think it's a shame how underrated he is as a vocalist. And he was at his best on this kind of material. His performance even saves a mediocre tune like "Mr. Moonlight". The passion in which he delivers the song, combined with really incredible phrasing and that particular whine he had at times, takes it to another level. Not as pretty a voice as Paul's, but ultimately much, much more expressive.

 

Also, my favorite Beatles photograph.

(http://www.beatlweb.com/cdcovers/images/Beatles_For_Sale_delantera.jpg)

I love the red and green

wonderful gatefold

(http://www.geocities.com/flangehead2/LPs/BeatlesForSaleinside.jpg)

Couldn't agree more. The early Lennon could rip your heart out on a girl-group cover. Baby It's You and Please Mr. Postman have a primal emotional rawness that rivals the Plastic Ono Band album.

 >:( :-[ :-X :-\ :'(

He's right, y'know!!

If you replaced Honey Don't, Words Of Love and Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby and the ghastly Mr Moonlight with the coentaneous I Feel Fine, She's A Woman and Leave My Kitten Alone, you'd have a 13-track LP that is easily the equal of A Hard Day's Night or Help!  Thank goodness these wrongs can now be easily righted with CD burners and and iPods.

It's ten times better than Help as is.

I love "I Don't Want To Spoil The Party". In fact, I might just post a version up here that my dad and I did together. Just to embarrass myself.  :-X :-X :-X

Sounds sweet.

I'm singing the high parts, unfortunately. My dad and I trade, during the verses, he's John, and during the bridges, I am. Unfortunately, we were playing and singing at the same time, so I was concentrating on the playing more than the singing. I suck here, terribly.  :-X :-X

http://gp1138.digitaloutsider.org/party.mp3

Not working for me!  :-\

Right-click and Save as. It worked for me. Maybe it just needed a minute.

EDIT: For some reason, Firefox would say it could download it, but then just downloaded an empty file.

http://gp1138.digitaloutsider.org/party.mp3

Try that.

Dude, that moved me. Really. That's what should go on in all families. That rules. Thanks for sharing that, it made my night.

I sound so terrible, though! I'm glad it had an effect on you other than disgusting you because I ruined a great song for you.  :D :D

No man, it sounds great. Pure love of music reflected overcomes all flaws. Beauty.

Coming in late here....

Just want to add to the Sale praise. I've praised this album every chance I've had, and I wil continue to do so. I even got me a new convert (hello, Rich ;D)!

Jonathan and Ian are spot on. Great posts.

"Jonathan and Ian are spot on. Great posts."

No, they're effing not! Enough of this mutual hot-tub hugging in agreement that BFS is "underrated" or a "great album" or whatever! It's this nonsense that has to stop!

The great stuff, as noted, is great, and shows real progression (and progression is important, to whoever suggested it wasn't - you progress or you stagnate). But any album with the following filler on it deserves a kicking:

Rock and Roll Music: Oh, please!
Mr Moonlight: Hideous showtune belted out like they were playing to an audience of geriatrics in the Catskills.
Kansas City: see Rock and Roll Music. Hangovers from their Star Club nights - the Beatles had moved on by this stage and so had we. Covers we didn't need.
Words of Love: Why? To show they could?
Honey Don't: no, don't.
Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby: *snorrrrrrrrrre!*

Six ho-hum cover versions on a 14-track album. Do the math. What's left is fine, but not enough.

This was too early to do a tribute to their Rn'R roots, and too late to be contemporary. You may like the cover versions for what they are - competent performances of Rn'R standards - but they were certainly filler at this stage in their career.

Let me see...

Heh?
wrong, this is way too weird to be filler
wrong
wrong
another "heh"?
your choice, I guess. I like to fall asleep to good music too.

Falling asleep music! That's a thread I'd be up for. In fact ...

too many covers for sure (Everybody Knows is amazing though!)

but THE ORIGINALS deserve lots of attention from fans who don't buy this album

Why is it such a crime that there are covers on an album?  Who wrote in stone that a band has to write all of its songs?  Didn't we all go nuts over the BBC discs because it had all of those covers on it?  Frankly, I would rather have 6 good well-played covers than a shorter album/EP if material was lacking.  Plus, Rock and Roll Music is BETTER than the Chuck Berry original, Words of Love gives Buddy a run for his money, and we need all of Paul doing Little Richard we can get.

MUCH better album than Help was -- covers were used instead of poor original material (which while not exactly poor on Help aren't as good as the BFS covers).  Only slipup was not getting Leave My Kitten Alone on there somehow.

Oh, come on now. Rush just did an album of covers themselves. If the covers were terrible, I'd agree, but they're not, the possible exception being Moonlight. Would you rather have covers performed intelligently as filler, or cruddy half-assed originals as filler?

*sigh*

NOTHING is "wrong" with cover versions.

BUT.

At this point in their careers (maybe you don't remember), after a stonking album of originals, the cover versions were seen as a retrograde step. They were already amongst the most talented songwriters in the world, and they didn't need to use covers to cover up their own compositional failings.

This was too early to do a tribute to their Rn'R roots, and too late to be contemporary.

I don't think they're particularly imaginative choices, and I don't think they're extraordinarily good versions, either. Just competent.

Which wasn't, and isn't, enough. Especially in the context of the great originals that make up the rest of the record.

*sigh*

well, you can cut the cucumber any way you like it Napoleon, but one thing's for sure.  Beatles for Sale feels pretty good to me.  I love playing that disc.

Great! That's what it's for, after all.  All I'm doing is criticising something. Which doesn't imply destroying it. There's a tendency on this board to equate criticism with a negative sneer - either something rocks or it sucks, and there's little in-between. Me, I happen to think that BFS is very much an in-between album. And for me, criticising something means seeing it more clearly. Works of art (which BFS is) are good for exercises of this sort.

The Beatles simply HAD to include covers on this album. There is no way, as prolific as they were, that John and Paul could have come up with 14 new songs in this fast time period (8 ain't too shabby).

They were putting out 2 albums a year plus 4 or 5 singles! Imagine that today??? No way...they are criticized for being tired on this one and reviews have said it is their "weakest piece of work." I disagree.

And I must take exception to those who call "Rock And Roll Music" unnecessary or boring. It is a one-take performance that rivals "Twist and Shout" - Lennon is a friggin MONSTER and I have always felt that he possessed the single greatest singing voice in the rock era. Period. He's singing it in the key of "A" for cripe's sake---Berry sang it in "E" I think...

And a nod to Paul for "Kansas City"... it was a one-taker as well...they tried a take two but it didn't capture take one's magic.

Ask anyone who lived through Beatlemania - these songs were WAY more memorable than anything from Pepper onward. Christmas '64 was lit up by this album, which then formed the basis for Beatles '65 in America.

"Ask anyone who lived through Beatlemania"

I was part of it. Saw them live in '63.

(The reasons you give for including the covers is valid. But it doesn't make the album any better.)

You got it.  Took the post right out of my mind.  The covers were fine on the earlier albums, but A Hard Day's Night shows they could do more than pad out an album with limp-wristed Motown or watered down early rock.  That's why the covers aren't welcome here.  We know they could do more.  And of course they were busy, but who gives a sh*t about what was keeping them busy?  Playing to a wall of screams so they couldn't even hear themselves?  Besides, dogbreath is acknowledging that what they were able to produce (the originals) was good, so I don't really see the conflict on that point.  If Smile had come out with half its tracks made up of covers no one would say, "Cut him some slack, he was too busy getting high and growing as a person."

I'll take the covers on Beatles For Sale over all of Pepper and Mystery Tour put together.

That last sentence is just dumb. Actually the whole paragraph is. Brian Wilson had more than a year between Pet Sounds and Smile and he wasn't doing anything in between but toiling in the studio. The Beatles were touring non-stop, making BBC and television appearances, and recording single after single. What's the difference if they couldn't hear themselves in concert? How does that make them any less busy or tired? John and Paul wrote their songs in hotel rooms; Brian wrote his stuff in the sandbox in his own home, surrounded by his own support system. With the roll John and Paul were on, if they had the time Brian had, they would have written 60 or 70 tunes for the album.

I agree with Ian, I'll take this album over Pepper anyday. The Beatles were, first and foremost, a killer live act and to hear them perform some covers is a treat. You probably think Live At The BBC is a piece of crap, then. I like it better than anything post-Pepper.

Beatles for Sale is one of my top Beatle albums. A great batch of fun songs. Sure, not as artistically sophisticated as "Hard Days Night" but no less brillliant.

Two words: Honey Don't.

The John/Paul vocal team is especially strong. I think that's why I like the record so much.

"I'll take this album over Pepper anyday."

Go ahead. It's not like anyone is stopping you. But I wonder at the attitude that insists you have to choose one over the other. The Beatles produced a body of work, conveniently sliced for your consumption. Me, I'll take everything they ever recorded, thank you. Most of which I bought at the time anyway. I'm just grateful I can see the difference between "Mr Moonlight" and (say) "Fixing a Hole".

"You probably think Live At The BBC is a piece of crap, then. I like it better than anything post-Pepper."

Piece of crap is your phrase. Can't you grow out of the rocks/sucks dichotomy? Or try to?

Sorry. Taking a stand for Sale over Pepper, for me, is like taking a stand for the Ramones over Yes.

"Sorry. Taking a stand for Sale over Pepper, for me, is like taking a stand for the Ramones over Yes."

Why do you feel you have to do either?

For the same reason I'd vote for any Democrat rather than George W. Bush.
So my country won't die.
My country=Rock and Roll.

Uh ... okay.

Hey, when it comes the mid-late 60's, I'm a Stooges-Yardbirds-Who-Velvet Underground-Remains-Stones guy. I don't like the direction music went in as a direct result of Pepper. I think it led to stuff like Yes and ELP, and led to the holy demolition of punk rock. So, may be I'm prejudiced. I take rock seriously and I think taking a stand for everything is the same as taking a stand for nothing. Foda deal with it.

Artie

I think it's fun when bands do covers on the BBC.  I don't hate cover songs.  But no matter how well done, those cover songs on Beatles for Sale are still used to pad out the record.  You admit so yourself by saying they were too busy with promotional obligations to come up with more original material.  I could give a f*** about promotion, which was my point.  I'll take more original music over energy spent on promotion any day.  As for the Brian comparison, my point was that both the Beatles' promotion and his Smile-era interests were ways each act sought to shape their music, but neither had anything to do with music directly.  Yet one is more acceptible than the other.  Look at how many Smile fans were so pissy that Brian followed up the recent version with a Christmas album (and hey, it's mostly covers!) instead of more original brilliant music, totally ignoring the guy's state in the past 37 years. 

Don't assume I hate the Beatles' BBC sessions (never heard them) or that I think Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Magical Mystery Tour are beacons of light because they are, in your eyes, the complete opposite of Beatles for Sale.  I rarely put on those albums, and I love the original stuff on Beatles for Sale.  I just don't care for their covers because, for the most part, I think the Beatles really sucked at doing covers.  So what?  If it comes to picking one phase of the Beatles over the other as some end all, be all then I agree with dogbreath -- I like both of those phases.  They're both different so I like them for different reasons.  That's what makes music fun -- it's not all the same.

I just wanted another BW88.

So, did anyone else like my cover? Just to stir the pot a bit more.

I love all the Beatles albums about the same.  Is that nuts?

About as nuts as me preferring Must Do Something About It over Eleanor Rigby.

Nope. It's holism.

"I take rock seriously and I think taking a stand for everything is the same as taking a stand for nothing. Foda deal with it." - Joe College

Better than Joe Nursing Home.

I didn't mean you.  Your comments post-BWPS were some of the sanest.

"Better than Joe Nursing Home."

Your best post in this thread!

I think you're right!

*merdas infant diaper*

I love you, Ian, and I want to have your baby.

Only if we can play the organ solo in Mr. Moonlight in an endless loop while conceiving.

I laughed a lot when I read that. Merda.

They should have put "Leave My Kitten Alone" on BFS.  Awesome performance!

Yep. In place of Moonlight. Abso-tutely.
Next Beatle album thread, anyone?

With The Beatles!!!

I reckon McGuinn must have been listening to "Every Little Thing" when he invented the Mr Tambourine man riff.  I know he says it's Bach, but you just play them both on a 12 string, they're virtually identical.

I loved BFS in the 80's, I t was my fave for ages. Since the Cd's were released It became my least fave.
therefore I reckon it's mostly down to the merdae CD remastering of the 80's CD.

Since I've had the superior stereo versions on the Capitol box set, I've fallen in love with it again.
Mr Moonlight blows whatever mix you hear, definitley should have put "Kitten" on instead.

I have the b'leg stereo mix of BFS...pretty good, imo.

You mean the original stereo mix?

I think it is the remix George Martin made for the release on CD, but it was nixed.  I believe that's what I have.