Worst Beatles Songs :/

[Chocolate Shake Man]

phil is the reason why "dont let me down" didn't make the cut

Don't Let Me Down wasn't on the album because it had been released already nearly a year earlier. Get Back had as well but it had been a successful #1 A-side single that also figured very prominently in the film. Nevertheless Spector still re-mixed the song so it would sound different from the single version.

[guitarfool2002]

Phil was the reason Let it Be came out, he had to piece together hours of song fragments just to have a bare song to overdub.

No he didn't.  Spector worked from the same cache of tapes that Glyn Johns did in preparing his mixes, the only difference is for some reason Glyn Johns decided to all but ignore both the rooftop concert and the Apple Studio Performance in preparing his mixes while Spector used these performances as the backbone of his mix.  Then came the overdubs...

The tearing down the wall of sound book by Mick Brown said Spector had to spend hours going through the tapes of the Beatles jamming and rehearsing to piece together songs to overdub.

Another case of someone writing about The Beatles without doing their proper research I'm afraid.  Honestly out of all the books that have been written about The Beatles in the past forty years there are still probably only a very small handful (say between 10-20 books) that actually know the subject matter which they are writing about.

This is true, and it's important to remember just how much of a debacle the entire Get back-Let It Be project was for almost all involved. It strayed *so far* from the original concept, which apparently was Paul wishing to book a series of three "comeback" concerts in London and hiring a director (Michael Lindsey-Hogg got the gig) to film them for a television special.

It was full of debates, arguments, petty squabbles, and a very addicted Lennon, a very mad Harrison, an overbearing McCartney, and a passive Ringo who just went through the motions. All of the glossing over of what this period really was about is a bit odd but it does put more attention on the music, good or bad. Part of the reason why the rooftop concert came to be was that it was a compromise in order to get the band back together after the walk-outs. The compromise was apparently to scrap the television concerts idea and do the rooftop instead.

George Martin was there - notice he's in the film and more in the film outtakes. He didn't end up doing the final album mixing. They brought in Glyn Johns to mix, he did at least 2 acetate pressings of "Get Back" featuring "songs" like Teddy Boy, but Lennon for one was not happy.

Those Glyn John early mixes are the ones that formed some of the earliest Beatles bootlegs, and they "leaked" enough in the US that radio stations played them on the air, first in Buffalo, then most famously on WBCN in Boston - that 'BCN tape-sourced broadcast was the "source" for the first bootleg of the album and sessions. Rolling Stone magazine reviewed it!

The hilarious part - and there are sources but it's still in question - is that John Lennon himself was the source of this Glyn Johns acetate getting leaked, with some even suggesting (Lennon himself apparently one of them...) that he had traded the acetate for other recordings during a visit to the US. Lennon - the pioneering bootlegger. if this is urban legend or myth which has been debunked, please correct what I just wrote!

So eventually after George Martin, Glyn Johns, the original concept, the whole ball of wax, etc. got discarded and dumped, Phil Spector was brought in.

His role has been somewhat overstated, as he certainly did not wade through the tape library to cull the performances but rather used what had already been logged and edited by Martin and Johns as a template. Most of his work involved the sweetening and overdubbing of the orchestra and voices.

Read Emerick's book for an inside look at what a debacle that was. To summarize, Spector was acting like a spoiled kid, demanding things in a loud voice such as "I must have more strings!" and playing games with the engineer where one would turn down the volume and the other would immediately reach over and turn it up. Ringo was the only Beatle there, and he basically was there to mediate and help cool things down, and he had to pull Spector aside after things got too testy.

At that point, the Beatles didn't really care, they just wanted something to put out. Lennon is the hard one to read, because at the same time he'd say he didn't like the Glyn Johns mixes but he was glad to see them come out to kill the Beatles mythology. And on the rooftop he seems to be having a jolly old time rocking out in his fur coat and sneakers, but he's always said it was a miserable time and he was addicted in a bad way during the filming.

Let It Be was a mess, and Spector was a temperamental mess as he worked on it, at least according to those who were there. The credit he should get is that he managed to put something together for a release - exactly what he put together and how he did it is up for debate.

[SMiLE Brian]

This is why I love this place, the truth comes out quickly.

[JohnMill]

I think that given the circumstances that were detailed by guitarfool, it's pretty amazing that "Let It Be" is as solid as it is.  It isn't a bad album but one that results from the fact that Paul McCartney was the only Beatle at the time that was truly invested in creating top notch material for the album.  As guitarfool noted both Harrison and Lennon had issues during this period and it wasn't that they weren't contributing decent songs to the project (Lennon: "Don't Let Me Down/Harrison: a myriad of tracks that were unfortunately passed over) but what actually ended up on the "Let It Be" album wasn't exactly the best work from either John or George.  When The Beatles decided to lay down their arms for at least a little bit in an effort to make "Abbey Road" is when you started to see top notch material again surface from Lennon and especially Harrison. 

[Mike's Beard]

All the decent songs of "Let it Be" came from Macca. The others just submitted junk.

[Lowbacca]

All the decent songs of "Let it Be" came from Macca. The others just submitted junk.

"Across The Universe"? "For You Blue"?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yeah, really, "Dig A Pony" was the only new song of Lennon's on Let It Be. But "Don't Let Me Down" was a contender at one point for Get Back.

[JohnMill]

All the decent songs of "Let it Be" came from Macca. The others just submitted junk.

"Across The Universe"? "For You Blue"?

"Across The Universe" really was never a contender for "Let It Be".  It was an afterthought addition by the The Beatles (not by Spector but The Beatles) to the track lineup once they discovered that a sequence featuring them rehearsing the song was included in the print of the film that they were provided of for their review by director Michael Lindsay-Hogg.  

"For You Blue" isn't necessarily a bad song but it's telling that the song was included as the b-side to "The Long & Winding Road" in the United States.  It's worthy of b-side status and would have been easily bumped from the lineup if the band had seriously considered recording any of the more other worthy contenders Harrison submitted to them in 1969.  In fact Harrison was so unsatisfied with the original 1969 version of the song that he went back a year later and redid his vocal entirely before it would be ready for release on "Let It Be".  Anyone who thinks that Harrison submitted junk during the "Let It Be" project fails to fully grasp the situation.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The central problem at this point, I think, was that Lennon did feel like he should have been forced to do anything -- that he had earned a little bit of freedom to do things his way in his time. Now this attitude isn't very helpful when you are in a band, but I guess that's why he was ultimately ambivalent at that time about whether or not he really wanted to be in a band. I think it was also hurting his ego that what was, really, once his band, was now Paul's band. Whereas once it was sort of taken for granted that while the partnership was Lennon and McCartney, it was Lennon who was pulling the most weight. It was typically his voice that was most pronounced on singles. Since Revolver though, things had gone the opposite way. Now Paul was writing the respected songs and coming up with concepts for albums that would be widely hailed as masterpieces. After Brian had died, while John was probably upset, he was also probably relieved that he wasn't beholden to anything anymore. But immediately Paul took over and, like Brian, started thinking about The Beatles in terms of "moves", what the next move would be, and so on. John probably thought, "Why do we have to do this now? Can't we just let things happen as they happen?" But Paul didn't think in those terms. And so John was once again beholden but probably found it easier just to fight back against Paul - mostly through inaction. "You're going to think about us in terms of the "next move" well, what are you going to do when I just do nothing? Kind of thwarts your big plans doesn't it?" To a certain degree you can understand both sides. Paul didn't want The Beatles slipping - he had some weird ability to see things in long terms and knew that they needed to keep striving for perfection whilst putting out something entirely new and unique amongst their catalogue. And Paul had the kind of clout at that point where he could throw his weight around a bit. Problem for John was he never had that opportunity because when he was the head of the band, he always had to answer to Brian, so in a way, John had missed his chance to be the real bandleader that Paul was clearly becoming. I can imagine that part of the allure of stepping out for John would have been being able to have a kind of control that he had never had. Whereas for Paul it meant losing control of the biggest rock band of all time.

[JohnMill]

The central problem at this point, I think, was that Lennon did feel like he should have been forced to do anything -- that he had earned a little bit of freedom to do things his way in his time. Now this attitude isn't very helpful when you are in a band, but I guess that's why he was ultimately ambivalent at that time about whether or not he really wanted to be in a band. I think it was also hurting his ego that what was, really, once his band, was now Paul's band. Whereas once it was sort of taken for granted that while the partnership was Lennon and McCartney, it was Lennon who was pulling the most weight. It was typically his voice that was most pronounced on singles. Since Revolver though, things had gone the opposite way. Now Paul was writing the respected songs and coming up with concepts for albums that would be widely hailed as masterpieces. After Brian had died, while John was probably upset, he was also probably relieved that he wasn't beholden to anything anymore. But immediately Paul took over and, like Brian, started thinking about The Beatles in terms of "moves", what the next move would be, and so on. John probably thought, "Why do we have to do this now? Can't we just let things happen as they happen?" But Paul didn't think in those terms. And so John was once again beholden but probably found it easier just to fight back against Paul - mostly through inaction. "You're going to think about us in terms of the "next move" well, what are you going to do when I just do nothing? Kind of thwarts your big plans doesn't it?" To a certain degree you can understand both sides. Paul didn't want The Beatles slipping - he had some weird ability to see things in long terms and knew that they needed to keep striving for perfection whilst putting out something entirely new and unique amongst their catalogue. And Paul had the kind of clout at that point where he could throw his weight around a bit. Problem for John was he never had that opportunity because when he was the head of the band, he always had to answer to Brian, so in a way, John had missed his chance to be the real bandleader that Paul was clearly becoming. I can imagine that part of the allure of stepping out for John would have been being able to have a kind of control that he had never had. Whereas for Paul it meant losing control of the biggest rock band of all time.

I think that is part of it but a lot of what you just wrote is based on John's early seventies interviews where he tried to (at least in my opinion) rewrite history as to why The Beatles broke up.  Paul never wanted to take over a leadership role in the group.  In fact according to Doug Sulpy who has written chapter and verse on the breakup of the band, group leader was actually a position that Macca shied away from and might have even been forced into due to the ambivalence of Lennon. 

Guitarfool basically nailed what happened during the "Let It Be" project with the exception of his assertion that McCartney was overbearing.  The notion that McCartney was overbearing during this period comes once again from the complete ambivalence of the rest of the group towards the future prospects of the band.  As Ringo stated in the "Anthology" series they could still get the Beatle magic working once or twice a month which is pretty much the truth.  The rest of the time, I believe McCartney still saw The Beatles as a viable entity while the others (specifically Lennon and Harrison) didn't.  Therefore by 1969 McCartney wasn't so much overbearing but the only one that was truly invested in the future of the group.

[Lowbacca]

All the decent songs of "Let it Be" came from Macca. The others just submitted junk.

"Across The Universe"? "For You Blue"?

"Across The Universe" really was never a contender for "Let It Be".  It was an afterthought addition by the The Beatles (not by Spector but The Beatles) to the track lineup once they discovered that a sequence featuring them rehearsing the song was included in the print of the film that they were provided of for their review by director Michael Lindsay-Hogg.  

"For You Blue" isn't necessarily a bad song but it's telling that the song was included as the b-side to "The Long & Winding Road" in the United States.  It's worthy of b-side status and would have been easily bumped from the lineup if the band had seriously considered recording any of the more other worthy contenders Harrison submitted to them in 1969.  In fact Harrison was so unsatisfied with the original 1969 version of the song that he went back a year later and redid his vocal entirely before it would be ready for release on "Let It Be".  Anyone who thinks that Harrison submitted junk during the "Let It Be" project fails to fully grasp the situation.

Yeah, but they are official album tracks on "Let It Be" - and you stated that all decent songs on that album came from Macca. So...^^

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think that is part of it but a lot of what you just wrote is based on John's early seventies interviews where he tried to (at least in my opinion) rewrite history as to why The Beatles broke up.  Paul never wanted to take over a leadership role in the group.  In fact according to Doug Sulpy who has written chapter and verse on the breakup of the band, group leader was actually a position that Macca shied away from and might have even been forced into due to the ambivalence of Lennon. 

"All I'm saying is LOOK lads -- the band!"

Whether or not Macca perceived it as leadership, he was definitely invested in what the band was supposed to be doing to the point where he was making or trying to make a lot of big decisions for them. Like I said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but to be honest I think it's kind of revisionist history to suggest that he wasn't leading the band at that point. He's on film very clearly in that role.

[JohnMill]

All the decent songs of "Let it Be" came from Macca. The others just submitted junk.

"Across The Universe"? "For You Blue"?

"Across The Universe" really was never a contender for "Let It Be".  It was an afterthought addition by the The Beatles (not by Spector but The Beatles) to the track lineup once they discovered that a sequence featuring them rehearsing the song was included in the print of the film that they were provided of for their review by director Michael Lindsay-Hogg.  

"For You Blue" isn't necessarily a bad song but it's telling that the song was included as the b-side to "The Long & Winding Road" in the United States.  It's worthy of b-side status and would have been easily bumped from the lineup if the band had seriously considered recording any of the more other worthy contenders Harrison submitted to them in 1969.  In fact Harrison was so unsatisfied with the original 1969 version of the song that he went back a year later and redid his vocal entirely before it would be ready for release on "Let It Be".  Anyone who thinks that Harrison submitted junk during the "Let It Be" project fails to fully grasp the situation.

Yeah, but they are official album tracks on "Let It Be" - and you stated that all decent songs on that album came from Macca. So...^^

I actually never stated that.  I was just pointing out the fact that ATU was never officially submitted for "Let It Be" until much after the fact.

[Lowbacca]

I actually never stated that.

Uh yeah, sorry, that was The Return of the Son of Mike's Beard.. 

[JohnMill]

I think that is part of it but a lot of what you just wrote is based on John's early seventies interviews where he tried to (at least in my opinion) rewrite history as to why The Beatles broke up.  Paul never wanted to take over a leadership role in the group.  In fact according to Doug Sulpy who has written chapter and verse on the breakup of the band, group leader was actually a position that Macca shied away from and might have even been forced into due to the ambivalence of Lennon. 

"All I'm saying is LOOK lads -- the band!"

Whether or not Macca perceived it as leadership, he was definitely invested in what the band was supposed to be doing to the point where he was making or trying to make a lot of big decisions for them. Like I said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but to be honest I think it's kind of revisionist history to suggest that he wasn't leading the band at that point. He's on film very clearly in that role.

True but from where I stand it was unfair of John Lennon to criticize Paul for taking on the leadership role in the group when it was neither a role that Paul sought after nor embraced.  In fact since we are referencing the film "Let It Be" there is another scene in the film where Paul is trying very hard to involve John in discussion of future plans for the group (particularly a potential return to live performances) and John offers no input whatsoever.  So in my opinion McCartney more than gave Lennon his fair share of chances to either reclaim the role of group leader or at least weigh in with his opinions as to the direction of the group and there is no evidence that John ever did.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think that is part of it but a lot of what you just wrote is based on John's early seventies interviews where he tried to (at least in my opinion) rewrite history as to why The Beatles broke up.  Paul never wanted to take over a leadership role in the group.  In fact according to Doug Sulpy who has written chapter and verse on the breakup of the band, group leader was actually a position that Macca shied away from and might have even been forced into due to the ambivalence of Lennon. 

"All I'm saying is LOOK lads -- the band!"

Whether or not Macca perceived it as leadership, he was definitely invested in what the band was supposed to be doing to the point where he was making or trying to make a lot of big decisions for them. Like I said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but to be honest I think it's kind of revisionist history to suggest that he wasn't leading the band at that point. He's on film very clearly in that role.

True but from where I stand it was unfair of John Lennon to criticize Paul for taking on the leadership role in the group when it was neither a role that Paul sought after nor embraced.  In fact since we are referencing the film "Let It Be" there is another scene in the film where Paul is trying very hard to involve John in discussion of future plans for the group (particularly a potential return to live performances) and John offers no input whatsoever.  So in my opinion McCartney more than gave Lennon his fair share of chances to either reclaim the role of group leader or at least weigh in with his opinions as to the direction of the group and there is no evidence that John ever did.

Absolutely -- in fact, that's part of what I meant when I said that John was simply not interested in really "planning" at that time. He didn't care about "making the next move." In fact, he may have stayed in The Beatles for another few years if it had been just entirely laissez-faire, maybe put out an album when we have collected enough songs, etc. Of course, Paul (and there's nothing wrong with that) more than likely felt that this was no way of running a band like The Beatles.

[guitarfool2002]

A few points to consider in the conversation:

First, there is a connection between John's "leadership" role diminishing and his increased intake of LSD. "Hang On To Your Ego" - Lennon was tripping heavily in 1967, and one of the casualties was his ego and his outspoken nature. He has revealed this himself in interviews he gave later, and how he also eventually got his "ego" back after he stopped the daily/regular doses of LSD. But even observers noticed a change in his personality - while he was still the ad hoc leader of the group, he wasn't near as vocal and more often he'd be withdrawn and in a daze instead of what people knew him to be. As he got off the LSD, as he got burned by his trust in TM and the Maharishi, as he got more involved with Yoko, he also got more involved in heroin, and the drug seemed to fuel his anger and his outward hostility to a degree even beyond where it was before he began the heavy LSD routine. Look where his creativity was channeled in the larger part of 1969 - is there much output we could term "pretty" or positive about his music, or is it more often nasty, angry, harsh, or downright bizarre and experimental?

I feel it may have created a Catch-22 for McCartney, because when John was withdrawn and uninvolved in 1967, due to the LSD, McCartney had to step up to the plate and make something happen. Not that Lennon stepped aside by choice but rather by default. Then as Lennon was in the midst of his heroin addiction, he had so many other things going on, yet the "old Lennon" was coming back, the old angry Lennon, it couldn't have worked out.

Not that there were not certain moments of fun and "the good old days" of the Beatles, but the project was doomed by so many elements from the start.

The other fascinating angle for me was one I only heard about in recent years, and that was the role of George Harrison. He had made a trip to the USA in 1968, and for all intents and purposes he was greeted and treated as rock royalty. He held court with some of the best established and hippest breakout artists, he had requests to produce or work with various outside artists, in short he was becoming "GEORGE HARRISON" as much as "BEATLE George". His ego and his confidence got a major boost from being with those outsiders, as most of his professional world was insulated within the Beatles and deferring, naturally, to John and Paul within that structure.

It had to have been a rush, and I think that time spent away from the Beatles in '68 was what fueled George's intense run of creativity in 1969. His songwriting was at its peak, and I say that objectively when you tally up what he did in that year. Even songs he brought into the Get Back-Let It Be project were tried but dismissed by The Beatles but later turned up on All Things Must Pass, to great critical acclaim. George Is Free!, they heralded in the praise of the album, yet he had a pocketful of those songs ready in January 1969 and nothing happened. I have one recording of the sessions where George starts talking about taking all his songs and putting them out as a solo album, remember this is Jan. 1969 and he already felt like saying "f*ck it" and doing his own thing.

Imagine coming back from The States where you were welcomed as rock's elite, and your musical input was welcomed and requested, then you return to the Beatles where you're given the "#3" badge, sitting across from Paul who's telling you what he'd like on a certain track as John sits lost with Yoko and Ringo sits and waits. And you're all in a former aircraft hangar pretending you're working in a studio with camera crews milling about...George was mad for a reason, and ultimately with All Things Must Pass, a good portion written for and immediately after Get Back, he was vindicated. He had good songs.

[JohnMill]

A few points to consider in the conversation:

First, there is a connection between John's "leadership" role diminishing and his increased intake of LSD. "Hang On To Your Ego" - Lennon was tripping heavily in 1967, and one of the casualties was his ego and his outspoken nature. He has revealed this himself in interviews he gave later, and how he also eventually got his "ego" back after he stopped the daily/regular doses of LSD. But even observers noticed a change in his personality - while he was still the ad hoc leader of the group, he wasn't near as vocal and more often he'd be withdrawn and in a daze instead of what people knew him to be. As he got off the LSD, as he got burned by his trust in TM and the Maharishi, as he got more involved with Yoko, he also got more involved in heroin, and the drug seemed to fuel his anger and his outward hostility to a degree even beyond where it was before he began the heavy LSD routine. Look where his creativity was channeled in the larger part of 1969 - is there much output we could term "pretty" or positive about his music, or is it more often nasty, angry, harsh, or downright bizarre and experimental?

I feel it may have created a Catch-22 for McCartney, because when John was withdrawn and uninvolved in 1967, due to the LSD, McCartney had to step up to the plate and make something happen. Not that Lennon stepped aside by choice but rather by default. Then as Lennon was in the midst of his heroin addiction, he had so many other things going on, yet the "old Lennon" was coming back, the old angry Lennon, it couldn't have worked out.

Not that there were not certain moments of fun and "the good old days" of the Beatles, but the project was doomed by so many elements from the start.

The other fascinating angle for me was one I only heard about in recent years, and that was the role of George Harrison. He had made a trip to the USA in 1968, and for all intents and purposes he was greeted and treated as rock royalty. He held court with some of the best established and hippest breakout artists, he had requests to produce or work with various outside artists, in short he was becoming "GEORGE HARRISON" as much as "BEATLE George". His ego and his confidence got a major boost from being with those outsiders, as most of his professional world was insulated within the Beatles and deferring, naturally, to John and Paul within that structure.

It had to have been a rush, and I think that time spent away from the Beatles in '68 was what fueled George's intense run of creativity in 1969. His songwriting was at its peak, and I say that objectively when you tally up what he did in that year. Even songs he brought into the Get Back-Let It Be project were tried but dismissed by The Beatles but later turned up on All Things Must Pass, to great critical acclaim. George Is Free!, they heralded in the praise of the album, yet he had a pocketful of those songs ready in January 1969 and nothing happened. I have one recording of the sessions where George starts talking about taking all his songs and putting them out as a solo album, remember this is Jan. 1969 and he already felt like saying "f*ck it" and doing his own thing.

Imagine coming back from The States where you were welcomed as rock's elite, and your musical input was welcomed and requested, then you return to the Beatles where you're given the "#3" badge, sitting across from Paul who's telling you what he'd like on a certain track as John sits lost with Yoko and Ringo sits and waits. And you're all in a former aircraft hangar pretending you're working in a studio with camera crews milling about...George was mad for a reason, and ultimately with All Things Must Pass, a good portion written for and immediately after Get Back, he was vindicated. He had good songs.

Harrison basically says as much with his famous "Winter Of Discontent" statement in the "Anthology" series although given his humble nature he doesn't mention how handsomely he was treated in the United States by his fellow artists.  Instead he words it a bit differently mentioning that he had a fabulous time working with Bob Dylan and The Band in Woodstock and producing records for Jackie Lomax and then all of the sudden found himself in this aforementioned "Winter Of Discontent" which he termed as being "very unhappy and unhealthy".  Also much to Harrison's credit according to Sulpy before he got entirely disenchanted with the project as a whole, he did try to mention to the other members of the group that they should try to interject a little bit of the atmosphere and attitude he saw from The Band while he was visiting the USA.  This obviously never happened.

[pixletwin]

I think "The Word" is the absolute worst Beatles song. Stupid lyrics, boring melody, only Harrison's guitar (I assume) and the keyboard save this track from being total garbage.

[guitarfool2002]

It can be amazing to read how many artists were moved to change what they were doing after experiencing The Band's vibe in the late 60's, whether through the music or through direct contact. I think it was the kind of group scenario many artists wished they had, the more pure and simple way of moving into a house and making music then recording it in that same house, and the music being less flashy, less of a highlight on individual members and blazing solos, and more of a cooperative experience.

Clapton changed his entire outlook on music, life, and the guitar after getting immersed in The Band, and he was perhaps the hottest musician in England in 1968...eventually he chucked it all, got rid of the albatross which was Cream, and became basically a touring sideman for Delaney And Bonnie, as did George Harrison, remember. I think that was both his and George's closest substitute for that image of The Band being a bunch of down-home, music-loving guys who would hang out and make real music on their own terms.

Clapton, let's be honest, couldn't escape the "God" label nor could he live up to it, and he was surrounded by a drummer who favored 30 minute drum solos and a bassist with an ego to match the volume of his bass solos. George,  John+Paul - nothing more needs to be said! Then they see and hear The Band, a true *group* and not soloists, and it was very appealing.

Delaney and Bonnie probably thought they'd won the f***ing lottery when Clapton and Harrison wanted to join them.

[JohnMill]

I think "The Word" is the absolute worst Beatles song. Stupid lyrics, boring melody, only Harrison's guitar (I assume) and the keyboard save this track from being total garbage.

It's the lynchpin though for the entire "Rubber Soul" album which deals with a great deal of the fallacies and misconceptions of love.  Even though there is no indication that RS is a concept record a great of the record deals with one singular topic and it's "The Word" which ties all this together.  Whether you ascribe the word as referencing spiritual love or love on a more human level it's clearly the concept that most of the "Rubber Soul" characters have trouble grasping.

[Ron]

I just read through everybody's least favorites from this thread.  I was a huge fan when I was younger, but my least favorite (unless I"m forgetting one not mentioned on the thread already)  would be

"Within You Without You" - ALWAYs hated this song.  Just can't get into it.  I like Sitar.  I don't like Sitar when it just sounds like a beehive. 
"Doctor Robert" - just kind of boring.  Never got into it. 
"Honey Don't" - I can barely remember this song it's so bad.  That's rare with the Beatles.
"If You've got Troubles" - Boring song.
"Revolution #9" - I understand the significance of it but after you've heard it a few times there's no reason to listen to it again.
"Why Don't We Do It In the Road" - funny the first few times, then kind of half-assed. 
"Boys" - I don't even remember. 



Ones people mentioned that I love

"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" - always liked this. 
"Mr. moonlight" is fucking awesome, I can't believe some dont' like this.  John Lennon sounds like a Rock & Roll Jesus Christ with his vocal on this.  I used to just rewind it and listen to the intro over and over again to learn what real singing sounds like.
"I'm Down" - I dig it.  Can't help it.
"Savoy Truffle" - the title is awesome, the guitar is great, the whole song is really cool.
"bungalow Bill" - I never get tired of.  Don't know why, I guess I'm just a big fan.
"Glass Onion" - very interesting song, lots of nice sounds and textures.
"Honey Pie" - I always liked when Paul was just screwing around.  Fun stuff.
"Yellow Submarine" - what? This is classic!
"Octopus's Garden" - great song.  I like everything about it.
"Your Mother Should Know" - even the video is great.  Great singing by the Beatles, too.
"Don't Pass Me By" - fine by me, If just for the drums. 
"She's a Woman" - Nice rocker.  I like it.
For You Blue
Piggies


As for John's negative side on "Beatles for Sale", I really, really liked that album when I first bought it as a teenager.  I read once a writer's opinion that John went through a phase for a year or two, where he was kind of depressed about his career... the writer said it stemmed from an incident where a reported referred to John as "The Fat Beatle"... he wrote a bunch of downer songs and lost weight, consistantly, for the rest of his life.  Personally I don't think that had much to do with it, but he did go through a pretty dark period there for a little while early in their career.  Beatles for Sale is a fantastic album, though. 

No Reply, I'm a Loser, Baby's in Black, Rock and Roll Music, I'll Follow the Sun, Mr. Moonlight, Kansas City, Eight Days a Week, Words of Love, Every Little Thing, and I Don't Want To Spoil The Party are all fantastic. 

I'm not as big of a fan as "Everybody's trying to be my baby", "Honey Don't", and "What You're Doing".   I'd say the best song on the album is "Every Little Thing".  The music is just beautiful, it has that 'young' and excited sound that the Beatles not only personified but remind me of that period of my life when I was young and excited.  Just the right amount of melancholy sprinkled over it to make it great. 


This is also an album chock full of songs that you rarely hear on the radio, or at the mall, or whatever.  The only time you're going to hear these songs is if you play them on purpose, so to me they all stand pretty strong because they haven't been worn out yet. 

[Ron]

As for Let It Be, I like the album.  I think Spector gets a bad rap.  Face it, this was an album the Beatles were unable to salvage themselves.  The "Let It Be Naked" album is INFERIOR in my opinion.  I know that's not a popular opinion. 

The Spector album version of Let It Be (the record) complete with the reverb on ringo's drums, and the blistering Guitar Solo by George is one of the best tracks the Beatles ever released.  It's much better than the single, in my opinion. 

I can understand the Beatles may not have been happy with what was released, but it's hard to blame Spector, the record company knew exactly what they were getting when they brought in Spector.  Of course he was going to pour strings and reverb and whatever all over everything.  Of course he was going to be hard to work with, etc.  This was not the first time he did any of that, he was a known commodity when they hired him.... and he gave them a finished, *hit* album that sold well (even if not as well as the stuff the Beatles had released previously, it still sold).

It is what it is, he had a huge mess to work with and did what he was asked to do: he made an album out of it. 

[Ron]

I think "The Word" is the absolute worst Beatles song. Stupid lyrics, boring melody, only Harrison's guitar (I assume) and the keyboard save this track from being total garbage.

In Lennon's famous Playboy interview he talks about how embarassed he was by that song. 

[guitarfool2002]

You only need to play Let It Be back-to-back with Abbey Road to see what a difference certain elements could make on an album. Considering they were both recorded the same year, why was one such a glorious success, one of the most-celebrated and beloved albums of the 60's, while the other is best remembered for a few good singles and for being a swansong?

I said it in my earlier post, I think Spector gets credit for creating a viable album from the Get Back tapes, but beyond that it's up for debate and always will be. And that's not to say "Let It Be...Naked" was the elixir, in fact I bought that album and was more than underwhelmed by what I heard. There was no spark, no magic.

It reinforced the view even more that the root problems of Let It Be went far beyond the mixes and arrangements. The effort just wasn't there.