Beatles for Sale

[GP1138]

"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.

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?

[dogbreath]

*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*

[Fantastico!]

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.

[dogbreath]

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.

[artie]

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.

[dogbreath]

"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.)

[Chris D.]

"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.

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. Spaceman]

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

[artie]

"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.

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 merda 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."

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.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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.

[dogbreath]

"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?

[I. Spaceman]

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

[dogbreath]

"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?

[I. Spaceman]

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.

[dogbreath]

Uh ... okay.

[I. Spaceman]

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.

[Chris D.]

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. Spaceman]

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. 

I just wanted another BW88.

[GP1138]

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

[Fantastico!]

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

[I. Spaceman]

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

[dogbreath]

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

[I. Spaceman]

Better than Joe Nursing Home.

[Chris D.]

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. 

I just wanted another BW88.

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

[dogbreath]

"Better than Joe Nursing Home."

Your best post in this thread!