You did it again, George. Another engaging review of a Beatles album. Still details I didn't know! And challenging interpretations. Rubber Soul and Revolver are indeed their most interesting album titles (if only Abbey Road would have been called Everest..)
I really like Wait (lesser overplay helps) but The Word is definitely one of my favourite Beatles tunes. It's so out there, like a mad religious (sect) leader screaming its selling points and all. Way more interesting than the by-request "All You Need Is Love" (perfect as it is, of course), a bit out of place here, even.
I like What Goes On amongst Ringosungs. The instrumentation in this album in general is really my thing. Power pop should I call it? Folk rock (apparently that's what they label the US version)?
I never liked Nowhere Man a lot, as important as it is, for some reason (I highly prefer "There's a Place" as an *almost* non love song, at least "that" line). You Won’t See Me is a favourite too, and yeah I cannot listen to Michelle anymore (but still I can bear it more than Yesterday, specially in the album context). John's and George songs are all great for me too.
I think it's one of those albums where all the songs work for me (I won't get into Revolver's inclusion of Yellow Submarine but this is not always the case). I use it as my new audio tester CD, it sounds so balanced. But I understand what you mean: it's not as trascending as Revolver, crazy as Sgt Pepper's or groundbreaking as A Hard Day's Night to name a few. It's also George's favourite Beatles album apparently: granted they were still a working musical team and that's why he preferred over others like.. ahem Sgt Pepper's.
PS: I was thinking about the "wilderness" in the cover photo vs the wilderness in the For Sale inner picture amongst the foliage. Interesting comparison!
They look a little lost and almost pleading on that Beatles For Sale photo, though, don't they? and the fallen leaves aren't nearly as expressive as the luxurious vegetation in John's garden. On Rubber Soul, they're masters of their domain. "Are you SURE you want to enter Sherwood Forest, stranger?"
Certainly, the For Sale photo is quite.. sad, if you think about it. Tired-sad. While Rubber Soul is world-weary and defiant, John being the only one staring at you like only he can.
You never get bored writing about them, don't you? :)
"...John Lennon would be the undisputed king in pop music — in my personal opinion, not even until the breakup of the Beatles, but until his last dying breath in 1980. And as far as I’m concerned, it is this incredible ability to express those emotional states that makes all these songs so great, much more so than any formally admirable musicological aspects. For all the unusual elements in their chord sequences, harmonic arrangements, and production details, their chief attraction lies in John’s vocal delivery; take away every single instrument and those vocals alone, in all their nakedness, would still be unforgettable."
Interesting, as you mostly hate more lyrics/vocal centered artists. Except Dylan, I guess, but he mostly has solid melodic foundations, if stolen at times.
No, I think that's somewhat exaggerated. I hate when artists treat melodies as mainly formal "carriers" of their lyrical messages, when wordsmithery comes first and everything else is subjected to it. But the vocal melodies, with all their undertones and expressivity - if they're really melodies, not just formal deliveries of the words - are as much part of the music as anything else. I rather reserve my annoyance for people like Ani DiFranco than John.
Fantastic review which I’m gonna re-read few more times for sure. As for The Beatles in general (it seems that I never commented yet on them at your blog), I’m not a big fan but obviously not a hater either — for me, they are one of the greatest and most influential artists of the decade, that surely will go to my 60s top five, but probably only on fifth place (and that doesn’t mean that I’m a kind of elitist snob, who will praise Captain Befheart or Amon Duul II instead, no).
However, I do consider “Rubber Soul” as their best album to date and probably the best ever in rock music for the end of 1965. I mean, if we don’t count Dylan’s output of the year, which can be considered superior, no one else was even coming close, especially among British bands, who were already making tons of fantastic singles, but not an album like that, never.
As for songs, you’ve already done the perfect analysis. Almost all of them seems to be good and even groundbreaking. As for me, I personally can not stand “Girl”, mostly because this trick with minor verse - major chorus in love songs was abused to death since that time and became an awful cliche (particularly, in bad Russian pop). However, it’s obviously not The Beatles’ fault. And my favorite numbers are “Norwegian Wood” and “If I Needed Someone” — “In My Life” or “Nowhere Man” can be of more historical importance, but the mystical and light trippy atmosphere of these songs is unbeatable.
What can I say in the end, that it’s really heard for me to imagine a person whose BEST and FAVOURITE album of 1967 and later on is The Beatles’ one. Of course, the material of their later albums is close to perfection, but probably people will choose something else from these years that better reflects their own personality (The VU & Nico, Forever Changes, The Kinks are The Village Green.., In The Court of the Crimson King, Led Zeppelin debut and so on, and so on — quite a lot of products of at least similar musical quality). However, at the end of 1965, if not count Dylan, there was literally NOBODY even on the same level as The Fab Four — that’s why this particular album (and Revolver) for me stands out as if not absolute highlights of The Beatles’ career, but at least as the most daring and challengeable works of theirs.
It may be true that no group was on the level of the Beatles' Rubber Soul (except Dylan), but MR TAMBOURINE MAN by the Byrds remains a wonderful album with some unrivaled harmonies (the title track, here without you, the bells of rhymney, chimes of freedom) and a source of inspiration for the Beatles themselves (even perhaps the cover of Rubber Soul could be a derivation of that of the Byrds).
As for MY GENERATION by The Who, listening to the title track and The kids are alright in sequence today is a cathartic experience (without forgetting songs like "The Good's Gone" and "The Ox"): no song on Rubber Soul comes remotely close to this level of musical power.
Well, maybe I am biased towards The Byrds, but for me, with all their obvious historical importance, they sound really boring — I can’t stand listening their two albums in a row, and for a major 60s band “boredom” is normally the last word that comes to mind. However, you will probably agree that Byrds’ debut has only 3 or 4 really great tracks (unlike “Rubber Soul”, where you can say this about almost whole tracklist), and not even all of them are self-penned (including the best one, of course).
As for The Who, of course, their sound was one of the most influential for the whole decade (you can just listen to “Nuggets”, where you’ll probably finally find out who (ha-ha) was the main inspiration for the absolute majority of artists there), however, for 1965 it’s their singles that were really changing the game. The whole album, even with “The Ox” on it still has quite a lot of filler — James Brown covers and other things that nowadays would be of interest only to rock historians. Of course, their hit singles were classics — but so were The Kinks’ or The Rolling Stones’ as well, while their albums could hardly be considered as even one of the best in 1965, let alone “of all time” (unlike Rubber Soul).
George, this is not only one of your best reviews yet but also has to rank among the best reviews of the album I’ve ever read. It is almost an encyclopedia of insights and perspectives about the album, going down the very heart of these songs that you have discerned out of them with years of experience. These analyses made me find things about these songs and the album in general I never concerned, and I can come back to the album with such crystal clarity.
Yet, all of your insights support and build a picture about the album where you can feel not only the breakthroughs the album had but also its proper place in their legacy. I have said many times before, but one of your greatest merits as a reviewer is your ability to treat these works never as museum pieces. They are always dynamic works for you to analyze and evaluate, and this is ever so true here. Instead of simply just parading the album as the landmark like every single other reviewer, you manage to build a case where you acknowledge the breakthroughs, make them seem truly titanic, and still carefully show that the album may not be as perfect as advertised and the Beatles were still not quite done in their evolution. What you do is not revisionism but the work of a skilled historian and critic, keeping the objectivity of the former with the sharpness of the latter.
I was skeptical about this review when you released it, not because I didn’t want you to make another Beatles review but because your previous ones on the Neolithic archive were so good that I didn’t see why you felt the need to rewrite them. My mistake, because this is very clearly a landmark of your writing, and you deserve frankly more praise for this great review than you are already getting.
I eagerly await the rest of the reviews in the series, and of course, anything new you have to say George.
In making a playlist of my favorite Rubber Soul & Revolver covers, I came upon this — https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=de43kEqYsL4 — which gave me a new appreciation for Wait, or at least a renewed appreciation of Bettye LaVette’s interpretive powers. I knew them first from her rendition of Love Reign O’er Me, at the Kennedy Center: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EJi6maTueSc.
Thanks for this and all the writing you share with us. Know that it’s worthwhile.
Not done reading this (probably gonna take 3 sittings!), will post thoughts later, but some of the best, most coherent breakdowns of the greatness of “Norwegian Wood” I’ve ever read. This review is awesome George!
RUBBER SOUL can be considered the pinnacle of the Beatles' "folk-rock" trilogy (or perhaps better of the "marijuana" trilogy) just as A HARD DAYS' NIGHT is the pinnacle of the "beat" trilogy (after PPM and WTB).
With REVOLVER the Beatles then raised the artistic level.
In any case, for me RUBBER SOUL remains one of the greatest albums of 1965 together with Dylan's BRINGING e HIGHWAY, Byrds' MR. TAMBOURINE man and Who's MY GENERATION and, one step below, Beach Boys' TODAY, Beatles HELP (UK version) Rolling Stones' OUT OF OUR HEADS (USA version), Yardbirds' HAVING A RAVE UP and Otis Redding BLUE.
Considering that in the same year were also released Simon and Garfunkel THE SOUND OF SILENCE (the single) and John Coltrane A LOVE SUPREME (the greatest jazz album of all time), it can be said that 1965 was a wonderful year for music.
Interesting analysis but another review of same classic album (fifth online) seems excessive. Apart from not realizing it's their best group effort, didn't find much to dislike. Obviously TB + AR top it yet are closer to solo projects mixed in together with great results. Just wish other records would get some attention first.
Fifth, really? not fourth? Well, see, the funny thing is, it may be the fifth or the fifty-fifth, but it already got about twice as many views in two days, according to Substack statistics, than my previous Drifters review (the first of its kind) got in a week. Sometimes you just gotta return to the tried and true and give the people what they want, I guess.
Before I even write a review, may I just express my surprise that you rank the Who up there with the Beatlers, Stones and Kinks? I know you have a weakness for them, but I'll be damned if I've ever understood how they join the upper tier of greats. Second tier, no doubt, but I'll wager even Pete Townsend would say Ray Davies & Co. deserve to be a notch higher in the pantheon. After all, he openly admits that it was Ray who taught him just about everything he needed to know about writing songs.
Now to reading your latest take on Rubber Soul -- which is one of those albums which, as you acknowledge, merits constant reviewing through the years. How do I know? By listening to the younger generations reacting to it on YouTube, and finding all kinds of things I never noticed after 60 years of listening!
Well, I have always rated the Who higher than the Kinks. I'd like to see the Kinks perform Young Man Blues or the Woodstock Sparks version live, or write a rock opera with as much ambition AND depth as Quadrophenia. At the very least, it is impossible not to acknowledge that the Who were far greater as an actual BAND of musicians - one of the most unique drummers in the business, one of the greatest bass players, one of the most sonically inventive guitarists of all time, and, well, that singer dude was no slouch either. (And I'm not even mentioning the fact that Ray Davies, with occasional exceptions, had mostly turned into an embarrassment post-1972, whereas Townshend has remained an intelligent songwriter with things to say at least until the early Eighties, if not longer).
Of course, I love the Kinks dearly, and even much more so today than I did twenty years ago, as the relevance of Ray's best stuff remains as high as ever (if I ever get around to reviewing Muswell Hillbillies, it's going to be a poem). But even at their best, the Kinks are never about reaching the same kind of cathartic heights as the Who at their best.
As for Pete's comment, well, Mark Prindle taught me just about everything I ever needed to know about writing reviews. You draw your own conclusions. :))
I kind of share this point of view. The essence for me is that The Who were *more effective* in transmitting their message. And as you say they were an actual band, a human group. That adds a lot to the story, and as a live set, there's no competition (not just The Kinks, few in fact can compete..). On the other hand I think The Kinks compositions in their prime were very probably more original, bolder and diverse. I have deep affection for the Kinks output after 1971, quirky as they are (70s), or sellouts as they are (80s.. Conquer America!). But yeah, this is a fan's biased assessement. Can't live without one or the other of course, probably the equivalent Yin - Yang to Beatles/Stones :)
Well, er, . . . touché, I suppose. Certainly the Kinks post-1971 are a huge embarassment, though I comfort myself with the thought that it was my country of birth (the former United States of America) which was responsible for their ignomous downfall. However I stand by my belief that Townsend would be ever so embarassed by being hoisted up into the stratosphere of the other three, but hey . . . I've always been in a minority of precisely two who contend that the Who never again quite matched that first brilliant single. But then who could?
You'd be on totally common ground with my father here, who always thought The Who made some great early singles like 'I Can't Explain' and 'Substitute' and nothing else. (He was very puzzled when I begged him to bring me CDs of "Tommy" and "Live At Leeds" from the States as they were totally unavailable in Moscow as late as the late 1990s, but, much to his credit, he did buy them for me). But then, he was very much an early-to-mid Sixties child and his musical preferences never expanded much beyond that (e.g. he never liked Pink Floyd, either).
That's interesting. It confirms that our experience of music depends a lot on WHEN we first heard it. My bias towards (against) the Who was in part because I made up my mind about them early on, when successive singles didn't grab my attention the way My Generation had. But then it was clearly also because I saw them as a kind of threat (haha) to the Kinks, who even then needed all the outside help they could get!
1. The album was recorded quickly under intense deadline-pressure and the Beatles didn't have enough new material ready. Therefore, an artifact like "What Goes On" was dug up, an outtake from HELP! "Wait" was resurrected, and so on. 2. Several key tracks--"You Won't See Me" "Girl" were dashed off in a hurry and recorded at the 11th hour. 3. "Run For Your Life" doesn't really belong on this record but was left on. 4. The much-discussed album programing was done by George Martin after the fact. The Fabs didn't really get involved in the running order of songs until later.
It was an album that was patched together somewhat haphazardly and in-a-hurry to be ready for Christmas. Nevertheless, it is hands down this Beatles fan's favorite album. Good review, George!
On one hand, that's true about the deadlines. On the other, however, the Beatles actually spent more time in the studio recording Rubber Soul than they did for any previous album (16-17 session days as opposed to about 10-12 for the two previous LPs), and it was also a period free from touring concerns. So, in a way, it starts their flirtation with obsessive perfection-seeking, which would then increase with each following album.
I do, however, take issue with "Fact #1: this is the first ever Beatles record to feature original compositions that are not, in fact, «love songs»."
I believe that would have been 1963's "With the Beatles", featuring the George Harrison-penned "Don't Bother Me." An original composition, and not a love song.
Is it possible to overstretch an album review to counterproductive effect? I wonder . . . but meanwhile, I'm hugely appreciating your ever-excellent attention to detail -- not to mention your uncanny respect for the under-appreciated. For example, YOU WON'T SEE ME, which I too thought unfairly lost in the mix, much like FIXING A HOLE on Sgt. Pepper's. Where o where does he find these utterly gorgeous, unearthly melodies? Same place as YESTERDAY, perhaps, in his dreams?
Difficult to argue much with you anywhere, and I'm particularly taken by the way you drag Quantum Theory into your remarks about I'M LOOKING THROUGH YOU. You're also the only person who's mentioned the witty (not sarcastic) opening line to NORWEGIAN WOOD, which beautifully anticipates the end of the song! How clever is that?
Surprised, though, that you don't point out the delicious "tit-tit-tits" of GIRL, which surely prove that the song wasn't about either Cynthia Lennon or Yoko, but about all the girls of the time who loved to titilate us with their budding breasts. Ah, those were the days . . .
As for RUBBER SOUL as a whole, yes, but no -- I listen to it more often than the other albums, it's just that bit more of a mood improver than the more ambitious records that followed. And mood, these days, is No 1 on my prioroty list!
I think the "tit-tit-tit" thing might have made more sense in that respect if it were concurrent or immediately followed the "After all this time, I don't know why" line (because there you'd have your answer why). It loses that kind of poignancy in the "she's the kind of girl that puts you down when friends are there" context, so I did not get enough of an incentive.
You did it again, George. Another engaging review of a Beatles album. Still details I didn't know! And challenging interpretations. Rubber Soul and Revolver are indeed their most interesting album titles (if only Abbey Road would have been called Everest..)
I really like Wait (lesser overplay helps) but The Word is definitely one of my favourite Beatles tunes. It's so out there, like a mad religious (sect) leader screaming its selling points and all. Way more interesting than the by-request "All You Need Is Love" (perfect as it is, of course), a bit out of place here, even.
I like What Goes On amongst Ringosungs. The instrumentation in this album in general is really my thing. Power pop should I call it? Folk rock (apparently that's what they label the US version)?
I never liked Nowhere Man a lot, as important as it is, for some reason (I highly prefer "There's a Place" as an *almost* non love song, at least "that" line). You Won’t See Me is a favourite too, and yeah I cannot listen to Michelle anymore (but still I can bear it more than Yesterday, specially in the album context). John's and George songs are all great for me too.
I think it's one of those albums where all the songs work for me (I won't get into Revolver's inclusion of Yellow Submarine but this is not always the case). I use it as my new audio tester CD, it sounds so balanced. But I understand what you mean: it's not as trascending as Revolver, crazy as Sgt Pepper's or groundbreaking as A Hard Day's Night to name a few. It's also George's favourite Beatles album apparently: granted they were still a working musical team and that's why he preferred over others like.. ahem Sgt Pepper's.
PS: I was thinking about the "wilderness" in the cover photo vs the wilderness in the For Sale inner picture amongst the foliage. Interesting comparison!
They look a little lost and almost pleading on that Beatles For Sale photo, though, don't they? and the fallen leaves aren't nearly as expressive as the luxurious vegetation in John's garden. On Rubber Soul, they're masters of their domain. "Are you SURE you want to enter Sherwood Forest, stranger?"
Certainly, the For Sale photo is quite.. sad, if you think about it. Tired-sad. While Rubber Soul is world-weary and defiant, John being the only one staring at you like only he can.
You never get bored writing about them, don't you? :)
"...John Lennon would be the undisputed king in pop music — in my personal opinion, not even until the breakup of the Beatles, but until his last dying breath in 1980. And as far as I’m concerned, it is this incredible ability to express those emotional states that makes all these songs so great, much more so than any formally admirable musicological aspects. For all the unusual elements in their chord sequences, harmonic arrangements, and production details, their chief attraction lies in John’s vocal delivery; take away every single instrument and those vocals alone, in all their nakedness, would still be unforgettable."
Interesting, as you mostly hate more lyrics/vocal centered artists. Except Dylan, I guess, but he mostly has solid melodic foundations, if stolen at times.
No, I think that's somewhat exaggerated. I hate when artists treat melodies as mainly formal "carriers" of their lyrical messages, when wordsmithery comes first and everything else is subjected to it. But the vocal melodies, with all their undertones and expressivity - if they're really melodies, not just formal deliveries of the words - are as much part of the music as anything else. I rather reserve my annoyance for people like Ani DiFranco than John.
Fantastic review which I’m gonna re-read few more times for sure. As for The Beatles in general (it seems that I never commented yet on them at your blog), I’m not a big fan but obviously not a hater either — for me, they are one of the greatest and most influential artists of the decade, that surely will go to my 60s top five, but probably only on fifth place (and that doesn’t mean that I’m a kind of elitist snob, who will praise Captain Befheart or Amon Duul II instead, no).
However, I do consider “Rubber Soul” as their best album to date and probably the best ever in rock music for the end of 1965. I mean, if we don’t count Dylan’s output of the year, which can be considered superior, no one else was even coming close, especially among British bands, who were already making tons of fantastic singles, but not an album like that, never.
As for songs, you’ve already done the perfect analysis. Almost all of them seems to be good and even groundbreaking. As for me, I personally can not stand “Girl”, mostly because this trick with minor verse - major chorus in love songs was abused to death since that time and became an awful cliche (particularly, in bad Russian pop). However, it’s obviously not The Beatles’ fault. And my favorite numbers are “Norwegian Wood” and “If I Needed Someone” — “In My Life” or “Nowhere Man” can be of more historical importance, but the mystical and light trippy atmosphere of these songs is unbeatable.
What can I say in the end, that it’s really heard for me to imagine a person whose BEST and FAVOURITE album of 1967 and later on is The Beatles’ one. Of course, the material of their later albums is close to perfection, but probably people will choose something else from these years that better reflects their own personality (The VU & Nico, Forever Changes, The Kinks are The Village Green.., In The Court of the Crimson King, Led Zeppelin debut and so on, and so on — quite a lot of products of at least similar musical quality). However, at the end of 1965, if not count Dylan, there was literally NOBODY even on the same level as The Fab Four — that’s why this particular album (and Revolver) for me stands out as if not absolute highlights of The Beatles’ career, but at least as the most daring and challengeable works of theirs.
It may be true that no group was on the level of the Beatles' Rubber Soul (except Dylan), but MR TAMBOURINE MAN by the Byrds remains a wonderful album with some unrivaled harmonies (the title track, here without you, the bells of rhymney, chimes of freedom) and a source of inspiration for the Beatles themselves (even perhaps the cover of Rubber Soul could be a derivation of that of the Byrds).
As for MY GENERATION by The Who, listening to the title track and The kids are alright in sequence today is a cathartic experience (without forgetting songs like "The Good's Gone" and "The Ox"): no song on Rubber Soul comes remotely close to this level of musical power.
Well, maybe I am biased towards The Byrds, but for me, with all their obvious historical importance, they sound really boring — I can’t stand listening their two albums in a row, and for a major 60s band “boredom” is normally the last word that comes to mind. However, you will probably agree that Byrds’ debut has only 3 or 4 really great tracks (unlike “Rubber Soul”, where you can say this about almost whole tracklist), and not even all of them are self-penned (including the best one, of course).
As for The Who, of course, their sound was one of the most influential for the whole decade (you can just listen to “Nuggets”, where you’ll probably finally find out who (ha-ha) was the main inspiration for the absolute majority of artists there), however, for 1965 it’s their singles that were really changing the game. The whole album, even with “The Ox” on it still has quite a lot of filler — James Brown covers and other things that nowadays would be of interest only to rock historians. Of course, their hit singles were classics — but so were The Kinks’ or The Rolling Stones’ as well, while their albums could hardly be considered as even one of the best in 1965, let alone “of all time” (unlike Rubber Soul).
George, this is not only one of your best reviews yet but also has to rank among the best reviews of the album I’ve ever read. It is almost an encyclopedia of insights and perspectives about the album, going down the very heart of these songs that you have discerned out of them with years of experience. These analyses made me find things about these songs and the album in general I never concerned, and I can come back to the album with such crystal clarity.
Yet, all of your insights support and build a picture about the album where you can feel not only the breakthroughs the album had but also its proper place in their legacy. I have said many times before, but one of your greatest merits as a reviewer is your ability to treat these works never as museum pieces. They are always dynamic works for you to analyze and evaluate, and this is ever so true here. Instead of simply just parading the album as the landmark like every single other reviewer, you manage to build a case where you acknowledge the breakthroughs, make them seem truly titanic, and still carefully show that the album may not be as perfect as advertised and the Beatles were still not quite done in their evolution. What you do is not revisionism but the work of a skilled historian and critic, keeping the objectivity of the former with the sharpness of the latter.
I was skeptical about this review when you released it, not because I didn’t want you to make another Beatles review but because your previous ones on the Neolithic archive were so good that I didn’t see why you felt the need to rewrite them. My mistake, because this is very clearly a landmark of your writing, and you deserve frankly more praise for this great review than you are already getting.
I eagerly await the rest of the reviews in the series, and of course, anything new you have to say George.
Also George, I cannot unhear the swampy frog noises in “What Goes On” now!
wow bro that’s a lot of ball sucking tbh
Ha ha, that's kinda true.
In making a playlist of my favorite Rubber Soul & Revolver covers, I came upon this — https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=de43kEqYsL4 — which gave me a new appreciation for Wait, or at least a renewed appreciation of Bettye LaVette’s interpretive powers. I knew them first from her rendition of Love Reign O’er Me, at the Kennedy Center: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EJi6maTueSc.
Thanks for this and all the writing you share with us. Know that it’s worthwhile.
Not done reading this (probably gonna take 3 sittings!), will post thoughts later, but some of the best, most coherent breakdowns of the greatness of “Norwegian Wood” I’ve ever read. This review is awesome George!
RUBBER SOUL can be considered the pinnacle of the Beatles' "folk-rock" trilogy (or perhaps better of the "marijuana" trilogy) just as A HARD DAYS' NIGHT is the pinnacle of the "beat" trilogy (after PPM and WTB).
With REVOLVER the Beatles then raised the artistic level.
In any case, for me RUBBER SOUL remains one of the greatest albums of 1965 together with Dylan's BRINGING e HIGHWAY, Byrds' MR. TAMBOURINE man and Who's MY GENERATION and, one step below, Beach Boys' TODAY, Beatles HELP (UK version) Rolling Stones' OUT OF OUR HEADS (USA version), Yardbirds' HAVING A RAVE UP and Otis Redding BLUE.
Considering that in the same year were also released Simon and Garfunkel THE SOUND OF SILENCE (the single) and John Coltrane A LOVE SUPREME (the greatest jazz album of all time), it can be said that 1965 was a wonderful year for music.
Interesting analysis but another review of same classic album (fifth online) seems excessive. Apart from not realizing it's their best group effort, didn't find much to dislike. Obviously TB + AR top it yet are closer to solo projects mixed in together with great results. Just wish other records would get some attention first.
Fifth, really? not fourth? Well, see, the funny thing is, it may be the fifth or the fifty-fifth, but it already got about twice as many views in two days, according to Substack statistics, than my previous Drifters review (the first of its kind) got in a week. Sometimes you just gotta return to the tried and true and give the people what they want, I guess.
Before I even write a review, may I just express my surprise that you rank the Who up there with the Beatlers, Stones and Kinks? I know you have a weakness for them, but I'll be damned if I've ever understood how they join the upper tier of greats. Second tier, no doubt, but I'll wager even Pete Townsend would say Ray Davies & Co. deserve to be a notch higher in the pantheon. After all, he openly admits that it was Ray who taught him just about everything he needed to know about writing songs.
Now to reading your latest take on Rubber Soul -- which is one of those albums which, as you acknowledge, merits constant reviewing through the years. How do I know? By listening to the younger generations reacting to it on YouTube, and finding all kinds of things I never noticed after 60 years of listening!
Well, I have always rated the Who higher than the Kinks. I'd like to see the Kinks perform Young Man Blues or the Woodstock Sparks version live, or write a rock opera with as much ambition AND depth as Quadrophenia. At the very least, it is impossible not to acknowledge that the Who were far greater as an actual BAND of musicians - one of the most unique drummers in the business, one of the greatest bass players, one of the most sonically inventive guitarists of all time, and, well, that singer dude was no slouch either. (And I'm not even mentioning the fact that Ray Davies, with occasional exceptions, had mostly turned into an embarrassment post-1972, whereas Townshend has remained an intelligent songwriter with things to say at least until the early Eighties, if not longer).
Of course, I love the Kinks dearly, and even much more so today than I did twenty years ago, as the relevance of Ray's best stuff remains as high as ever (if I ever get around to reviewing Muswell Hillbillies, it's going to be a poem). But even at their best, the Kinks are never about reaching the same kind of cathartic heights as the Who at their best.
As for Pete's comment, well, Mark Prindle taught me just about everything I ever needed to know about writing reviews. You draw your own conclusions. :))
I kind of share this point of view. The essence for me is that The Who were *more effective* in transmitting their message. And as you say they were an actual band, a human group. That adds a lot to the story, and as a live set, there's no competition (not just The Kinks, few in fact can compete..). On the other hand I think The Kinks compositions in their prime were very probably more original, bolder and diverse. I have deep affection for the Kinks output after 1971, quirky as they are (70s), or sellouts as they are (80s.. Conquer America!). But yeah, this is a fan's biased assessement. Can't live without one or the other of course, probably the equivalent Yin - Yang to Beatles/Stones :)
Well, er, . . . touché, I suppose. Certainly the Kinks post-1971 are a huge embarassment, though I comfort myself with the thought that it was my country of birth (the former United States of America) which was responsible for their ignomous downfall. However I stand by my belief that Townsend would be ever so embarassed by being hoisted up into the stratosphere of the other three, but hey . . . I've always been in a minority of precisely two who contend that the Who never again quite matched that first brilliant single. But then who could?
You'd be on totally common ground with my father here, who always thought The Who made some great early singles like 'I Can't Explain' and 'Substitute' and nothing else. (He was very puzzled when I begged him to bring me CDs of "Tommy" and "Live At Leeds" from the States as they were totally unavailable in Moscow as late as the late 1990s, but, much to his credit, he did buy them for me). But then, he was very much an early-to-mid Sixties child and his musical preferences never expanded much beyond that (e.g. he never liked Pink Floyd, either).
That's interesting. It confirms that our experience of music depends a lot on WHEN we first heard it. My bias towards (against) the Who was in part because I made up my mind about them early on, when successive singles didn't grab my attention the way My Generation had. But then it was clearly also because I saw them as a kind of threat (haha) to the Kinks, who even then needed all the outside help they could get!
the kinks were never an embarrassment
"PARANOIA THE DESTROYER!!!"? Ple-e-e-e-ase.
Hahaha . . . and that was just the tip of the iceberg!
A few rarely considered facts about RUBBER SOUL:
1. The album was recorded quickly under intense deadline-pressure and the Beatles didn't have enough new material ready. Therefore, an artifact like "What Goes On" was dug up, an outtake from HELP! "Wait" was resurrected, and so on. 2. Several key tracks--"You Won't See Me" "Girl" were dashed off in a hurry and recorded at the 11th hour. 3. "Run For Your Life" doesn't really belong on this record but was left on. 4. The much-discussed album programing was done by George Martin after the fact. The Fabs didn't really get involved in the running order of songs until later.
It was an album that was patched together somewhat haphazardly and in-a-hurry to be ready for Christmas. Nevertheless, it is hands down this Beatles fan's favorite album. Good review, George!
On one hand, that's true about the deadlines. On the other, however, the Beatles actually spent more time in the studio recording Rubber Soul than they did for any previous album (16-17 session days as opposed to about 10-12 for the two previous LPs), and it was also a period free from touring concerns. So, in a way, it starts their flirtation with obsessive perfection-seeking, which would then increase with each following album.
Terrific review/analysis of Rubber Soul.
I do, however, take issue with "Fact #1: this is the first ever Beatles record to feature original compositions that are not, in fact, «love songs»."
I believe that would have been 1963's "With the Beatles", featuring the George Harrison-penned "Don't Bother Me." An original composition, and not a love song.
How come?
"Since SHE's been gone / I want no one / To talk to me".
Clearly a breakup song, like so many others.
Is it possible to overstretch an album review to counterproductive effect? I wonder . . . but meanwhile, I'm hugely appreciating your ever-excellent attention to detail -- not to mention your uncanny respect for the under-appreciated. For example, YOU WON'T SEE ME, which I too thought unfairly lost in the mix, much like FIXING A HOLE on Sgt. Pepper's. Where o where does he find these utterly gorgeous, unearthly melodies? Same place as YESTERDAY, perhaps, in his dreams?
Difficult to argue much with you anywhere, and I'm particularly taken by the way you drag Quantum Theory into your remarks about I'M LOOKING THROUGH YOU. You're also the only person who's mentioned the witty (not sarcastic) opening line to NORWEGIAN WOOD, which beautifully anticipates the end of the song! How clever is that?
Surprised, though, that you don't point out the delicious "tit-tit-tits" of GIRL, which surely prove that the song wasn't about either Cynthia Lennon or Yoko, but about all the girls of the time who loved to titilate us with their budding breasts. Ah, those were the days . . .
As for RUBBER SOUL as a whole, yes, but no -- I listen to it more often than the other albums, it's just that bit more of a mood improver than the more ambitious records that followed. And mood, these days, is No 1 on my prioroty list!
I think the "tit-tit-tit" thing might have made more sense in that respect if it were concurrent or immediately followed the "After all this time, I don't know why" line (because there you'd have your answer why). It loses that kind of poignancy in the "she's the kind of girl that puts you down when friends are there" context, so I did not get enough of an incentive.