Kind of a Drag: Lennon Prevents Rubber Soul From Being My Favorite Beatles Album
By Mr. Moderator on Jun 14, 2007
There's so much to love about Rubber Soul, beginning with the all-important album cover. That fish-eye lens photo of the band, in their best collective Look - complete with perfect '60s rock hair and the brown suede jackets - is the visual representation of the feeling of running into a friend and smoking an unexpected joint on a September day. Come to think of it, the last time I drank alcohol was on a September day, when a friend, fish-eye lens in tow, shot a roll of film of our band in the woods, trying our like hell to cop a Rubber Soul vibe. You could say the hopelessness of reaching this goal drove me to sobriety.
But what a goal it was, and what an album Rubber Soul is - but it doesn't get much more obvious than that last statement, does it? As I stated earlier today, I'm a bass man, and this might be rock's first album to fully capture the potential of the bass. Right out of the gates there's the archetypal "Drive My Car", pulling from the bass-fetishist's favorite version of "Respect" (ie, Otis Redding's) and mapping out the general bassline that enabled The Jam's Bruce Foxton to enjoy a brief career of vital mediocrity. Then John's fine "Norwegian Wood" and Paul's stunning piece of concise proto-power pop, "You Won't See Me". Two songs that make the entire output of The Byrds practically redundant follow, "Nowhere Man" and George Harrison's "Think for Yourself". So far, so great!
Then comes "The Word". I have close friends who will go to the mattresses in defense of this song. "It's not a great song," they'll acknowledge, "but it's cool!" It's cool, is it? Let's first get one thing straight: John Lennon is dead, and if he were living his feelings would not be hurt if you faced up to the fact that the song is a lame, early attempt to express his transition to the Love Generation. Is Hair cool? Is that Cirque du Soleil Love atrocity cool, especially the part when the hippie kids are dancing around the psychedelic VW Bug?
The Beatles had the great taste and good fortune not to release too many songs showing the strain of a given "transitional period," but this is one of them. It doesn't meet the quality of a pre-pot Lennon composition, and it doesn't meet the cool of a post-pot Lennon meditation. "The Word" might as well have been written by a weekend warrior accountant who smoked his first couple of joints on Friday night.
Furthermore, "The Word" has an arrangement way hokier than almost anything The Beatles would release before or after. Beatles fans love to beat the crap out of Paul's granny numbers, like "Your Mother Should Know" and "Honey Pie", admittedly for many good reasons, but at least those songs make innovative use of the band arrangements and the studio. "The Word" would be filler on a Hollies album. It's the kind of Beatles song Eric Burdon probably thought was cool while dropping acid and hanging out with Jimi. It's also the kind of "hippie" song that every 3rd-rate "sunshine pop" band would rip off as their one "heavy" song. Talk about "as good as that pussy shit gets." Look at that video. What primal screams would it have inspired in poor John a few years later? John would not look so square in trying to celebrate his new level of hipness until his Somewhere in New York City album, or whatever that dose of too much reality is called.
Rubber Soul quickly gets back on track, and John contributes two of his finest, most soulful songs ever, "Girl" and "In My Life". Oh brother, I could tear up just thinking of how great these songs are, surely two of the best songs on the album - and enough of you would agree two of the finest songs John ever wrote. How, you may ask, can I hold "The Word" against John and use it in my claim that Lennon prevents Rubber Soul from being my favorite Beatles album? Here's how I do it, but naming two additional song titles...
Follow up:
..."Wait" and "Run for Your Life".
There's not a whole lot wrong with "Wait" beside the fact that it would have been a decent Harrison composition. John wrote a couple of better songs in this vein for the earlier Beatles for Sale: "I'm a Loser" and "Baby's in Black". On those songs John sounds like he's happened across an exciting new approach to self-expression and chord progressions. On "Wait" he sounds like he's throwing some leftover scraps from that period together and hoping, with the help of McCartney's bridge, that something sticks.
The final nail in the coffin of my loving Rubber Soul above all other Beatles albums is "Run for Your Life". John himself denounced this song as his "least favorite Beatles song," but he was quick to add, in further-damming fashion, that it was Harrison's favorite track on the album. Yes! Now that's the real Lennon bite clamping down on the carcass of Beatlemania! But my telling you that John didn't like the song or that the multi-untalented Nancy Sinatra thought it would be a good idea to cover it won't convince you. Here's what I suggest you do: pull out your copy of Rubber Soul. Try your hardest not to salivate over the cover shot. Skip all the good songs. Flip over the album to the last track on side B. Then take a good listen.
The one good thing to come from this song is it was probably a look in the mirror-type wake-up call for John, the same way my drunken attempt at living up to the heights of the Rubber Soul cover shot played a small part in my own slow self-realization. From this point forward, until Lennon started hanging out in L.A. and suffering the fate of an English Rocker in L.A., he would move forward with certainty and purpose.
Thanks to Townsman E. Pluribus Gergely for reminding me to defend this long-ago stated set of beliefs.
68 comments
Comment from: the great 48 [Member] 
I will grant you that "Run For Your Life" is one of the worst songs Lennon ever wrote, but I find "The Word" inoffensive at worst, and I've always rather liked "Wait." Sue me.
06/08/07 @ 01:53
Comment from: michael k [Member]
"Run For Your Life" always bothered me and seemed to me to be a throwaway - that whole "rather see you dead" thing...
However, it doesn't bother me as much as that clip of Jackie & Roy doing "The Word". Not so much Jackie & Roy, but that cat (you're welcome Mr Mod) playing the upside-down bass. For some (dumb) reason, seeing stuff like that always bothers me, I don't know why, I know that it shouldn't. Or when Jules Shear used to ruin the original "MTV Unplugged" episodes by coming on to sing with the guests and he would play those "thumb-barre" chords a la Richie Havens. I know, I need help.
However, it doesn't bother me as much as that clip of Jackie & Roy doing "The Word". Not so much Jackie & Roy, but that cat (you're welcome Mr Mod) playing the upside-down bass. For some (dumb) reason, seeing stuff like that always bothers me, I don't know why, I know that it shouldn't. Or when Jules Shear used to ruin the original "MTV Unplugged" episodes by coming on to sing with the guests and he would play those "thumb-barre" chords a la Richie Havens. I know, I need help.
06/08/07 @ 06:29
Comment from: BigSteve [Member]
I think the songs you're picking on sound a lot better on the real Rubber Soul, the one that opens with I've Just Seen a Face. The American version works a lot better without Nowhere Man and Drive My Car throwing Off the curve It sounds much more of a piece, and more like they're on the cusp of something new and great instead of just tired of writing about little girls.
I just checked and there's a lot I like about The Word. Love that organ. (And thanks for the not ready for SNL youtube clip. I love the smell of cheese first thing in the morning.) It doesn't seem measurably worse than You Won't See Me.
Run for your Life is redeemed by the little falsetto thing (the end-AH!). It doesn't take much. What Goes On is the real low point for me. Good drumming, and it's hard to hate on Ringo's singing, but the Carl Perkinsisms were beginning to sound a bit tired.
I just checked and there's a lot I like about The Word. Love that organ. (And thanks for the not ready for SNL youtube clip. I love the smell of cheese first thing in the morning.) It doesn't seem measurably worse than You Won't See Me.
Run for your Life is redeemed by the little falsetto thing (the end-AH!). It doesn't take much. What Goes On is the real low point for me. Good drumming, and it's hard to hate on Ringo's singing, but the Carl Perkinsisms were beginning to sound a bit tired.
06/08/07 @ 06:54
Comment from: Oats [Member]
Mr. Mod, you're full of shit.
"Wait" is one of my favorite Beatles deep cuts. Similar to "We Can Work It Out," it makes the most of the moody-John/sunny-Paul duality. At the risk of getting into pince-nez, Ian McDonald-esque pop psychoanalysis, I'd say it's one of their most emotionally open songs.
"The Word" is way cool. Organ, maracas, spooky harmonies. Exactly the sort of slogan-song only the Beatles could pull off. You're thinking of "All You Need is Love," now that's John's hippie sloganeering dogshit Rock Crime.
I'll give you, "Run For Your Life" has aged horribly, and Lennon readily admitted it was bad. The fact that it's the last song helps some.
If anything, "Nowhere Man" and "In My Life" are my least favorite Lennon songs here, just because they're the most overplayed and overexamined ones. They are in fact fine, fine songs.
I certainly hope saturnismine and Trolleyvox logs on today to add their ten cents. Gentlemen, you've been summoned!
"Wait" is one of my favorite Beatles deep cuts. Similar to "We Can Work It Out," it makes the most of the moody-John/sunny-Paul duality. At the risk of getting into pince-nez, Ian McDonald-esque pop psychoanalysis, I'd say it's one of their most emotionally open songs.
"The Word" is way cool. Organ, maracas, spooky harmonies. Exactly the sort of slogan-song only the Beatles could pull off. You're thinking of "All You Need is Love," now that's John's hippie sloganeering dogshit Rock Crime.
I'll give you, "Run For Your Life" has aged horribly, and Lennon readily admitted it was bad. The fact that it's the last song helps some.
If anything, "Nowhere Man" and "In My Life" are my least favorite Lennon songs here, just because they're the most overplayed and overexamined ones. They are in fact fine, fine songs.
I certainly hope saturnismine and Trolleyvox logs on today to add their ten cents. Gentlemen, you've been summoned!
06/08/07 @ 08:15
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member]
Hey, Mr. Mod --
I'm one of those folks who will go to the mat for "The Word." It may be a Kentonite cop-out (or it may not be), but the fact is that is *is* the "arrangement" that takes an otherwise ditzy, kind of stupid little song and transforms it into something transcendant. I mean, come ON -- listen to those jazzbo chords; listen to the MccCartney Zen-noodly bass; listen ("oh, just listen," he said rapturously) to those vocal harmonies! What the f*ck is *wrong* with you, brother?! I direct your attention to the segue between "In the beginning, I misunderstood; but now that I've got it, the word is good" and the explosive, weirdo-beardoh harmony "it's the worrrrrd" chorus that follows. THAT was the kind of shit that made every other pop band in the 60s cry in their beer.
You are wrong, wrong, WRONG about this song!
I'm one of those folks who will go to the mat for "The Word." It may be a Kentonite cop-out (or it may not be), but the fact is that is *is* the "arrangement" that takes an otherwise ditzy, kind of stupid little song and transforms it into something transcendant. I mean, come ON -- listen to those jazzbo chords; listen to the MccCartney Zen-noodly bass; listen ("oh, just listen," he said rapturously) to those vocal harmonies! What the f*ck is *wrong* with you, brother?! I direct your attention to the segue between "In the beginning, I misunderstood; but now that I've got it, the word is good" and the explosive, weirdo-beardoh harmony "it's the worrrrrd" chorus that follows. THAT was the kind of shit that made every other pop band in the 60s cry in their beer.
You are wrong, wrong, WRONG about this song!
06/08/07 @ 08:18
Comment from: Oats [Member]
"The Word" has also one of my favorite gaffes made by a singer: "In the good of the back books that I have read."
06/08/07 @ 08:21
Comment from: andyr [Member]
Well, Rubber Soul is my Fav Fab Platter - is there a better sounding Batles album? Geoff Emereick gets all the press but Norman Smith's engineering is amazing on this. You can hear everything perfectly.
I'll go to the mattress on The Word . I love the drone organ, there are some AWESOME bass fills, and how can YOU, Mr Mod, not like the "rug" harmonies. And the lyrics are ahead of thier time - this is two years before "The summer of love" shite
I even like "Run For Your Life" - great guitar solo and I like the melody. I also like that this may have been a more honest song than people believe. John may have been all Peace and Love at the end, but, given his life, its not suprising that John wouls have some sort of hatred towards women
I'll go to the mattress on The Word . I love the drone organ, there are some AWESOME bass fills, and how can YOU, Mr Mod, not like the "rug" harmonies. And the lyrics are ahead of thier time - this is two years before "The summer of love" shite
I even like "Run For Your Life" - great guitar solo and I like the melody. I also like that this may have been a more honest song than people believe. John may have been all Peace and Love at the end, but, given his life, its not suprising that John wouls have some sort of hatred towards women
06/08/07 @ 08:21
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Thanks to almost all of you, so far, for proving my points...BY NOT GETTING IT! MMy Dogg, Andyr, comes through with this one:
If that's what the future held we should have blown it up then and there!
A lot of you have pointed to the album's overall great sound and the cool way the organ makes "The Word" worth hearing now and then. Your typical Kentonite/Prock leanings are not surprising. Don't think I don't share them. I still say "The Word" is the best song some "sunshine pop" band could have managed. Is that saying enough for you Beatles fans? It's not for me.
Oats says:
What up, Oats? I thought we were tight! Ah, I know we still are, but then, in one brief paragraph, you go from saying the two best Lennon songs on that album are, in fact, your least favorite numbers because they're overplayed, however, as you put it, "They are, in fact, fine, fine songs." Then you summon Saturnismine and Trolleyvox! You will be sorry when they heed your call and load on more of this underdog nonsense. The Beatles, as we discussed long ago, on another URL, are rock's finest examples of Winner Rock. They play to win. Unlike, say, the fourth-rate "sunshine pop" band The Mallowcup Fire Engine Lollipop Parade, we don't need to bend over backward to laud a subpar Beatles song, or should I say 3 subpar Beatles songs by one of rock's few characters who gladly and often admirably wore the Voice of His Generation mantle. These 3 songs knock the otherwise great Rubber Soul down a notch for me, and it's time the rest of you face the facts. Who's going to argue that any one of those 3 turds is better than "Baby's in Black" and "I'm a Loser"? Who's going to argue that "The Word" justifies the psychedelic VW Bug scene in Love?
And the lyrics are ahead of their time...
If that's what the future held we should have blown it up then and there!
A lot of you have pointed to the album's overall great sound and the cool way the organ makes "The Word" worth hearing now and then. Your typical Kentonite/Prock leanings are not surprising. Don't think I don't share them. I still say "The Word" is the best song some "sunshine pop" band could have managed. Is that saying enough for you Beatles fans? It's not for me.
Oats says:
Mr. Mod, you're full of shit.
What up, Oats? I thought we were tight! Ah, I know we still are, but then, in one brief paragraph, you go from saying the two best Lennon songs on that album are, in fact, your least favorite numbers because they're overplayed, however, as you put it, "They are, in fact, fine, fine songs." Then you summon Saturnismine and Trolleyvox! You will be sorry when they heed your call and load on more of this underdog nonsense. The Beatles, as we discussed long ago, on another URL, are rock's finest examples of Winner Rock. They play to win. Unlike, say, the fourth-rate "sunshine pop" band The Mallowcup Fire Engine Lollipop Parade, we don't need to bend over backward to laud a subpar Beatles song, or should I say 3 subpar Beatles songs by one of rock's few characters who gladly and often admirably wore the Voice of His Generation mantle. These 3 songs knock the otherwise great Rubber Soul down a notch for me, and it's time the rest of you face the facts. Who's going to argue that any one of those 3 turds is better than "Baby's in Black" and "I'm a Loser"? Who's going to argue that "The Word" justifies the psychedelic VW Bug scene in Love?
06/08/07 @ 08:44
Comment from: mockcarr [Member]
The Word is better than Baby's in Black.
There's more interesting bits in it. I won't rehash Oats, Mr. Bakshi and V. Foghorn's points in production, but I'd add the the sloppy yet but cracking drum fills, and the way the bass drum actually anticipates the beat while the droning organ is going. I think it's rare for Ringo to push the tempo ever. And why is it a pain in the ass for you to just have Lennon come out and say this - aren't 90 percent of the Beatles songs about love in some form?
The only distinction Baby's in Black has it's different chord signature, but the LYRICS are even worse than Run For Your Life. Black? No, let's move onto what we really mean - DEATH!
It's certainly better than some of those covers like Mr. Moonlight, damn you! It's not fair to dump a solid number like I'm A Loser into that comparsion.
Lennon's worst "song" is on your unappreciated album Let It Be. Can you Dig It?
There's more interesting bits in it. I won't rehash Oats, Mr. Bakshi and V. Foghorn's points in production, but I'd add the the sloppy yet but cracking drum fills, and the way the bass drum actually anticipates the beat while the droning organ is going. I think it's rare for Ringo to push the tempo ever. And why is it a pain in the ass for you to just have Lennon come out and say this - aren't 90 percent of the Beatles songs about love in some form?
The only distinction Baby's in Black has it's different chord signature, but the LYRICS are even worse than Run For Your Life. Black? No, let's move onto what we really mean - DEATH!
It's certainly better than some of those covers like Mr. Moonlight, damn you! It's not fair to dump a solid number like I'm A Loser into that comparsion.
Lennon's worst "song" is on your unappreciated album Let It Be. Can you Dig It?
06/08/07 @ 09:17
Comment from: BigSteve [Member]
I always thought it was "In the good and the bad books that I have read." And never thought of the word as capital L proto-hippie Love. Given the context of the rest of the album, it seems like an idealization of romantic love, not the platitude.
I also like hearing Lennon's nasty side in Run for your Life. It's not anything to be proud of, but good songwriters don't always cast themselves as the pure-hearted hero.
I also like hearing Lennon's nasty side in Run for your Life. It's not anything to be proud of, but good songwriters don't always cast themselves as the pure-hearted hero.
06/08/07 @ 09:18
Comment from: mockcarr [Member]
I probably didn't mean butt cracking drum fills. I can't afford a therapist, so I'llnever really know, I guess.
06/08/07 @ 09:22
Comment from: sammymaudlin [Member]
Big difference between the Cirque's VW Bug and The Word. Yes the Summer of Love evolved into a soulless brand. And yes the Hippie movement became fashion and chic and shite and all that. But at the core of the cultural revolution were truths that I still hold self evident. I still powerfully believe in the values that those who launched the wave emoted. And like any other music I can feel when it is sincere and when it is Hair.
So all you Hippie-Bashers: What's So Funny About Peace Love and Understanding?
I believe in The Word.
So all you Hippie-Bashers: What's So Funny About Peace Love and Understanding?
I believe in The Word.
06/08/07 @ 09:41
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member]
Mr. Mod blathers:
And the lyrics are ahead of their time...
If that's what the future held we should have blown it up then and there!
I say:
Welcome to Team Hippies Suck!
And the lyrics are ahead of their time...
If that's what the future held we should have blown it up then and there!
I say:
Welcome to Team Hippies Suck!
06/08/07 @ 09:55
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member]
I also agree with townsman Mockcarr that "The Word" is a far better song than "Baby's In Black." That song -- in addition to the cornball lyric -- has always sounded like something John could've written when he was 16. I mean that in a bad way.
06/08/07 @ 09:58
Comment from: epluribusgergely [Member]
Hey Moderator,
I TOLD YA SO!
Nice work,
E. Pluribus
I TOLD YA SO!
Nice work,
E. Pluribus
06/08/07 @ 09:59
Comment from: KingEd [Member]
Why pick on Lennon's weaker songs? What's so valuable about "Michelle" and "What Goes On"? Would you have preferred another Larry Williams cover?
06/08/07 @ 10:01
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member]
Come on, Plurbie -- stop being such a goddamn pussy. Were you one of those kids that hid behind the girls when you played dodgeball?
06/08/07 @ 10:04
Comment from: epluribusgergely [Member]
I found dodgeball pretty boring. Prisonball was a whole 'nother thing. Who out there recalls the glory of intramural prison ball?
Hope to hear from ya soon,
E. Pluribus
P.S. Hrundi, still waiting for that piece concerning Prince, Gibbons, and Lynne as the measuring stick for judging others.
Hope to hear from ya soon,
E. Pluribus
P.S. Hrundi, still waiting for that piece concerning Prince, Gibbons, and Lynne as the measuring stick for judging others.
06/08/07 @ 10:21
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
There's no need for E to hide. When the time is right I'm sure he'll step forth to credit me for helping him take a more sober, realistic view of this well-deserved masterpiece of an album. It's the sort of clarified vision we sometimes arrive at through the process of our daily discussions that keeps a corner of this crusty old genre fresh.
06/08/07 @ 10:24
Comment from: mwall [Member]
Interestingly, Mr. Mod's commentary seems to be missing the reasoning for his disliking "Run For Your Life." Is it the lyric solely that you object to? It's hard to counter your argument when you haven't really made one.
06/08/07 @ 11:18
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
What don't I like about "Run For Your Life"? Well, yes, the lyrics are especially cliched. I have no problem with the misogynistic aspect of it, just the lack of creativity and commitment to the misogyny. I'm sure that could be read the wrong way, but I mean this solely in terms of narrative.
I'm also not the biggest fan of the country shuffle style that the Beatles would pull on. It's OK in small doses, but they'd already done it enough, and beside, that was a better hokey arrangement style for Ringo.
So it's stuff like that.
I'm also not the biggest fan of the country shuffle style that the Beatles would pull on. It's OK in small doses, but they'd already done it enough, and beside, that was a better hokey arrangement style for Ringo.
So it's stuff like that.
06/08/07 @ 12:31
Comment from: mwall [Member]
Yeah, I think I agree: the problem is that the narrative just seems unconvincing, not that it's nasty. It's trying to have a tough working class knife fighter tone, or something like that, and it just doesn't have it. I don't believe in the hate it's expressing--and hate is something that you can't just toss off.
My preference for Rubber Soul over Revolver has mainly to do with my preference for music with a rougher edge. Revolver has a slickness and a grandness that I find a little offputting--and unconvincing in another way from "Run For Your Life," because it's just the slightest bit smarmy.
My preference for Rubber Soul over Revolver has mainly to do with my preference for music with a rougher edge. Revolver has a slickness and a grandness that I find a little offputting--and unconvincing in another way from "Run For Your Life," because it's just the slightest bit smarmy.
06/08/07 @ 13:24
Comment from: saturnismine [Member]
mod,
i'm surprised to hear you taking the english release as your point of departure. in the past, our beatles discussions have been based on the american ones.
rubber soul IS my favorite beatles album, and like ed, i would've pointed out that paul's songs are probably more worthy of the criticisms you register against john's. "you won't see me" is catchy, but way too long. the last time they go into the "time after time" part, you can almost hear paul and george martin discussing, over and over again, whether or not it should be there. and it shouldn't. the band even sounds tired playing. and if you listen closely, you can hear ringo hesitate before going back into that part for one more pass.
i find the "rather see you dead" aspect of 'run for your life' as nailing an emotion that temperamental, jealous guys feel running-the-fuck through them in the heat of the moment. that song belongs in a set with "you can't do that" and "jealous guy" (the same way that "i'm only sleeping", "i'm so tired", and "watchin' the wheels" belong in a set), but even without this context i think it works really well: nice groove, GREAT chorus, and some superb guitar interplay. shit, those trebly guitar lines and that country-ish groove provide a foundation for a pretty sizable chunk of the monkees' early output! is THAT what you secretly have against that song?
as for "the word", i am among those who will go to the mat for that song. every note, every thump, every fill, the way ringo drives the song in the second part with the open hi hat quarter notes (and the fill leading into that part...woosh!!), and when john sings "but now i got it...the word is good!"....fuhgeddaboudit. this song is not only not even CLOSE to being a weakness on this album. for me, it's a top five beatles song. seriously. i love the passion and commitment in that song, i love the r & b groove, i love the obtuse guitar chords...it makes me think that the end of '65 must've been a really nice time.
productionwise, i know that george famously described the sessions for rubber soul and revolver as being one big blur, and the british releases bear him out. but i hear what mark is hearing: a much less slick aesthetic on rubber soul (especially if we go by the much more unified, acoustic heavy american release; they really chose well and made an album where less is more, not only in production, but in the quantity of songs...both forms of restraint).
i LOVE the spaces on this album. think of the instrumentation in the part of "in my life" where john sings "with lovers and friends...". there's almost nothing there. it's a lovely use of restraint, as if to say "the song is strong enough on its own."
ringo is clunky in places, but in those places, he is also most RIGHT on for me (and btw, did you ever notice how many songs utilize the "kick - snare - kick - hat -snare - kick kick" beat that ringo plays at the beginning of "in my life"? it's definitely the basis for the verses of "come on people now...smile on yer brother....".
renaissance humanist leon battista alberti once said that we achieve true beauty when we know that if we add or subtract anything from what we've created, we'll ruin it. I almost feel that way about rubber soul, and there are few other albums that even come close for me.
and you're so right about the cover.
art
i'm surprised to hear you taking the english release as your point of departure. in the past, our beatles discussions have been based on the american ones.
rubber soul IS my favorite beatles album, and like ed, i would've pointed out that paul's songs are probably more worthy of the criticisms you register against john's. "you won't see me" is catchy, but way too long. the last time they go into the "time after time" part, you can almost hear paul and george martin discussing, over and over again, whether or not it should be there. and it shouldn't. the band even sounds tired playing. and if you listen closely, you can hear ringo hesitate before going back into that part for one more pass.
i find the "rather see you dead" aspect of 'run for your life' as nailing an emotion that temperamental, jealous guys feel running-the-fuck through them in the heat of the moment. that song belongs in a set with "you can't do that" and "jealous guy" (the same way that "i'm only sleeping", "i'm so tired", and "watchin' the wheels" belong in a set), but even without this context i think it works really well: nice groove, GREAT chorus, and some superb guitar interplay. shit, those trebly guitar lines and that country-ish groove provide a foundation for a pretty sizable chunk of the monkees' early output! is THAT what you secretly have against that song?
as for "the word", i am among those who will go to the mat for that song. every note, every thump, every fill, the way ringo drives the song in the second part with the open hi hat quarter notes (and the fill leading into that part...woosh!!), and when john sings "but now i got it...the word is good!"....fuhgeddaboudit. this song is not only not even CLOSE to being a weakness on this album. for me, it's a top five beatles song. seriously. i love the passion and commitment in that song, i love the r & b groove, i love the obtuse guitar chords...it makes me think that the end of '65 must've been a really nice time.
productionwise, i know that george famously described the sessions for rubber soul and revolver as being one big blur, and the british releases bear him out. but i hear what mark is hearing: a much less slick aesthetic on rubber soul (especially if we go by the much more unified, acoustic heavy american release; they really chose well and made an album where less is more, not only in production, but in the quantity of songs...both forms of restraint).
i LOVE the spaces on this album. think of the instrumentation in the part of "in my life" where john sings "with lovers and friends...". there's almost nothing there. it's a lovely use of restraint, as if to say "the song is strong enough on its own."
ringo is clunky in places, but in those places, he is also most RIGHT on for me (and btw, did you ever notice how many songs utilize the "kick - snare - kick - hat -snare - kick kick" beat that ringo plays at the beginning of "in my life"? it's definitely the basis for the verses of "come on people now...smile on yer brother....".
renaissance humanist leon battista alberti once said that we achieve true beauty when we know that if we add or subtract anything from what we've created, we'll ruin it. I almost feel that way about rubber soul, and there are few other albums that even come close for me.
and you're so right about the cover.
art
06/08/07 @ 19:03
Comment from: saturnismine [Member]
ps: oats, thanks for the summons. i'm flattered.
also, what's with that run for you life youtube? weird!!!
have a good weekend, everyone! i won't be logging in...
also, what's with that run for you life youtube? weird!!!
have a good weekend, everyone! i won't be logging in...
06/08/07 @ 19:07
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
The UK version is all I've ever owned. I was relatively late getting that one. Andy bought me a copy after a trip to England with Chickenfrank - was that freshman year in college? Embarrassing! Anyhow, I think that's the cooler version. Doesn't the US version open with "I've Just Seen a Face"? Ugh, that song's very good on many levels but it grates on me.
I respect the contradicting opinions I've heard so far, but at this point I'd really like to see someone agree with me. Lennon's transitions were tougher to make than for the other Beatles. Paul could fluidly shift from one style to the next, always maintaining his essential Paul-ness. George, believer that the further one travels the less one knows, didn't have to move very far from his musical/spiritual perspective to feel like he'd changed. Lennon had to completely REJECT great parts of his past and WHOLLY EMBRACE new things. In fact, this overall need for transformation would, after Rubber Soul, become as important to his art as his art itself. I think that his Rubber Soul works are the first steps toward this lifetime of transformation. I find half of his contributions really awkward and groping, which is not how I'd characterize the rest of his Beatles output. Love or hate any particular Lennon song with from Revolver through Plastic Ono Band, he doesn't sound half-assed or groping on many if any of them. Personally, I find that side of Lennon to be key to what makes him such a heroic figure in rock and the art world's role in lovers' emotional lives. On Rubber Soul, I hear 2 or 3 songs that don't meet the standards Lennon had been setting for himself. It's for these reasons that I feel he brings down this generally tremendous album.
I respect the contradicting opinions I've heard so far, but at this point I'd really like to see someone agree with me. Lennon's transitions were tougher to make than for the other Beatles. Paul could fluidly shift from one style to the next, always maintaining his essential Paul-ness. George, believer that the further one travels the less one knows, didn't have to move very far from his musical/spiritual perspective to feel like he'd changed. Lennon had to completely REJECT great parts of his past and WHOLLY EMBRACE new things. In fact, this overall need for transformation would, after Rubber Soul, become as important to his art as his art itself. I think that his Rubber Soul works are the first steps toward this lifetime of transformation. I find half of his contributions really awkward and groping, which is not how I'd characterize the rest of his Beatles output. Love or hate any particular Lennon song with from Revolver through Plastic Ono Band, he doesn't sound half-assed or groping on many if any of them. Personally, I find that side of Lennon to be key to what makes him such a heroic figure in rock and the art world's role in lovers' emotional lives. On Rubber Soul, I hear 2 or 3 songs that don't meet the standards Lennon had been setting for himself. It's for these reasons that I feel he brings down this generally tremendous album.
06/08/07 @ 22:08
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Oh, and I summon Geo and General Slocum to better explain what I'm getting at, or at least agree with some of what I've said:)
06/08/07 @ 22:09
Comment from: saturnismine [Member]
mod,
i agree with your insights about where rubber soul finds john on his songwriting trajectory.
but this is what i like about john's deep cuts on rubber soul. you call it "groping", but i hear him trying anything to challenge his own songwriting patterns, both lyrically and formally. yet many of those habits are still on display. it's a tension that worked for me long before i even knew what it was.
by '65, they must've thought they'd written alot of songs while still feeling like they were at the beginning of their careers. what a weird place to be. john's response to these circumstances was to open up his idea of what a song could be and examine it from all sides. we hear the beginnings of that process on rubber soul. it's a much more admirable response than paul's, which was to continue to refine what he was good at, returning to the same devices over and over, while only occasionally tryiing new things on for size.
he's in the early summer of his songwriting, no longer adolescent, almost mature. and it still sounds exciting to me.
but let's cut to the chase: aside from all this context, when i drop the needle on rubber soul i simply like what i hear coming from john. i always have.
i agree with your insights about where rubber soul finds john on his songwriting trajectory.
but this is what i like about john's deep cuts on rubber soul. you call it "groping", but i hear him trying anything to challenge his own songwriting patterns, both lyrically and formally. yet many of those habits are still on display. it's a tension that worked for me long before i even knew what it was.
by '65, they must've thought they'd written alot of songs while still feeling like they were at the beginning of their careers. what a weird place to be. john's response to these circumstances was to open up his idea of what a song could be and examine it from all sides. we hear the beginnings of that process on rubber soul. it's a much more admirable response than paul's, which was to continue to refine what he was good at, returning to the same devices over and over, while only occasionally tryiing new things on for size.
he's in the early summer of his songwriting, no longer adolescent, almost mature. and it still sounds exciting to me.
but let's cut to the chase: aside from all this context, when i drop the needle on rubber soul i simply like what i hear coming from john. i always have.
06/09/07 @ 07:38
Comment from: andyr [Member]
I agree completely that 1965 was a transition year for John, musically and personally. He really needed to change himself in order to change his art. Would you agree that John got his mojo back once he started tripping?
Conversely, late '64 and '65 was Paul's best era
Geroge's best era was '68 on. And I would say Ringo's was '66-67
Conversely, late '64 and '65 was Paul's best era
Geroge's best era was '68 on. And I would say Ringo's was '66-67
06/09/07 @ 07:45
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member]
Here's a question: leaving aside whether the final product was a better *song* (I think it was) -- how many folks agree with me that the better *groove* can be found in the unreleased "Sessions"/"Anthology" take of "I'm Looking Through You"? It's much funkier, and I like it better.
06/09/07 @ 08:56
Comment from: saturnismine [Member]
fritz, your question reminds me that "rubber soul" was initially conceived as a response to the maximum r & b that was taking over london in '65. initially they wanted ALL of the songs on the album to have a stax / motown feel (which is where "the word", "run for your life", and even "wait" find their centers).
simply for f.y.i. purposes: i can't remember where i read it, but mccartney claims that the acoustic version of "i'm looking through you", the version that wound up on the album, is the way he originally intended it to sound. the funkier anthology outtake is one of many attempts to fit the song into this pre-imposed r & b concept, which they abandoned.
i had one of those organ driven takes of "i'm looking through you" on a bootleg for a long time. i always thought it was a bit clunky in a bad way (not the good way i describe above). the introduction with the false hand claps seems awkward. the chorus riff that follows the line "you're not the same" is really too slow. i mean, almost interminably so. that riff just wasn't built to be played at such a hesitant pace. that moment in the song is supposed to be a climax, and it just sounds exhausted by the time they get there.
i can see why they weren't satisfied.
so, no, i respectfully disagree. i prefer the version on the record.
however, in your defense, i have to say that i also like what the funkier version SUGGESTS better than the version they used. i think they should've kept developing it. they sound painfully close to the right way of playing it on every take i've heard.
simply for f.y.i. purposes: i can't remember where i read it, but mccartney claims that the acoustic version of "i'm looking through you", the version that wound up on the album, is the way he originally intended it to sound. the funkier anthology outtake is one of many attempts to fit the song into this pre-imposed r & b concept, which they abandoned.
i had one of those organ driven takes of "i'm looking through you" on a bootleg for a long time. i always thought it was a bit clunky in a bad way (not the good way i describe above). the introduction with the false hand claps seems awkward. the chorus riff that follows the line "you're not the same" is really too slow. i mean, almost interminably so. that riff just wasn't built to be played at such a hesitant pace. that moment in the song is supposed to be a climax, and it just sounds exhausted by the time they get there.
i can see why they weren't satisfied.
so, no, i respectfully disagree. i prefer the version on the record.
however, in your defense, i have to say that i also like what the funkier version SUGGESTS better than the version they used. i think they should've kept developing it. they sound painfully close to the right way of playing it on every take i've heard.
06/09/07 @ 09:37
Comment from: saturnismine [Member]
oh...and i'd also like to add, fritz, that maybe if "i'm looking through you" had been put in the "pressure cooker", like "day tripper", it would've come out as a funky little masterpiece.
in the same months that they worked and reworked "I'm looking through you", they were under pressure to give the label a snappy little single. they chose to put "day tripper" through its paces and move on. and they got that thing down in 3 takes. and brother, let me ask you, have you ever heard take 2? holy toledo! they're SO CLOSE to a version that had this extra zing and magic to it...but when they got to the bridge, someone had a brain fart (i think it was paul...or it may have been a collective flub, as is often the case when you haven't played a song over and over). so they had to start over, and take three is the result.
there's something about that session, if you can find it and listen to it in full (it's like a ten minute session...take 1 is nominal, maybe they get through to the first chorus, and then there's discussion, with voices and guitars)...you can hear their brains working fast to solve problems, to quickly turn the song into something that's finished and single-worthy without compromising it's quality. it's remarkable.
i think if they had chosen "I'm looking through you", and decided that they absolutely HAD to turn it into a single, *but quick*, whatever they came up with may not have suffered from the encumbrances and ponderances we both here on the versions we don't prefer.
in the same months that they worked and reworked "I'm looking through you", they were under pressure to give the label a snappy little single. they chose to put "day tripper" through its paces and move on. and they got that thing down in 3 takes. and brother, let me ask you, have you ever heard take 2? holy toledo! they're SO CLOSE to a version that had this extra zing and magic to it...but when they got to the bridge, someone had a brain fart (i think it was paul...or it may have been a collective flub, as is often the case when you haven't played a song over and over). so they had to start over, and take three is the result.
there's something about that session, if you can find it and listen to it in full (it's like a ten minute session...take 1 is nominal, maybe they get through to the first chorus, and then there's discussion, with voices and guitars)...you can hear their brains working fast to solve problems, to quickly turn the song into something that's finished and single-worthy without compromising it's quality. it's remarkable.
i think if they had chosen "I'm looking through you", and decided that they absolutely HAD to turn it into a single, *but quick*, whatever they came up with may not have suffered from the encumbrances and ponderances we both here on the versions we don't prefer.
06/09/07 @ 10:10
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
I too like where they were going with the outtake version of "I'm Looking Through You". I'm a sucker for the downbeat, what can I say?
Andyr, Lennon did find his mojo for a good long stretch beginning with Revolver. You know what's a great thing about his contributions to Revolver? He had the good sense to lay low, contributing only 2 songs as his mind flowered. Had he pushed out a third song, feeling he "owed" it to the band or his ego, it might have been like another one of those subpar contributions to Rubber Soul.
Andyr, Lennon did find his mojo for a good long stretch beginning with Revolver. You know what's a great thing about his contributions to Revolver? He had the good sense to lay low, contributing only 2 songs as his mind flowered. Had he pushed out a third song, feeling he "owed" it to the band or his ego, it might have been like another one of those subpar contributions to Rubber Soul.
06/10/07 @ 07:02
Comment from: andyr [Member]
Only in the US did Lennon lay low. 3 tracks - "I'm Only Sleeping", "Dr Robert" and "And your bird can sing" were taken off the UK version of Revolver and put onto "Yesterday & Today"
06/10/07 @ 18:23
Comment from: mwall [Member]
Never mind the rumored mediocrity of Lennon. Some of us still remain confused about the rumored greatness of McCartney. That would be an issue on which Rocktown could shine, if anybody had the guts. Document his greatness so that all of us may never doubt it again, please.
Deadman wasn't Paul--it was Paul's reputation. Eh?
Deadman wasn't Paul--it was Paul's reputation. Eh?
06/10/07 @ 23:05
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
I stand corrected and ashamed for my oversight, Andyr. Thank you. Strike that comment I made about Lennon laying low. The bastards in the US tried to keep him down!
06/11/07 @ 05:41
Comment from: saturnismine [Member]
yeah, it also strikes me that:
the mod chose this particular time to cite lennon's performance on rubber soul as "sub par" while, in the same week, raving about that tripe that mccartney just released. it's all relative, isn't it? on rubber soul, lennon was the only beatle doing anything of substance to move them forward yet maintain the pop idiom. mod calls it "groping". those are some catchy, challenging gropes, the tenuous balance of which has inspired songwriters ever since. this is the thanks john gets? "awkward transitional period" hardly describes it. these songs are pretty seamless forays into many areas of pop songwriting that somehow still sound fresh and honest. i guess hindsight isn't always 20 / 20.
on a related note, mwall, i think we've been over the rumoured greatness of mccartney before. does it really take "guts" to talk about that? i'm happy to do it. i just think of it as a pretty "done" topic in general, not just on rth.
the mod chose this particular time to cite lennon's performance on rubber soul as "sub par" while, in the same week, raving about that tripe that mccartney just released. it's all relative, isn't it? on rubber soul, lennon was the only beatle doing anything of substance to move them forward yet maintain the pop idiom. mod calls it "groping". those are some catchy, challenging gropes, the tenuous balance of which has inspired songwriters ever since. this is the thanks john gets? "awkward transitional period" hardly describes it. these songs are pretty seamless forays into many areas of pop songwriting that somehow still sound fresh and honest. i guess hindsight isn't always 20 / 20.
on a related note, mwall, i think we've been over the rumoured greatness of mccartney before. does it really take "guts" to talk about that? i'm happy to do it. i just think of it as a pretty "done" topic in general, not just on rth.
06/11/07 @ 10:18
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
You guys can enjoy "Run for Your Life" and "The Word" all you want. Cool guitar part! Groovy chords, baby! Groundbreaking lyrics! I know "Wait" is a catchy song, by the way. I stand by my belief that Lennon's subpar contributions are the main songs keeping other Beatles albums close in the running for "best Beatles album."
06/11/07 @ 10:30
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
As for Mwall's McCartney question, I was wondering: do we open a thread specifically for it? Does Mwall, first, owe us the courtesy of citing at least one pure pop song he likes, one song removed from his typical stale bread and stout take on the world? Let me know, and we can see about finding a way to "prove" McCartney's greatness.
06/11/07 @ 10:32
Comment from: saturnismine [Member]
mod, we'll have to agree to disagree. i think, in my last post, i've explained clearly why i can't conceive of john's songs as "holding back" rubber soul in any way. as i state above, he's really the only guy in the band that's pushing them forward. for my part, i know i didn't address your points head on in places, but i've tried to be attentive to the way you've explained yourself. still, i just don't see it. then again, i'm a guy who made a casette tape of all of john's songs, sans paul, in 8th grade. so i'm probably too biased to argue effectively and objectively in his favor. but to my ears, these songs are just light years ahead of songs like "i'm a loser", "I don't want to spoil the party", etc., which i also LOVE dearly. i'm from team "rubber soul is great because things are juuuuust starting to get weird, but it's a subtle weirdness". and john is our patron saint, not paul, ringo, or george.
btw, did you ever notice that on the cover, john's eyes are looking in different directions? that feature of the cover is a perfect analog for the tunes. it's subtle weirdness, not that garden variety out-and-out KRAZY weirdness we get on tomorrow never knows (which btw, has spawned more imitations than "the word"...remember my psyche thread? how shameless was THAT tune?).
re. the mccartney thingy: i think mwall should author the lead-in to the thread. mwall, frame the question the way you think it should be framed. i can talk beatles all the livelong day, so you've got guaranteed participation here. i'll try to be as evenhanded as possible!
btw, did you ever notice that on the cover, john's eyes are looking in different directions? that feature of the cover is a perfect analog for the tunes. it's subtle weirdness, not that garden variety out-and-out KRAZY weirdness we get on tomorrow never knows (which btw, has spawned more imitations than "the word"...remember my psyche thread? how shameless was THAT tune?).
re. the mccartney thingy: i think mwall should author the lead-in to the thread. mwall, frame the question the way you think it should be framed. i can talk beatles all the livelong day, so you've got guaranteed participation here. i'll try to be as evenhanded as possible!
06/11/07 @ 11:18
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Good point about John's eyes, and I love the fact that he's the only one looking at us!
Saturnismine, you have done more than a fine job at defending your feelings on this matter and addressing my points. As I've said before, the only thing I'm finding lacking in this thread is further agreement with my POV.
And Saturnismine is right: Mwall - it's time you step up to the plate with an opening question or salvo, as need be. Let me know, offlist, if you'd like to do this in the coming days, and we'll get you a copy of the keys to The Back Office. Thanks.
Saturnismine, you have done more than a fine job at defending your feelings on this matter and addressing my points. As I've said before, the only thing I'm finding lacking in this thread is further agreement with my POV.
And Saturnismine is right: Mwall - it's time you step up to the plate with an opening question or salvo, as need be. Let me know, offlist, if you'd like to do this in the coming days, and we'll get you a copy of the keys to The Back Office. Thanks.
06/11/07 @ 11:34
Comment from: mwall [Member]
I'd be glad to step up to the plate, if there's a way to work that out. Not sure I have a topic in mind at the moment, although I don't mind the "pure pop song" idea except that I'm not sure how we distinguish pure pop from impure. But I'm willing to give it a go. Unfortunately I haven't had a whole lot of time in recent months to do more on this list than be a smartass.
How about admitting that I'm a big fan of Rumors? Does Fleetwood Mac count as pure enough pop?
McCartney has indeed been done to death, but redoing things that have already been done to death is one of the things that Rocktown does best, yes? I suppose, to clarify my earlier question, I was looking for someone to say something different about it. "He's an excellent bass player and occasional master of composition who is brought down by his sentimentality and willingness to pander." Is there more to it than that?
How about admitting that I'm a big fan of Rumors? Does Fleetwood Mac count as pure enough pop?
McCartney has indeed been done to death, but redoing things that have already been done to death is one of the things that Rocktown does best, yes? I suppose, to clarify my earlier question, I was looking for someone to say something different about it. "He's an excellent bass player and occasional master of composition who is brought down by his sentimentality and willingness to pander." Is there more to it than that?
06/11/07 @ 12:07
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Mwall, I'll get those keys in the works. When the time is right for you, make of it what you will. You may have already answered a part of your question with your fine summary of a likely reply, but like you said, one adequate answer is rarely adequate.
As for your pop "cred" re: Rumours, sure, this is evidence that not even Townsman Mwall can live on bread and stout alone.
As for your pop "cred" re: Rumours, sure, this is evidence that not even Townsman Mwall can live on bread and stout alone.
06/11/07 @ 12:11
Count me in the Art/Lennon camp. Rubber Soul is pretty great all around, UK or US versions though I prefer the UK version. I read on Wikipedia (so it must be true) that the US version was sequenced to capitalize on the folk-rock phenomenon sweeping the country at the time. True?
I agree with all of Art's pro-Lennon song arguments. I would go even further to say that McCartney prevents Revolver from being my favorite Beatles album. Not that his songs are bad on it. Far from it. It's just that Lennon's are so much better. For No One, Here There and Everywhere never really did all that much for me, though I can appreciate their merits. And there's just some little schmaltz-factor that keeps Good Day Sunshine and Got to Get You into my Life from crossing the line from very good territory to way huge. Dr. Robert is a clunker, though. I wish that whole song was like its middle 8 (the "well well well" part). I'd say that Rubber Soul is the more overall cohesive album, while Revolver's highs are significantly higher and more epic. There's an intimacy about Rubber Soul, and I think much of it has to do with the production (namely the lack of reverb on that record).
I agree with all of Art's pro-Lennon song arguments. I would go even further to say that McCartney prevents Revolver from being my favorite Beatles album. Not that his songs are bad on it. Far from it. It's just that Lennon's are so much better. For No One, Here There and Everywhere never really did all that much for me, though I can appreciate their merits. And there's just some little schmaltz-factor that keeps Good Day Sunshine and Got to Get You into my Life from crossing the line from very good territory to way huge. Dr. Robert is a clunker, though. I wish that whole song was like its middle 8 (the "well well well" part). I'd say that Rubber Soul is the more overall cohesive album, while Revolver's highs are significantly higher and more epic. There's an intimacy about Rubber Soul, and I think much of it has to do with the production (namely the lack of reverb on that record).
06/11/07 @ 15:27
Comment from: epluribusgergely [Member]
Hey Chalfen,
Looks like you're still having hearing problems. "Here, There, and Everywhere", "Good Day Sunshine". and "Got to Get You Into My Life" are flawless. If you don't GET those songs, you don't get the Beatles.
Just wanted to let all of you know that I really enjoyed reading all this crap about Rubber Soul. That said, what's really important is how the LP stacks up against something like the Top's Tres Hombres, Prince's Lovesexy, or ELO's Out of the Blue LP. In particular, I'm dying to hear from Hrundi concerning this matter.
Hope to hear from you soon!
E. Pluribus
Looks like you're still having hearing problems. "Here, There, and Everywhere", "Good Day Sunshine". and "Got to Get You Into My Life" are flawless. If you don't GET those songs, you don't get the Beatles.
Just wanted to let all of you know that I really enjoyed reading all this crap about Rubber Soul. That said, what's really important is how the LP stacks up against something like the Top's Tres Hombres, Prince's Lovesexy, or ELO's Out of the Blue LP. In particular, I'm dying to hear from Hrundi concerning this matter.
Hope to hear from you soon!
E. Pluribus
06/11/07 @ 16:34
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Epluribusgergely wrote:
Would you care to explain regarding the latter two songs? I agree with you on the first one, but there is much to dislike on the other two, especially the last one, which I consider the roots of Chicago and Earth, Wind & Fire.
Great points, however, regarding the need to compare this album to the gold standard works you mention!
"Here, There, and Everywhere", "Good Day Sunshine". and "Got to Get You Into My Life" are flawless. If you don't GET those songs, you don't get the Beatles.
Would you care to explain regarding the latter two songs? I agree with you on the first one, but there is much to dislike on the other two, especially the last one, which I consider the roots of Chicago and Earth, Wind & Fire.
Great points, however, regarding the need to compare this album to the gold standard works you mention!
06/11/07 @ 16:55
Comment from: epluribusgergely [Member]
What's all this analysis shit? Both are just great upbeat, catchy as hell songs. And if they are the roots of Chicago and Earth, Wind, and Fire, who gives a hoot? I'll take "Beginnings" over any Television title any day of the week. And that first Earth, Wind, and Fire LP blows away anything from any clod/clods in your beloved godawful New York Punk Scene, excluding Blondie. At least they were capable of producing some sort of sound that wasn't as thin as a pin.
For Christ's sake, you just dissed the Lennon songs on Rubber Soul! How much credibility do you have if you actually believe that? Your opinion means nothing!
I still love you, man, but you're an absolute bozo!
Yours,
E. Pluribus
For Christ's sake, you just dissed the Lennon songs on Rubber Soul! How much credibility do you have if you actually believe that? Your opinion means nothing!
I still love you, man, but you're an absolute bozo!
Yours,
E. Pluribus
06/11/07 @ 17:16
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member]
Dear E. Pluribus Gergley:
"Rubber Soul" is a better album than "Tres Hombres," "Lovesexy" and "Out Of the Blue."
However, "Tres Hombres" is better than every single non-Beatles album that's been discussed or mentioned in any of today's threads -- Beefheart, Television, Blondie (what the fuck is wrong with you, byt the way, for giving Blondie a Hall Pass?!), and so forth. "Lovesexy is better than almost all the non-Beatles albums mentioned today. "Out of the Blue" is up there with Blondie, I should think. Still better than Television. Not sure about Beefheart, but he's one of those C-60 comp guys for me.
Hope that answers your question --
HVB
p.s.: Blondie?! Sheesh!
"Rubber Soul" is a better album than "Tres Hombres," "Lovesexy" and "Out Of the Blue."
However, "Tres Hombres" is better than every single non-Beatles album that's been discussed or mentioned in any of today's threads -- Beefheart, Television, Blondie (what the fuck is wrong with you, byt the way, for giving Blondie a Hall Pass?!), and so forth. "Lovesexy is better than almost all the non-Beatles albums mentioned today. "Out of the Blue" is up there with Blondie, I should think. Still better than Television. Not sure about Beefheart, but he's one of those C-60 comp guys for me.
Hope that answers your question --
HVB
p.s.: Blondie?! Sheesh!
06/11/07 @ 19:23
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member]
Just to prove I don't have a thin skin about this nonsense, here's something for Plurbie's amusement:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000ICMF58001006/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_006/002-6743252-0252865
That's the sound of Billy Gibbons covering "Revolution" -- and boy, does it suck. Mind you, it's leagues better than the rest of the unbelievable shite that forms a ruddy crust around the "Butchering the Beates" album from whence it comes. You haven't heard BAD guitar playing until you've heard Styx's Tommy Shaw handle "Day Tripper." Afraid of the Sam Ash infection? Cover your ears, Plurbie!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000ICMF58001007/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_007/002-6743252-0252865
Or how about Lemmy Kilmeister unconvincingly grunting and rasping his way through "Back In the USSR"? I know, I know, it doesn't half sound like a bad idea... but it is!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000ICMF58001002/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_002/002-6743252-0252865
At the end of the day, however, there's nothing really to compare with the conceptual catastrophe that is Billy Idol inviting us to trip with him on "Tomorrow Never Knows." Enjoy!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000ICMF58001004/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_004/002-6743252-0252865
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000ICMF58001006/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_006/002-6743252-0252865
That's the sound of Billy Gibbons covering "Revolution" -- and boy, does it suck. Mind you, it's leagues better than the rest of the unbelievable shite that forms a ruddy crust around the "Butchering the Beates" album from whence it comes. You haven't heard BAD guitar playing until you've heard Styx's Tommy Shaw handle "Day Tripper." Afraid of the Sam Ash infection? Cover your ears, Plurbie!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000ICMF58001007/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_007/002-6743252-0252865
Or how about Lemmy Kilmeister unconvincingly grunting and rasping his way through "Back In the USSR"? I know, I know, it doesn't half sound like a bad idea... but it is!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000ICMF58001002/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_002/002-6743252-0252865
At the end of the day, however, there's nothing really to compare with the conceptual catastrophe that is Billy Idol inviting us to trip with him on "Tomorrow Never Knows." Enjoy!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000ICMF58001004/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_004/002-6743252-0252865
06/11/07 @ 19:49
Comment from: sammymaudlin [Member]
"Good Day Sunshine". and "Got to Get You Into My Life" are flawless. If you don't GET those songs, you don't get the Beatles.
Just when self doubt was setting in. Where were you Mr. Unum when I was trying to defend Got To Get You awhile back?
These two songs are the windowpane of psychedelic pop. Pure, up against the wall ecstasy. So what if they spawned Chicago or whatever? Helter-Skelter spawned mass murder? Does that make it any less of a great song?
06/11/07 @ 20:46
Comment from: citizen mom [Member] · http://quinnchannel.typepad.com/tfh
I'm not about to argue that "The Word" is the apex of their songwriting, but it seems weird to hate on it so much when it's no worse -- certainly no more predictable/cliched than "I'm Looking Through You."
06/12/07 @ 13:39
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
To be clear, there is not "hate" involved in my feelings on "The Word" - how can I hate Love? Also, the song being no better or worse than a McCartney song is not at issue here. I think each of McCartney's contributions to Rubber Soul met his potential at that time. My argument is that Lennon contributed two songs that were beneath what should have been expected of him and one that would have made for a decent Harrison song.
06/12/07 @ 14:34
Comment from: general slocum [Member]
All right, a day late and a dollar short, as they say, here are a few words on The Word. Mr. Mod, in short, the Word is everything it pretends to be. You have allowed the flood of weak imitators which followed to sour your ears to this excellent tune. Indeed, when I first read you rant, I was convinced most of it was aimed directly at the Jackie and Roy version (which has its own eerie beauty, but I won't digress.) How did you suss out that John was sidling over to the Love Generation? What tipped his hand in this song? But seriously, that beat, that spare opening, with the rug harmonies front and center, the Ringo falling down steps fills tastefully tucked in, and throwing in the hippie maracas shakes at the end of the build-up, even that middle section you deride as hack, was very much not. This is 1965, brother! The kids in Marlton barely had their sideburns growing yet, let alone traipsing around in VW vans on Broadway. Does Norwegian Wood pale when you hear Dylan's "Fourth Time Around?" Sure it does, but it still holds its own as a song.
You suggest this song "might as well have been written by a weekend warrior accountant who smoked his first couple of joints on Friday night." A Friday night in Haddonfield in the 21st century? Well, no, not even then. You either overrate pot or accountancy, there.
Transitional, yes, but what better time to view an artist. When James Brown is done crooning "Bewildered" but hasn't yet found his inner Funky Drummer, you hear some great genre fucking. Miles between hard bop and Bitches Brew was on fire. Hell - Beethoven's entire career was an extended, failed acrobatic leap from Mozart to Wagner (or at *least* Liszt!), and that's what renders it all so fantastic. So bring on the transitional pop hits, warts and all. A "hokey arrangement?" I am listening to this song in endless loop as I type, and damn if it doesn't rekindle the groove I felt when I was eight or whenever my friend Pat brought this record home (in '68 or so, maybe.) I feel almost all of your critiques are levelable only if he had made this song much later, and even then, to me the thing hits what it aims at. And, you know deep down I'm just a flower child, right? This kind of groove was NOT to be heard in 1965. Period. If the Hollies did it in '65, well, fuck if the Hollies did it ever, I could have listened to them, or known off hand approximately when they started so I could refer to it in RTH posts.
Oh. You say: It's also the kind of "hippie" song that every 3rd-rate "sunshine pop" band would rip off as their one "heavy" song. Talk about "as good as that pussy shit gets." Look at that video. What primal screams would it have inspired in poor John a few years later?
Wah? What the fuck 3d-rate sunshine bands have you been listening to? Rate them higher, and share! Meanwhile I sentence you to three days of The Druids of Stonehenge or Peter Wheat and the Bread Men, or some *actual* sunshine shite. You'll be begging for the relative Mahler of the Word, friend. And yes, of COURSE John would have screamed the out-chorus of "Mother" for eight minutes more over that video poop. THAT is what you're ranting about, damn you.
Wait! And "'pussy shit?'" Mr. Mod, it ain't so. This "healing" you're always on about, is only St. Joseph's Baby Love, brother. Jump in, man, the bad trip tent's fine!
Well I've been bobbing my head here at the laptop for a goodly while now, and this song gets no less groovy, so it has withstood the bad-vibe cocktail aimed at it, and came out on top.
Run For Your Life is the Kind of song, IMO, that makes the digital age worth the hassle. That song can be excised from the proceedings. Oh, and this just in from Pince Nez, Iowa: I think the b-vox on Run for Your Life have a sped-up bit in there. That really high voice? Listen on headphones. And if your stereo is good enough, you'll clearly hear it say, "Paul has no testes." That's why on the cover of Sgt. Pepper someone is doing the "Talk to the hand!" over his head. It's apparently some ancient Greek thing or something.
You suggest this song "might as well have been written by a weekend warrior accountant who smoked his first couple of joints on Friday night." A Friday night in Haddonfield in the 21st century? Well, no, not even then. You either overrate pot or accountancy, there.
Transitional, yes, but what better time to view an artist. When James Brown is done crooning "Bewildered" but hasn't yet found his inner Funky Drummer, you hear some great genre fucking. Miles between hard bop and Bitches Brew was on fire. Hell - Beethoven's entire career was an extended, failed acrobatic leap from Mozart to Wagner (or at *least* Liszt!), and that's what renders it all so fantastic. So bring on the transitional pop hits, warts and all. A "hokey arrangement?" I am listening to this song in endless loop as I type, and damn if it doesn't rekindle the groove I felt when I was eight or whenever my friend Pat brought this record home (in '68 or so, maybe.) I feel almost all of your critiques are levelable only if he had made this song much later, and even then, to me the thing hits what it aims at. And, you know deep down I'm just a flower child, right? This kind of groove was NOT to be heard in 1965. Period. If the Hollies did it in '65, well, fuck if the Hollies did it ever, I could have listened to them, or known off hand approximately when they started so I could refer to it in RTH posts.
Oh. You say: It's also the kind of "hippie" song that every 3rd-rate "sunshine pop" band would rip off as their one "heavy" song. Talk about "as good as that pussy shit gets." Look at that video. What primal screams would it have inspired in poor John a few years later?
Wah? What the fuck 3d-rate sunshine bands have you been listening to? Rate them higher, and share! Meanwhile I sentence you to three days of The Druids of Stonehenge or Peter Wheat and the Bread Men, or some *actual* sunshine shite. You'll be begging for the relative Mahler of the Word, friend. And yes, of COURSE John would have screamed the out-chorus of "Mother" for eight minutes more over that video poop. THAT is what you're ranting about, damn you.
Wait! And "'pussy shit?'" Mr. Mod, it ain't so. This "healing" you're always on about, is only St. Joseph's Baby Love, brother. Jump in, man, the bad trip tent's fine!
Well I've been bobbing my head here at the laptop for a goodly while now, and this song gets no less groovy, so it has withstood the bad-vibe cocktail aimed at it, and came out on top.
Run For Your Life is the Kind of song, IMO, that makes the digital age worth the hassle. That song can be excised from the proceedings. Oh, and this just in from Pince Nez, Iowa: I think the b-vox on Run for Your Life have a sped-up bit in there. That really high voice? Listen on headphones. And if your stereo is good enough, you'll clearly hear it say, "Paul has no testes." That's why on the cover of Sgt. Pepper someone is doing the "Talk to the hand!" over his head. It's apparently some ancient Greek thing or something.
06/17/07 @ 23:02
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member]
Hey, Slokie --
Just wanted to congratulate you for executing a 10.0 ass-whupin' on Mr. Moderator, *with pirouette*.
I have many of the same feelings about folks who deride excellent, if not particularly innovative, period psych/pop from the era The specific LP I'm thinking of is the Bee Gee's First, which I think is a B+ effort to Rubber Soul's A+, but gets tagged as an icon of 60s mediocrity because -- well, just because the Bee Gees were not the Beatles, as far as I can tell.
Just wanted to congratulate you for executing a 10.0 ass-whupin' on Mr. Moderator, *with pirouette*.
I have many of the same feelings about folks who deride excellent, if not particularly innovative, period psych/pop from the era The specific LP I'm thinking of is the Bee Gee's First, which I think is a B+ effort to Rubber Soul's A+, but gets tagged as an icon of 60s mediocrity because -- well, just because the Bee Gees were not the Beatles, as far as I can tell.
06/18/07 @ 08:15
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
The General wrote:
I appreciate the effort and sincerity with which you replied to my feelings on this one song - avoiding the larger issue of how all 3 songs function to prevent Rubber Soul from being my favorite Beatles album. However, I'm left to conclude one thing behind your retort:
This is the price you pay for not loving Motown for all it's worth!
Hrrundi's high five of support, although touching, is now also subject to an unfair blanket response, but I'm not yet sure how to phrase it.
...A "hokey arrangement?" I am listening to this song in endless loop as I type, and damn if it doesn't rekindle the groove I felt when I was eight or whenever my friend Pat brought this record home (in '68 or so, maybe.) I feel almost all of your critiques are levelable only if he had made this song much later, and even then, to me the thing hits what it aims at. And, you know deep down I'm just a flower child, right? This kind of groove was NOT to be heard in 1965. Period.
I appreciate the effort and sincerity with which you replied to my feelings on this one song - avoiding the larger issue of how all 3 songs function to prevent Rubber Soul from being my favorite Beatles album. However, I'm left to conclude one thing behind your retort:
This is the price you pay for not loving Motown for all it's worth!
Hrrundi's high five of support, although touching, is now also subject to an unfair blanket response, but I'm not yet sure how to phrase it.
06/18/07 @ 09:00
Comment from: dbuskirk [Member]
The Moderator is willing to think himself out of any good time. He is the type of guy who would pass up the chance to make love to Ursula Andress because her feet were too big.
06/18/07 @ 11:51
Comment from: BigSteve [Member]
On the other hand, Mr. Mod may just not want to make love to Ursula Andress because she's 70 years old.
06/18/07 @ 11:56
Comment from: dbuskirk [Member]
" Comment from: BigSteve [Member] Email
On the other hand, Mr. Mod may just not want to make love to Ursula Andress because she's 70 years old."
And isn't that just like the Moderator, not to give her the time of her life just because she is seven years older than him?
On the other hand, Mr. Mod may just not want to make love to Ursula Andress because she's 70 years old."
And isn't that just like the Moderator, not to give her the time of her life just because she is seven years older than him?
06/18/07 @ 12:00
Comment from: general slocum [Member]
Mod sez: ...avoiding the larger issue of how all 3 songs function to prevent Rubber Soul from being my favorite Beatles album.
I say: Would that that could be a larger issue outside the boundaries of the canyons of your mind! Like all serious musicopathic issues, it is able to withstand the reasoned, systematic dismantling of its individual points while maintaining full vehemence of illusory sense.
And he coins this one: This is the price you pay for not loving Motown for all it's worth!
What price? clear musical focus? Being able to love a song that doesn't have fluffer-nutter spread all over it in gobs of reverb-soaked tambourine? I'll pay that price daily, with pleasure. Don't start pissing on the White Album, now, I'm still listening to that one!
I say: Would that that could be a larger issue outside the boundaries of the canyons of your mind! Like all serious musicopathic issues, it is able to withstand the reasoned, systematic dismantling of its individual points while maintaining full vehemence of illusory sense.
And he coins this one: This is the price you pay for not loving Motown for all it's worth!
What price? clear musical focus? Being able to love a song that doesn't have fluffer-nutter spread all over it in gobs of reverb-soaked tambourine? I'll pay that price daily, with pleasure. Don't start pissing on the White Album, now, I'm still listening to that one!
06/18/07 @ 12:30
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
The price, my friend, is not being able to see a lame, proto-hippie-cum-Broadway Motown ripoff when it was right in front of you and your buddy Pat.
I've had time to think about something Hrrundi said:
I'll tell you the reason why the otherwise fine output of the pre-disco Bee Gees will always be graded down a notch or two: It's because their early hits* exude a sense of the same smooth, shiny surface when you pull down their pants as you'd get pulling down the pants of Malibu Ken. Only later, when they incorporated disco beats and passionate lyrics about sexual situations into their music, did their falsettos take on the allure of the ladies' "safe" best friend with an appeal to the opposite sex that would surprise all the guys who'd previously disregarded them for their seemingly asexual ways.
*Please, nerdlingers, no need to remind us of their even earlier hits in their native Australia.
I've had time to think about something Hrrundi said:
I have many of the same feelings about folks who deride excellent, if not particularly innovative, period psych/pop from the era The specific LP I'm thinking of is the Bee Gee's First, which I think is a B+ effort to Rubber Soul's A+, but gets tagged as an icon of 60s mediocrity because -- well, just because the Bee Gees were not the Beatles, as far as I can tell.
I'll tell you the reason why the otherwise fine output of the pre-disco Bee Gees will always be graded down a notch or two: It's because their early hits* exude a sense of the same smooth, shiny surface when you pull down their pants as you'd get pulling down the pants of Malibu Ken. Only later, when they incorporated disco beats and passionate lyrics about sexual situations into their music, did their falsettos take on the allure of the ladies' "safe" best friend with an appeal to the opposite sex that would surprise all the guys who'd previously disregarded them for their seemingly asexual ways.
*Please, nerdlingers, no need to remind us of their even earlier hits in their native Australia.
06/18/07 @ 13:17
Comment from: the great 48 [Member]
The specific LP I'm thinking of is the Bee Gee's First, which I think is a B+ effort to Rubber Soul's A+, but gets tagged as an icon of 60s mediocrity
Wha? Other than our cloth-eared moderator, who hasn't long since jumped on the bandwagon that this album is a masterpiece on the level of ODESSEY AND ORACLE or (in my estimation) above? We clearly run in different circles.
06/18/07 @ 13:23
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
The Great 48 wrote:
Back me up, "rough front" RTHers! Bee Gees' First is the definition of a "smooth front" B+ album!
Wha? Other than our cloth-eared moderator, who hasn't long since jumped on the bandwagon that this album is a masterpiece on the level of ODESSEY AND ORACLE or (in my estimation) above? We clearly run in different circles.
Back me up, "rough front" RTHers! Bee Gees' First is the definition of a "smooth front" B+ album!
06/18/07 @ 13:27
Comment from: andyr [Member]
The General said
Isn't this the discussion about making The Beatles into an excellent 3-sided LP?
Don't start pissing on the White Album, now, I'm still listening to that one!
Isn't this the discussion about making The Beatles into an excellent 3-sided LP?
06/18/07 @ 14:05
Comment from: general slocum [Member]
Mod kicks this horse in the withers:
lame, proto-hippie-cum-Broadway Motown ripoff
I add one final prod:
OK, Mod. One at a time: lame? If it's any of the things you claim, I maintain it isn't a *lame* one. As I said, the song works for me, period. Next, proto-hippie ripoff? How could it rip off the thing it's defining? It is giving birth to the thing you decry, so put your möbius strip back in your echoplex, and be even slightly linear, here. Broadway? You mean Hair, I take it? Again four years later, there might have been something to complain about, but it isn't this song, it's Hair. And Motown? Now he's ripping off Motown, by playing in a style Motown never played, unless highly uncharacteristically? No Motown record would be caught dead with these production values: the clarity, the concision, the lack of slop... with such immediacy and lack of reverberated pomp, you cannot give the Motown listener the required assurance that whole crowds of people are already digging this song - a mob psychology outlined by Wilhelm Reich and first given practical manifestation by this misguided label. Motown, indeed!
I laid your absurd attacks to rest for the rational among us last night, and relieved myself of what was in my craw since your post, and I will not attempt to point out which of your apples are oranges any longer. Let's move on to the next attack on my gods and idols, yet to appear.
lame, proto-hippie-cum-Broadway Motown ripoff
I add one final prod:
OK, Mod. One at a time: lame? If it's any of the things you claim, I maintain it isn't a *lame* one. As I said, the song works for me, period. Next, proto-hippie ripoff? How could it rip off the thing it's defining? It is giving birth to the thing you decry, so put your möbius strip back in your echoplex, and be even slightly linear, here. Broadway? You mean Hair, I take it? Again four years later, there might have been something to complain about, but it isn't this song, it's Hair. And Motown? Now he's ripping off Motown, by playing in a style Motown never played, unless highly uncharacteristically? No Motown record would be caught dead with these production values: the clarity, the concision, the lack of slop... with such immediacy and lack of reverberated pomp, you cannot give the Motown listener the required assurance that whole crowds of people are already digging this song - a mob psychology outlined by Wilhelm Reich and first given practical manifestation by this misguided label. Motown, indeed!
I laid your absurd attacks to rest for the rational among us last night, and relieved myself of what was in my craw since your post, and I will not attempt to point out which of your apples are oranges any longer. Let's move on to the next attack on my gods and idols, yet to appear.
06/18/07 @ 14:08
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
General Slocum wrote:
Please don't parse my words. The word "lame" is only meant to be used as a modifier for "proto-hippie-cum-Broadway ripoff."
The song itself is not "lame"; it's OK by most bands' standards, "great" even by many others. I felt I've been clear about that all along. Before we move on from this thread, I urge you to re-read the whole argument, resisting the urge to parse words. Take it in, as a whole, and you will probably see the wisdom of my ways.
OK, Mod. One at a time: lame? If it's any of the things you claim, I maintain it isn't a *lame* one.
Please don't parse my words. The word "lame" is only meant to be used as a modifier for "proto-hippie-cum-Broadway ripoff."
The song itself is not "lame"; it's OK by most bands' standards, "great" even by many others. I felt I've been clear about that all along. Before we move on from this thread, I urge you to re-read the whole argument, resisting the urge to parse words. Take it in, as a whole, and you will probably see the wisdom of my ways.
06/18/07 @ 14:16
Comment from: mrclean [Member]
Attention Mr. Mod! Delete your kids college savings accounts and start bidding on the original Rubber Soul hand lettered cover lettering:
http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent=EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=3576971&iSaleNo=15242
http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent=EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=3576971&iSaleNo=15242
06/20/07 @ 11:01
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Amazing, MrClean! What do you think we could get for the original lettering you used on your design for our Traps... cover?
Hey, I'm off to see The Fab Faux in NYC tonight. I'm hoping it will be fun and lead to some new RTH topics from my end. I'm curious to see whether they'll be playing "The Word".
Hey, I'm off to see The Fab Faux in NYC tonight. I'm hoping it will be fun and lead to some new RTH topics from my end. I'm curious to see whether they'll be playing "The Word".
06/20/07 @ 12:20
Comment from: BigSteve [Member]
I can't imagine traveling to see a cover band, but you've got to admit that Fab Faux is a very clever name. We were talking about band nicknames last week, and I always thought it was funny that in latter-day George Harrison interviews he always referred to the Beatles as "the Fabs." And he would compare them to the Rutles. Definitely the coolest fab.
06/20/07 @ 13:26
Comment feed for this postComments are not allowed from anonymous visitors.
| « Six and a Half Winners from the New York Punk Scene | It Takes Four to Rumble: Heartless Bastards vs Grinderman » |
