MUSIC « In Which That's When I Reach For My Revolver »
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 10:51AM 
Use of Your 'Revolver'
by ALMIE ROSE (writing as PATRICK BATEMAN)
Do you like the Beatles? Formed in 1960 and musically active for a mere 10 years they completely revolutionized the relationship between popular and rock music. The band really came into their own in the late sixties, during which they produced the spectacular 1966 album Revolver. The band’s previous release, Rubber Soul, hinted at the change in sound that was to come but it was really on Revolver that the boys were allowed to stretch musically and create something new.
Right from the deep bass opening on “Taxman” it’s clear that this is going to be one groovy psychedelic album. One can’t forget that in the early 00s Rolling Stone named Revolver the number three album of all time, behind the over-produced and ultimately confusing Sergeant Pepper and His Lonely Hearts Club Band.
The second track, “Eleanor Rigby” tells the heartbreaking tale of an ugly woman murdered by a priest. The crescendo of violins steadying Paul’s voice warning of “all the lonely people” who are out to get us is breathtaking in its horrifyingly simple quality. The lyrics on this album go beyond the usual mop topped boy-gets-girl lyrics, as shown in the next track as well, “I’m Only Sleeping.”
And is that a mandolin in the background? You bet it is. Strange instruments are further incorporated into George Harrison’s song, “Love You To” and while interesting on its own merit it didn’t become the hit that “Eleanor Rigby” or “Yellow Submarine” became. I wonder how Harrison feels about that. Paul McCartney was really the band’s star, churning out hit after hit, while the rest of the fellows only tried to keep up. “Here, There and Everywhere” is another fantastic effort by McCartney, who tried to replicate the “shimmering quality” he found in The Beach Boys' “God Only Knows.”
Then comes “Yellow Submarine” or, let’s let Ringo sing one. “Yellow Submarine” is more than a child’s tune; it represents the yearning we all have to abandon our daily lives and submerge into the ocean with the Beatles. Again, it isn’t about boy needs girl (at least not until “Got To Get You Into My Life” nearer the end) and this is important to note.
“She Said She Said” is a rare throwaway track. What follows it, “Good Day Sunshine” is another superb ditty by McCartney, who “feels good in a special way” something we can all relate to and appreciate. Lennon’s tracks “And Your Bird Can Sing”, “Doctor Robert”, and “I Want To Tell You” fail in their ability to make you feel renewed with hope the way McCartney’s lyrics can. Lennon’s songs have a heavier quality to them even when he tries to mask them with the optimism that McCartney naturally has in his tunes. It must have been difficult for Lennon to work with such a far superior member of the group. Case in point: “For No One” is a real gem. “And in her eyes you see nothing,” McCartney narrates, painting a bleak portrait of a woman who ruined his life, warning us not to make his mistakes and follow on a similar path.
Had Revolver closed on “Got To Get You Into My Life” the album would have been absolutely pristine; instead it closes on Lennon’s droning “Tomorrow Never Knows”, a cacophonous mess of seagull noises and sitars. Regardless, Revolver is a fantastic album that hits a high note in the group’s career and will endure for years to come.
Almie Rose is the senior contributor to This Recording. She is a writer living in Los Angeles. She blogs here, and twitters here.
"Here, There and Everywhere" - The Beatles (mp3)
"I'm Only Sleeping" - The Vines (mp3)
"Love You To" - The Beatles (mp3)
"Tomorrow Never Knows" - Phil Collins (mp3)
"She Said She Said" - The Beatles (mp3)
almie rose, the beatles
Reader Comments (10)
A "cacophonous mess of seagull noises and sitars"? Are you out of your mind? Or is that just Bateman's opinion, in which case, OK, nice insanity.
That was the most one-sided, badly researched overview I've ever read!
Eleanor Rigby (as the link you provided will tell you) was a song without a definite meaning - it definitely wasn't about "an ugly woman murdered by a priest".
As for McCartney being the real 'star' of the group and a "far superior member of the group" to Lennon, that's both entirely subjective and incorrect - both songwriters had peaks and troughs in their output and they both freely admitted it. You paint Lennon as an amateur struggling to keep up; in reality he was at least one step ahead of McCartney, which is why Tomorrow Never Knows is rightly thought of asa psychedelic masterpiece and McCartney's Carnival of Light remains at the bottom of the barrel, unlikely to be ever released.
Awful, awful artical.
I'm glad you decided to take this on, but I'm going to have to agree w/ the other comments thusfar. I liked everything you had to say (factual or not) up until the last 2 or 3 paragraphs, where it became clear that you cannot possibly appreciate Revolver the way it was meant to be. And for the record, Paul McCartney is a fucking hack.
Love the Beatles series (or the notion of one) but I have to grimace at the weirdly super-square aesthetic judgments, many of which could have been written by my grandmother when the album came out; I mean, okay, it's not as though these judgments carry a flea's nipple in weight or anything.
But, hey, listen: the Beatles were made up of four guys... retro-change that to three guys or five guys and it's no longer "The Beatles". Even Ringo is part of the magical compound. Ditto with the album sequences: The "White Album" is wonderful as it is (are you listening, GM?) and Revolver is "pristine" as it is and replacing George with, say, Eric Clapton or Django Reinhardt, in the lineup, would not have made the results "better". Cultural artifacts are not Whoppers and you can't have them "your way". Well, you can, obviously, and that's what your i-pods and pro-tools are for: to fuck up shit you never could have created.
And, no, Paul McCartney is not a "hack"... like too many creative geniuses (I'll probably take "Ram" over anything *you've* written, performed and produced, Matt! Nothing personal!), he just can't tell his lame stuff from his skull-sized, soul-illuminating diamonds. In fact, I'm going to listen to "Band on the Run" later and only skip a track or two...
Sweet
PS Is this really supposed to be in Bateman's voice? Wavers too much to be funny...?
"i want to tell you" is a harrison track, not lennon. and why didn't you mention "for no one," which i think is one of the best songs on the album.
aside from that, i appreciate that you love paul mccartney and let the world know. i love him too.
If this was meant to be Batemen's opinions, I think he would like Paul the best.
Wow, that review was... something else. "It must have been difficult for Lennon to work with such a far superior member..." This statement is so rediculously biased for your personal preferences that I find it difficult to believe you actually included it in this article. There are a lot of sweeping statements to that affect in your article. I personally don't care for "Good day sunshine." I always felt it was one of the weakest songs on the album. Also, Taxman doesn't sound particularly psychedelic to me. It sounds more like a straight-forward rocker than most of the other songs on the album. It could have easily fit on Rubber Soul. Different strokes I guess. Sometimes I wonder if people make sweeping generalizations about the world's best loved musicians just so they'll get people posting angry remarks. I think you paint a pretty biased picture of a great album. That being said, I really enjoyed reading the article, and responding to it. So hopefully that was your goal (as opposed to presenting a decent review of a classic album). I guess it's apples and oranges because I often call McCartney "McShlockney" because of the sheer volume of shmaltz he's capable of writing. I've always considered Lennon to be McCartney's equal (and better in many ways... but that goes for Paul to John too). My personal asthetic is a strong preference for Lennon. Somebody else commented that Paul's incapable of seeing his gems for his average songs. I whole-heartedly agree. That being said, I own every one of his solo/ wings albums and still listen to them regularly. So it seems you have a definite leaning toward McCartney's brand of songwriting. To me that says that you have a strong leaning toward more traditional pop music, melodies, and arrangements. The sounds on Lennon's and even George's songs were definitely more experimental in most ways than Paul's.
I often forget how "weird' a lot of Lennon's stuff is by most people's standards. Lennon's songs are my favorite on this album. Though he doesn't write the complex melodies that McCartney does, he has an earnestness that I personally feel McCartney often lacks. I also appreciate the odd-ness of much of Lennon's music. I disagree with your opinion that Lennon is insincere or "masked" when it comes to the subject matter or overall attitude of his songs. Someone else pointed out that "I want to tell you" is a Harrison song. Thanks for doing that. Mandolin on "Love you to"? I don't think so. Those are indian instruments (sitar, tabla, tambura etc). Maybe you were saying that mandolin was on "I'm only sleeping"... again, I don't think so.
"And your bird can sing" is on par with any Paul song on that album in my opinion, what's more, that excellent three part harmony guitar "solo" makes for some sonically fantastic sounds (though, I'm not aware of who's idea that was.. it could've easily been Paul or George who came up with it). Tomorrow Never Knows was revolutionary. The inclusion of tape loops, the hypnotic beat, and the way John's voice comes across (through a rotating speaker, causing a dopplar effect) was ground-breaking and makes for an excellent listening experience. For me, I can't help but turn off my mind, relax, and float down stream. "She said" is a rarety? I don't know what that means. It was recorded quickly, but just because you don't understand the lyrics doesn't mean it's not a great song. Also, I though "got to get you into my life" was "masked" as a love song... I read somewhere that this song was mostly about Paul's hesitation to take LSD when the other three had already done so and he was feeling left out. You've got some great facts mixed in with stuff that is in direct conflict with stuff I heard from the Beatle's themselves on the Beatles Anthology.
You guys. the whole review was written by Patrick Bateman. That's why it's so misguided and stupid.