While I can't be certain what album it was, my earliest memory of hearing The Beatles is probably from hearing the song Please Please Me on the 8 track player in my mother's old Monte Carlo around the age or three or so.
Mine is definitely something from Hey Jude, a compilation album released in 1970 that had migrated its way from my aunt's collection to my parents' collection. (It still had her name scrawled on it.) It was the one Beatles album in our house, actually--at least until my older brother bought some Beatles cassettes in the '80s. But by the time I was 10 (1986), we definitely had at least a tape of Pepper, and I think also the red and blue comps.
"Paperback Writer" and "Lady Madonna" were my favorites from it; I didn't like "Old Brown Shoe" AT ALL and I felt uncomfortable listening to "The Ballad of John and Yoko" because it was considered swearing to say "Christ, you know it ain't easy..." in my house.
Over than Revolution, which I distinctly remember hearing quite a bit as a little kid, I remember mostly hearing the early Beatles in our house and in Mom's old 8 Track. Maybe she had an 8 track of the Red Album, but I can't be sure. I also remember MTV used to show The Beatles Cartoons when I was maybe five or six, so I heard a lot of their songs that way.
The Beatles later material didn't really come onto my radar until middle school, when my Paul McCartney obsessed good friend at the time showed me a VHS of the Magical Mystery Tour movie. I'd never heard any of those songs before, and that was definitely not The Beatles I remembered as a kid. But, I fell in love with that later stuff instantly.
I don't love Please Please Me, but I like it, and I respect the hell out of it. It has a few absolute classics, both originals (the title track and "I Saw Her Standing There" probably tops among them) and arguably the most iconic version of "Twist and Shout."
This is the sound of a band that was ready to bring it, and that's because they had been a band--a working band--for several years playing, playing, and playing some more. They knew the material, they knew how to deliver it, and they did exactly that in less time than many artists take to get the kick drum sound, to say nothing of actual, recorded parts.
I'm giving it a 7. It's not one of the absolute best debuts of all time ... but it's certainly a great one.
Ha. When I was at school, almost everyone was Beatles crazy, which put me off them for years. Looking back on this album so many years later and checking the track listing, I must say I don't see a bad song in sight. Everything has something to recommend it. And it includes one of my all-time favourite songs by anyone, "There's A Place".
The six covers and eight originals on Please Please Me shouldn't gel by rights but they do. "Misery" seems to have one foot in each camp -- it sounds every bit a cover of an old song! Of course, the album as a whole turned the musical world as it was then on its head. In many ways, it vies with the UK Rubber Soul as my favourite Beatles album, with Revolver and Abbey Road in hot pursuit.
That is a good version, but I have to say it (totally understandably) sounds more polished and professional, less frenzied-energetic and jubilant, than the original. No criticism, though. And I'm sure it would have been an amazing show. I've never seen McCartney live, and I wonder whether that's going to be a permanent misfortune. (Who knows when, whether, or where he'll tour again.)
That is a good version, but I have to say it (totally understandably) sounds more polished and professional, less frenzied-energetic and jubilant, than the original. No criticism, though.
Oh, absolutely. That's what I meant when I said that Paul made it his own. He took a John-led Beatles' song and turned it into a kinda solo Paul McCartney song. The audience reaction could've been edited but I like how they're affected by the song/performance.
The audience reaction could've been edited but I like how they're affected by the song/performance.
Absolutely. While I tend to be very cynical and detached about a LOT of things, I have to admit the emotional power of being present for live music. I've said before, I actually teared up at my first Brian Wilson concert (NBA Draft Night, 2001, opening for Paul Simon) when they did "Don't Worry Baby," a song I didn't even like at all ... until that night. Since then, I can't in good conscience belittle emotional responses to live music.
In November 1963--eight months after their debut--the Beatles released their sophomore album, With the Beatles. Like its predecessor, it features a mix of originals (eight) and covers (six). It also includes the first composition by George Harrison to appear on a Beatles album, "Don't Bother Me."
It also followed several singles that had been released between albums, none of which appeared on the album. They were released at different times in different places; we will address them when we get to the compilation albums of non-album singles, Past Masters 1&2.
The album reached #1 in the UK and Germany. It was eventually certified gold (despite being released in 1987) in the US as well as numerous other countries.
9 for With the Beatles. Sonically, it's a better album, and I think the chosen covers fit the band a little better.
There's a bit of growth on this album, probably most notably on All My Loving. Also, thematically, songs like Not a Second Time and George's Don't Bother Me go a little beyond the boy meets girl lyrics.
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 20, 2021 13:41:55 GMT
I like all of the Beatles' albums. I can put any of them on any time and enjoy them. That being said, I probably like With The Beatles less than most of their other ones. Just comparing it with the predecessor, Please Please Me, there aren't as many "highs" - I prefer "I Saw Her Standing There", "Please Please Me", "Twist And Shout", "Do You Wanna Know A Secret", "Boys", "There's A Place", and "P.S. I Love You" over most of the songs on With The Beatles. Oh, there are some real highlights on With The Beatles including "All My Loving", "Please Mr. Postman", "Money", and I guess "It Won't Be Long". However, I find the rest to be middle-of-the-road Beatles' songs. They used the better/best songs - "From Me to You", "Thank You Girl", "I'll Get You", "She Loves You", and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" - as singles. The vocals on With The Beatles are superb as usual, the production again is good, and the album cover was cutting edge. But, I think I'll have to give the album a rating lower than Please Please Me, which I gave an 8. It might be a little harsh but I'm going with a 6. It's just not a favorite. Now, if they would've included those singles on the album...
I'm going along with SJS on this. The "flaw," such as it is, is that they simply weren't using the best material they had available--and the album suffers for it! I respect their feeling at the time, which as I understand it was that they thought it was ripping off fans to put already-released (and so already-purchased) singles on albums. But realistically, at least all three A-sides of those non-album singles ("From Me To You," "She Loves You," and "I Want To Hold Your Hand") would have been among the best songs on With The Beatles had they been on it. My rating would have been in the 8-9 range with those songs included.
It's still a really good album, especially for one following its predecessor by just eight months. But I was looking at the Allmusic review this morning and have to disagree almost 180 degrees. They say it's an improvement over Please Please Me (though, having given that five stars, there was nowhere else to go with the rating), about which I disagree. And they say that while the covers are good, it's the originals that stand out; I think it's often the covers that stand out. I love "Til There Was You," "Please Mister Postman," and "You Really Got a Hold On Me" especially.
Among the originals, my favorites are "All My Loving"--the triplet pattern in the electric guitar and constantly walking bass are awesome!--"It Won't Be Long," and "I Wanna Be Your Man."
Six does feel a little low, but honestly I'm closer to 6.5, but just too low to be rounding up. It's still a really good album, to be sure. Unlike jk, 6 is not my floor; it's well over halfway up the ladder and represents an album I appreciate and like. But it's no classic album when set beside the all-timers.
I don't like this album as much as any other Beatles album, to be honest. Does it mean it's bad? No. I still think there are some great moments in it, but I consider it to be one of the (if not the) weakest album listening experiences from the band, many tracks sound too much alike and the covers aren't as great as they were in Please Please Me, I absolutely can't stand this version of 'Roll Over Beethoven'. The originals on the other hand are great, I'd say I like them all.
'Don't Bother Me' is one of the highlights of With The Beatles, I really like the vocal melody and lyrics, George was proving that he was a great songwriter this early on the band.
About the album cover, I don't like it at all, I tried to but I just can't - It's the only Beatles album cover I don't like
jk: If no one jumps in soon, I'll go for 1997, which is 13 years back from 2010. Fact is, we haven't had a '90s year yet.
Sept 22, 2021 13:46:32 GMT
Kapitan: No, but we do have a whole '90s thread that covered a lot of that territory. (In fact, that's what inspired the idea, to some extent)
Sept 22, 2021 13:52:28 GMT
Kapitan: Not that I'm opposed to a '90s year, mind you
Sept 22, 2021 13:52:58 GMT
jk: I see where you're coming from, Cap'n. I even did a double-take when looking through 1997 albums and songs (these look familiar!). My next suggestion is that we go back 13 years from 1972 to 1959.
Sept 22, 2021 17:04:34 GMT
jk: OK, it's one of the "doldrum years" but it was crammed full of goodies that even register with folks who weren't born for another 20 years. Of course, if anyone has a better idea, I'm all for it.
Sept 22, 2021 17:05:59 GMT
Kapitan: That would make sense; we also haven't really touched the early to mid 80s, which I'm sure people (mostly) recall. And of course EVERY year in the '60s seems loaded...
Sept 22, 2021 17:06:53 GMT
jk: Yes, the early-ish '80s also came to mind. But let's see who else joins in...
Sept 22, 2021 17:08:04 GMT
Kapitan: So far we've had me, jk, kds, and carllove choosing years. Would love to expand that circle.
Sept 22, 2021 17:13:20 GMT
Kapitan: Which, I guess with four of us so far, is more a square.
Sept 22, 2021 17:13:38 GMT
jk: Ha, yes. Sheriff? B.E.? sockit? The Kid?... We'll see.
Sept 22, 2021 17:16:41 GMT
The Cincinnati Kid: I might come up with something. I love those kind of threads, but am terrible in participating. I still haven't posted anything for 2010.
Sept 22, 2021 19:26:41 GMT
lonelysummer: 1959 is a doldrums year? Hmm....
Sept 22, 2021 19:44:28 GMT
jk: That's what they say... you know, that period from *cough* "the day the music died" to the arrival of the British Invasion. Like you, I couldn't agree less with that notion, hence the inverted commas!
Sept 22, 2021 19:52:30 GMT
Kapitan: I assume he means the stereotype that between early rock and roll and the British Invasion, nothing happened. But that it was in quotes (plus his actual comments) make me think it was an ironic usage.
Sept 22, 2021 19:52:54 GMT
Kapitan: Whoops, near-simultaneous post. But it confirms my suspicion.
Sept 22, 2021 19:53:21 GMT
jk: Great minds and all that!
Sept 22, 2021 19:53:34 GMT
sockit: I would like to showcase the year 1983. That's the year I graduated high school and I was all in on what was current.
Sept 23, 2021 0:07:54 GMT
carllove: I was in College then. Sounds like a good year! Go for it! It’s a group effort!
Sept 23, 2021 4:31:48 GMT
carllove: BTW - I’d be down for 90’s years. I like the years being broken out. Meanwhile we can move to 1983 with sockit’s help. 1972 has ended its interest.
Sept 23, 2021 4:34:56 GMT
jk: Agreed on all three counts.
Sept 23, 2021 8:58:00 GMT