![[Mattwins]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEy2dr7hX_nicvRhz4bxUFEoP_GPqBybD6lc0fwB83oIJo5s3tR3Qal9gBewkZ2l_egelA4NJ4SaMEWcs1l4QzdVYNdDcLO-8p8s4GEVdcMHt9xVrbDc2tGNaiOFFshWzgrUnPiNBUBfkU/s1600-r/logo2+-+Copy.png)
Sometimes you set your mind on a task, knowing that maybe, just maybe, if you do it right, it’ll make a difference, change a mind, or open someone to a new perspective.
…of course, this isn’t going to be one of those times. I’m pretty sure everyone reading this already has a pretty good idea how they feel about the Beatles and has listened to a few songs, if not all of them already. Being the stubborn sort that I am, I’ll be going ahead with the reviews, rankings, and such “data analytics” as can be managed here anyway, just to see what there is to see.
I considered doing it chronologically, listening to the albums through the order they were released, but while that seems educational, it also seems a little too easy to skew, as my reviewing habits change over several hours of listening and I become more entrenched in the historical contexts. It’s already going to be a biased, subjective endeavor, might as well at least make the pretense of minimizing that, right?
A reasonable backup then would be to just put Spotify on shuffle and review whatever comes up, but there’s a good chance I’d get “Here Comes the Sun” a dozen times over before it turns up “Bad Boy”, “The Inner Light”, or all 14.5 “Revolutions”. I settled instead for dropping them all into a spreadsheet and using a random number picker, because this is definitely a proper scientific study.
 |
| After tiring of getting repeats, I summoned all my knowledge from two CS classes and put together a number generator |
The spreadsheet with basic info came from Wikipedia; we’ll be using the years and albums from that list. It also has songwriting credit, which is handy for picking out covers and Harrison songs, but the vast majority are listed as Lennon-McCartney, which is unfortunate since that’s the rivalry worth picking apart once the results are in; I’ll figure out how to settle the primary songwriter debates along the way.
And finally, we’ll need some moderately arbitrary rubric to score the songs on. I settled for ranking each song from zero to four Beatles each on:
- · Technical proficiency – searing guitar solos, impressive vocal range, and impeccable harmonies all score points here
- · Innovation – creativity, time changes, interesting chords and instrumentation
- · Lyrics – no points for “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road”, calling it right now
- · Production – balance of instruments, mixing, stereo, reverb, all that magic George Martin did
- · Subjective enjoyment – a couple points budgeted for however and whatever the song makes me feel
It’d make sense, then, to average the five subcategories, but, having spent the last seventeen-and-some-change years of my life being ranked from 0 - 4.0, I opted instead to sum them up for a nice 0-20 scale.
Here’s the complete chart if you feel like joining in the fun; without further ado, let’s jump into the listening.
First up: “Don’t Pass Me By”. Not one I’ve heard more than once or twice; as good a place to start as any. Wikipedia turns up that Ringo had written this one way back in 1962 but it only hit vinyl six years later in the White Album.
Proficiency: It’s a fairly simple arrangement, vocally and instrumentally. The fiddle is quite nice, but I can only give half credit when the one standout instrument wasn’t played by a member of the band. One out of four Beatles.
Innovation: Again, it’s pretty simple, the structure works but is predictable, nothing to write home about. One out of four Beatles.
Lyrics: The rhymes are a little predictable, but it tells a story. It evokes Ringo as a puppy sitting by the doorstep, growing sadder with each verse. Two of four Beatles.
Production: The brash honky-tonk piano and violin mixed to the forefront and side are blunt instruments, but I think that’s the charm of it. It should be mentioned that it’s the 2009 remaster, but I liked it just fine. Three of four Beatles.
Subjective: It has a nice rollicking country sound to it. Add in some knee slapping, beer mug clinking, and chairs being thrown in the background, and it’d feel right at home. That said, Ringo’s singing isn’t *exactly* the greatest and it’s just quite basic all around. I feel bad with so many one stars (Starrs?) right out of the gate, but it is a scale from zero to four, after all.
Overall: The vocal melody is nice and memorable, but for all its charms, it is basic and a bit of a caricature to be honest. Total score: 8/20.
 |
| Still their worst album cover - there's really no competition here |
Next up: Magical Mystery Tour
Proficiency: The surprising standout was the rhythm section, with drums and bass that alternate between catching your attention and graciously offering it back to the rest of the band. The time changes were interesting and well done, and it was tight all around, but nothing was super memorable. It’s now obvious that half-Beatles are needed, and this one is getting two and a half.
Innovation: It’s a creative way to feature a sound assortment of instruments and various sound effects, and the time change as well breaks the usual format. It loses a half-Beatle for drawing so heavily on Sgt. Pepper thematically. 2.5 Beatles.
Lyrics: “Roll up for the mystery tour / The magical mystery tour is waiting to take you away” …that’s pretty much the entire song. It plays like an attempt to reskin Sgt. Pepper without any substance. 0/4.
Production: A fair menagerie of instruments weaves in and out, yet the soundstage never feels crowded. 3/4.
Subjective: The many guest instruments are pleasant, but the vocals are repetitive and the pleading more grating than enticing. Unlike “Mr. Kite”, I don’t feel roped in by a slinky entrepreneur; rather, I’m handed my ticket by the booth attendant at Hershey Park. 1/4.
Overall: It was assembled for a TV movie and feels like it. Moments of musical near-brilliance are overshadowed by the uninspired commercialism of it. 9/20.
Third song: Don’t Let Me Down – One that many casual listeners will be familiar with (and for good reason)
Proficiency: The guitar is smooth and doesn’t overstay its welcome, the bass is melodic and varied, and the vocals are fantastically raw and powerful. The unsung (heh, get it?) hero is Billy Preston’s fluid and intricate keyboard playing. However, the harmonies and the falsetto don’t hit quite the same heights (no really, do you get it?). 3.5/4.
Innovation: The tradeoffs between the guitars, vocals and keyboards, the independent but interwoven bass, and the different-yet-natural bridge are all creative departures that still tie into a tightly woven and familiar structure. 3/4.
Lyrics: It’s a straightforward, heartfelt plea, and the straightforward lyrics work for it. That said, they are very straightforward… 1.5/4.
Production: Once again, I’m left with little complaint. The vocals seem a tad low especially relative to the keyboard and occasionally the guitar, however. 3/4.
Subjective: Incredibly powerful, great guitar, bass and keyboard. Memorable and nostalgic without getting tiresome. 4/4.
Overall: 15/20
Fourth: We Can Work it Out
Proficiency: This comes from the peak period for Lennon-McCartney live vocals, and unsurprisingly they’re pitch perfect with solid harmonies. Otherwise, it’s a tad basic. 2.5
Innovation: The harmonium swelling in and out is a nice touch, and the tempo changes on a dime before revving back up. 2.5
Lyrics: An optimistic look at one’s relationship and their differences with their partner, it’s hopeful but not sappy, relatable but not too trite. 3/4.
Production: 3/4. Debating removing this category, but I think for now I’ll just default to 3/4 unless something stands out for good or for ill.
Subjective: It’s a solid song that doesn’t overstay its welcome, draws the listener in with the ebb and flow of the tempo, and is cheery without being obnoxious. 3/4.
Total: 14/20
Starting to get into a groove here. A little concerned that ratings might end up a little too towards the middle of the bell curve, but hey, I’m committed now and don’t have a better system in mind.
Glass Onion
Proficiency: Solid drums, interesting violin bits, decent vocals, 2/4.
Innovation: The full-stops, drum slapback, and well-integrated violin arrangement are all rather nice. 2.5/4.
Lyrics: Self-referential trivia is interesting, but feels a little forced in phrasing, and John himself admitted it was random toss for fans to over-analyze. 2/4.
Production: 3/4
Subjective: I don’t love it, but I like it well enough. It doesn’t have a lot of depth, but it has a decent energy. 2/4.
Total: 11.5
Baby’s in Black
Proficiency: Nice harmonies, guitars feel a tad sloppy. 1.5/4.
Innovation: Predictable. 1/4.
Lyrics: So she’s in black because her man just died? It comes across a little insensitive, then, maybe, but also a bit of a confession. The rhymes are trite, like most early songs, but not bad. 2.5/4.
Production: 3.5/4. It sounds like a typical early Beatles song (it is), but what I noticed on this listen through was how the vocal harmonies are tightly together in the middle for most of the song, but expanded during the bridge. A subtle touch, maybe, but I liked it and it’s my rating, so hey, it gets an extra half Beatle.
Subjective: Not my favorite, and a little generic, perhaps, but not a bad song. 1.5/4.
Total: 10/20, a perfectly average sort of song (we’ll see if this is where the bell curve actually ends up peaking).
One After 909
Proficiency: It’s a paint-by-the numbers early rock number, but the Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry inspiration make for some rocking licks. The vocals lack the polish of most of their career, but rather than sounding raw, it sounds a tad like they just want to go home for the day. 2.5/4
Innovation: See above paint-by-numbers comment 0.5/4
Lyrics: While “Ticket to Ride” saw the singer wistfully wishing their girl wouldn’t catch that train, “One After 909” has him chasing her onto the train on his knees. A little embarrassing, but the lyrics work fine for the style. 1.5/4.
Production: The keyboard and guitar each have their respective spaces carved out in the left and right speakers. George Martin knew what he was doing. 3/4.
Subjective: It feels to me like they were reaching for the simplicity of the beginning of their career, but despite reaching new levels of technical proficiency, that era is still gone. 1.5/4.
Total: 9/20
Yes It Is
Proficiency: The overall structure is simple and a little sleepy, but the harmonies are nice, and the building swell as Lennon asserts himself is truly great. 2/4.
Innovation: Not a wild departure, but the swells and bells throughout add variety, and despite a hint of sleepiness, it isn’t a drag and doesn’t lose the listener’s attention. 2/4.
Lyrics: Could they not have named it “Baby In Red” for consistency’s sake? I can’t decide which is worse; rhyming “tonight” with another “tonight”, or the ol’ “true” and “blue”, but I like the theme. 2/4.
Production: 3/4.
Subjective: Despite only having heard the song a couple times at most, it evokes a certain nostalgia, and is soothing while still having a moment of power. 3/4.
Total: 12/20
Rocky Raccoon
Proficiency: The honky-tonk piano is really something, but the band’s parts are quite simple. 1.5/4.
Innovation: It’s hard to tell where the satire ends and the earnest begins. It isn’t taking itself too seriously and is all the better for it. 2/4.
Lyrics: “Dood-a-doodle-loot-da”s and all, it tells a classic Western in a two-minute chunk and is a good deal of fun. 3/4.
Production: The raw simplicity of it is intentional, but it is a little flat sounding in comparison and lacking the fullness of its contemporaries. 2/4.
Subjective: Rocky has grown on me a good deal, and is a rather fun song, but it’s still hard to take all that seriously. 2/4.
Total: 10.5
And now, seeing as it's near two in the morning and I'm taking this altogether more seriously than necessary, I'll tap out for the night.
Day two:
Revolution (the proper one, as I'd think of it)
Proficiency: Sure it's just a I-IV-V blues shuffle at its core, but it's a damn good one. Lennon's vocals are great, but the range isn't particularly challenging. The raucous guitars and relentless drums render Revolution a real riot. 2.5/4.
Subjective: While not the most out-of-the-box, it's just a great all around song, a staple of 60's rock. 3/4.
Total: 14/20
For You Blue
Proficiency: The guitar intro is great, and the slide is nice, but if Revolution was a paint-by-numbers shuffle, "For You Blue" is a children's coloring book, but the only colors are, um, blues. 1.5/4
Production: It's more to do with the arrangement than the actual production, but all around it sounds a tad more empty than most songs, and the vocals a tad more flat. 2.5/4.
Subjective: It sounds like they just had fun and cobbled together a slapdash 12 bar blues in an hour. While that sounds like a fun session, the finished product just doesn't stack up to many other songs. 1/4. Sorry George.
Dig It
Proficiency: Um, fine, I guess 1.5/4.
Innovation: Honestly I don't even know what to do with this song. 2/4.
Lyrics: There's some references, which maybe mean something? 1.5/4.
Production: Half the song is either fading in or out at volumes a bit too low, then a falsetto puppet voice pops in over it all. 2/4.
Subjective: Okay so it's really more of a jam interlude, not an honest-to-goodness song, but there are good interludes, and this was not one of them. 0.5/4.
Total: 7.5
Her Majesty - Honestly, two snippets back to back?
Proficiency: The guitar part is quite nice, even if the tuning is less-than-flawless. Paul's voice is effortless as usual. The only reason it doesn't score higher is the simplicity of it. 2.5/4.
Innovation: It's a micro song tucked at the end of an album, that slowly pans from right to left over the course of the entire song. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but it's pretty different. 3/4.
Lyrics: It's as near to a full love song as you can get in 25 seconds. Not too bad. 2.5/4.
Production: It's totally fine given the arrangement, and the slow pan is a neat trick. That said, I can't score it higher given the simplicity, and the abrupt stop is jarring. 2.5/4.
Subjective: It's not a lot of song, but it's quite nice enough for what it is. 2/4.
Total: 12.5
Eight Days a Week
Proficiency: Top tier vocal harmonies and all around strong vocals carry this number, but a great guitar intro/outro and solid drums propel it along as well. 3/4.
Innovation: It isn't radically outside the box, but the acapella part of the chorus quite nicely breaks things up. 2/4.
Lyrics: If I didn't still have some use for my liver, I'd take a shot every time a group from the 50's or 60's rhymed "true" and "you". Sigh. Otherwise it's pretty simple, but the whole premise is kinda clever, I suppose. 1.5/4.
Production: 3/4.
Subjective: An irrepressible love song from a simpler time, and a darn tight record. 3/4.
Total: 12.5
Title
Proficiency:
Innovation:
Lyrics:
Production:
Subjective:
Total:
Title
Proficiency:
Innovation:
Lyrics:
Production:
Subjective:
Total:
No comments :
Post a Comment
Questions, comments, concerns, complaints? Leave your thoughts below!